• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The debasement of theology

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
244
95
65
Stockholm
Visit site
✟65,463.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
What is behind the decline of Protestant theology that began in the sixties? By way of an example, I recently posted this review on Goodreads:

Ronald Gregor Smith (The Doctrine of God, 1970) struggles with his faith. He thinks that the traditional doctrine of God has reached a dead end. He rejects supernaturalistic theism as a “primitive mythology” that could “be cultivated in private by a dwindling company of romantics and introverts” (p. 79). Smith can no longer believe in God as a self-subsistent being residing in an otherworldly realm. Rather, God exists in the way he makes himself present in history: “It is only within the dynamism of history as the place and the time of irreversible personal decisions that the Word is truly heard…” (p. 37). Thus, “we are offered the reality of a life which is taken out of the old, apparently endless, search for a reality beyond this temporal world. The magic of Plato is exorcised” (p. 43). He even depreciates the bible:​
[T]he normative historical power is not and cannot be any traditional documents, not even the Bible, but is solely the person of Christ. Therefore, it is a methodological error of the first order to suppose that Christianity is based upon a book, and that a true theology is one which discovers what the Bible says and then re-asserts this in a ‘modern’ fashion — but all the same, basically just repeats what the Bible says. (p. 72)​
For Smith, ‘God as Being’ is not a satisfactory category for Christian theology. The reality of God is historical rather than metaphysical. Christianity is not the record of a miraculous epiphany, but is about man’s historical experience (p. 114). I question: what remains of faith, then, if we remove the essential objects of faith, namely the bible and the heavenly realm? Smith’s answer is that we shall have a faith that is rooted in history, not the least in kerygmatic history. It seems that there is not much religiosity left in Smith’s Christianity. He says that “spirit” is only “the total reality of our humanity” (p. 130) and “the Christian faith does not really propose more than a way for us to walk” (p. 142).​
We have to remain content with the little that remains of God: “In every historical encounter there is a residue or an overplus of mystery” (p. 177). So, God is not totally dead — there is a little residue left. The central tenets of Smith’s theology are a “thorough historicity of God” and a continual “self-realization of God in history” (p. 181). But he doesn’t explain how a God that lacks transcendent being can manifest in history. Despite his materialistic and rationalistic worldview, Smith tries to cling to the Christian faith by formulating a minimalistic version that builds on a God that is immanent in history. It is not an unintelligent book; but it is a depressing reading experience. Smith lived in a grey and uninspiring world. He died while writing this book, from boredom, I guess.​

I know that Catholic theologians do a lot of bad theology, but do Protestant theologians still think this way? I have delved into this matter and have found that the modern sickness of theology is connected with the “immanentization of the eschaton” (Eric Voegelin). It has contributed to secularization and the rise of materialist ideology. I found that one of the main culprits behind this development is Martin Luther himself. Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg followed through and produced a thoroughly immanentistic theology, very similar to Smith's. To get a better grasp on this tragic development, read my short paper. I suggest a new interpretation of the Wisdom of God and argue that the immanentization of Christian religion has stifled the spirit of the feminine and contributed to secularization: Some remarks on Wolfhart Pannenberg’s theology, the immanentization of the eschaton and the misinterpretation of the kingdom of God.
 
Last edited:

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,356
19,388
Flyoverland
✟1,298,649.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
What is behind the decline of Protestant theology that began in the sixties? By way of an example, I recently posted this review on Goodreads:

Ronald Gregor Smith (The Doctrine of God, 1970) struggles with his faith. He thinks that the traditional doctrine of God has reached a dead end. He rejects supernaturalistic theism as a “primitive mythology” that could “be cultivated in private by a dwindling company of romantics and introverts” (p. 79). Smith can no longer believe in God as a self-subsistent being residing in an otherworldly realm. Rather, God exists in the way he makes himself present in history: “It is only within the dynamism of history as the place and the time of irreversible personal decisions that the Word is truly heard…” (p. 37). Thus, “we are offered the reality of a life which is taken out of the old, apparently endless, search for a reality beyond this temporal world. The magic of Plato is exorcised” (p. 43). He even depreciates the bible:

[T]he normative historical power is not and cannot be any traditional documents, not even the Bible, but is solely the person of Christ. Therefore, it is a methodological error of the first order to suppose that Christianity is based upon a book, and that a true theology is one which discovers what the Bible says and then re-asserts this in a ‘modern’ fashion — but all the same, basically just repeats what the Bible says. (p. 72)​

For Smith, ‘God as Being’ is not a satisfactory category for Christian theology. The reality of God is historical rather than metaphysical. Christianity is not the record of a miraculous epiphany, but is about man’s historical experience (p. 114). I question: what remains of faith, then, if we remove the essential objects of faith, namely the bible and the heavenly realm? Smith’s answer is that we shall have a faith that is rooted in history, not the least in kerygmatic history. It seems that there is not much religiosity left in Smith’s Christianity. He says that “spirit” is only “the total reality of our humanity” (p. 130) and “the Christian faith does not really propose more than a way for us to walk” (p. 142).

We have to remain content with the little that remains of God: “In every historical encounter there is a residue or an overplus of mystery” (p. 177). So, God is not totally dead — there is a little residue left. The central tenets of Smith’s theology are a “thorough historicity of God” and a continual “self-realization of God in history” (p. 181). But he doesn’t explain how a God that lacks transcendent being can manifest in history. Despite his materialistic and rationalistic worldview, Smith tries to cling to the Christian faith by formulating a minimalistic version that builds on a God that is immanent in history. It is not an unintelligent book; but it is a depressing reading experience. Smith lived in a grey and uninspiring world. He died while writing this book, from boredom, I guess.

