What do you think?
Rate this book
The Theology Of Altizer: Critique And Response
1 person is currently reading
2 people want to read
About the author
John B. Cobb Jr.
102 books27 followersJohn Boswell Cobb Jr. was an American theologian, philosopher, and environmentalist. Cobb was regarded as a preeminent scholar in the field of process philosophy and process theology, the school of thought associated with the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. He was the author of more than fifty books. In 2014, Cobb was elected to the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 27, 2024
A HELPFUL BOOK OF ESSAYS ABOUT ALTIZER, WITH HIS RESPONSES
Thomas Jonathan Jackson Altizer (born 1927) taught religion at Wabash College, then he taught English at Emory University from 1956 to 1968; he is currently Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has written other books such as Radical Theology and the Death of God; The New Gospel of Christian Atheism; The Descent into Hell: A Study of the Radical Reversal of the Christian Consciousness; The New Apocalypse: The Radical Christian Vision of William Blake; Total Presence: The Language of Jesus and the Language of Today; Godhead and the Nothing; The Call to Radical Theology; Genesis and Apocalypse: A Theological Voyage Toward Authentic Christianity; Living the Death of God: A Theological Memoir, etc.
Editor John Cobb Jr. [himself a notable theologian; e.g., [[ASIN:0827229992 The Process Perspective: Frequently Asked Questions about Process Theology]]] wrote in the Preface to this 1970 book, “American radical theology, or the death-of-God movement, is generally seen as a negation of traditional Christianity in the name of honesty and modernity. Often it is associated with the call for secularity…. This picture or radical theology … is profoundly misleading when applied to Altizer. He is a leading radical theologian… but his radicalism is marked by opposition to much of what is called radical theology… His thought is not secular, and even his call for total affirmation of the profane is for the sake of a new manifestation of the sacred. For him theology is much more fundamental than politics and ethics. It is Christianity and not religion in general to which he is committed… the time has come for serious Christians to look more carefully at Altizer, and constructive theologian…
“One purpose of this book is to encourage increased attention to Altizer’s systematic theology. To this end critical essays of high quality, some previously published, some new, are presented… Their several criticisms help us to locate his thought in relation to the panorama of contemporary theology as well as to highlight the critical issues involved in his distinctive views. The second purpose of this book is to stimulate and embody the living debate. To this end critical essays are followed by Altizer’s responses… The book should serve to clarify issues and to involve readers in the ongoing discussion.” (Pg. 7-8)
He adds in the Introduction, “Altizer is also the boldest evangelical theologian of our time… How successful he will be in reaching his public cannot be foretold… But the evangelical purpose is clear. In light of these judgments about Altizer, this volume is an attempt to shift the attention from his negations to his affirmations. If Altizer’s sharp critique of Christian habits of mind has made manifest and accentuated the theological sickness of the church, perhaps the study of the theology in which he expresses his own powerful faith will be a source of healing.” (Pg. 16-17)
Theodore Runyon Jr. states, “Jesus’ own apocalyptic message can scarcely be credited with pointing toward the elimination of the Creator-creature distinction, for his was the proclamation of the inbreaking of the reign of the LORD… To be sure, the inbreaking of the Kingdom meant the transvaluing of all previous religious and cultural values; but this transvaluation was one of completely reconstituted relationships, not one of mystical identity… It would seem to me, therefore, that the use Altizer makes of Jesus’ eschatological message… and the traditional doctrine of the incarnation, is suspect in the light of their historical context and original intentions.” (Pg. 52)
William A. Beardslee observes, “I find that [Altizer] has adopted a rigid dialectic that forces reality into patterns to which it does not correspond. It is clear that I hold the association of transcendence with rigid negation to be wrong. Just as in human existence the pressure of structure has always to be imposed upon energy, so too, any ultimate to which we respond will embody both the elements which are traditionally known as justice and love. Similarly I find his dialectic of past and future to be out of correspondence with reality, forcing him to reject not only the past but the non-eschatological future as positive elements in his theology.” (Pg. 65-66)
Altizer replies to Beardslee, “True faith in God is an openness to a Kingdom of God in which God will be God and man will be man and neither will speak or appear in the form of language of the other. There will be no human knowledge about God, no human vision of God, no religious awareness of God; in short, it is only Godless man who can truly have faith in God. Jesus then becomes the one who points to the state of total creaturehood, a state of full humanity in which man is only man, and all human language about God, the ultimate, the total, the final, etc., will simply disappear.” (Pg. 71) Later, he adds, “Let me confess that a substantial body of my work is either implicitly or explicitly dualistic. But to the extent that it is dualistic it is a failure, and I acknowledge it as such. The more I have struggled to formulate a dialectical theology the more I have recognized its overwhelming difficulty.” (Pg. 75)
