1965. Review of Maker of Heaven and Earth by Langdon Gilkey, The Presbyterian Journal. 6 Sep. 1: pg. 22.
MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, by Langdon Gilkey. Doubleday &
Company, Inc., Garden City, N. Y. Paper, 378 pp. $1.45. Reviewed by Gordon H. Clark,
Professor of Philosophy, Butler University, Indianapolis, Ind.
In this book the author, rejecting the first chapters of Genesis
as "fables and nothing else," makes a sustained attempt "to reinterpret
the idea of creation so that it is not just an irrelevant dogma inherited from a
prescientific and prehistorical past, but a symbol which points to the profoundest
understanding… of human life."
His reinterpretation follows the currently popular mythological
view of theology. The Bible is not revelation, but a witness to revelation. Revelation
itself cannot be put into literal, unambiguous words, but can only be expressed
in analogies, paradoxes, and myths. "All positive language about God is analogical
and symbolic." Quoting Anthony Flew with approval, Dr. Gilkey asserts,
"That the heavens were created by the word of God is not a piece of literal
theory."
To continue, "Revelation and religious truth concern God
and his relation to the world . . . They do not impart 'facts' about (the world)...
We are certain that valid information about the observable facts of the sensible
world is derived only from scientific inquiry, not from religious faith . . . Knowledge
that the universe began at a moment, since it is a cosmological fact about the universe
and not a theological affirmation about God, cannot be a part of religious truth."
After 300 pages of this the author blandly asserts, "In
the preceding chapters we have tried to under- stand the meaning of the Christian
doctrine of creation." In fact, he frequently assures the reader that his theory
embodies the real meaning of Christianity. If so, Calvin, Luther, Augustine, and
even the Apostle Paul did not know very much about Christianity.
Now, the great difficulty with the atempt to reduce Christianity
to mythology is that no intelligible meaning remains. If all religious language
is analogical and symbolic, we never know anything about the alleged reality to
which it points. The very idea of pointing itself becomes
unintelligible.
Dr. Gilkey tries to meet this objection. Though the theory of "mythological language
. . . deliberately denies this language is to be interpreted literally"; though
"like the symbol of the Fall, creation has no inherent and original factual
content"; and though "we can never regard personal symbols about God as
literally applicable"; still there is a direct, unsymbolic knowledge of God.
It is not to be found in any metaphysical term like Pure Being, or First Cause,
for metaphysical terms such as these are only indirect symbols. Nor is this direct
knowledge found in the terms Creator and Lord, for "It is only by analogy and
paradox, not by literal language, that we can speak of God as our Creator and Lord."
No, God is known directly and unsymbolically as holy love in
Christ. Even so, "In Christ, God is not known as He is in Himself." But
"all who receive Him in faith can now experience and know with overwhelming
immediacy the nature of God as holy love . . . Thus the personal recreative love
of God in Christ, not the ontological power of God in general existence, is the
one unsymbolic and direct idea of God that Christians possess."
Strange, is it not, that if metaphysical being and cause are
symbolic, if Creator and Lord are only analogical, and if "we can never regard
personal symbols about God as literally applicable," the term love is unsymbolic
and direct! This unsatisfactory and inconsistent defense of the theory leaves us
with the conclusion that mythological theology is mythological.
No comments:
Post a Comment