I know that Catholic theologians do a lot of bad theology, but do Protestant theologians still think this way? I have delved into this matter and have found that the modern sickness of theology is connected with the “immanentization of the eschaton” (Eric Voegelin). It has contributed to secularization and the rise of materialist ideology. I found that one of the main culprits behind this development is Martin Luther himself. Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg followed through and produced a thoroughly immanentistic theology, very similar to Smith's. To get a better grasp on this tragic development, read my short paper. I suggest a new interpretation of the Wisdom of God and argue that the immanentization of Christian religion has stifled the spirit of the feminine and contributed to secularization:

Some remarks on Wolfhart Pannenberg’s theology, the immanentization of the eschaton and the misinterpretation of the kingdom of God.
Don't blame Luther too much because he was taught Nominalism and never actually escaped from Nominalist thinking. I think that is the bad seed that Luther could not escape from. He complains bitterly about 'Philosophy' but it is IMHO the recognition that he has no answers from the Nominalism that formed his thinking. So he moves to irrational thinking so apparent in his writings. He was sadly a product of his particular education, and his philosophical education lacked the power of either Plato or Aristotle and was instead real mush.

I was reading recently the Eric Mataxes biography of Bonhoffer. The part I just read was about his visit to America and his stay at Union Seminary in New York City around 1930. He considered it a wasteland of unthinking liberalism where the Gospel was mostly unmentioned. Harry Emerson Fosdick was all the rage and the 'Perfectability of Man' and the realization of the immanent was the ethos and social do-goodism was the norm. Bonhoffer did manage to find a Black church in Harlem where a real gospel was preached but as for the rest of it he was unimpressed. So it wasn't the 1960's where things fell apart. They were pretty much fallen apart by 1930, at least in cultural hot spots like New York. The peripheries are always slow to figure out what's going on, but kind of did so in the 1960's and now two generations after that it's really taking over. Be glad for what resistance still exists. Even if it is resistance without all of the intellectual tools needed to thrive. (I'm thinking of the anti-intellectual tendencies of modern Fundamentalists) There is some good theology still out there, but a lot that is garbage bad. And God? God transcends for those of us to have eyes to see and ears to hear. If only we still can.
 
Upvote 0

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
244
95
65
Stockholm
Visit site
✟65,463.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Don't blame Luther too much because he was taught Nominalism and never actually escaped from Nominalist thinking. I think that is the bad seed that Luther could not escape from. He complains bitterly about 'Philosophy' but it is IMHO the recognition that he has no answers from the Nominalism that formed his thinking. So he moves to irrational thinking so apparent in his writings. He was sadly a product of his particular education, and his philosophical education lacked the power of either Plato or Aristotle and was instead real mush.

I was reading recently the Eric Mataxes biography of Bonhoffer. The part I just read was about his visit to America and his stay at Union Seminary in New York City around 1930. He considered it a wasteland of unthinking liberalism where the Gospel was mostly unmentioned. Harry Emerson Fosdick was all the rage and the 'Perfectability of Man' and the realization of the immanent was the ethos and social do-goodism was the norm. Bonhoffer did manage to find a Black church in Harlem where a real gospel was preached but as for the rest of it he was unimpressed. So it wasn't the 1960's where things fell apart. They were pretty much fallen apart by 1930, at least in cultural hot spots like New York. The peripheries are always slow to figure out what's going on, but kind of did so in the 1960's and now two generations after that it's really taking over. Be glad for what resistance still exists. Even if it is resistance without all of the intellectual tools needed to thrive. (I'm thinking of the anti-intellectual tendencies of modern Fundamentalists) There is some good theology still out there, but a lot that is garbage bad. And God? God transcends for those of us to have eyes to see and ears to hear. If only we still can.
Bonhoeffer is an interesting historical personality. The film Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin will be in the theaters in November. But I am averse to his theology. Bonhoeffer's goal was a "religionless Christianity". So, he wanted to deconstruct Christianity, similarly to Smith and Pannenberg. William Macleod writes:

[Bonhoeffer] followed Rudolf Bultmann in finding the New Testament full of myths which have to be 'demythologised'. Bonhoeffer wrote, 'My opinion of it today would be that he (Bultmann) went not "too far" as most people thought, but rather not far enough. It's not only "mythological" concepts like miracles, ascension, and so on … that are problematic, but "religious" concepts as such'. (Bonhoeffer - A Reliable Guide?)​

Indeed, Arbogast Schmitt (Modernity and Plato: two paradigms of rationality, 2012) explains all about the ruinous consequences of anti-Platonism and nominalism. Also Brad S. Gregory (The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society, 2012) explains that the deterioration began in the late Middle Ages when theologians abandoned the non-univocal metaphysics of the Church Fathers. God came to be seen as a this-worldly ruler rather than transcendent Creator. The fragmentation of the wholeness-world of the Middle Ages led to today’s secularism. Today, the deterioration continues. But we are fooled to think that we are advancing only because technology advances and we are getting richer. Harry Redner (Totalitarianism, Globalization, Colonialism: The Destruction of Civilization Since 1914, 2014) says:

The destruction of civilization with which we are concerned is an extended and enduring historical process with no foreseeable end. It is a slow withering away that could go on, cease, or reverse itself—we have no way of predicting in the long run which it will be. Best described as a de-civilizing process, it developed with frightening rapidity in the twentieth century and seems set to continue well into the twenty-first, for no countermovement is as yet discernible. (Introd.)​

We must put an end to this now. Eric Voegelin's message is that we need both logos and mythos. Through the latter we can get an understanding and acceptance of a strictly transcendent Beyond. So, his message is exactly the opposite of the theologians mentioned. It is perplexing that it is a political philosopher who says so, while the theologians argue for a continued secularization.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Akita Suggagaki

Well-Known Member
Jul 20, 2018
9,670
6,944
70
Midwest
✟357,279.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Woo hoo, guys who like to talk about this stuff. I will be chiming in but first I need to read your paper and do a little homework.

I love the question about where are we today theologically, especially when it comes to unconscious and unspoken theology in public affairs.

We are definitely in a pluralistic age. That much we know for sure. And so very subjective, self determining zeitgeist.
 