Eric C. Meyer gives a Catholic response to Altizer: “The most important concern in Altizer’s thought is the significance of the problem of atheism… He emphasizes the Christian and theological character of the rise of atheism… The negative efforts of tradition Christian apology against atheism have only further removed Christian faith from the secular world… I believe it is true and important to maintain that the experience of the absence of God is today our principal problem, a Christian problem and a theological problem that requires a positive theological answer. Nonetheless … the manner in which Altizer attempts to open up the possibility to his kind of death-of-God theology for Catholicism must be judged inconclusive.” (Pg. 79-80) Later, he adds, “If God now does not exist nor act except in existing and acting men, then faith is only another word for human consciousness. Altizer has not effectively clarified how his death-of-God theology avoids reducing theology to a merely naturalistic and humanistic anthropology.” (Pg. 92)
In a response to another essay, Altizer says, “I would insist that it is necessary for any contemporary Christian theologian to open himself to the possibility of conceiving faith as a metamorphosis or evolution of consciousness reflecting and embodying a comparable or analogous evolution of God. If God has become man or Word has become flesh in consciousness and experience, then it is precisely the truest of fullest expressions of consciousness and experience that the theologians can identify as ‘faith.’ Then faith could be understood not only as a witness to or participation in the reality of God but also as an actualization and realization of the life and movement of God.” (Pg. 119)
Richard Rubenstein [author of After Auschwitz] notes in his essay, “I believe that what these theologians are saying about the death of God as a CULTURAL EVENT is irrefutable. I start with this premise… I hesitate to use the term ‘death of God’ because I am reluctant to associate myself with an exclusively Christian symbol arising out of the crucifixion tradition. Jesus as a man or Jesus as the Christ has little significance for me… Nevertheless, what Hegel, Nietzsche, and Dostoyevsky understood by the death of God---the absence of any sense of meaning, direction, or value from a transcendent theistic source---is certainly an accurate description of the way we experience the world. I also welcome the ‘death of God’ theologians because I believe they start with the real spiritual problems of the twentieth century… Nevertheless, while I believe that the death of God is a cultural fact, I cannot share the apocalyptic enthusiasm that Professor Altizer seems to attach to this event… Sartre, I think, more correctly and with deeper insight, understands this event in terms of condemnation and anguish.” (Pg. 125-126)
Altizer responds, “Of all the contemporary radical theologians, the one I feel closest to is Rubenstein, and this is because both of us have chosen the project of attempting to effect a synthesis between a radical form of mysticism and a radical form of modern Western atheism… What most decisively distinguishes us is our respective identities as Jew and Christian. Indeed, I have learned more of my Christian identity through encounter with Rubenstein than I have by way of encounter with any Christian theologian.” (Pg. 138-139)
This is a very useful book for those studying Altizer and the ‘Death-of-God theology.’ Interested persons might also want to read 'The Death of God Debate.'
Thomas Jonathan Jackson Altizer (born 1927) taught religion at Wabash College, then he taught English at Emory University from 1956 to 1968; he is currently Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has written other books such as Radical Theology and the Death of God; The New Gospel of Christian Atheism; The Descent into Hell: A Study of the Radical Reversal of the Christian Consciousness; The New Apocalypse: The Radical Christian Vision of William Blake; Total Presence: The Language of Jesus and the Language of Today; Godhead and the Nothing; The Call to Radical Theology; Genesis and Apocalypse: A Theological Voyage Toward Authentic Christianity; Living the Death of God: A Theological Memoir, etc.
Editor John Cobb Jr. [himself a notable theologian; e.g., [[ASIN:0827229992 The Process Perspective: Frequently Asked Questions about Process Theology]]] wrote in the Preface to this 1970 book, “American radical theology, or the death-of-God movement, is generally seen as a negation of traditional Christianity in the name of honesty and modernity. Often it is associated with the call for secularity…. This picture or radical theology … is profoundly misleading when applied to Altizer. He is a leading radical theologian… but his radicalism is marked by opposition to much of what is called radical theology… His thought is not secular, and even his call for total affirmation of the profane is for the sake of a new manifestation of the sacred. For him theology is much more fundamental than politics and ethics. It is Christianity and not religion in general to which he is committed… the time has come for serious Christians to look more carefully at Altizer, and constructive theologian…
“One purpose of this book is to encourage increased attention to Altizer’s systematic theology. To this end critical essays of high quality, some previously published, some new, are presented… Their several criticisms help us to locate his thought in relation to the panorama of contemporary theology as well as to highlight the critical issues involved in his distinctive views. The second purpose of this book is to stimulate and embody the living debate. To this end critical essays are followed by Altizer’s responses… The book should serve to clarify issues and to involve readers in the ongoing discussion.” (Pg. 7-8)
He adds in the Introduction, “Altizer is also the boldest evangelical theologian of our time… How successful he will be in reaching his public cannot be foretold… But the evangelical purpose is clear. In light of these judgments about Altizer, this volume is an attempt to shift the attention from his negations to his affirmations. If Altizer’s sharp critique of Christian habits of mind has made manifest and accentuated the theological sickness of the church, perhaps the study of the theology in which he expresses his own powerful faith will be a source of healing.” (Pg. 16-17)
