Mascall, in this chapter, opens by evaluating the work of liberal theologian John A.T. Robinson's work Honest to God. We have already been introduced to some of Robinson's weird views, and have already noted him as being an extremely liberal Anglican, in direct opposition on a lot of issues with Mascall, who tends to be more of an Anglo-Catholic traditionalist. Mascall notes on page 40 that three adjectives come to mind in describing Robinson's work - "secularist," "demythologizing," and "existentialist." Mascall notes also that Robinson and many who hold similar views write in ways that are often self-contradictory. To insert my personal observation on this, the reason that happens is because the Judeo-Christian worldview and that of the secularist are diametrically opposed, and when someone tries to be both, it creates a conflict that leads to many self-contradictions couched in the language of self-justification. We are seeing it again in recent years among what once were considered conservative Evangelicals such as Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, both of whom try to call themselves "Christian atheists," and also Frank Schaeffer (son of renown Protestant theologian Francis A. Schaeffer), who at one time was conservative (he was also a convert to the Orthodox Church in the early 1990's, but did so more with an axe to grind rather than a real conversion experience, as his fruit demonstrates later) but now identifies as an "atheist who believes in God." Much like Robinson and many earlier elites, Schaeffer, McLaren, and Bell (among many others!) are using self-justification to make self-contradictory statements. Robinson is referenced in response to another liberal theologian named Paul M. van Buren (1924-1998), whom we'll examine more in-depth now.
Paul M. van Buren (1924-1998)
Dr. van Buren was, like Robinson and Mascall, an Anglican who was a theologian and author that taught at Temple University for close to 22 years. He was a self-styled proponent of "secular Christianity" who studied under Karl Barth, and of interest as well was that he was married to Armenian-American art scholar Anne Hagopian (1927-2008). This means that in all practical applications van Buren was a glorified atheist. Mascall, on page 41, takes the opportunity to note what van Buren means by "secularism": he defines it as "a loose designation of the reation to the Idealism of the last century," and that "both modern so-called Biblical theology and modern so-called analytic philosophey are responses to secularism," both quotes of which Mascall references from van Buren's book The Secular Meaning of the Gospel, which he authored in 1963. Mascall makes a few observations of his own on this, noting that the verbiage van Buren utilizes could be taken both positive and negative; however secularism is understood, in other words, Biblical theology and analytical philosophy are allied reactions against it. This now bears a couple of my own observations before moving forward.
Van Buren's views as stated are neither original nor novel, as this drivel has been heard before. It goes back to William of Ockham, who in rejecting universals and advancing nominalism denied that absolute truth existed, but rather was only "names," much as van Buren would say "so-called Biblical theology." This in turn reflected the earlier Averroist approach that natural reason is superior to revelation - therefore, if taken according to van Buren, it creates a reaction and conflict from Revelation against reason, a false division that only early Averroist philosophers advanced. This then leads to Marsilus of Padua's assertion that the "greatest good" could be divorced totally from divine Revelation, and in doing so a secularist, temporal "good" was desirable to a supernatural anagogical outlook, and thus those like Marsilus subjugated Biblical scholarship then to civil power (Wiker and Hahn, Politicizing the Bible, pp. 25-27, 51). This subjugation would inevitably provoke the reaction van Buren talked about, and thus the reaction was seen by those like van Buren as negative, and that is the way he should be understood (as Mascall does) when his words are read. In other words, a traditional faith then would be seen in opposition to and a reaction against the "progress" of secularism, and for the theologian or philosopher this meant redefining what they understood in line with the secular march of progress. Here is the problem however - God is rightly seen by the Christian as the originator of both the natural and supernatural order, and thus God has established certain standards which are indeed universal to all humanity. Morality, as well as looking beyond oneself to something greater, is an integral part of the human identity, and thus any attempt to divorce that will come up incomplete and short. And, for a theologian or Biblical scholar to propose conformity of religion and Biblical hermeneutics to secularism is unthinkable. We see this type of thinking couched in "conservative" language by people such as Merold Westphal (born 1940) who outrightly (and also incorrectly) notes that tradition is "fallible," and he is not talking about the "traditions of men" either that are condemned in Scripture! In his book Whose Community? Which Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), Westphal asserts that tradition is inherent with what he calls "prejudices," with some being "true prejudices" that are legitimate and enabling, and some being "false prejudices" which are illegitimate and misleading. The former are understood, according to Westphal, while the latter are misunderstood. All tradition - in particular the "prejudices" incubated by it - is necessarily subject to revision and replacement, in Westphal's view (Westphal, pp. 75-76). There is an inherent problem with this from the standpoint of the Catholic Christian - essentially, if one follows Westphal's reasoning, then any aspect of Tradition is open to being labeled as a "prejudice" and thus is subject to the arbitrary whims of its possessor to be revised and replaced, and this means that even long-held truths cannot escape this process. This is the root problem with secularization too - many traditional "prejudices" are seen by the secularist as in need of either revision or replacement, and thus they are radically redefined to fit into the secularist scheme. Taking a loose and arbitrary role like this when it comes to doctrine and the Deposit of Faith is dangerous, and it is an inherent problem in modern society too. We see how bizarre and insane this can get just by looking at what the phenomenon of "political correctness" has impacted; some fairly concrete and indisputable (and tangible!) things such as gender, race, and even the idea of marriage have now arbitrarily been revised and replaced based on a mentality like Westphal proposes in which gender is seen essentially as a "prejudice" in need of revision - now if a man feels like a woman, he becomes one. Or, if a White person thinks they are Black, then they are. The fact that anatomy and physiology say otherwise is now irrelevant - anatomy and physiology have become in essence understood (or "true") prejudices that need revision. And, unfortunately this is the end result of Ockham, van Buren, and Westphal when their rationalizations and proposals are fully realized. And, it also shows the catastrophic impact that unchecked secularism can have on both Church and society.