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,356
19,388
Flyoverland
✟1,298,649.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Bonhoeffer is an interesting historical personality. The film Bonhoeffer: Pastor. Spy. Assassin will be in the theaters in November. But I am averse to his theology. Bonhoeffer's goal was a "religionless Christianity". So, he wanted to deconstruct Christianity, similar to Smith and Pannenberg. William Macleod writes:

[Bonhoeffer] followed Rudolf Bultmann in finding the New Testament full of myths which have to be 'demythologised'. Bonhoeffer wrote, 'My opinion of it today would be that he (Bultmann) went not "too far" as most people thought, but rather not far enough. It's not only "mythological" concepts like miracles, ascension, and so on … that are problematic, but "religious" concepts as such'. (Bonhoeffer - A Reliable Guide?)​

Indeed, Arbogast Schmitt (Modernity and Plato: two paradigms of rationality, 2012) explains all about the ruinous consequences of anti-Platonism and nominalism. Also Brad S. Gregory (The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society, 2012) explains that the deterioration began in late Middle Ages when theologians abandoned the non-univocal metaphysics of the Church Fathers. God came to be seen as a this-worldly ruler rather than transcendent Creator. The fragmentation of the wholeness-world of the Middle Ages led to today’s secularism. Today, the deterioration continues. But we are fooled to think that we are advancing, because technology advances and we are getting richer. Harry Redner (Totalitarianism, Globalization, Colonialism: The Destruction of Civilization Since 1914, 2014) says:

The destruction of civilization with which we are concerned is an extended and enduring historical process with no foreseeable end. It is a slow withering away that could go on, cease, or reverse itself—we have no way of predicting in the long run which it will be. Best described as a de-civilizing process, it developed with frightening rapidity in the twentieth century and seems set to continue well into the twenty-first, for no countermovement is as yet discernible. (Introd.)​

We must put an end to this now. Eric Voegelin's message is that we need both logos and mythos. Through the latter we can get an understanding and acceptance of a strictly transcendent Beyond. So, his message is exactly the opposite of the theologians mentioned. It is perplexing that it is a political philosopher who says so, while the theologians argue for a continued secularization.
I had been predisposed AGAINST Bonhoeffer until recently. Now I am wondering if he has been cast as TOO liberal. In any event, he reacted strongly against New York City liberal theology. And, by the way, I quoted him mostly to say that this American theological liberalism was quite strong in the 1930's.
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Site Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
12,025
12,921
East Coast
✟1,006,667.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What is behind the decline of Protestant theology that began in the sixties? By way of an example, I recently posted this review on Goodreads:

Ronald Gregor Smith (The Doctrine of God, 1970) struggles with his faith. He thinks that the traditional doctrine of God has reached a dead end. He rejects supernaturalistic theism as a “primitive mythology” that could “be cultivated in private by a dwindling company of romantics and introverts” (p. 79). Smith can no longer believe in God as a self-subsistent being residing in an otherworldly realm. Rather, God exists in the way he makes himself present in history: “It is only within the dynamism of history as the place and the time of irreversible personal decisions that the Word is truly heard…” (p. 37). Thus, “we are offered the reality of a life which is taken out of the old, apparently endless, search for a reality beyond this temporal world. The magic of Plato is exorcised” (p. 43). He even depreciates the bible:

[T]he normative historical power is not and cannot be any traditional documents, not even the Bible, but is solely the person of Christ. Therefore, it is a methodological error of the first order to suppose that Christianity is based upon a book, and that a true theology is one which discovers what the Bible says and then re-asserts this in a ‘modern’ fashion — but all the same, basically just repeats what the Bible says. (p. 72)​

For Smith, ‘God as Being’ is not a satisfactory category for Christian theology. The reality of God is historical rather than metaphysical. Christianity is not the record of a miraculous epiphany, but is about man’s historical experience (p. 114). I question: what remains of faith, then, if we remove the essential objects of faith, namely the bible and the heavenly realm? Smith’s answer is that we shall have a faith that is rooted in history, not the least in kerygmatic history. It seems that there is not much religiosity left in Smith’s Christianity. He says that “spirit” is only “the total reality of our humanity” (p. 130) and “the Christian faith does not really propose more than a way for us to walk” (p. 142).

We have to remain content with the little that remains of God: “In every historical encounter there is a residue or an overplus of mystery” (p. 177). So, God is not totally dead — there is a little residue left. The central tenets of Smith’s theology are a “thorough historicity of God” and a continual “self-realization of God in history” (p. 181). But he doesn’t explain how a God that lacks transcendent being can manifest in history. Despite his materialistic and rationalistic worldview, Smith tries to cling to the Christian faith by formulating a minimalistic version that builds on a God that is immanent in history. It is not an unintelligent book; but it is a depressing reading experience. Smith lived in a grey and uninspiring world. He died while writing this book, from boredom, I guess.

I know that Catholic theologians do a lot of bad theology, but do Protestant theologians still think this way? I have delved into this matter and have found that the modern sickness of theology is connected with the “immanentization of the eschaton” (Eric Voegelin). It has contributed to secularization and the rise of materialist ideology. I found that one of the main culprits behind this development is Martin Luther himself. Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg followed through and produced a thoroughly immanentistic theology, very similar to Smith's. To get a better grasp on this tragic development, read my short paper. I suggest a new interpretation of the Wisdom of God and argue that the immanentization of Christian religion has stifled the spirit of the feminine and contributed to secularization:

Some remarks on Wolfhart Pannenberg’s theology, the immanentization of the eschaton and the misinterpretation of the kingdom of God.

Meh. Many early Christians believed God is corporeal and not transcendent in the Platonic sense. Tertullian would be a prominent example. Some went further and thought of God in anthropomorphic terms, e.g., some of the anti-Origenists. We can thank the Alexandrian school for ensuring a healthy notion of the transcendence of God. If they had not succeeded through those like the four Cappadocians, we might think of God as a big dude, which is only a mite worse than thinking of God as the unfolding of history (Hegel?).

I've read a number of scholars who critique the classical understanding of God, particularly divine transcendence and divine simplicity. And, perhaps, by evacuating those ideas they rid themselves of what they find concerning, but in doing so, they just open a different can of worms. But I'm biased. I think our Platonic inheritance is essential to orthodoxy as we have received it. And, I'm all for it.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: FireDragon76
Upvote 0

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
244
95
65
Stockholm
Visit site
✟65,463.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Meh. Many early Christians believed God is corporeal and not transcendent in the Platonic sense. Tertullian would be a prominent example. Some went further and thought of God in anthropomorphic terms, e.g., some of the anti-Origenists. We can thank the Alexandrian school for ensuring a healthy notion of the transcendence of God. If they had not succeeded through those like the four Cappadocians, we might think of God as a big dude, which is only a mite worse than thinking of God as the unfolding of history (Hegel?).

