Nevertheless, I think I am justified in referring to Altizer’s work, in the context of “relevance” as a “has-been,” though of course I could have been more delicate. From the perspective of the public I’m writing for, he really hasn’t been heard from in a long time, nor has his work continued to be as widely-discussed among theologians. I think that it is still important and certainly potentially-relevant, so I’m glad that scholars like you are continuing to keep the lines of investigation he opened alive.

As for “mainstream media,” I hardly think that describes Killing the Buddha, thank goodness. Still, I think it might be worthwhile to remember what Altizer himself said about the “mainstream media” coverage of his work in the ‘60, particularly compared to the academy:

I was caught up in a new theological fervor which was beginning to grip the country. This occasioned my writing of The Gospel of Christian Atheism, which immediately became a theological scandal, perhaps simply because of its title, for there is little evidence that more than a few have actually read the book. … A storm had broken out even before the book was published, initiated by the New York Times and Time magazine. Their articles on the new death of God theology were remarkably responsible: a Time editor called me to check with me exactly what they said about my theology, and despite its necessary brevity I could only concur. The truth is that journalists read the new theology more responsibly than did many, if not most, theologians, and for two years radical theological was at the forefront of the mass media; it was as though the country itself was possessed by a theological fever, and a radical theological fever, one in which the most religious nation in the industrial world had suddenly discovered its own atheism, and while it was accidental that this should focus upon a few theologians, it is not accidental that such a discovery occurred, or that it has subsequently passed into a mass amnesia. (Living the Death of God, 12)

Not that I claim that praise for myself, by any means, but what you said reminded me of it.

You dismiss Altizer as “one of theology’s greatest has-beens,” citing in support your own article containing no reference later than 1968. This article reads like a time capsule that was buried in the ground for 40 years. Are you so stuck in the past, Nathan? Have you read a book by Altizer since the 1960s? For your convenience he has published 10 systematic theological works since that date. Have you read Total Presence (1981)? History as Apocalypse (1985)? Genesis and Apocalypse (1990)? The Contemporary Jesus (1997)? Godhead and the Nothing (2003)? Slavoj Zizek, for one, has seriously read and cited the recent work of Altizer (see The Monstrosity of Christ, pp. 260-61). If after actually reading and reflecting on Altizer’s mature theology (post-1968) you find it to be “has-been,” the reasons for that are definitely worth arguing here and I will be the first to listen. But I am unhappy that you participate in the regrettable tendency of mainstream media commentators to dismiss someone or something preemptively on the basis of prejudice conjoined with ignorance.

Also in this group of “theological atheists” should be included Alain Badiou (see Mark Lilla’s critical essay) and Giorgio Agamben. Though that’s a pretty bad name for them.

As a Buddha killer though, I become concerned when any thinker becomes embraced by any religious group as the latest, greatest academic guru. Such an elevation tends to produce a collective state of ‘group think’ where critical thinking tends to take a back seat with a desire to be part of the “in group.” If left unchecked, this dynamic can morph into a Lord of the Flies scenario. From what little I have read of Žižek, I suspect he would be very critical of such idol worship preferring instead to dialogue in the dirt (though I don’t see him encouraging pig hunting parties).

I might even go so far as to suggest that these “theological atheists” (Zizek, Eagleton) are more dangerous, more insidious, and probably therefore much better for theology than the New Atheists, who at least don’t bother to learn anything about it or think it has any bearing on themselves.

Watching theology professors watch the former authors capture a segment of the public’s imagination I think was like watching english professors deal with Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyer’s 15 minutes. Both groups of PhD’s understand the field that their popular counterparts are working in to a tremendous degree. In both cases while they might be unwilling to use that superior understanding to step on to the public stage, in many cases they are unable, due to the other skills that are necessary and facts about the public itself that they would have to cater to. To watch Dawkins et al win fame speaking on the subject of religion and philosophy with such obvious ignorance of the subject matter is tremendously frustrating.

To have Zizek and Eagleton come in and provide honest (if incomplete, in my opinion) readings of religious texts is refreshing, especially considering what the sales totals of their books say about the number of people who fit into a social category where people who are hip, cool, and intelligent want a more mature treatment of the subject.

No matter where people end up, most of them start out in high school and in adulthood as in adolescence people want the ones who are highly regarded in their society to deserve it to a certain extent. The extent to which this isn’t true is a condemnation of the society.

Having said that, as a religious satirist, my radar tends to go off whenever anyone becomes heralded in select Christian circles as “the next big thing” with Žižek appearing to be the latest religious rock star placed on a pedestal. One Q I’ve had in observing this dynamic unfold is how many folks actually read Žižek as opposed to quoting snippets gleaned from blogs, articles, etc. in an attempt to be part of the cool Christian crowd?

As I relayed to you, seeing Žižek play in the trash during Astra Taylor’s insightful documentary “An Examined Life,” demonstrated vividly how his thoughts on nature bore scant resemblance to anything I had heard from even the most radical folks who self-identify as Christians. This reminds me of social activist Christians who wax poetic about Che Guevara. Can one don both a Che T-shirt and a cross necklace? Or are both these items simply trappings of the holy hipster? What do Christians (and I am definitely including myself here) need to peel away in order to reveal the core teachings of Jesus?