Conception by chance and whim
Your Move
The criticism was leveled at a pedantic friend of mine that he made distinctions where there were no differences, which is a pretty nice way to say it so long as we evade the pitfall of believing that there are no differences and that, therefore, no distinctions should be made.
This sort of thinking is relevant to our ecumenical concerns in these ecumenical days. The rush is on. All kinds of first steps have been made toward uniting the churches, and those who begin to point out some differences will be considered spoilsports for questioning anything that looks so nice. The differences, nevertheless, will still be there; and, as Aristotle pointed out a long time ago, knowledge in the last analysis is the ability to make distinctions. This is a dog, that is a cat. There is no use pretending that it is any other way.
Some weeks ago I was given a tour of inspection at one of our military bases. The chaplains impressed me in many ways but particularly in the way in which they serve as missionaries all over the globe, often in places that missionaries cannot reach. By the nature of their assignment they have to be as ecumenical as possible, and I think that they may be front-runners in the whole ecumenical movement.
But there was a kind of shock in one of the military chapels. I hardly know what to do with it in my own thinking; perhaps sharing it with some others will give them a chance to think about it and a few other related things.
In order to have services for Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, they have had to plan a single building suitable for all three faiths. This chapel had a mechanical arrangement by which a cross could be turned around and be a crucifix, another by which the altar could be moved forward or backward, and another by which the whole Christian worship center could be replaced with another centering on the Star of David. Said my guide almost proudly, “Now we have an adjustable cross and a movable altar.” That’s really ecumenical!
EUTYCHUS II
It’S Great
Delighted to see an issue (April 29) on the theme of world population explosion and the missionary challenge it offers.…
Planned parenthood is a necessity for improving man’s spiritual, moral, and physical well-being. Man was given dominion over all the earth (Gen. 1: 28): certainly this includes control of conception. It is immoral to leave the conception of children to chance or whim. Planned parenthood should be a part of each missionary-medical program. Without it we can only look forward to disasters of war, infanticide, abortion, famine, and disease.
JAMES BRICE CLARK
President
Planned Parenthood of Nebraska
Omaha, Neb.
Your issue of April 29, which has for the theme throughout the subject of evangelism, is the ultimate. Of particular interest is the emphasis upon the increase in population and the theology of evangelism here and there in the issue. You and your staff are all to be commended for the phenomenal perspicacity and insight displayed therein. This should aid many and inspire many in renewing their efforts in the task.
H. LEO EDDLEMAN
President
New Orleans Baptist
Theological Seminary
New Orleans, La.
Congratulations on the issue. It is a profound encouragement and a great challenge to us all. Your forthright magazine is always stimulating, to-the-point, and relevant to the changing needs of today’s Christians.
PAUL RADER, JR.
Senior Editor
Reality Magazine
Minneapolis, Minn.
Altizer Says …
Thank you for the fair treatment given my statement (Dec. 17 issue). Believe it or not, I have more respect for you and your journal than for the middle-of-the-line Protestant publications, and I admire the skill and force with which you present traditional Protestantism even though I think your cause is hopeless.
THOMAS J. J. ALTIZER
Department of Bible and Religion
Emory University
Atlanta, Ga.
As yet the “God is dead” stir has not reached this side of the Atlantic, but it is of interest to me to know from what source the advocates of this “theology” obtained their information—assuming, of course, that it could not be a divine revelation.
CHRISTOPHER MOON
Orpington, Kent, England
I say God is not dead! Man is blind.…
ROBIN KREIDER
Director of Christian Education
First Methodist Church
Garden Grove, Calif.
A More Adequate Treatment
I read “Why Do Men Suffer?” (Apr. 1 issue). I find that this article and the writer really do not answer the question fully. I have done a great deal of research on this problem, and … I am enclosing a copy of my booklet, and hope you will find it helpful—and much more adequate.
Faith Community Church
Palmdale, Calif.
Suffering is the lot of all men (Job 5:7). Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward. No one is immune to it in some form at least.…
G. STEWART TIMM
Port Sydney, Ont.
An Appeal For Action
The initial shock that a “God is dead” enthusiast has been teaching at Emory University has given way to a deep concern at the official stand taken by those who represent the university.…
Years ago I entered college in preparation for a teaching career in mathematics. One of my first professors was an atheist, a man who attempted at every turn to cast doubt on Christian beliefs. This man was personable, attractive in appearance, and we could identify with him. Besides, a young boy or girl just out of high school has a subconscious desire for intellectual accord with those whom past experience has shown to be always correct. A learned professor’s ridiculing of one’s faith has a different result than does a religious discussion among students. In the latter a student can hold his own. Lectures by college authorities leave doubters. And it takes years to finally get back the faith once so natural. With me it was ten long years of real inside torment, years when I went to church and left with an empty feeling, years during World War II in England and Germany when I needed God so terribly and couldn’t find him. Then one day after the war, I had a personal experience … that stilled the turmoil and left a quiet knowing. Maybe I was more fortunate than some.