I've read a number of scholars who critique the classical understanding of God, particularly divine transcendence and divine simplicity. And, perhaps, by evacuating those ideas they rid themselves of what they find concerning, but in doing so, they just open a different can of worms. But I'm biased. I think our Platonic inheritance is essential to orthodoxy as we have received it. And, I'm all for it.
It depends on the meaning that is applied to words. According to Tertullian, the soul is not made of ordinary matter but of a spiritual substance. Thus, the soul is both corporeal and spiritual. But this sounds very much like Paul's resurrection body. So, maybe Tertullian could be interpreted in Platonic terms. In that case the soul could be the Platonic Form that inhabits the heavenly realm and in which the individual participates. I don't think he argues like this in On the Soul. However, it is not obligatory to understand a corporeal soul as a materialistic concept. It could be Platonic, considering that the Platonic Form is very bodily, even more so than earthly things.

Mircea Eliade explains that "primitive" ontology has a Platonic structure (Cosmos and History, p. 34). Profane time is without meaning. The world which surrounds us is accorded no validity beyond that which is due to the celestial prototype that served as its model.

Of course, this is completely crazy from the point of view of modern materialism. But Voegelin explains that there is no better way of expressing transcendental truth than by analogical symbols derived from myth. The mysterious ground of all Being cannot be apprehended by the rational intellect. Consciousness and all things are circumfused by an ambience of mystery that can be understood only in terms of the Myth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

Always in His Presence

Jesus is the only Way
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
48,812
17,470
Broken Arrow, OK
✟997,419.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What is behind the decline of Protestant theology that began in the sixties?
Please clarify? What do you mean by the ‘decline of Protestant theology’. What is your matrix to measure decline?
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
244
95
65
Stockholm
Visit site
✟65,463.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Please clarify? What do you mean by the ‘decline of Protestant theology’. What is your matrix to measure decline?
The Death of God Theology in the sixties is a case in point. Its mortifying effects continue to this day. For instance, N. T. Wright is an influential theologian that promulgates an immanent view of the kingdom of God. Such Christians are very secularistic, socialistic and relativistic in their thinking. Thus, the Swedish Lutheran Church promotes Islam and the building of new mosques. It has become entirely politicized and adopted postmodern Socialist politics. Parsons are preaching about Human Rights, and the sufferings of the Palestinian people, and that Jesus is all-inclusive and wants mass immigration, and that we must embrace the Muslims as brothers, and that we must fend for every citizen of the world as if they were little children. This contradicts the biblical message, according to which we must take care of our neighbour.

Antje Jackelén, the former archbishop of Sweden, had "Allahu-akbar" (in Swedish translation) as her motto. The former bishop in Stockholm, Eva Brunne, proposed to remove or cover up the Christian symbols in the Seamen's Church. Instead, a sign that points in the direction of Mecca ought to be inserted. I left the Church long ago.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,356
19,388
Flyoverland
✟1,298,649.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Please clarify? What do you mean by the ‘decline of Protestant theology’. What is your matrix to measure decline?
The theology of Harvey Cox would be one prime example.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Bob Crowley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Dec 27, 2015
3,736
2,334
70
Logan City
✟913,870.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I don't think Bonhoeffer's goal was "religionless Christianity." I think he saw something like that coming in the world's growing self confidence.

He was in prison when he wrote that passage in "Letters from Prison" if I remember rightly. American and British bombers were flying around 930 kilometre return trips to deliver tons of bombs. There was no general call for God as author of victory on either side, even if Churchill stated "... in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old...".

God took His time incidentally.

The medieval attitude to God was finished. In Bonhoeffer's opinion Mankind had "come of age", and would have to live both before God and yet without God.

Bonhoeffer saw that the standard cultural Christianity of the West was finished, with some modern and glaring examples in Sweden given by Teofrasus. I think he wondered what was coming.

In his "Thoughts on the Day of Baptism of Dietrich Wilhelm Rudger Bethge, May 1944", he made some comments which gave more insight to what he was experiencing.

Dietrich Willhelm was the new born son of a friend, who is known today as the Cellist Dietrich Bethge incidentally.


In the letter he wrote "Are we moving towards an age of colossal organisations and collective institutions, or will the desire of innumerable people for small, manageable personal relationships be satisfied? Must they be mutually exclusive? Might it not be that world organisations themselves, with their wide meshes, will allow more scope for personal interests? Similarly with the question whether we are moving twards an age of the selection of the fittest, ie. an artistocratic society, or to uniformity in all material and spiritual aspects of human life..."

Bear in mind he would have realised the Russians were approaching from the East ("Uniformity in all material ... aspects of life) and the Americans and British from the West (" ... an aristocratic society..."). He would not live to see either enter Berlin, but he could see that there was colossal change ahead for the church, including possibly "religionless Christianity".,

He didn't live long enough to develop his theme in any depth.
 
Upvote 0

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
244
95
65
Stockholm
Visit site
✟65,463.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
I don't think Bonhoeffer's goal was "religionless Christianity." I think he saw something like that coming in the world's growing self confidence.

He was in prison when he wrote that passage in "Letters from Prison" if I remember rightly. American and British bombers were flying around 930 kilometre return trips to deliver tons of bombs. There was no general call for God as author of victory on either side, even if Churchill stated "... in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old...".

God took His time incidentally.

The medieval attitude to God was finished. In Bonhoeffer's opinion Mankind had "come of age", and would have to live both before God and yet without God.

Bonhoeffer saw that the standard cultural Christianity of the West was finished, with some modern and glaring examples in Sweden given by Teofrasus. I think he wondered what was coming.

In his "Thoughts on the Day of Baptism of Dietrich Wilhelm Rudger Bethge, May 1944", he made some comments which gave more insight to what he was experiencing.

Dietrich Willhelm was the new born son of a friend, who is known today as the Cellist Dietrich Bethge incidentally.


