402 - Theological Table-Talk

Theological Table-Talk
By John H. Hick

"THE DESTRUCTION THAT WASTETH AT NOONDAY"

Since Russia became a nuclear power, Western strategists have relied upon the "balance of terror" to ensure peace. This situation of mutual deterrence now appears to have reached a state of relative stability. For the United States claims, and the claim is entirely credible, to have achieved a major second-strike capacity. (Speech of Secretary of Defense McNamara at the University of Michigan, June 16, 1962.) Our missile bases, it is implied, are so numerous, dispersed, and "hardened" that enough of them would survive a nuclear attack upon them to be able to hit back with massive effect. This development removes from Russia any temptation to launch a surprise attack.

Furthermore, Russia, with much greater spaces in which to hide her bases, presumably also has a second-strike capacity, so that neither side need now fear surprise attack from the other, at least so far as rational considerations may be presumed to govern men's actions. We are consequently now in a period of "stable deterrence." This is a rather safer situation, paradoxically, than when the rival weapons systems were technically less advanced.

This deadlock has not only shielded Western civilization from the threat of war, it has also been used to shield the Christian conscience in the West from the moral and religious problem of war. Deterrence has been used to justify a vast forgetfulness of what is perhaps the most baffling and agonizing moral dilemma ever to have confronted Christendom. Among the first to throw off this ethical amnesia has been Dean John C. Bennett of Union Theological Seminary, whose combination of a persistently sensitive Christian conscience with tough-minded political wisdom makes him a key figure in the Churches' grappling with this intractable problem. Bennett, who has been probing the issue for several years, has now edited a volume of top quality essays (by John Herz, David Inglis,

403 - Theological Table-Talk

Kenneth Thompson, Erich Fromm, Paul Ramsey, Roger Shinn, and himself), under the title of Nuclear Weapons and the Conflict of Conscience (Scribner's, $3.95), which breaks open the frail moral bomb-shelter in which the Christian conscience has so long hidden.

For nothing could be more dangerous, spiritually or politically, than to rest content in our brief haven of "stable deterrence." This would be like the optimism of the man who fell from the top of a skyscraper and was heard to remark as he passed a sixth floor window, "All right so far." The present deadlock, unless broken, may prove to have been the last moment of stability before disaster. This may well be our civilization's final chance to escape from the policies of the conventional wisdom, which have served mankind for centuries but which can only spell suicide in the radically changed circumstances of the nuclear age.

Several of the essays in this book make it clear that "stable deterrence," while it will give us a breathing space, cannot possibly solve the long-term problem. It makes war less likely this year or next or perhaps during the next five years. But war remains very likely indeed within ten or twenty years if no more radical solution is found than mutual Russo-American deterrence. There will always be the possibility of a fatal error, whether human or mechanical, plunging the nations into an unintended war. There will always be the fear of some new technical break-through, in offense or defense, that would upset the delicate balance of power by giving one side a major advantage. Further, within a few years the "nth nation problem" will have materialized. France and China will be independent nuclear powers. Other countries will follow. Each decade must increase this dangerous dispersal, thereby multiplying the likelihood of war by mischance and adding new possibilities of local conflicts erupting into a nuclear armageddon. There will also be the possibility of "catalytic war" in which an unidentified attacker (operating perhaps from nuclear submarines) precipitates the mutual destruction of two other powers. In any of these eventualities the rate of human destruction is likely to be about a million deaths per megaton. Beyond this the massive radioactive fallout, affecting many future generations, may taper out the human race as we now know it.

The pores of our minds close automatically against any concrete visualization of nuclear war. And yet systematically to exclude

404 - Theological Table-Talk

avoidable dangers from attention is a form of insanity. We do well to read from time to time responsible descriptions such as are provided in this book by Dr. David R. Inglis, one of the physicists who helped to develop the first atomic bomb:

The grim combination of an enormously powerful blast crushing buildings and the thermal radiation setting them afire after they have been reduced to tinder constitutes the most serious threat. For a one-megaton bomb, the crushing effect of the blast reaches three or four miles (three for brick apartments and four for frame houses), and for a large H-bomb, one of ten megatons, this range is seven to nine miles. Almost everyone caught within this radius (all but perhaps a few near the edges) will be killed either by the collapse of buildings or by suffocation in the subsequent firestorm. When many buildings are set afire simultaneously throughout a large area in which the buildings are close together, as they are in cities, the result is like a gigantic bonfire. The rising column of hot air at the center makes a strong wind blowing inward which whips up the flames and spreads them from house to house, until everything is ablaze in a searing heat and there is no air to breathe. . . .

