FAITH, ANCIENT AND MODERN

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31659, 20 April 1968, Page 4

FAITH, ANCIENT AND MODERN

(Reviewed by J O R > God in the New World. By Lloyd Geering. Hoddei and Stoughton. 190 pp. Professor Geering has given us, in this book, the context in which he places his views on the Resurrection. It is somewhat of a surprise to the reader that he joins himself quite definitely with those theologians (and in particular the Americans, Hamilton and Van Buren) who are' described as “The Death of God Theologians." The author sees himself as a man of the twentieth century who identifies knowledge with scientific knowledge, and as scientific pronouncements do not admit as subjects for worthwhile investigation: a Super-natural God, miracles, a human soul, a life beyond death, such beliefs must be held to be irrelevant or false. The twentieth century man sees them as false. In the light of this point of view what can be said today about Christianity? It certainly cannot be defined in the same way as it was in years gone by. Today’s Christian must think of his religion in terms of possessing the same faith as Jesus had—a faith which was let loose in the world in the context of the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and the new age. Pro-

fessor Geering says: “The new way pioneered by Israel and consummated by Jesus was not a new religion. It is essentially a way of faith by which a man in whatever generation he lives is summoned by the Word of God to concern himself with the human scene, for this is God's concern—the Christian way transcends religion and spells the end of religion." This faith, it must be explained, includes a sense of freedom by which a man is set free to relieve the needs of people in this world. Byproducts of this sense of freedom are joy and a hope that what one does is the most worthwhile pursuit for

mortal man. This is not an individualistic affair but is corporate and it is still vitally ' necessary for the community of faithful people to proclaim the Bible stories in a de-mythologised form so that the hearer may catch the ■ faith of those who now possess it. Most readers will find ■ it strange to hear the ; new definition of Christianity. ! It would appear that in this definition God is no longer - necessary to assist man who ■ himself has left his child- ’ hood and is mature enough to j accept full responsibility for his life and action. This I means that no requests are! made to God at all for super-1 natural help and indeed the, only place in worship for; prayer would appear to be those prayers of joy and! thanksgiving. What justification does Pro-1 fessor Geering offer for his point of view? He maintains that in the history of religion there has been a battle between the mythological viewpoint of the somewhat primitive man and the more mature judgment which stresses the historical location of God’s activity in history. In the mythological stage man imagines a God as set over against him and there is a continual address being made to God. It was the early Israel that advanced beyond this point of view when it perceived that God was I interested in history and that the truly religious response to God’s acts was to direct oneself to the improvement of economic, political and social concerns. The Prophets and Jesus are agreed on this latter interpretation of religion. In spite of this it did happen in Jewish tradition that men built the Temple and priests carried on a sacrificial religious system. Indeel there were those too in the Christian tradition, particularly so in the Middle Ages, who erected a superstructure in religion by which man approached God for his gracious help. These movements in Judaism and Christianity were perversions of religion. Tragically enough in our own day the perversions still persist. A contemporary man according to Professor Geering will only find his faith and resultant freedom when he abandons the mythological framework as, according to him, it is neither honest nor viable in our present time. In the light of this judgment, what can be said for the Bible? The reader is not to think that therein is contained the revelation of God. Rather it is the locus where man finds his Jesus-like faith and in his faith his freedom. Biblical language is a peculiar language which as the expression of faith has the ability to create faith. It is Jesus then who ushers >n a new age, and for that; age to develop properly man I must find his freedom ■