In the letter he wrote "Are we moving towards an age of colossal organisations and collective institutions, or will the desire of innumerable people for small, manageable personal relationships be satisfied? Must they be mutually exclusive? Might it not be that world organisations themselves, with their wide meshes, will allow more scope for personal interests? Similarly with the question whether we are moving twards an age of the selection of the fittest, ie. an artistocratic society, or to uniformity in all material and spiritual aspects of human life..."

Bear in mind he would have realised the Russians were approaching from the East ("Uniformity in all material ... aspects of life) and the Americans and British from the West (" ... an aristocratic society..."). He would not live to see either enter Berlin, but he could see that there was colossal change ahead for the church, including possibly "religionless Christianity".,

He didn't live long enough to develop his theme in any depth.
Abandoning "religion" would mean to renounce concepts of transcendency and the heavenly kingdom of God, but the only result is that religion turns into materialist ideology. Mircea Eliade and Eric Voegelin are adamant that we must retain the symbols of transcendency. In contrast to profane beings, who lead a tragic existence, life for homo religiosus is meaningful.

Immanentism is epidemic among theologians. Catholic theologian John F. Haught argues that cosmic evolution "is the story of the God-of-the-future entering ever more intimately into the fabric of the universe" (The Revelation of God in History, p. 25). So, he has adopted Pannenberg's concept of a temporal God-of-the-future. The heavenly realm plays no role in the theology of Catholic theologian Xavier Zubiri (Man and God). It's because God is transcendent in the world. Thus, we ought to deepen our relation to the reality of things, because each and every thing is "deity". He wants to orient us towards the world and the people around us by projecting the divine on everything. The populist theologian Marcus J. Borg explains that Jesus wanted distribution of economic resources and a society void of hierarchy (The God We Never Knew, ch. 6). In fact, the Kingdom which he preached is "not of this world".

Then there are those who are only interested in the physical universe as the expression of the purposive design of a Creator God, such as John Polkinghorne. He is hopelessly boring. I wonder if there are any theologians around anymore that haven't fallen for materialism or aren't obsessed with the material world.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Always in His Presence

Jesus is the only Way
Site Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
48,812
17,470
Broken Arrow, OK
✟997,419.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,356
19,388
Flyoverland
✟1,298,649.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Never heard of him.

What do you think of VanCleaf and Duff’s work?
Never heard of them.

Hard to imagine you have never heard of Harvey Cox. Harvey Cox was a preeminent Protestant theologian who was a professor of theology at Harvard Divinity School. He wrote 'The Secular City' and 'The Future of Faith'. He's retired but he was the cat's pajamas for liberal theology in the 1960's and 1970's. I am NOT a Cox devotee by any means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
244
95
65
Stockholm
Visit site
✟65,463.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
And then there's Bishop John A. T. Robinson's enormously influential book Honest to God (1963), in which he argues that 'religion' doesn't belong in the modern world:

The only people left for us to light on in the way of 'religion' are a few 'last survivals of the age of chivalry', or else one or two who are intellectually dishonest. […] Bonhoeffer's answer is that we should boldly discard 'the religious premise', as St Paul had the courage to jettison circumcision as a precondition of the Gospel, and accept the world's coming of age' as a God-given fact. 'The only way to be honest is to recognize that we have to live in the world etsi deus non daretur—even if God is not 'there'. Like children outgrowing the secure religious, moral and intellectual framework of the home, in which 'Daddy' is always there in the background, 'God is teaching us that we must live as men who can get along very well without him'. The God who makes us live in this world without using him as a working hypothesis is the God before whom we are ever standing. Before God and with him we live without God. God allows himself to be edged out of the world, and that is exactly the way, the only way, in which he can be with us and help us. (pp. 38-39)​

Robinson rejects theism:

It is precisely the identification of Christianity—and transcendence—with this conception of theism that I believe we must be prepared to question. Does the Gospel stand or fall with it? On the contrary, I am convinced that Tillich is right in saying that 'the protest of atheism against such a highest person is correct'. And this protest, which today is made in the name of the 'meaninglessness' of any such metaphysical statement, has seemed to others a matter of much greater existential concern. And to understand them we should be prepared to see how it looks to them. Huxley contents himself with saying, 'For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous'. (p. 41)​

But if Christianity commits suicide the consequence is that diverse political religions and Islam will fill the empty space. Accordingly, we saw in the sixties the enormous growth of Communist political religions. Sound religion and inferior religion are like communicating vessels. The former endorses transcendence and the latter immanence. Robinson also rejects the symbolical language of mythology:

[The] task is to validate the idea of transcendence for modern man. But this means restating its reality in other than what Bultmann has called the 'objectivized', mythological terms which merely succeed in making nonsense of it to him. For, as Professor R. Gregor Smith has said, 'The old doctrine of transcendence is nothing more than an assertion of an outmoded view of the world'. Our concern is in no way to change the Christian doctrine of God but precisely to see that it does not disappear with this outmoded view. (p. 44)​

Such a view disregards the findings of Eliade and Voegelin, but also contradicts the psychological view as represented by Carl Jung and M-L von Franz.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
22,356
19,388
Flyoverland
✟1,298,649.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
And then there's Bishop John A. T. Robinson's enormously influential book Honest to God (1963) in which he argues that 'religion' doesn't belong in the modern world:

The only people left for us to light on in the way of 'religion' are a few 'last survivals of the age of chivalry', or else one or two who are intellectually dishonest. […] Bonhoeffer's answer is that we should boldly discard 'the religious premise', as St Paul had the courage to jettison circumcision as a precondition of the Gospel, and accept the world's coming of age' as a God-given fact. 'The only way to be honest is to recognize that we have to live in the world etsi deus non daretur—even if God is not 'there'. Like children outgrowing the secure religious, moral and intellectual framework of the home, in which 'Daddy' is always there in the background, 'God is teaching us that we must live as men who can get along very well without him'. The God who makes us live in this world without using him as a working hypothesis is the God before whom we are ever standing. Before God and with him we live without God. God allows himself to be edged out of the world, and that is exactly the way, the only way, in which he can be with us and help us. (pp. 38-39)​

