Honest to God
by John A. T. Robinson
On This Page
Description
A theologian examines the significance of God and religion for the modern man who rejects orthodox Christianity.Tags
Recommendations
Member Reviews
Where I got the book: purchased used on Amazon. My copy is the 1963 American edition.
I have no clue whether this book is currently laughed at by theologians or accepted as an interesting step in the development of modern theology, so I'll just forge ahead and give you my impressions.
I spent much of this book thinking that Robinson was throwing the baby out with the bathwater. First, he wants us to consider a non-supernaturalist idea of God: let's stop thinking of God as a Being apart from ourselves, "a supreme Person, a self-existent subject of infinite goodness and power, who enters into a relationship with us comparable with that of one human personality with another." Instead, we are to view God as "in the depths" of our existence: show more "For the word 'God' denotes the ultimate depth of all our being, the creative ground and meaning of all our existence."
Robinson tries very hard to prove that this is not pantheism (i.e. God is in everything, everything is God) but I got the impression that he's walking a very fine tightrope here, theologically speaking. And he talks a lot about love in this chapter, giving me the impression that he was cutting two thousand years of Christian doctrine down to some nebulous form of New Age spirituality.
And then we get to the chapter about Jesus...blimey. Is Robinson actually saying that Jesus isn't God? It certainly looks like it. "Jesus never claims to be God, personally: yet he always claims to bring God, completely." Mmmmmmmmmmmkay but if you knock the claim that Jesus is God out of the Christian religion, there's not much left of it. The Incarnation is one of those litmus test thingies: if you don't believe in it, your claim to be a Christian is a bit empty.
And then JR attacks religion, the Church and prayer; you get the impression that he thinks Christianity would be so, so much better off without them and we wouldn't have to feel guilty about not going to church or not praying. At this point I'm yelling "Dude, you're a Church of England Bishop...if you find religion inconvenient you may be IN THE WRONG JOB." Look, I'm perfectly OK with people telling me they're "spiritual but not religious." But saying that and then saying you're a Christian in the same breath is like watching a giraffe give birth to something that's half antelope, half lizard. There's a point to the "rules," which is that we're really not very good at making any spiritual progress without a bit of structure and community, and Christianity, for all its faults, does supply the undergirding which allows us (ideally) to move in the right direction.
Having thus increasingly annoyed me in chapters 1-5, JR redeemed himself considerably in the last two chapters. He considers the various ethical/moralist/humanist systems that have arisen to replace the supernaturalist view and moral absolutes of traditional Christianity, and posits that "they have taken their stand, quite correctly, against any subordination of the concrete needs of the individual situation to an alien universal norm. But in the process any objective or unconditional standard has disappeared in a morass of relativism and subjectivism." He claims that there is a standard, but it is love as taught and shown by Jesus Christ, and that Christians are called to practice a "casuistry of love" in which we must judge (if judge we must) situations on the basis that "compassion for persons overrides all law." I believe that many Christians nowadays understand this form of casuistry in everyday life; accepting the Bible's teaching on moral absolutes for themselves, they nevertheless support their divorcing friends, love their gay neighbors and are tolerant, even friendly, toward other religions. They are not the ones shouting that God hates fags/Muslims/Harry Potter, and therefore go unnoticed.
And then Robinson wraps up by making some interesting observations about what the church IS and what it should be: For the last thing the Church exists to be is an organization for the religious. Its charter is to be the servant of the world." You'll get no argument from me there, JR. And I liked this: ". . .[for] authentic Christian worldliness. . .the things of this world are 'really interesting in themselves', . . .'their truth is not as it were swallowed up and destroyed by a higher reference'--for instance, by how far they can be turned to the service of the church or used as occasions for evangelism." That's thought-provoking while well within the bounds of orthodoxy, so I'll give it a think.
