COMMENT HONEST TO GOD Christianity needs a face-lifting, according to the Anglican Bishop of Woolwich. It has to be streamlined, stripped of antediluvian anachronisms and anthropomorphic symbolism. The science-minded man of today wants his Christianity with a new look. First to go must be our image of God, since "men can no longer credit the existence of a God as a supernatural Person." Bishop John A. T. Robinson presents the case for a revitalized Christianity in his controversial best seller Honest to God (American edition: Westminster Press, $1.65). Influenced by the "demythologizing" of Rudolf Bultmann, the religionless Christianity of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the theological existentialism of Paul Tillich, Bishop Robinson feels that our mental image of God must be changed if Christianity is to survive. The men of the Bible, he argues, referred to God as being "up there" in the heavens, seated on a celestial throne and to Christ as "ascending." Later Christians, aware of the inadequacy of this literal language, spoke of God as "out there”—a metaphysical reality, existing "outside" the universe, who created it, conserves it, and rules it. But today this substitute mental image of God is no longer credible to many. Twentieth-century man wants an image of God that has meaning and relevance for him. He wants to be "honest to God" and "honest about God," otherwise his religious convictions will become shallow and barren. Where, then, must he turn? Bishop Robinson suggests that Christians think of God in terms of "depth," or in Paul Tillich's phrase as "the ground of being. If the word God has little meaning, then Tillich advises one to "translate it, and speak of the depths of your life, of the source of your being, of your ultimate concern. . . . For if you know that God means depth, you know much about him." This approach, Bishop Robinson remarks, gives God an "indestructible relevance," and at the same time preserves "his 'profound' mystery and transcendence." Explosive reactions greeted the publication of Bishop Robinson's book in England with the most critical comments coming from his co-religionists. The Archbishop of Canterbury felt that it was wrong "to denounce imagery of God held by Christian men and women." "Modern man, it seems," wrote Dr. Edwin Morris, the Archbishop of Wales, "has become not only the measure of things but also of God. I see no Gospel in this doctrine." Dr. E. L. Mascall, Professor of Historical Theology, London University, agrees with Bishop Robinson that Christianity be made relevant to modern man, but adds: “this means persuading secular man that he must no longer be merely secular." "How very odd that a bishop," commented John Gordon in the Sunday Express, "while denying the fundamental doctrines of his Church, should still decide to remain a bishop. And how very odd of the Church to keep him." An image, as Bishop Robinson rightly observes, can indeed become an idol. If we persist in keeping an image of God that does not correspond correctly to the reality of God, then we are acting unreasonably. Religious symbols are not, in themselves, absolute. Personal taste may enter here. At best, visible images and symbols can represent only imperfectly the invisible God. One may modify his image of God as long as he does not modify the idea of God. The question is: does Bishop Robinson wish merely to change the usual image of God or is he suggesting a new Deity? The former, he maintains, is his aim, but he agrees "heartily" with Sir Julian Huxley that "the sense of spiritual relief which comes from rejecting the idea of God as a superhuman being is enormous." Whether God is "up there," "out there," or "in the depths of our life," He is still the Absolute, Omnipotent, Supreme Being. Bishop Robinson's views are at least male sonans. While perhaps not as radical as they first appeared, they do exhibit an unwarranted disregard for the Gospel and tradition which is reflected in writings of the theologians, Catholic and Protestant, of past ages. He seems immoderate in his desire to purge Christianity of its "mythical" interpretations. The new mental image of God that the Bishop suggests involves a total re-evaluation of Christian doctrine, worship, and ethics. "This," he admits, "is a dangerous process." This danger could easily extend to the field of ecumenism. Archbishop Heenan of Liverpool seems to indicate this hazard in a recent article in the Catholic Teachers Journal. He remarks that recent discussions on Christianity without religion and the views that seem to deny fundamental Christian truths do great harm to the cause of unity. While not doubting the sincerity of those who do not accept a personal God, Archbishop Heenan feels that the watering down of Christian doctrine among non-Catholics "will lead to the eventual disappearance of Protestant churches." "The destiny of England," he concludes, "lies either in complete unbelief or in a return to the old faith." CHRIST'S DEATH No pronouncement of the Magisterium has settled the vexing problem of the exact physical cause of Christ's death. Hence, theologians, students of scripture, and medical men have given various explanations of the immediate determining factor of the death of the crucified Son of God. In an absorbing article in Doctor Communis (Vol. XV. I-II), Fr. Edward A. Wuenschel, C.SS.R., critically considers these views and proposes his theory. Three facts govern the discussion: In the first place Christ shared the same passible and mortal condition as all of Adam's descendants. He was free from sin. He suffered pain of body or soul because He