20th Century Theology (Grenz and Olson)

In their 1992 book, 20th Century Theology: God & the World in a Transitional Age, authors Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson address the issue of theology in the twentieth-century. Though the title specifically mentions twentieth-century theology, the book actually begins with the state of theology at the beginning of the Enlightenment. From there it moves on to theology in the twentieth century. Grenz and Olson take this approach to give the reader an appropriate context for understanding how theology came to be viewed during the twentieth-century.

Grenz and Olson state that they wanted to publish a book that moved beyond just a synopsis of key facts concerning modern theology. They also desired to give an “interpretation” of how twentieth-century theology developed (9).

These two authors interpret the era of modern theology through the grid of “divine transcendence” and “divine immanence.” As they state, “One significant theme that provides an interpretive tool and a means for bringing to light the unity and diversity of theology in this transitional century is the creative tension posed by the twin truths of the divine transcendence and the divine immanence” (10). Grenz and Olson are convinced that the interplay between transcendence immanence is the “central theological concern” that has contributed to determining the specific path that theology has taken in the last hundred years (10).

When Grenz and Olson speak of transcendence they are referring to God’s self-sufficiency and His apartness from His world. When referring to immanence, they are speaking of God’s presence within the creation (11). The two authors assert that Christian theology has swayed between these two poles of biblical truth. At times, God’s immanence has been emphasized to the detriment of His transcendence. At other times, however, the opposite has been the case with transcendence being emphasized to the near exclusion of God’s immanence. Christian theologians must seek a balance between the biblical truths of divine transcendence and divine immanence, Grenz and Olson believe. “Where such balance is lacking, serious theological problems readily emerge” (12).

In chapter one, Grenz and Olson assert that the proper balance between transcendence and immanence was initially set forth by Augustine. This balanced view was then refined during the Middle Ages, and then reformulated by the Reformers (16). The Enlightenment, however, and its emphasis on human reason, human autonomy, and the harmony of nature, brought an end to this balance (16). According to Grenz and Olson, these factors led to “the victory of the new immanence” (23). This triumph of immanence over transcendence would extend into the twentieth-century (23).

Chapter two of the book examines the dominance of immanence in the nineteenth-century. Four men are important in this area—Immanuel Kant, G. W. F. Hegel, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and Albrecht Ritschl. Kant proposed that the practical or moral realm is the sphere of religion. In doing this, he offered “a new attempted balance between transcendence and immanence” (25). Grenz and Olson note, however, that Kant’s theology was essentially anthropocentric and led to an emphasis on divine immanence (31). Hegel attempted to shield Christianity from the radical skepticism of his day by moving the content of Christianity beyond history. In doing this, however, he helped moved Christianity in the direction of pantheism (38). Schleiermacher placed “feeling” as the foundation of theology (39) and emphasized an immediate relationship with God apart from submission to doctrinal propositions about God. Grenz and Olson assert that Schleiermacher’s doctrine of God is “best described as pantheistic in that it correlates God and the world, making them inseparable” (50). Ritschl, whose views are associated with classical liberal Protestantism, took a highly subjective approach to religion and furthered the trend toward immanence.

The rise of the neo-orthodox theology in the early 1920s brought about what Grenz and Olson have called, “the revolt against immanence” (63). The neo-orthodox movement, headed by Karl Barth and others such as Emil Brunner, Rudolf Bultmann, and Reinhold Niebuhr, sought to recover some of the doctrines of Reformation Christianity. Barth, particularly, helped recover the doctrine of the transcendence of God. According to Grenz and Olson, neo-orthodox theologians helped reestablish transcendence, but in doing so, they overreacted from one extreme (overemphasis on immanence) to the other (overemphasis on transcendence). Grenz and Olson hold that the neo-orthodox revolt against immanence lasted from the 1920s to 1960.

The shift toward transcendence was not held by all. Paul Tillich, for instance, sought to reformulate and deepen the immanent theology of the older liberalism (113). In doing so, though, Tillich “mutilated the Christian message so that it became barely recognizable” (130). Grenz and Olson also point out that Tillich’s theology leaned “heavily toward pantheism” and must be judged as a case of “radical immanentism” (130). The reaction away from transcendence can also be seen in the rise of Process theology and its assertion that all reality, including God, is continually changing (144).

