Divinity Atlas

Sacred Correspondences
Articles

Four Theologians, One Headline

Citation Formats

General Reference

APA Style

BibTeX

Learn More
Four Theologians, One Headline

Journalists in the mid 1960s gathered four American Protestant theologians under one label, death of god theology, and the label has stuck ever since, but the four did not agree with one another and some resisted the label outright. Thomas J. J. Altizer's position was the most metaphysically committed: God, in the Incarnation and above all the Crucifixion, poured himself wholly and irreversibly into the world, so that the transcendent God of classical theism no longer exists anywhere to be found, having become fully identical with a sacred, ever changing historical process. William Hamilton's position was narrower and more experiential: he did not claim to know whether God exists in himself, only that God had, as a matter of the modern believer's actual experience, stopped being a live possibility one could pray to or wait on, so that Christian ethics had to proceed as action in the world without that expectation.

Gabriel Vahanian, whose 1961 book gave the movement its name, is regularly misread as a member of this same camp, but his actual claim was different again and considerably more conservative: not that God had died in any sense, but that a secularized modern culture had made God irrelevant to it, a diagnosis of Western culture rather than a constructive theology of God's nonexistence, and Vahanian himself objected to being grouped with Altizer's far more radical claim. Paul van Buren pursued a fourth, largely separate project, restating Christian ethical language in the empiricist terms of contemporary secular language philosophy without asserting or denying anything about a transcendent God at all. Treating the four as a single school states the media reception of the 1960s accurately and states the theology inaccurately.

Cross-Tradition Connections

Article On

Sources
Encyclopedia of Religion
Mircea Eliade (ed.); Lindsay Jones (ed., 2nd ed.), Macmillan Reference, 2005View the Source
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.

View At A Past Year

The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.