willed it. His death, then, was a voluntary immolation, a free choice made by His own power. "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself" (John 10:17 f.). Secondly, the four gospels alone contain the authentic account of Christ's death. Thirdly, death is as unique as the person to whom it occurs. There are innumerable physical causes of death. Since Christ was a perfect human being, we may rule out all possibility of death by disease. One theory explains the cause of Christ's death as a miracle. Origen, unable to account for the extraordinary suddenness of Christ's death, regarded it as miraculous. It was usual for those condemned to crucifixion to linger for two or more days on the cross. Father Wuenschel, however, feels there is no need to have recourse to the miraculous. It is difficult to reconcile this explanation with the fact that Christ assumed a human nature so that He might die a truly sacrificial death on the cross. Asphyxia and traumatic shock are the two most common theories. Asphyxia is suspended animation due to a deficiency of oxygen and an excess of carbon dioxide in the blood. Proponents of this theory say that because of the traction on the arms, Christ's rib cage expanded and became immobilized. Muscular action became difficult, the viscera sank depressing the diaphragm and breathing became impossible. Progressive suffocation ensued and caused a complete organic collapse. Thus, Christ was unconscious when death did come. Traumatic shock is a severe depression of the nervous system caused by bodily injury. Reflexes become impaired, respiration becomes strained and shallow, the mind is dulled. As the state of shock progresses, the vital forces diminish and total collapse follows. Both of these theories, Father Wuenschel argues, wrongly suppose that there was no projecting seat in the middle of the upright beam on which the crucified sat astride. Its presence, usual in Roman crucifixions, explains why the long drawn-out agony of crucifixion was looked upon with such horror-the victims died a slow death. A more basic criticism is that these theories do not fit in with the gospel account. Christ died after three hours on the cross, in full possession of his faculties. He showed great energy of mind and body, uttered a startling cry, bowed his head deliberately, and then clearly spoke his last words before He died. Father Wuenschel prefers the theory of the broken heart of Christ that was proposed by two Benedictine mystics of the thirteenth century, St. Mechtild and St. Gertrude the Great. The latter expresses the idea frequently in her Exercitia spiritualia: Cor tuum ex amore ruptum. The heart of Christ burst asunder on the cross because of the agony of His soul. The heart muscle ruptured spontaneously because of the intensity of the agony that stemmed from his redeeming love. Christ's agony and the shedding of His blood are intimately connected. The New Covenant with God is sealed with the blood of Christ (Matt. 26:28); the blood of Christ is the medium of reconciliation with God (Rom. 3:25); all our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ (I John 1:7). The blood and water that flowed from the side of Christ, according to a long tradition that is reflected in the liturgy, came from the heart of Christ. The Encyclical Haurietis aquas, for example, mentions this fact eleven times. Christ thus shed His lifeblood by a complete outpouring from His riven heart. Since Christ's death was to be accomplished by the shedding of His blood, how could this be better fulfilled than by the rendering of His heart? The thesis of the ruptured heart Father Wuenschel believes to be the only tenable explanation of the physical cause of Christ's death. He concludes: "It is in accord with Christ's statement that He would lay down His life by His own power. It is demanded by the nature and the purpose of His sacrifice, and it accounts for the extraordinary manner of His death." The Catholic University of America DOM PATRICK GRANFIELD FIFTY YEARS AGO ... The leading article in The American Ecclesiastical Review for August, 1913, contributed by Fr. H. T. Henry, is an interesting account of the origin of the popular hymn "Holy God We Praise Thy Name." The tune of this hymn is Catholic, since it is first found in a Catholic hymnal printed in Vienna before 1780. The English version was translated by Fr. C. Walworth, then a Redemptorist, and first appeared in 1853. The German "Grosser Gott" has been in existence for some time, but it would seem that Fr. Walworth used the Latin Te Deum as the basis of his translation. . . . Fr. W. Kennedy writes on "Anglicanism and Conversions," expressing the opinion that the multiplicity of divergent religious views among Anglicans is the chief reason for their numerous conversions to the Catholic faith.... Fr. H. Pope, O.P., contributes an article on St. Augustine's Tractatus in Joannem. . . . Fr. J. Fryar, writing from England, narrates history of the religiousmilitary orders, particularly the Hospitalers and the Knights Templars. Concerning the latter the author states that it is quite probable that some of these Knights took up Oriental superstitions from the Holy Land, which furnished charges that led to their suppression. . . . Bishop. E. Dunne, of Peoria, tells of the experiences of a priest in the Italian section of Chicago. . . . A. G. Eccles describes the work being done by the Paulist Fathers in conducting a Newman club for the Catholic students in the secular University of California. . . . Two letters concerned with the eucharistic fast for priests appear in the Studies and Conferences. F. J. C. ... |