31 Bonhoeffer did not survive to provide the answer to his own question

It may be helpful to trace some of the inherent problems through the attempt of one writer to find such a non-religious interpretation. Paul van Buren is here taken as an example. Whilst he is by no means typical as a theologian in this field, the method adopted and the

conclusions reached seem to typify some of the problems involved in the attempt to speak of God in a secular age.

Van Buren's most influential work is probably The Secular Meaning 32

of the Gospel • Although some of the implications of this book have resulted in van Buren being classed with the 'death of God' theologians, it would seem that he should not be identified with that school, despite

33

the fact that he shares some of its premises . The fundamental question to which van Buren addresses himself is,

'How mpthy a Christian who is himself a secular man understand the Gospel in a secular way?'34-

Following the method of linguistic analysis, and focussing especially

30 ibid., p.Bl.

31 Bonhoeffer's own solution was essentially a personal one, that of the following of an 'Arkansdisciplin' or 'discipline of secrecy', this has been taken to mean a reluctance to use certain forms of language and religious practices. (Nicholls, W., Systematic and Philosophical Theology, Penguin, 1969, pp.221-3»)

32 van Buren, P., The Secular Meaning of the Gospel, S.C.M., 1963. 33 of. Nicholls, W ., op.cit., p.326.

—

82

on questions of the understanding of the Gospel, he reaches the conclusion that Christianity,

This is based on the Gospel, which,

35- Comment of van Buren in Mehta, V., The New Theologian, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965, p.55-

36 van Buren, P., op.cit., p.138. 37 Nicholls, W., op.cit., p.326. 38 van Buren, P., op.cit., p.139-

is fundamentally about man, that its language about | God is one way, a dated way, among a number of ways,

of saying what it is Christianity wants to say about 4 man and human life and human history.'35

The fact that van Buren does not fully clarify his position with 4 regard to the question of God, and spends the latter half of his book

discussing Jesus as 'the free man who set other men free'^^, is

indicative of the persistence of the problem of discussion of the % divine. Thus, for van Buren, God becomes a

I 'symbol for the absoluteness of the Christian's commitment

to a new perspective on the world, drawn from his vision of Christ. '37

'claims that in the history of Jesus of Nazareth something universal, eternal, absolute, something it calls 'God' was manifested.'3&

Some of the problems of such an approach are already evident. It is not clear whether the use of the sort of philosophy van Buren favours necessarily leads to dispensing with talk about God, or merely to a reduction in the 'content' of the term. Whichever of these may be the implication, both highlight the problem of this kind of attempt at 'translation' into secular terminology, for once the traditional

83

conceptual framework is dispensed with, then few guidelines for such translation remain. This links closely with a second problem, for the activity may not be one of translation, but of negation. Thus,

'what began apparently as a fresh analysis of the Christian faith rapidly turns into fresh proposals for its content.'39 van Buren's aim, an aim shared by many, was to understand and interpret the Gospel in secular terms, and thus, by attempting to overcome some of the problems of speaking of God in a secular age, the concern becomes one of 'secularising theology'. But van Buren has also been criticised

for having no 'theology of the s e c u l a r a n d this criticism would appear to be valid, especially in view of the importance (discussed

41 \

earlier } of maintaining the integrity and identity of the the secular. Whilst it might be argued that theology as such is redundant in this

context, it seems that there would at least be value in some more thorough definition of 'the secular'. In the absence of this, the danger of negation, mentioned above, is all the more real. Such an approach contrasts sharply with Bonhoeffer's position in that, despite

4-2

his 'etsi deus non daretur' , his letters never hinted at such negation, Having discussed some of the questions involved in the various attempts to speak of God in a secular age, the second alternative must now be considered. This is a matter of 'content' rather than of

'translation'. It is not a question of the feasibility of translating the ideas of religion into terms which 'secular man' can understand.

39 Nicholls, W., op.cit., p.323- Such fresh proposals for the content are probably most clearly seen in van Buren's treatment of the Easter event (cf. van Buren, pp.126-34-).

4-0 Mascall, E., The Secularization of Christianity, Barton, Longman and Todd, I968, p.44-.

4-1 ch.3.

4

84 -

but of whether these concepts in themselves have any meaning in the contemporary situation. This question is fundamental to the concept of secularization, viewed as the problem of meaning in the absence

4-3

of the supernatural . Although this may be seen as lying at the heart of the whole secularization issue, there is little agreement

44