Perhaps we should think of the suffering of a single person, like Joan of Arc, burned at the stake. Then we should think of hundreds of thousands of people being burned to death, some trapped under fallen timbers, some immobilized by broken bones, some simply surrounded by flames with nowhere to go. Perhaps we should think of hundreds of thousands crouched in the corners of suburban basements, knowing of loved ones downtown who would never return, wondering about other loved ones perhaps crouched in other cellars but out of reach because of the radiation from fallout, wondering whether the radiation is mounting up to a harmful dose, living without electricity or heat or sanitary facilities and rationing the water from the water-heater tank to drink, wondering if there will be food when it will be safe to go out weeks later. Perhaps we should think of the injured-casualties from flying glass or skin burns, with skin peeling off and no one to bring help. If we are callous enough to dismiss all of this with the thought that it is the lot of humanity to suffer, then we may perhaps consider the greatest loss of all to be the loss of the facilities and the organization for higher thought and joyous living, the termination of institutions of culture and civilized copperation which have been centuries a building and which can probably never be resurrected if the bomb we have been speaking of is one of many bombs in a general war.

The essays in this book do not offer clear solutions. Their primary purpose is evidently to stir up the widespread discussion within

405 - Theological Table-Talk

the Churches which is so long overdue. Bennett, in his own contribution, sets forth three theses for discussion. (1) "We must not deceive ourselves into believing that we could ever justify the use of megaton bombs for massive attacks on the centers of population of another country no matter what the provocation" (p. 101). That is to say, we may not retaliate against an attack upon our own cities with an attack upon Russia's cities; if we ever launch nuclear weapons they must be deployed according to a strict counterforces strategy. Bennett acknowledges that for Christians to say this publicly can be criticized as weakening the credibility of our country's own deterrent posture, but he maintains that we touch here the bedrock of moral reality, on which the Christian conscience cannot compromise. Here is a major thesis for debate within the Churches. (2) "We need to take more seriously than we do the effect of large-scale nuclear war on the quality of life in the surviving community" (p. 105). We are told by such writers as Herman Kahn that a nation might survive a nuclear war and continue, though greatly diminished in size, to live a tolerable life. Bennett raises disturbing questions about this optimistic view, questions which should be pondered by all who are willing to think about the problem. (3) "My third consideration is the effect of the continued and uncontrolled arms race upon our society even if there is no large scale nuclear war" (p. 109). Here he emphasizes the grave dangers inherent in the development of a garrison state increasingly controlled by a military-industrial establishment. This is a matter which should be of the most urgent concern to the Christian.

There could be no more important book for discussion groups throughout the Church this coming winter.

THE NEGLECTED THEOLOGIAN OF YOUR CHOICE

An interesting series of articles might be launched in one of our theological journals if different writers were invited to make a "plug" for relatively neglected religious thinkers of whose wisdom they believe we stand in need today. If I were asked to contribute to such a series, I should find it hard to choose between two recent theologians, the Presbyterian John Oman and the lay Roman Catholic

406 - Theological Table-Talk

Baron Friedrich von Hugel. Let me say a word here about the former.

Oman was probably the most original British theologian in the first half of the twentieth century. He did work of major importance both in the philosophy of religion (especially in The Natural and the Supernatural, 1931) and in the field of Christian doctrine (especially in Grace and Personality, 1917, this latter having recently been made available in paperbacks by Collins of London and Association Press of New York). This book has been described by H. H. Farmer as "a major theological classic which combines in unique degree profound theological thinking with spiritual and religious power." It is a book which has illumined the entire religious outlook of many readers by its complete intellectual honesty and its teaching that religious truth claims to be accepted only because it irresistibly impresses our minds as true, and that God seeks our trust only by showing himself to be trustworthy.

Oman was the first (followed later by Buber, Heim, Brunner, and others) to treat as a normative principle of his theology the insight that God is the supremely personal reality, that his dealings with man take place in the personal realm, and that the great central Christian terms-revelation, faith, grace, sin, reconciliation-are to be understood as part of the language of personal relationship and are perverted when construed in non-personal ways. Grace and Personality is a book rich in the large vistas of religious insight, rich in intellectual excitement, and rich also as a quarry for fresh sermon ideas!

THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION TODAY

A book which has long been looking for an author, or rather for an editor and a suitable group of contributors, is a study of theological discussion. It requires for its production not only one or more theologians, but also a Church historian, a psychologist, and a sociologist. It would study the methods of theological discussion which have been developed in the past; the role of discussion both in the teaching and in the advancement of theology; helpful and unhelpful character traits; psychological techniques developed in connection with group dynamics; external factors which stimulate or inhibit good discussion; the experiences of the various existing

407 - Theological Table-Talk

organized theological discussion groups; and would offer whatever conclusions and suggestions seem called for. The book's basic purpose would be to promote the practice and to elevate the standards of contemporary theological discussion.

The natural forums for theological discussion are the centers of theological education and the various occasions on which ministers congregate together. But in most of these settings far too little theological discussion takes place, and of that which does take place not all is profitable. The hearing of a theological paper, followed by a series of separate comments and a brief reply to each from the reader of the paper, does not count as discussion except of a rudimentary kind. Neither does a theological argument between people each of whom would regard it as a personal defeat to change his mind on the subject in hand. Discussion does not easily take place when those present are too numerous, too self-opinionated, too defensive, too unequal in status, too verbose, or too tired. It presupposes an over-riding desire for truth, sufficient time, and a group of people capable of both mutual respect and individual self-discipline.

The medieval theologians developed a very effective technique for discussion in their formal disputations. Disputant A put forward a definite and clearly stated thesis to which disputant B undertook to object, at least as initially formulated. A propounded a syllogistic argument in support of his thesis. B then challenged either the major or the minor premise of the argument. A now made a distinguo: he distinguished between two senses of his premise, or of a key term in it, such that the objection could be seen to hold against one but not against the other. This was followed by a second round of challenge and reformulation based on a further distinction; and so the disputation proceeded.

I do not suggest that we adopt this method in detail, based as it is upon the too rigid and restricted Aristotelian logic. But we might do well to seek other ways of embodying at least two of the virtues of the old disputations.

First, they kept discussion to the point, free from digressions and from free-wheeling changes of direction. The highly formalized procedure had no place for irrelevancies and did not provide for changing the subject when it became complicated or difficult. Without the aid of such a rigorously self-policing procedure, we today have to keep to the point by our own efforts. Perhaps this

408 - Theological Table-Talk

would be aided by centering a discussion upon a definite thesis, which undergoes a series of deliberate reformulations under the impact of criticism.

Second, the disputation method lent itself to the investigation of tentative hypotheses. It could be practiced with a certain detachment in order to try out new ideas. For a formal disputation, governed by its strict procedures, has something in common with a game with its own rules. This aspect of the method can, I would surmise, release the mind from prejudices and preconceptions and free it to follow the argument wherever it leads. This is a different frame of mind from that of the mortal combat in which a man conceives his theological existence to be at stake. There are, of course, moments when mortal combat must be joined; but only rarely, and only after the issues have been very fully explored and defined. It is this earlier stage of theological work that might be aided by a more rigorous method. It would be interesting to rework, for example, the famous Barth-Brunner controversy about revelation in the form of a medieval disputation in which terms and theses are precisely defined and rhetoric has no place!

AN AMERICAN THEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION?

A number of people have been wondering whether there should be an association of theological teachers-or more widely of teachers in the field of religion-parallel to the American Philosophical Association. All accredited teachers of philosophy are eligible for membership in the A.P.A. in its Eastern, Western, or Pacific divisions. Even the most isolated, staffing a one-man department in a relatively small institution, has open to him the stimulus, academic forum, and other benefits of a national professional association. But the majority of religion teachers have no such common affiliation.

The American Theological Society, the three Hazen discussion groups, Duodecim, the Biblical Theologians, and any other such bodies that there may be, are all restricted in membership. The only open association in the field is the National Association of Biblical Instructors, which has in fact come to deal with a rather wider range of topics than its name suggests. Assuming that a general theological association is needed, one way of bringing it into being

409 - Theological Table-Talk

might be for the N.A.B.I. to consider expanding its scope still further, possibly taking a new name to indicate the larger function which it would then be undertaking to fulfill. A development of this kind is advocated in the recent July issue of the N.A.B.I.'s Journal of Bible and Religion.

Another possible way might be for one of the restricted groups, such as the A.T.S., to sponsor a new national association, seeking the support of an interested foundation to enable it to do this.

Still another plan, which the Editor of this journal ventured to suggest some time ago, was for THEOLOGY TODAY to inaugurate and sponsor a new theological society open not only to professionals but to anyone interested. When the idea was broached at the last Editorial Council meeting, the present writer was one of a very few who favored the project; others thought it a duplication of existing groups, and some questioned the value of any such group at all.

