For I am convinced that there is a gap between the traditional orthodox supernaturalism, in the language of which our faith is expressed, and the categories in which the modern "secular" world (I would say so, for lack of a more appropriate expression), there is a gap that is growing ever wider. By this I do not mean that the gulf between Christianity and pagan society is growing. This goes without saying.

The gap I am talking about does not depend on the attitude toward the truth of the gospel itself. After all, in the division that worries me, many Christians find themselves on the same side with those who do not consider themselves Christians. And among thinking non-Christian friends, I see many who are much closer to the Kingdom of Heaven than they themselves think. They think that they are rejecting the Gospel, but in fact they are repelled primarily by a specific worldview that is really untrustworthy.

Moreover, I myself am cut in two by the dividing line, although over time a smaller part of my being remains "on the right side" of the border. For example, when I listen to a discussion between a Christian and a humanist on the radio or watch on television, I often find myself sympathizing with the humanist. This is not because my faith or devotion to God is wavering. I simply instinctively share with the humanist the inability to accept the worldview schemes and religious models in which the faith presented to him is clothed. I feel that he is right in rebelling against them, and I am increasingly embarrassed that "orthodoxy" should be identified with them.

I will analyze these schemes later. In the meantime, I want to express the point of view that radical questioners who question the established structures of religious consciousness and believe that this is their contribution to the general apologetic task of the Church should also be recognized as genuine and even necessary defenders of the faith.

I am not inclined to be complacent. I am afraid that as we begin to bridge the gulf, it will become much wider, and in the Church, as well as outside it, there will be a growing estrangement between the adherents of habitual (albeit renewed) recipes and those who consider honesty their highest duty, whatever it may lead to. Unfortunately, I have to agree with the words of Dr. Alec Vidler4 from a recent (November 4, 1962) television program that have been so violently attacked: "Now we will have a very long time to catch up: after all, real, deep thinking, intellectual honesty and concern have so often been suppressed in the Church!" Those who consider the traditional structure of metaphysics and morality to be quite acceptable, for I myself am largely one of them. But I am disheartened when, in the name of defending the faith, those who think otherwise are branded as traitors with a frenzy that hides their own insecurities.

It seems to me that all this is too similar to what happened in our Church a hundred years ago, when (as it is now recognized) the champions of traditional orthodoxy made it almost impossible to truly apologize for the gospel.5 Looking back at the path traveled since then, we see that almost everything that was said then in the Church was marked by excessive conservatism. And what I have tried to express in this book in a tentative, debatable manner will now seem radical, and to many, of course, heresy. But I am sincerely convinced that time will pass, and my mistake will be seen in the lack of radicalism.

JOHN WOOLWICH

November 1962.

Involuntary revolution

"IN HEAVEN" OR "ON THE OTHER SIDE"?

The Bible speaks of God as "the Most High" living "in heaven." Undoubtedly, the biblical picture of a three-storey universe with heaven above, earth below, and waters below the earth (cf. Exodus 20:4) was once taken quite literally. It is also certain that if the most sophisticated biblical writers had been pushed to do so, they themselves would have recognized in these images a symbolic language that was supposed to convey spiritual realities. But no one pushed them. In any case, this language did not cause them any difficulties. Even such an educated and secular person as the Apostle Luke could express confidence in the ascension of Christ (i.e. that He is not only alive, but also reigns at the right hand of the majesty of God) in the most primitive expressions: Onde ascended to heaven, and there he sat at the right hand of the Most High (Acts 1:911). And he felt no need to justify himself for such expressions, although of all the New Testament writers it was he who preached Christianity primarily to "educated people who despise it," as Schleiermacher would say. All this is especially strange when one remembers how decisively the same Luke persuaded his readers that Christianity completely abolished the (hardly more primitive) conception of God held by the Athenians, namely, that the deity dwelt in temples made with hands and required the service of human hands (Acts 17:2231).