Robinson rejects theism:

It is precisely the identification of Christianity—and transcendence—with this conception of theism that I believe we must be prepared to question. Does the Gospel stand or fall with it? On the contrary, I am convinced that Tillich is right in saying that 'the protest of atheism against such a highest person is correct'. And this protest, which today is made in the name of the 'meaninglessness' of any such metaphysical statement, has seemed to others a matter of much greater existential concern. And to understand them we should be prepared to see how it looks to them. Huxley contents himself with saying, 'For my own part, the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a supernatural being is enormous'. (p. 41)​

But if Christianity commits suicide the consequence is that diverse political religions and Islam will fill the empty space. Accordingly, we saw in the sixties the enormous growth of Communist political religions. Sound religion and inferior religion are like communicating vessels. The former endorses transcendence and the latter immanence. Robinson also rejects the symbolical language of mythology:

[The] task is to validate the idea of transcendence for modern man. But this means restating its reality in other than what Bultmann has called the 'objectivized', mythological terms which merely succeed in making nonsense of it to him. For, as Professor R. Gregor Smith has said, 'The old doctrine of transcendence is nothing more than an assertion of an outmoded view of the world'. Our concern is in no way to change the Christian doctrine of God but precisely to see that it does not disappear with this outmoded view. (p. 44)​

Such a view disregards the findings of Eliade and Voegelin, but also contradicts the psychological view as represented by Carl Jung and M-L von Franz.
And then there is Paul Tillich himself. He was taught in my first college religion class. Whatever a person’s ’ultimate concern’ is becomes their god. He and I had very different deities. Other theologians taught in that class included Martin Buber and Walter Kaufman.

Besides Tillich there were the somewhat earlier Bultmann and Adolph Harnack. Harnack loomed large in my later Patristics classes as the elephant in the room. Happily it was usually how Harnack’s opinion was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JEBofChristTheLord

to the Lord
Site Supporter
Nov 28, 2005
764
258
56
Topeka, Kansas, USA
Visit site
✟136,173.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But if Christianity commits suicide the consequence is that diverse political religions and Islam will fill the empty space.
This statement struck me as very noteworthy. I was once, quite a while ago, on the board of what was thought a well-established local church, that voted overwhelmingly to hold a funeral [the actual words used] for itself. I never quite learned the internal motivations of the other voters -- finances were not a concern -- but other text of this conversation may have finally educated me.

I'll think there are and have been a great many, including Bonhoeffer, who see a church without political domination of its neighbors, a church which depends on God for protection because it cannot command weapons of death of this world, as something acting in vain, too weak to be worthwhile, fruitless, and too worthless to be worth investment and devotion. I'll further suggest that the Holy One is purging this self-destructive ethic from churches, worldwide, increasingly in the last five hundred years or so.
 
Upvote 0

Teofrastus

Active Member
Mar 28, 2023
244
95
65
Stockholm
Visit site
✟65,463.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
And then there is Paul Tillich himself. He was taught in my first college religion class. Whatever a person’s ’ultimate concern’ is becomes their god. He and I had very different deities. Other theologians taught in that class included Martin Buber and Walter Kaufman.

Besides Tillich there were the somewhat earlier Bultmann and Adolph Harnack. Harnack loomed large in my later Patristics classes as the elephant in the room. Happily it was usually how Harnack’s opinion was wrong.
Tillich's theology is another kettle of fish. Randall E. Otto says that he isn't even a Christian, but an idealist philosopher in the following of Schelling ('The Doctrine of God in the Theology of Paul Tillich', 1990, here). Tillich says that supernaturalism is superstition. God has neither existence nor essence. Rather, the divine is equal to the Ground of Being, an "absolute freedom", which is beyond all categories (including existence). Although this sounds much like Pantheism, such a God cannot be identical to the cosmos, considering that He doesn't exist. Instead, similar to many a modern theologian, he postulates that God incarnates with time and unites with mankind. Man participates in the freedom of "God" until at last absolute freedom is all in all.

Tillich's strange theology is not uninspiring; but it has nothing to do with Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
14,847
7,815
50
The Wild West
✟717,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Please clarify? What do you mean by the ‘decline of Protestant theology’. What is your matrix to measure decline?

I believe @Teofrastus is talkimg about the theological decline of the liberal mainline Protestant churches, such as the Church of Sweden, the PCUSA, the ELCA, my old stomping grounds in the UMC and UCC (United Church of Christ, mostly Congregationalists with some descendants of the Evangelical Reformed church, which was the Calvinist offshoot of the Prussian Church in North America* , and the powerful liberal movement within Anglicanism, which dominates many provinces such as the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church USA, and also slowly but surely is taking over the Church of England herself**.

* The other part of the Prussian Church in North America, the Lutherans, who form the LCMS and LCC, two of the three churches in the US and Canada that are in altar and puplit fellowship as members of the International Lutheran Council, along with the AALC, which has different origins. The LCMS/LCC came harrowingly close, within inches I should say, nay, within micrometers, of becoming a liberal mainline church, but there was a traditionalist crackdown in the 1970s against all odds at the Concordia University. A group of disgruntled liberal seminary professors tried to draw out the controversy by forming the Seminary In Exile, or Seminex, which sounds like a brand name for a courier or sanitation company, but they were unsuccessful, and eventually threw in the proverbial towel, and as an indication of the new traditionalist direction the LCMS was headed in, it decided not to adopt the Lutheran Book of Worship (the “Green Hymnal”) throughout the entire denomination (a hymnal it had jointly developed with those churches which had already consolidated into the ALC and LCA, and which would consolidate into the ELCA), but rather, to implement changes to the hymnal before giving it official recognition, the result being the “Blue Hymnal”, Lutheran Worship, which was never as popular as either the old Red Hymnal (the 1941 Lutheran Hymnal, famed for the excellence of its musical arrangements, which Cokesbury was selling a few years ago as the only hymnal in their catalog aside from the United Methodist hymnal, before their recent diversification - now they sell the 1940 and 1980 Episcopal hymnals, the current PCUSA hymnal, and even their own in-house hymnal, but nonetheless it appears as though some traditionalist Methodist churches were using the 1941 Lutheran hymnal after the 1965 Methodist Episcopal Book of Hymns went out of print). The new LCMS/LCC Lutheran Service Book, released in 2006, is quite good, and my friend @MarkRohfrietsch is justifiably proud of it.