The Methodist Church has established institutions of higher learning for the purpose of providing educational opportunities under Christian influence. But since the universities themselves are committed to the “principle of academic freedom and the rule of tenure for faculty members,” the judgment and foresight of those responsible for faculty recruitment must be unquestionably reliable or the purpose to provide education under Christian influence will fall by the way.
Dr. Thomas J. J. Altizer’s recent publicity has thankfully brought to light the careless approach to this vital area. And the realization that the same employment practices can exist in other of our church schools is frightening.
Dr. Altizer was employed nine years ago to teach religion at Emory University, though not in the School of Theology. To the uninitiated his credentials looked good: a B.A., an M.A. in religion, and a Ph.D. in comparative religion. To Emory’s alumni this must have been impressive. Parents were, no doubt, pleased that their young had such an authority on God. But shortly Altizer was teaching, publishing, and at last going on national TV to proclaim that “God is dead.”
One cannot help but wonder if this man were hired by mail-order. Certainly an in-depth interview nine years ago would have brought to light his far-out thinking. The principles on which his publications were based must have been at least in the beginning stages then.…
Let’s examine the argument that Altizer should be allowed to continue using our university as a platform because we “ought to be confronted with ideas with which we violently disagree.” Our students should certainly be exposed to all great thought, including the controversial. But it does not follow that this is best accomplished by those mainly interested in espousing principles in direct conflict with Christianity.
Methodist families should be assured that if religion is to be taught in their schools, the youth will have the faith of their fathers strengthened, not weakened!… There is no doubt but that a person’s basic philosophy colors his teaching. Therefore does it not make sense that utmost precautions be taken to hire godly oriented men and women? Then if the courses need to be slanted, it will be in that direction. Is not that the least Methodists can expect of their colleges? Is not that the least we in our churches can expect of the universities we work to support?
What is the answer? The elimination of the obviously wrong teachers is only the beginning, for the Altizers are but the symptom of a deeper need. May I suggest—
1. the elimination of that part of the administrative staff which through carelessness or for other reason is responsible for the present employment practice and the hiring of a staff with the judgment and experience to employ qualified persons;
2. the untangling of the conflict between the stated purpose of our church-affiliated schools and the tenure rule for faculty members;
3. the unraveling of the system of red tape that allows only the godly oriented to be sent as teachers to foreign lands but makes no such requirement for its own.
There has been shock and disbelief in our churches, but probably few have written letters or raised their voices. In the sophisticated society of today, it is so much easier to raise an eyebrow. For 1,900 years have passed since the birth of Christ. And 1,900 years is a long time. But you know and I know that if we really cared, really wanted to continue the teachings of our faith, we could somehow and in some way, with no equivocation, make sure the atheists, anti-God crusaders, et al. weren’t offered a platform in our Methodist-affiliated colleges.
Some words written here are strong. But if they spur those at the top to create a godly teaching staff within our Methodist schools, they have been well chosen.
RUTH F. HILL
Leesburg, Va.
Send Your Sermons
I am attempting to conduct a study of the sermonic treatment of the “death of God” theme which has been in the news so much over the past few months.
If any of your readers have discussed the subject from the pulpit, I would deeply appreciate receiving a copy of that sermon.…
JOHN E. BAIRD
Assoc. Prof, of Speech and Homiletics
Phillips University
Enid, Okla.
God’S Premature Funeral
As an interested listener during Thomas Altizer’s visit to Duke University, I find myself greatly engaged by the position he set forth both at that time and in his recent writings. Having a propensity to understand myself as a “secular man,” and having given a good deal of study to contemporary theology and philosophy, I was surprised to find myself profoundly disappointed in his position.… My misgivings center in two main areas.…
First, I find myself disappointed by the epistemological structure which underlies his position. Even if one grants, and this is an extremely large assumption, that “God has died in our history,” the way in which he has developed this idea is, from an epistemological point of view, essentially irresponsible. Throughout his writings he stresses the view that as a result of the death of God our contemporary situation is altogether “new,” and thus Christian theology and the Church must be entirely recast. This emphasis is especially evident in his article in the October issue of Theology Today, “Word and History.” It also came up in his discussion session at Duke, when he replied to a question about the logical status of “death of God language” by affirming that what we need is an altogether new language for faith and theology.