the faith inaugurated by Jesus. ■ ! As Professor Geering sees lit, this challenge confronts i man: “The extent to which the future history of man will see the new age come more completely rather than witness a calamitous return to the old world depends on the continuing recognition of where this new world came from. It derives from the historically based, de-divinised, world renewing, religionless heritage of Israel, which came to a focal point in the man Jesus. By his Crucifixion and Resurrection, the old world came to an end, and he ushered in the new age, an age which is still in the process of becoming.” There are a number of issues raised by Professor Geering which will precipitate discussion. Let us look at the word “God.” Whilst he does use the word “God” he maintains that we do not know to what the word refers. In his opinion it is necessary to retain the word so that we can be constantly aware of the roots from which modern culture has grown. Implicitly land explicitly he does assert that contemporary Christians must not use the word “God” in the traditional way. It would appear, however, that the removal of the word “God” from the language of the author would make no difference to his position at all, as for him contemporary man has but to stand before “the Christ of Faith” as written in the Gospel to find a new depth to his life which expresses itself in a social activity. Further, there would be many contemporary philosophers of religion who would state that logically Professor Geering’s stress on Jesus “as the key to human destiny” does seem to demand some transcendental reference. Others again would question him as to whether a man of the twentieth century, trained in the scientific discipline, can as a scientist assert that there is one location in history for such supreme significance. Further still, one does find the attack on and demolition of the God of mythology a poor substitute for an attack on the “God” as defined by Christian philosophers of religion. As far as man is concerned we are told by Professor Geering that contemporary man has to accept a new definition of himself. As such he is a psychosomatic being whose basic needs are met by the nutriment of knowledge. Traditional Christianity has said that the need of man is met when he is released from sin. In Professor Geering’s mind it is illumination which sets man free. In this case the illumination is called “faith.” which is rather vaguely distinguished from knowledge. This is as debatable now as it was in the time of the Gnostics. In discussing Jesus we are told that he is not God incarnate but man. Whilst Jesus is the centre of history there is no account given why he should be more central than anybody else except in so far as he effects release in the condition of man. Thus he is described as “the man Jesus.” Professor Geering states that he does not know why it is that Jesus should be the unique source of ' release in the history of manj kind. Such agnosticism is i not convincing. Surely a , description of Jesus must be

given that is shown to be sufficient to account for his effect in subsequent history. The description of the Church as the community of the faithful raises more issues. Here we do not hear any mention of an organised ministry (other than as an accommodation to a secular mould) nor do we hear that the sacraments of the Church are demanded by the Gospel. Rather, he stresses that the Church is the community of the faithful, responsible for the proclamation of the Word. Historically, he contends that the community is a descendant from the Synagogue movement within Judaism and it is a retrograde step for a man of today to see the Church as a reflection of the life of the Temple. Professor Geering maintains that the contemporary church as an organisation must die. He says: “that which is permanent in the Church is not its structure, its doctrinal confessions and its liturgies but its faith and the hope and love associated with it. The more faith becomes a present experience the more we are willing to let the outward forms of past generations die that the living church may show itself for what it is—the community of faith.” It is no surprise to find that for him the Christian hope is centred in this world. Jesus, it is contended, inaugurated an age to come and it was the medieval church which perverted this insight when it interpreted the age to come as the life beyond the grave. Accurate reading of the New Testament, he insists, shows that this is a contradiction of the mind of Jesus. So it is that we find that for Professor Geering Christianity is a “this world” affair which for a man come-of-age demands that in faith and freedom he attacks the wants of this world. There is no place for supernatural grace and no call for miraculous intervention —all is now in the hands of man. From many people reading this book, there will issue forth a cry of joy that the veils that have clothed the mystery of religion have now been lifted offering the observer clear vision of “the Jesus of faith” and an awareness of the definite demands that Christianity makes on him today. On the other hand, there will be those who have followed in the steps of many of the saints down the paths of history and have adored God daily in their prayers and have prayed that His Kingdom would come, and that He would guide the Church. They have trusted too, that this is God’s world in which they are required

to meet the needs of men. As they read this book they will experience sadness when they recognise that the Christianity that they have acclaimed has in the author’s opinion been false and now needs to be abandoned. One does feel that Professor Geering has not really come to terms with the religious experience of this latter group as mythological perversion does not seem to be an adequate description of an asserted acquaintance with God. There is no doubt that Professor Geering’s readers will find themselves grouped into one or other of these two classes. This is a tantalisingly interesting, courageous and honest work. One does not know whether or not it represents a passing phase in theological thought, but there are sufficient adherents to its point of view to demand great attention. One fact is abundantly clear and this is that out of a sympathetic awareness of a world which is fast rejecting the Church, the author offers us a book which is a direct challenge to the thinking and practice of the Church as it is contained in confessional statements and liturgical practices. In the light of this unfortunate relationship between the Church and the world, the author's view of “faith today” will have to be seriously considered by Pastors and people in their several flocks, and judgment made as to whether it is “The Faith Today.”