I would note that the only other large (in this case very large - only the Roman Catholic Church is larger among US denominations) American Protestant denomination to successfully break off from the mainline trajectory and return to a pristine traditionalism was the Southern Baptist Convention, although recently the SBC has been plagued by scandals and has also failed to take decisive actions against local SBC churches whose policies directly violate the central tenets of the SBC denomination. However, they still remain very conservative, much more conservative than they were in the 1970s - it is worth noting that at the time of his election to office, President Jimmy Carter was a member of the Southern Baptist Church, and indeed, a Sunday School teacher and youth pastor at Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia, which, along with President Carter, left the SBC and joined a more left-wing Baptist convention as the SBC embraced a more traditionalist stane.

**This liberal takeover of the C of E has manifested itself most recently in a decision similiar to that made by the Roman Catholic Church in Fiducia Supplicans, to allow for the blessing of persons in same sex marriages, although unlike the RCC, the C of E did not walk the decision back. In an eerie parallel to the liberal takeover of the UMC, which happened despite a clear majority vote in 2018 for the Traditional Plan, which was simply ignored by the hierarchy in the US, the liberalization of the Church of England is happening despite the resistance put up by the conservative Evangelical segment (connected with , the Anglo Catholics of the Forward in Faith movement, the Prayer Book Society, and even the King (his mother and predecessor Queen Elizabeth II memory eternal was well known for being religiously conservative, but so too was his father Prince Philip, and King Charles III despite his divorce and remarriage, has been known for his support of traditional religious values, traditional church architectural, traditional church music, and also the Athonite monasteries on the Holy Mountain - his grandmother became a Greek Orthodox nun after she was widowed, and his father was baptized in the Church of Greece before being required to convert to the Church of England as a condition of marriage to Princess Elizabeth, although I can find no basis for this in the Act of Settlement, and presumably this is why, unlike his predecessors, during the coronation King Charles was annointed with chrism from the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, which most likely means that he has converted, since the only authorized use of the chrism is for receiving people into Orthodoxy and for annointing Orthodox monarchs, and this is good, in terms of resisting liberalization in the Church of England, but it is unlikely to be enough by itself, since most of the power held by the monarch under the unusual situation imposed by King Henry VIII has become, as would ordinarily be proper, theoretical, but the problem is of course that the bishops who have, as would otherwise be proper, gained that power, are, because of the connection with the monarchy, effectively appointed with the consent of whichever political party has a majority in the House of Commons, and occasionally that party has been known to interfere, whether Labour, LibDem or Conservative, and the problem is that episcopal appointments are made “on the advice” of the prime minister, and even the Royal Peculiars, those churches the monarch has theoretical direct control over, such as Westminster Abbey, the Savoy Chapel, the Temple Church, et cetera, are, with the exception of the Chapel Royal and Westminster Abbey, largely under the control of the communities they serve - the Temple Church for instance is basically the chapel for the barristers and judges who reside in the Inns of Court known as the Inner Temple and Middle Temple, which were historically a monastery for members of the Knights Templar, although I would note that all of the Royal Peculiars tend to be more conservative and traditional than the average diocesan church.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
14,847
7,815
50
The Wild West
✟717,193.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Never heard of them.

Hard to imagine you have never heard of Harvey Cox. Harvey Cox was a preeminent Protestant theologian who was a professor of theology at Harvard Divinity School. He wrote 'The Secular City' and 'The Future of Faith'. He's retired but he was the cat's pajamas for liberal theology in the 1960's and 1970's. I am NOT a Cox devotee by any means.

I would be surprised if our friend @hislegacy reads or follows professors of theology at a divinity school which since the late 18th century has been under Unitarian control, and to this date is the main seminary of the Unitarian Universalist Association. I myself, despite my interest in keeping a general eye on the Unitarians, do not do this, since the various scandalous statements and actual scandals that surround the institution with people like Karen L. King as the Hollis Professor of Divinity, who could be described as an enthusiast of Gnosticism and who was also duped into purchasing for quite a large sum of money a manuscript that said and implied blasphemous things about our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife”, which has turned out to be an obvious forgery. And making matters worse, before spending the money on the manuscript, Professor King failed to conduct adequate due diligence - some persons involved in the authentication from Harvard’s end had conflicts of interest. I make no secret of the fact that I don’t like Harvard and I have never liked Harvard, and this sort of thing is the reason why: The Unbelievable Tale of Jesus’s Wife

If I were to make a point of reading and studying the various academics associated with Harvard, my blood pressure would be a lot higher.

There is the related ultra-liberal UCC seminary, Andover Newton Divinity School, which was located in Cambridge and for a time shared facilities with HDS, Andover having been formed by dismayed Calvinist Congregationalists after the Unitarians seized control of Harvard, which was originally established as a Puritan seminary, but went from Puritanism under the leadership of Increase Mather in 1692, to Unitarian heresy* in 1805 with the appointment of Henry Ware in 1805, which eventually led to “post-Christian” apostasy with the popularization of transcendentalism by Ralph Waldo Emerson, so that by the time the Unitarians and the Universalist* Church merged, the result was the rapid emergence of a predominantly non-Christian religion, from the wreckage of two extremely liberal Christian churches, one of which was heretical or non-Christian by CF.com standards.*

In a sign of the decline of liberal Christianity, Andover Newton Divinity School wound up in serious financial trouble and merged with Yale Divinity School (traditionally Episcopalian), becoming Andover Newton Divinity School at Yale, and providing United Church of Christ and American Baptist Convention seminarians with access to the previously Episcopalian-exclusive rival to Harvard, so it now becomes a one-stop shop for finding a new associate pastor if one is a member of one of three of the members of the Seven Sisters of American Protestantism, including the two most widely regarded as the most liberal (although in fact, the ELCA is more liberal than the Episcopal Church, it simply is less interested in suing congregations that decide to leave, and the United Methodist Church has gone from being the most conservative to the most liberal mainline church in the span of six years, from the adoption of the Traditional Plan in 2018, to the current oppressive anti-traditionalist regime officially formalized this year, but which we saw coming two years ago when the General Conference was delayed for reasons related to Covid, despite Covid travel restrictions having been listed and the virus regarded as being well under control by the summer of 2022.