With chapter five, Grenz and Olson examine immanence within the “secular” during the period of the 1960s. They assert that theologians in this decade were more “world-centered” than “church-centered.” (146). According to Grenz and Olson, “The radical theologians of the decade responded to the emphasis on transcendence they inherited from their neo-orthodox teachers by launching a new quest for the immanence of God” (146).

The two theologians of hope—Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg—are the subjects of chapter six. Moltmann emphasized a hope for the future based on the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ (172). In his earlier writings, Moltmann stressed transcendence while his later writings “emphasized God’s immanence to the detriment of his transcendence” (186). By linking God’s intertrinitarian being so closely with historical events, Moltmann called the deity of God into question. Pannenberg provided a balanced alternative to the overemphasis on the transcendence found in German theology and the immanence found in American theology (199). “Pannenberg has been able to link salvation with creation, thereby developing a creative understanding of the relation of the world to its transcendent/immanent Source,” Grenz and Olson state (199).

Grenz and Olson claim that the trend toward immanence in the 1960s was also evident in the rise of liberation theologies—Black theology, Latin American liberation theology, and feminist theology. These three theologies were a response to the emphasis on divine transcendence in much of contemporary theology (201). Rather than waiting for the Transcendent One, whose coming was still future, liberation theologians looked for the Immanent One—the power of liberation in the present circumstances of life. Grenz and Olson believe, however, that these liberation theologies “moved the pendulum too far in the opposite direction of the divine immanence, thereby failing to create the biblical balance between God as transcendent and as immanent” (201).

Grenz and Olson assert that the problem of transcendence and immanence also occupied the attention of Roman Catholicism and its two premier scholars—Karl Rahner and Hans Kung. Rahner stressed the transcendence of human subjectivity (238) and Kung struck the balance between immanence and transcendence (254).

With chapter nine, Grenz and Olson discuss the rise of “narrative theology” during the 1970s and its attempt to utilize the concept of “story” as the central motif for theological reflection (271). Grenz and Olson assert that the new emphasis on narrative opened the way to “a new means of conceptualizing the divine transcendence while giving place as well to immanence, for its transcendence is the transcendence of the story” (271).

In chapter ten, Grenz and Olson argue that evangelicals, in spite of the pressures of modernism, still held to a traditional balance regarding transcendence and immanence. “They [evangelicals] have been untiring in their reminder that theology must direct its efforts toward the vision of the balance between immanence and transcendence.” (314). Two evangelical theologians of note in this area are Carl F. H. Henry and Bernard Ramm. Both men, especially Ramm, were willing to dialogue with theologians outside evangelicalism while still holding to traditional views of transcendence and immanence.

In the conclusion of their book, Grenz and Olson address the issue of whether the twentieth-century has brought any closure or consensus to the transcendence-immanence issue. Their evaluation is that it has not. Rather, the efforts of the last few decades have “increased the tension between immanence and transcendence” (311). The authors do believe, however, that good has come from the efforts of the twentieth-century. “In the end the greatest legacy of this century of theology is its recovery of the importance of the transcendence theme,” they state (312).

Grenz and Olson’s, 20^th Cenutury Theology, is a well-written book with three strengths. First, it is a very readable and accurate account of modern theology, especially as found in the twentieth-century. Grenz and Olson are effective in giving concise, interesting summaries of key theologians and theological movements. They do this in a way that does not lose the reader in a sea of technical data.

Second, Grenz and Olson’s use of a “transcendence-immanence” model by which to analyze modern theology is both appropriate and helpful. It is appropriate in that much of modern theology does directly relate to God’s dealings (or lack of it) with this world. It is helpful in that it provides an overarching theme that helps the reader compare and contrast the theological movements and theologians of the modern era. The model also aids the reader in understanding how all the different people and movements of modern theology relate to each other. Grenz and Olson show that the people and movement that they discuss do relate to each other. This is no small feat.

Third, this reviewer appreciates (and agrees for the most part) with Grenz and Olson’s analysis of when certain theologians and movements swung too far in the direction of transcendence or immanence. They are not afraid to say that the classical liberal theologians swayed too far in the direction of immanence. Nor are they hesitant to assert that the neo-orthodox theologians went too far toward transcendence. Grenz and Olson are also to be commended for their positive assessment of Augustine, the Reformers, and evangelicals. All three are separated by many years from each other, but are united on the proper balance between divine transcendence and divine immanence.

Grenz and Olson have done a service to the Christian community with their work. For both scholars and others who are interested in the development of theology, 20th Century Theology is an excellent resource.

Interested in buying this book?
Click here.