So, something of a parson's egg of a book--parts of it were quite good. Is it relevant? Is it necessary? Or is it just the ramblings of a disaffected clergyman looking for a feelgood religion more suited to the spirit of the 60s than the CofE in which he has climbed high? I'm rather hoping someone will come across this review and give me the low-down on how this book has survived (or not) in theological circles. show less
I have no clue whether this book is currently laughed at by theologians or accepted as an interesting step in the development of modern theology, so I'll just forge ahead and give you my impressions.
I spent much of this book thinking that Robinson was throwing the baby out with the bathwater. First, he wants us to consider a non-supernaturalist idea of God: let's stop thinking of God as a Being apart from ourselves, "a supreme Person, a self-existent subject of infinite goodness and power, who enters into a relationship with us comparable with that of one human personality with another." Instead, we are to view God as "in the depths" of our existence: show more "For the word 'God' denotes the ultimate depth of all our being, the creative ground and meaning of all our existence."
Robinson tries very hard to prove that this is not pantheism (i.e. God is in everything, everything is God) but I got the impression that he's walking a very fine tightrope here, theologically speaking. And he talks a lot about love in this chapter, giving me the impression that he was cutting two thousand years of Christian doctrine down to some nebulous form of New Age spirituality.
And then we get to the chapter about Jesus...blimey. Is Robinson actually saying that Jesus isn't God? It certainly looks like it. "Jesus never claims to be God, personally: yet he always claims to bring God, completely." Mmmmmmmmmmmkay but if you knock the claim that Jesus is God out of the Christian religion, there's not much left of it. The Incarnation is one of those litmus test thingies: if you don't believe in it, your claim to be a Christian is a bit empty.
And then JR attacks religion, the Church and prayer; you get the impression that he thinks Christianity would be so, so much better off without them and we wouldn't have to feel guilty about not going to church or not praying. At this point I'm yelling "Dude, you're a Church of England Bishop...if you find religion inconvenient you may be IN THE WRONG JOB." Look, I'm perfectly OK with people telling me they're "spiritual but not religious." But saying that and then saying you're a Christian in the same breath is like watching a giraffe give birth to something that's half antelope, half lizard. There's a point to the "rules," which is that we're really not very good at making any spiritual progress without a bit of structure and community, and Christianity, for all its faults, does supply the undergirding which allows us (ideally) to move in the right direction.
Having thus increasingly annoyed me in chapters 1-5, JR redeemed himself considerably in the last two chapters. He considers the various ethical/moralist/humanist systems that have arisen to replace the supernaturalist view and moral absolutes of traditional Christianity, and posits that "they have taken their stand, quite correctly, against any subordination of the concrete needs of the individual situation to an alien universal norm. But in the process any objective or unconditional standard has disappeared in a morass of relativism and subjectivism." He claims that there is a standard, but it is love as taught and shown by Jesus Christ, and that Christians are called to practice a "casuistry of love" in which we must judge (if judge we must) situations on the basis that "compassion for persons overrides all law." I believe that many Christians nowadays understand this form of casuistry in everyday life; accepting the Bible's teaching on moral absolutes for themselves, they nevertheless support their divorcing friends, love their gay neighbors and are tolerant, even friendly, toward other religions. They are not the ones shouting that God hates fags/Muslims/Harry Potter, and therefore go unnoticed.
And then Robinson wraps up by making some interesting observations about what the church IS and what it should be: For the last thing the Church exists to be is an organization for the religious. Its charter is to be the servant of the world." You'll get no argument from me there, JR. And I liked this: ". . .[for] authentic Christian worldliness. . .the things of this world are 'really interesting in themselves', . . .'their truth is not as it were swallowed up and destroyed by a higher reference'--for instance, by how far they can be turned to the service of the church or used as occasions for evangelism." That's thought-provoking while well within the bounds of orthodoxy, so I'll give it a think.
So, something of a parson's egg of a book--parts of it were quite good. Is it relevant? Is it necessary? Or is it just the ramblings of a disaffected clergyman looking for a feelgood religion more suited to the spirit of the 60s than the CofE in which he has climbed high? I'm rather hoping someone will come across this review and give me the low-down on how this book has survived (or not) in theological circles. show less
I found this book in a pile of give-away books, and I picked it up because the title looked familiar. Later, I realized that I knew the title because Shelby Spong, in his autobiography, Here I Stand, had raved about the impact of this book on his own faith. Since I like Spong's books so much, I decided to check this out.
