‘Reconstruction’ Or ‘Destruction’ Of The Christian Faith

Trowel & Sword. Prof. K. Runia. April 1971

Preamble: You have most likely heard the expression: “We live in a fast changing world so we must learn to change with it.” In many areas of our lives this is undoubtedly true. But can the same be said of our beliefs; our theology? We worship an unchanging God who has revealed Himself to us through unchanging scriptures. So why is it that so many want to change or re-interpret what has been known about God through the ages? Ahh, but “modern man” is much more knowledgeable and wiser in these “modern times” than previous generations. NEWSFLASH! Every generation from Adam onward thought of themselves as living in “modern times”. In this article written 50+ years ago, Dr. Runia addresses the issue of the “reconstruction” of Christian doctrines based on the “modern” thinking of the time.

‘Reconstruction’ Or ‘Destruction’ Of The Christian Faith

There is so much confusion in the theological world of today that ordinary church people often are baffled and perplexed and ask themselves: What in the world is going on and where is it all leading to? Recently I read one of the most honest and outspoken statements on modern theology I have seen for a long time. It appeared in an English theological journal and was from the pen of Dr. Hick, professor of systematic theology in the University of Birmingham. He wrote two articles under the heading: ‘The Reconstruction of Christian Belief’.

Right at the beginning of the first article Dr. Hick mentions ten aspects of traditional theology which are, in the opinion of many theologians (including himself), either quite untenable or open to serious doubt. Dr. Hick speaks here of ‘traditional theology’. In reality most of these points are not a matter of ‘theology’, but of clear statements of the Bible itself! Here they follow:

1. There are divinely revealed truths (such as the doctrine of the Trinity, or of the two natures of Christ).

2. God created the physical universe out of nothing n years ago.

3. Man was originally brought into existence as a finitely perfect being, but rebelled against God, and the human condition has ever since been that of creatures who have fallen from grace.

4. Christ came to rescue man from his fallen plight, buying man’s (or some men’s) restoration to grace by his death on the cross.

5. Jesus was born of a virgin mother, without human paternity.

6. He performed miracles in which the regularities of the natural order were suspended by divine power.

7. His dead body rose from the grave and returned to earthly life.

8. All men must respond to God through Jesus Christ in order to be saved.

9. At death a person’s relationship to God is irrevocably fixed.

10. There are two human destinies, traditionally referred to under the symbols of heaven and hell.

This statement is very honest, even for a modern theologian. Most of them are still somewhat cautious, when it comes to a statement of what they no longer believe. Usually they say: We no longer believe it in the old traditional form, but we do believe it in a modern form. Dr. Hick is honest. He openly states: I can’t accept all these things any more.

In the first article he also tells us what he still believes with regard to Christ. “Jesus of Nazareth lived, taught and healed, died and then in some way encountered his followers after his death. In his presence people found themselves also in the presence of God and under the claim to love God and their neighbours”. Even today his person is remembered and “gives rise to a continuing faith-response”. That’s all. It is rather meagre, when one compares it, for instance, with the Apostles’ Creed, which itself is the shortest confession of the catholic (=universal) Christian faith. Dr. Hick’s own ‘creed’ would look somewhat like this:

I believe in God, but He is neither the Father in the trinitarian sense of the word, nor the Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus of Nazareth, but he (with a small letter!) is not the only begotten Son of God.
He performed no miracles (although he did heal a few people).
He suffered and was crucified, but his cross was not the atonement for the sin of the world.
He did not rise on the third day.
He is not the one name given under heaven by which we must be saved but he is one of the many religious leaders in whom we can see something of God.
I believe in the Spirit, but he is not God Himself, but only the power of God.
I believe in the forgiveness of sin and eternal life for all men.
If people do not find God in this life, they will have a second chance after life. At any rate, there is not something like hell.

It is obvious that hardly anything, if anything at all, is left of the Christian faith. 

What is behind it all?

Why does Dr. Hick reject all these aspects of the Christian faith? This is an important question, for it would reveal the deepest motives of the new theology. Of course, one can say: Well, it’s a matter of pure unbelief. I would agree with this. But even so the question remains: Why? Unbelief has its reasons too! In his articles Dr. Hick himself mentions the two main factors that in his opinion bring about the transformation of Christian thought.

(a) The first is contemporary scientific knowledge. Modern science has taught us that the universe and man himself are products of an evolutionary process, a process that can be explained without any recourse to God as the Maker. This does not mean that there is no God, but it does mean that our idea of God’s relationship to the world and to man must change. God did not create the world ‘out of nothing’, nor did He create man in this way, but He made us by way of the evolutionary process. Moreover, He made man as a completely free being who in the way of gradual development must become aware of God. It is along this way that morality and religion have developed.

(b) The second factor is the encounter with the other world religions. In our modern world we have left the religious isolationism of the past behind us and are in increasing contact with other religions. It is no longer possible to regard the Christian faith as the only true faith. All religions are aspects of the religious life of mankind, which is a dynamic continuum, in which from time to time certain major disturbances have set up new fields of force. Thus Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions have arisen. It is impossible to call any of them true or false. They are nothing else than expressions of the diversities of human types and temperaments and thought forms. The great task of today is not to promote just one of them, but to construct theologies based upon the fullness of man’s religious awareness. 

A swing-back to Liberalism.

It is clear that this whole new theology is a full-cycle return to the old, 19th century liberalism. Again the starting point is man’s own religious experience instead of God’s revelation.

This experience is on the one hand limited by the discoveries of modern science. When modern science tells us that the universe is autonomous, that is, ruled by its own laws, then we must reject the whole idea of miracles, including not only the miracles which Jesus Himself performed according to the Gospels, but also the miracles in his own life (the Incarnation itself, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and the Ascension). This will always be the result when so-called ‘pure’ science becomes the yardstick of revelation. The Bible will be submitted to an endless process of reduction and the final result will be that nothing is left of the Christian faith, apart from a few generalities.

On the other hand, the human religious experience has to include ALL world religions. They are all, each in its own way, expressions of man’s religious experience. The differences can be explained largely on psychological grounds. People in the East happen to be different from those in the West. And even within each group there are differences. Some represent the more optimistic, once-born type; others represent the more pessimistic twice-born type. In other words, psychology determines the truth of religion and the result is an endless process of relativism. All religions are equally valid.

The two articles of Dr. Hick are quite revealing in their frankness. They are also flashing red lights. They show us what will happen, once we accept other standards next to the Bible. As soon as we do this, these other standards begin to dominate and after a while they ‘devour’ the Christian Gospel.

Dr. Hick gave his articles the title: ‘The Reconstruction of Christian Belief’. It would certainly have been more to the point if he had called them: ‘The Destruction of the Christian Faith’. For this is what really happens. In this kind of theology Jesus Christ, the Saviour, disappears in the thick, impenetrable fog of human scientism and relativism, and man is left to himself and to his own ideas.

K. RUNIA

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com