Anyone interested in any or all of these suggestions is invited to express his opinions by writing to THEOLOGY TODAY, Box 29, Princeton, N. J.

RESPONSIBLE TOLERATION IN PRESBYTERIANISM

The present writer has recently been involved in a theological discussion which was not of the creative kind called for in a previous section of this Table-Talk. It was a discussion whether, as one who does not affirm (or deny) the doctrine of the virgin birth, he could become a member of a presbytery of The United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

In one respect this was, but in another respect it was not, a reliving of "old, unhappy, far-off things, and battles long ago"; and any general interest that it may have lies precisely in the transformation which it registers in the ecclesiastical situation of the 1960's as compared with the 1920's. On the one hand, the doctrine involved was that around which centered the much greater and more heated controversies of a generation ago. On the other hand, the recent disagreement was by no means an old-style conservative-liberal battle. The minister whose presbytery membership was in question stands in the middle, rather than to the left, of the contemporary theological spectrum-a spectrum which has of course itself shifted in the course of thirty years. His reception was moved and seconded by

410 - Theological Table-Talk

two of the most conservative as well as respected members of the presbytery, in whose personal faith the virgin birth plays an essential part, but who were motivated by a large-minded concern for the peace and unity of the Church to avoid a fruitless repetition of the strife of a generation ago. They were supported by the large majority of a presbytery which is traditionally rather more conservative than otherwise. Those opposed consisted of a small group who conscientiously objected to the degree of comprehensiveness and mutual toleration which has prevailed in the Church for the last three decades and which the General Assembly has now this year reaffirmed.

The facts of the case are as follows. (1) A minister sought to transfer his membership from the Presbyterian Church of England to the Presbytery of New Brunswick, New Jersey. In response to the challenge to declare anything in the Westminster Confession to which he took exception, he mentioned, inter alia, the doctrine of the virgin birth. After prolonged discussion from the floor, and a strong affirmative vote, he was duly received as a member of presbytery. (2) A complaint against the presbytery's action, in the name of the Rev. J. Clyde Henry et al., was in due course filed with and heard by the judicial Commission of the Synod of New Jersey and was sustained on the ground that the doctrine of the virgin birth is integral to the system of doctrine which a Presbyterian minister receives at ordination; and that a presbytery is accordingly not permitted, under the Constitution of the Church, to ordain or admit one who fails positively to affirm this doctrine-even though (as in the present case) he also does not deny it. (3) A complaint against this action of the synod, in the name of the Rev. Benjamin J. Anderson et al., was heard by the Judicial Commission of the General Assembly in session at Denver last May, and was sustained, the decision of the synod being reversed and the original action of the Presbytery of New Brunswick upheld.

The issue which was thus brought to the General Assembly was a constitutional one, lying in that branch of the law of the Church which deals with the doctrinal professions of ministers. The difference of interpretation between the two parties was clearly defined. The synod's judicial Commission pointed to statements and actions of General Assemblies between the years 1910 and 1925 which named the doctrine of the virgin birth as "essential and nec-

411 - Theological Table-Talk

essary" to the system of Presbyterian doctrine, and it claimed that those pronouncements were still in force. The other side pointed to the work of the Special Commission appointed by the Assembly of 1925, whose Report was unanimously adopted by the Assembly of 1927. That Commission's task was to try to resolve deep differences and bitter controversies arising out of those same actions of 1910 to 1925 upon which the synod relied. In its findings the Commission discountenanced the designating of specified doctrines as essential and necessary, and placed upon each local presbytery the responsibility for forming its own judgment under the Constitution regarding the theological qualifications of any seeking to become ministers within its bounds. It was argued that the Assembly action of 1927, adopting the Commission's report, superseded the older actions and has been fruitful in securing the peace of the Church during the years which have followed. In endorsing and applying this view, the General Assembly of 1962 recalled the statement of the Special Commission that, "The principle of toleration when rightly conceived and frankly and fairly applied is as truly a part of our constitution as are any of the doctrines stated in that instrument."

In view of the high respect which both parties have always shown for the authority of the General Assembly it can be presumed that the particular issue which occasioned the recent dispute is now closed. There has throughout been a mutual respect and a happy absence of personal ill-feeling among those involved in the proceedings. There have been no irresponsible charges and countercharges of heresy or schism. It is now to be hoped that any who still disapprove of the Church's position will nevertheless find grace to accept it as a fact, and that those who welcome this fresh constitutional clarification will find grace to value the continued fellowship of those from whom they have regretfully been divided.