I think it's an excellent book. Other reviewers have offered some good summary and depth to his arguments. Speaking much more pointedly to my own preferences, I like that Robinson takes seriously the implications of science and 20th century knowledge on our Christian faith. I love that he makes it clear that the focus of religion should be on how we live in relationship with "the least of these." As Robinson writes, show more "Whether one has 'known' God is tested by one question only, 'How deeply have you loved?'" And he goes on to list ways that the Bible (Matthew 25) defines that love in how we provide the material needs of others (61). So the whole point of deepening our faith becomes tied to deepening our concern for other people (87, 90).
The book leaves me with some good quotes that I can share with others. It is dated, of course, but I would definitely recommend it to people looking for a meaningful articulation of what it means to be Christian. show less
I think it's an excellent book. Other reviewers have offered some good summary and depth to his arguments. Speaking much more pointedly to my own preferences, I like that Robinson takes seriously the implications of science and 20th century knowledge on our Christian faith. I love that he makes it clear that the focus of religion should be on how we live in relationship with "the least of these." As Robinson writes, show more "Whether one has 'known' God is tested by one question only, 'How deeply have you loved?'" And he goes on to list ways that the Bible (Matthew 25) defines that love in how we provide the material needs of others (61). So the whole point of deepening our faith becomes tied to deepening our concern for other people (87, 90).
The book leaves me with some good quotes that I can share with others. It is dated, of course, but I would definitely recommend it to people looking for a meaningful articulation of what it means to be Christian. show less
When it came out, this book was like a dropped bomb. Even today, many in the C of E consider reading this book to stand as the doorway between mere church attendance, and actual, active congress with their faith.
Robinson wrote this text in response to what he saw as the church's tendency to respond to modernism with obstinate parochialism. New theological ideas from people like Paul Tillich or even Huxley were found to be too odd, too unorthodox. As a result, many found church to be rife with banal supernaturalism and incapable of self-examination in the face of the 1960's. The result was what John Shelby Spong would later call, "believers in exile." That is, people who stopped attending church because it had ceased to be relevant to show more their lives and experience. "Honest to God" called for the work of constructive iconoclasm, for the church to look at encroaching modernism and actually be able to respond constructively to it, and indeed to incorporate itself into the movement. A classic of radical theology. show less
Robinson wrote this text in response to what he saw as the church's tendency to respond to modernism with obstinate parochialism. New theological ideas from people like Paul Tillich or even Huxley were found to be too odd, too unorthodox. As a result, many found church to be rife with banal supernaturalism and incapable of self-examination in the face of the 1960's. The result was what John Shelby Spong would later call, "believers in exile." That is, people who stopped attending church because it had ceased to be relevant to show more their lives and experience. "Honest to God" called for the work of constructive iconoclasm, for the church to look at encroaching modernism and actually be able to respond constructively to it, and indeed to incorporate itself into the movement. A classic of radical theology. show less
Well-written and interesting, but with some very odd leaps of (non) logic. Some of what the author says about God being the ground of our being makes sense - but he seems, then, to discard the notion of God as Creator, or indeed anything beyond what we can actually experience for ourselves.
Apparently a very popular and controversial book back in the 1960s, though it's pretty much vanished from circulation these days.
I only picked it up, in a second-hand shop, because of its prominence in the plot of Susan Howatch's 'Scandalous Risks'.
Apparently a very popular and controversial book back in the 1960s, though it's pretty much vanished from circulation these days.
I only picked it up, in a second-hand shop, because of its prominence in the plot of Susan Howatch's 'Scandalous Risks'.
I started reading John A.T. Robinson's Honest to God for two reasons: first, I had recently read his Redating the New Testament, which I very much liked. Second, I understood that this book was controversial in theological circles when it was originally published in the early 1960s. I typically read several books at once, and for reasons unknown I set this one aside (despite the fact that my version is only 143 pages) for several months before finishing it.
