What were the views of radical secular theologians in the mid-twentieth century about God and religion? Base your answer on the textbook readings and any other relevant sources that might aid class discussion
Response
To many evangelicals, Dietrich Bonhoeffer may not be the obvious choice to launch a discussion regarding radical, secular theologians, the influence of Bonhoeffer’s writings on future theologians necessitates it. Bonhoeffer attempted to come to terms with a proper response to a secular culture that no longer sensed a need for God. According to Roger Olson, in opposition to a God of the gaps, whose purpose is narrowed to fill gaps of knowledge that currently remain inexplicable, Bonhoeffer advocated a “religionless Christianity.” [1]
Bonhoeffer’s religionless Christianity avoided the potential trappings of apologetics, natural theology, and religious piety. Instead, Bonhoeffer provided a starting point for religionless Christianity by stating, “Human religiosity directs people in need to the power of God in the world, God as deus ex machina [God of the gaps]. The Bible directs people toward the powerlessness and the suffering of God; only the suffering God can help.”[2] The concept of a suffering God is key to understanding Bonhoeffer’s response to a secular world come of age, which was the message of the cross of Jesus represented by his death, weakness, and suffering. From a practical perspective, religionless Christianity occurs when believers image Christ, and they immerse themselves into the sufferings of the world. Humanity’s immersion into suffering occurs by joining forces with a God who is beyond and simultaneously present in the world: a transcendently imminent God.
The influence of Bonhoeffer’s theological reflections upon radical, secular theologians is complex and inconclusive. However, Harvey Cox exemplifies a secular theologian who opposed secularism’s anthropocentric worldview, while promoting a secularity that embraces God’s involvement in scientific advancement to solve human problems. Overtones of Bonhoeffer’s transcendently immanent, culturally relevant God are evident in Cox’s perspective of God, who is considered the force behind the pragmatically liberated, highly responsible, self-actualized individual. Cox’s theology results in a Christianity that focuses primarily on joining God with culture to change society, rather than worshipping a transcendent God.
The New Gospel of Christian Atheism
As God becomes more immanent within secular culture, His reality as a transcendent God becomes less visible, which ultimately results in radical, secular theologians proclaiming God’s disappearance. For example, Thomas Altizer took the concept of God’s immanence to its radical conclusion by asserting that a transcendent God no longer exists – “God is dead.”[3] For Altizer, the death of God occurred through an act of kenosis on the cross, where God emptied Himself, became human, and ceased to exist as an objective reality. However, God continued to extend grace as He ontologically immersed Himself in humanity. According to Altizer, the absence of a transcendent God provides the environment necessary for humans to live liberated and responsible lives.
Other theologians followed Cox’s and Altizer’s theological path. Slavoj Žižek aligned with Cox’s radical immanence, and Don Cupitt extends the view of human responsibility to the concept of morality. Cupitt asserts that living a life in “passive obedience to God and tradition does not deserve to be called a moral life.”[4] Cupitt is making a distinction between cold-hearted compliance and warm-hearted obedience. Cupitt suggests that the payoff of a dead, transcendent God is the ability for humans to live healthy, obedient lives, rather than succumb to unhealthy rule-following. Finally, Peter Rollins opposes treating God as a transcendent object because it encourages humanity to use God to further its own agendas, which is a form of idolatry. Although radical, secular theologians provide a diverse array of initiatives, they hold in common an emphasis on God’s immanence, cultural relevance, and societal needs, rather than religious customs.
_______________________________
[1] Roger E. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013), 429-430.
[2] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Victoria J. Barnett, trans. Isabel Best, Lisa E. Dahill, Reinhard Krauss, Nancy Lukens, Barbara Rumscheidt, and Martin Rumcheidt, reader’s ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), 465.
[3] Thomas J. J. Altizer, The Gospel of Christian Atheism (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966), 111, 145.
[4] Don Cupitt, Taking Leave of God (St. Albans Place, London: SCM, 1980), 115, Kindle.
Bibliography
- Altizer, Thomas J. J. The Gospel of Christian Atheism. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966.
- Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison. Edited by Victoria J. Barnett. Translated by Isabel Best, Lisa E. Dahill, Reinhard Krauss, Nancy Lukens, Barbara Rumscheidt, and Martin Rumcheidt. Reader’s ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015.
- Cupitt, Don. Taking Leave of God. St. Albans Place, London: SCM, 1980. Kindle.
- Olson, Roger E. The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013.