A notable contrast to the thought of van Buren is noted in Mascall's text using the example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945). In making a point, a quote on page 41 of Mascall's text of Bonhoeffer asserts that God himself drives us to the realization that man can exist without him. As Mascall notes, Bonhoeffer (who was martyred by the Nazis) may have on one hand been feeling an abandonment by God, similar to Job in the Bible, and that would be only natural and should not therefore be taken at face value. As Mascall points out on page 42 however, the absurdity of taking this statement out of context or at face value is dishonest, in that man cannot believe in God and then live as if he doesn't exist (especially in Bonhoeffer's situation in a dank Nazi prison). When Bonhoeffer was facing certain death in a Nazi prison, for instance, it would be my assertion that his humanity was trying to come to terms with the fact God exists yet allows something like his situation to happen, and it is also my assertion that Bonhoeffer was sorting out his thoughts as he was writing. Bonhoeffer was by no means a conservative theologian in the same sense as Francis Schaeffer, but at the same time adversity does tend to make one come face-to-face with his own condition, and this is what I believe Bonhoeffer was doing. To take those words at face value then, as van Buren seems to be doing and as other liberal theologians have done since, makes absolutely no sense in light of the context of Bonhoeffer's overall situation. The fact that Bonhoeffer died for his convictions speaks volumes in that regard, and it is very possible that any inhibitions he may have had in his own theology were quickly realized and addressed as his fate became more real - he possibly even may have had some conversion experience that may not have been documented. I actually have a copy of Bonhoeffer's book Ethics, which was a text in a Theology of Ethics course I had back in 2012, and it merits a re-read for a study such as this, and perhaps more can be reflected upon it later. Sufficive to say, the Christian faith cannot be lived inconsistently, in that one must live what one professes, and it is the natural fruit of action following confession, especially to the devout believer.
Mascall then makes an excellent and brilliant observation of what Bonhoeffer was really saying - Bonhoeffer's words can be also interpreted as meaning that God tells us at times that we must live at times without any consciousness of His presence; we know He is there, but just don't know where. This actually makes perfect sense in that context in that it affirms what Scripture tells us in Hebrews 11:1 when it defines faith as being "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The point Mascall is making here, I think, is that the secularized theologian like van Buren is either dismissing or missing totally the one catalytic element in the whole equation - faith! Faith for us is often lived in mystery - we know certain things, but are often unable to tangibly point to them or articulate them. Things such as the Sacraments, the Incarnation of Christ Himself, etc. These are things we know and believe to be true, yet they transcend human reason and therefore they are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry - they are the realm of the metaphysical rather than the physical. However, though they are beyond reach of human understanding and scientific inquiry, it doesn't make them any less real; science cannot explain everything, in other words, and there are some areas where the scientific method just doesn't apply. For the secularist, this is difficult to grasp, in that reason for them has to determine everything, and therefore faith is irrelevant. However, this is not the teaching of the Church - in Christian theology, faith and reason are complementary, not contradictory, and the purpose of both has their origins in God, who made both. Aquinas taught this extensively, and therefore it presents the Christian with a fuller worldview that also provides explanation for the seemingly inexplicable. The secularist misses this, in that everything for the secularist must be defined by naturalism and reason, and faith for the secularist is beyond reason and thus somehow must be in conflict with it. And, with an Averroist understanding of faith being subordinate to reason, the secularist then would say that faith therefore doesn't necessarily exist, in that it is merely a reaction against change and must be "revised" or "replaced" in order to make sense. This is not in line with traditional Christian teaching however, in that faith and reason both have as their source God, and therefore neither contradicts the other. Once this basic understanding is reached, then faith no longer is a problem, and it works with reason.
This discussion will pick up next time, as the secularization of society will be seen as it impacts segments of Christianity, and the catastrophic consequences of that impact will be examined in the future as we continue this discussion.