As a result, I have temporarily lost some of the details of Robinson's argument; I shall have to read the book through in its entirety to have a more cohesive grasp of the controversy it engendered. But inn short, Robinson confronts traditional notions of God, finding comfort in show more Tillich's God as "the ground of our being" (incidentally, the title of chapter 3 of this volume). Until I undertake my second reading, I find comfort that Robinson's heart is in the right place with the following long quote. Near the book's conclusion, Robinson writes:
For now I will not argue the point that the act of "Holding to Christ" requires some knowledge of Christ Himself, the knowledge of Whom has been passed down to us primarily through the Bible, and tradition, and thus is comprised of some limitations. "Christ" cannot simply be Anything anyone wants Him to be. But I do agree with Robinson's general idea, as he noted in these concluding paragraphs, that God, Christ, and Christianity are larger and more unbounded than the vehicles though which they have historically been accessed. show less
As a result, I have temporarily lost some of the details of Robinson's argument; I shall have to read the book through in its entirety to have a more cohesive grasp of the controversy it engendered. But inn short, Robinson confronts traditional notions of God, finding comfort in show more Tillich's God as "the ground of our being" (incidentally, the title of chapter 3 of this volume). Until I undertake my second reading, I find comfort that Robinson's heart is in the right place with the following long quote. Near the book's conclusion, Robinson writes:
I have not attempted in this book to propound a new model of the Church or of anything else. My aim has been much more modest. I have tried simply to be honest, and to be open to certain 'obstinate questionings' which speak to me of the need for what I called earlier a reluctant revolution. In it and through it, I am convinced, the fundamentals will remain, but only as we are prepared to sit loose to fundamentalisms of every kind. In the oft-quoted words with which Professor Herbert Butterfield ends his
Christianity and History
There are times when we can never meet the future with sufficient elasticity of mind, especially if we are locked in the contemporarty systems of thought. We can do worse than remember a principle which both gives us a firm Rock and leaves us the maximum elasticity for our minds: the principle: Hold to Christ, and for the rest be totally uncommitted.
This basic commitment to Christ may have been in the past--and may be for most of us still--buttressed and fortified by many lesser commitments--to a particular projection of God, a particular 'myth' of the Incarnation, a particular code of morals, a particular pattern of religion. Without the buttresses it may look as if all would collapse. Nevertheless, we must beware of clinging to the buttresses instead of to Christ. And still more must we beware of insisting on the buttresses as the way to Christ. For to growing numbers in our generation they are barriers rather than supports (140-141).
For now I will not argue the point that the act of "Holding to Christ" requires some knowledge of Christ Himself, the knowledge of Whom has been passed down to us primarily through the Bible, and tradition, and thus is comprised of some limitations. "Christ" cannot simply be Anything anyone wants Him to be. But I do agree with Robinson's general idea, as he noted in these concluding paragraphs, that God, Christ, and Christianity are larger and more unbounded than the vehicles though which they have historically been accessed. show less
When I read this as a young man, it opened my eyes to a new, and for me more mature, view of God.
BIshop Robinson calls for people to be honest about their understanding of God.
Members
- Recently Added By
Lists
Books You Read During High School (For School)
301 works; 53 members
Author Information
43+ Works 2,834 Members
John A. T. Robinson was a New Testament scholar who served as Bishop of Woolwich England was well as Dean of Trinity College, University of Cambridge. Among his many writings are Redating the New Testament, Honest to God, and Wrestling with Romans.
Series
Belongs to Publisher Series
Work Relationships
Is contained in
Is replied to in
Classifications
Statistics
- Members
- 1,011
- Popularity
- 25,761
- Reviews
- 12
- Rating
- (3.76)
- Languages
- 5 — Dutch, English, French, Spanish, Swedish
- Media
- Paper, Ebook
- ISBNs
- 8
- ASINs
- 21