Now, I have no interest in objecting to such an emphasis on the grounds that it fails to show the proper respect for the “faith of our fathers” and/or historical theology. I am, however, convinced that any attempt to cut oneself and one’s age off from the past is as ludicrous as it is unsound. Not only does such a move lead to profound psychological and sociological illness, it also cuts away the very ground of all human existence, thought, and communication. Fortunately, such a move is, in the final analysis, actually impossible, as his own positive use of such past thinkers as Buddha, Jesus, Blake, and Hegel clearly demonstrates.… Granted that change and reconstruction are constantly necessary within the theological enterprise, an absolute dichotomy between the present and the past is as impossible as it is self-defeating!
Another aspect of his epistemological position needs critical scrutiny: his emphasis on mysticism. In his writings on Eliade and in his Duke discussions, he stressed the importance of reinterpreting Christianity in terms of mysticism in order to overcome the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane. This theme forms the core of his article in the Winter, 1962, issue of the Christian Scholar, “Mircea Eliade and the Recovery of the Sacred.” Without going into his frequent equivocation in relation to the concepts of “sacred” and “profane” (for the law of non-contradiction has no place in the logic of Hegel), it is clear that he is of the opinion that the dialectical tension between these two aspects of reality and/or human experience can, and must, be overcome by identifying them in a transcendent synthesis.
Once again, I can agree that the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane stands in need of being overcome, but I cannot see that this is best done by identifying the two concepts.… To eliminate the sacred by reducing it to the profane … leaves a great deal to be desired on both the theoretical and existential levels. Moreover, the attempt to maintain both the sacred and the profane in a static dualism is equally inadequate. In epistemological terms, the subject/object dichotomy, as reflected in modern philosophy, certainly needs reworking. However, I am more impressed with those who are attempting this reconstruction by viewing the relationship between subject and object (and thus between the sacred and the profane) as dynamic, contextual, and relational. In this way the two concerns are neither absolutely separated nor absolutely identified, the latter of which is the case in Altizer’s position. Such an understanding of the epistemological situation makes it possible to speak of the two dimensions (not realms) existing simultaneously in such a fashion that the sacred is mediated by means of the profane. This concept of mediation combines the values of objectivism and mysticism (otherness without remoteness) while avoiding their limitations (scepticism and subjectivism). The paradigm for this epistomological perspective is our knowledge of persons (ourselves and others), which certainly goes beyond the profane (mere facts) in discerning the sacred (personal mystery), but which neither reduces one to the other, nor seeks to identify them beyond recognition. The work of Michael Polanyi (Personal Knowledge) and Ian Ramsey (Models and Mystery) is especially valuable in this context.
Secondly, my dissatisfaction with his position centers in his theology. This dissatisfaction expresses itself in a variety of ways, but primarily with regard to his views of the Bible and Jesus Christ. In his rather wholehearted rejection of Christian history, he has not tried to hide the fact that he does not regard the New Testament as authoritative. In his Duke discussions he said that the corruption of the true message of Christianity, as revealed in the concept of incarnation, actually had its beginning in the New Testament. Here, of course, he stands (and falls?) with Bultmann.
Now, because of my high evaluation of history hinted at earlier, I would take the New Testament more seriously than he does. His approach to the Bible, however, is extremely inconsistent with his practice. In appealing to the concept of incarnation as the touchstone of “true” Christianity, by means of which all other approaches are to be judged, he is guilty of appealing to one New Testament theme as authoritative. In fact, it is implicit in his positive evaluation of Blake, Hegel, and Nietzsche, and negative evaluation of such thinkers as Schleiermacher, that his criterion of authority is the concept of incarnation as found in the New Testament. This is highly inconsistent with his rejection of the authority of the New Testament.…
With regard to his actual interpretation of the Incarnation, I am extremely dubious about its exegetical basis. If I understand him correctly, he wants to maintain that the Incarnation is a symbol of the cosmic fact that God has actually “become flesh” in such a way as to have taken himself out of existence. In other words, he has so identified himself with man and the world that it no longer makes sense to speak of him as a distinct being. This is, of course, a much more radical understanding of the phrase “God is dead” than that of many theologians who use it.… If his view of the Incarnation has no exegetical basis in the New Testament, it certainly is appropriate to ask just what its basis is. And this leads us back to the epistemological question.
It is my conviction that until these and similar difficulties are faced up to, the wide hearing which his views are receiving is profoundly undeserved. In a word, I find his position both epistemologically and theologically irresponsible.
JERRY H. GILL
Durham, N. C.