* Unitarians, insofar as they reject the Nicene Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ, are not regarded as Christians on CF.com , and Unitarians themselves began to reject the Christian identity over the course of the 19th century.

Universalist Christianity however is recognized and we have a number of devout members who are Universalists, but discussion of Universalism and certain other controversial ideas such as Full Preterism is permitted only in the Controversial Christian Theology forum.

However, members who join who list their faith as Unitarian or UUA are not considered Christians and do not have access to General Theology, from what I have been told by my friends among the forum staff. I enthusiastically support the CF.com Statement of Faith and the current rules, which do a remarkably good job at identifying Christians who agree on enough so that we are able to enjoy fruitful discussions and form friendships despite being of different denominatinoal backgrounds, a fellowship that I love. I heard that things used to be more fraught when Mormons and J/Ws were allowed to participate in the main forums, and one can understand why that would be, given the extreme missionary focus of those churches and the fact that they regard every other church as being completely in error, and in the case of the J/Ws, also have the practice of shunning former members, like Scientologists.

Doctrinally, Unitarianism and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are very similiar, in that both reject the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. The main difference is that Unitarians are, I suppose you might say, somewhat nicer about it, and in the case of the UUA, more than any other denomination, the “Social Gospel” and various left-wing political issues are stressed as being the main priority. Additionally, the UUA has since removed whatever Unitarian confessional standards it had, along with anything else which would exclude a non-Christian from membership, but a side effect of this is that theoretically, a Trinitarian could be a member of the UUA, whereas in the case of the J/Ws, anyone who believed in the Holy Trinity after joining the denomination would be shunned, excluded by members of their own familiy, just as is the case with Scientology and “disconnections.”

It is also interesting to note that according to Pew Research, of the major religions in the US, the Unitarian Universalists are the wealthiest on a per-capita basis (probably in large part due to wealthy Yankee families in Boston and New England who could be described as “Old Money”, and also the popularity of the UUA among intellectual members of the left wing who define themselves as spiritual but not religious, and who have some sense of a Christian cultural identity but no desire to actually be Christian or to associate themselves with the likes of Evangelicals or Fundamentalist Calvinists or Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, which they regard as being dangerous, backwards superstitions which cause harm, and indeed many of them regret the protections the First Amendment provides our churches, and would like to see Christian clergy who refuse to deviate from traditional doctrine concerning human sexuality prosecuted for hate speech. Many would also like to see Christian churches lose their tax exempt status. Presumably this would not impact the UUA, since it could claim it was not a religious organization as such, but rather an educational entity, since the UUA at present has nearly no doctrine, and the small amount of remaining shared belief could be torn up. However, there are parishes within the UUA which identify as Christian, and there is even an association of such churches.

Conversely, there are no Jehovah’s Witness “Kingdom Halls” which identify as Christian, nor members of the J/Ws who identify as Christian, at least, not without the qualification of J/W, except when engaging in missionary work, where they often seek to refer to themselves as “Bible Students,” that being the original demonym of adherents of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, the formal name of their denomination. I mean, what could be more harmless and Christian than a Bible Student? They even have their own, we are assured, extremely reliable and carefully researched translation, the New World Translation, which they claim is the most accurate in the world. It would be more fair to say that it is the most intentionally deceptive translation in existence, for it is designed to prevent J/Ws from being evangelized by Christians and to seduce Christians into accepting the heretical doctrines of the J/Ws, by altering certain key pericopes in the New Testament, such as John 1:1-18, so that the doctrine of the Trinity is obscured (John 1:1 is changed to say instead of “In the beginning, there was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, the verse which historically caused the most problems for Arians and Unitarians, to saying that “the Word was a God,” which is not only Arian but, like many forms of Arianism, also polytheist (insofar as Arians who did not go as far as Paul of Samosata or the Unitarians in denying the deity of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ outright would instead try to say that he was divine, but not the eternal God, but rather the firstborn of all creation, “of like essence to the Father,” and as such, they presented our Lord as though he were a second, junior god, as opposed to being one person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son, who is coeternal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, one God in three coequal and coeternal persons, consubstantial with the Father, with the Son begotten of the Father and not created, and there never being a time when the Son was not, and likewise, with the Holy Spirit proceding eternally from the Father.

And unfortunately, the average member of the J/W and also those targeted for conversion into their cult are not in a position to research these beliefs and identify the falsehood, because the J/Ws, in contrast to the Unitarians, are the poorest religion in America on a per-capita basis. While some leaders of the cult have substantial wealth, the average member has very little money. Most members are working class people, many of them members of ethnic minorities. Recently I met a very gracious African American truck driver who was a J/W - I liked him a great deal, and I felt immensely sorry for him. Such persons are vulnerable to conversion to a cult, because of peer pressure from relatives, and a lack of financial stability and a lack of knowledge that would give them the time and the intellectual ability and indeed the money (since some theological resources which are quite useful are also expensive, and also time spent doing serious theology is time spent not driving a truck or otherwise engaged in one’s profession) to do the research to get to the truth of the matter.

Thus I have much more sympathy for the J/Ws than for the UUAs, for the latter have, to a large extent, chosen to be there, whereas the former are trapped - if they stop attending Kingdom Hall regularly or do anything to offend the hierarchy, they will be shunned, losing contact with their loved ones. Whereas the UUA has largely degenerated from being a heterodox denomination into a post-Christian, post-modern left wing political organization with a veneer of religiosity (particularly among the case of the Universalists, who, before their merger with the Unitarians, would have in many cases been regarded as Christians by CF.com, and one suspects there were a number of Christians in that denomination who were to varying extents disenfranchised by the merger with the Unitarians, since the Universalists never had a specifically anti-Trinitarian doctrinal stance).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0