Theodore Runyon Jr. states, “Jesus’ own apocalyptic message can scarcely be credited with pointing toward the elimination of the Creator-creature distinction, for his was the proclamation of the inbreaking of the reign of the LORD… To be sure, the inbreaking of the Kingdom meant the transvaluing of all previous religious and cultural values; but this transvaluation was one of completely reconstituted relationships, not one of mystical identity… It would seem to me, therefore, that the use Altizer makes of Jesus’ eschatological message… and the traditional doctrine of the incarnation, is suspect in the light of their historical context and original intentions.” (Pg. 52)
William A. Beardslee observes, “I find that [Altizer] has adopted a rigid dialectic that forces reality into patterns to which it does not correspond. It is clear that I hold the association of transcendence with rigid negation to be wrong. Just as in human existence the pressure of structure has always to be imposed upon energy, so too, any ultimate to which we respond will embody both the elements which are traditionally known as justice and love. Similarly I find his dialectic of past and future to be out of correspondence with reality, forcing him to reject not only the past but the non-eschatological future as positive elements in his theology.” (Pg. 65-66)
Altizer replies to Beardslee, “True faith in God is an openness to a Kingdom of God in which God will be God and man will be man and neither will speak or appear in the form of language of the other. There will be no human knowledge about God, no human vision of God, no religious awareness of God; in short, it is only Godless man who can truly have faith in God. Jesus then becomes the one who points to the state of total creaturehood, a state of full humanity in which man is only man, and all human language about God, the ultimate, the total, the final, etc., will simply disappear.” (Pg. 71) Later, he adds, “Let me confess that a substantial body of my work is either implicitly or explicitly dualistic. But to the extent that it is dualistic it is a failure, and I acknowledge it as such. The more I have struggled to formulate a dialectical theology the more I have recognized its overwhelming difficulty.” (Pg. 75)
Eric C. Meyer gives a Catholic response to Altizer: “The most important concern in Altizer’s thought is the significance of the problem of atheism… He emphasizes the Christian and theological character of the rise of atheism… The negative efforts of tradition Christian apology against atheism have only further removed Christian faith from the secular world… I believe it is true and important to maintain that the experience of the absence of God is today our principal problem, a Christian problem and a theological problem that requires a positive theological answer. Nonetheless … the manner in which Altizer attempts to open up the possibility to his kind of death-of-God theology for Catholicism must be judged inconclusive.” (Pg. 79-80) Later, he adds, “If God now does not exist nor act except in existing and acting men, then faith is only another word for human consciousness. Altizer has not effectively clarified how his death-of-God theology avoids reducing theology to a merely naturalistic and humanistic anthropology.” (Pg. 92)
In a response to another essay, Altizer says, “I would insist that it is necessary for any contemporary Christian theologian to open himself to the possibility of conceiving faith as a metamorphosis or evolution of consciousness reflecting and embodying a comparable or analogous evolution of God. If God has become man or Word has become flesh in consciousness and experience, then it is precisely the truest of fullest expressions of consciousness and experience that the theologians can identify as ‘faith.’ Then faith could be understood not only as a witness to or participation in the reality of God but also as an actualization and realization of the life and movement of God.” (Pg. 119)
Richard Rubenstein [author of After Auschwitz] notes in his essay, “I believe that what these theologians are saying about the death of God as a CULTURAL EVENT is irrefutable. I start with this premise… I hesitate to use the term ‘death of God’ because I am reluctant to associate myself with an exclusively Christian symbol arising out of the crucifixion tradition. Jesus as a man or Jesus as the Christ has little significance for me… Nevertheless, what Hegel, Nietzsche, and Dostoyevsky understood by the death of God---the absence of any sense of meaning, direction, or value from a transcendent theistic source---is certainly an accurate description of the way we experience the world. I also welcome the ‘death of God’ theologians because I believe they start with the real spiritual problems of the twentieth century… Nevertheless, while I believe that the death of God is a cultural fact, I cannot share the apocalyptic enthusiasm that Professor Altizer seems to attach to this event… Sartre, I think, more correctly and with deeper insight, understands this event in terms of condemnation and anguish.” (Pg. 125-126)
Altizer responds, “Of all the contemporary radical theologians, the one I feel closest to is Rubenstein, and this is because both of us have chosen the project of attempting to effect a synthesis between a radical form of mysticism and a radical form of modern Western atheism… What most decisively distinguishes us is our respective identities as Jew and Christian. Indeed, I have learned more of my Christian identity through encounter with Rubenstein than I have by way of encounter with any Christian theologian.” (Pg. 138-139)
This is a very useful book for those studying Altizer and the ‘Death-of-God theology.’ Interested persons might also want to read 'The Death of God Debate.'
Displaying 1 of 1 review