Theology Today - Vol 37, No. 1 - April 1980 - CRITICSCORNER - Wanted: Theologians Who Are Theologians

97 - Wanted: Theologians Who Are Theologians

Wanted: Theologians Who Are Theologians
By Deane William Ferm

The assassination of Representative Leo J. Ryan and the subsequent mass suicide of 900 People's Temple members in Guyana more than a year ago has led to a burgeoning of interest on the part of the American people in the strange phenomenon of religious cults in our country. For some it seemed also to lead to a congressional investigation of cult activities. The predominant response on the part of established religious groups was vigorously to oppose such an investigation on the grounds of freedom of belief. When lawyer Jeremiah Gutman declared that "all religions are equally good or bad; that's what the First Amendment says," the standard-brand religious figures agreed. For, who knows? They might be next.

While I applaud this defense of the First Amendment and also would be wary of any "official" investigation of religious groups, I do want to raise the issue of the proper role of responsible theologians in this time of bizarre cultism. Is there a place for preventive theological medicine? To be sure, many other factors, particularly sociological, have been powerful ingredients in causing the widespread "move to the right" of which cultism is but one dimension. Yet I do believe that since the early 1960s many mainstream theologians have abandoned their rightful role as critics of religion and in so doing have contributed in no small measure to our current spiritual delinquency. Eminent grand-patron theologian John Bennett, speaking recently of the disarray of Protestant theology (and he could easily have included Catholic and Jewish counterparts as well), lamented: "There is some ferment but less theological leadership than at any other period of my lifetime" (Christianity and Crisis, Jan. 15, 1979).

Two developments in theology have dominated the scene during the past fifteen years, both contributing in their own way to the disarray. The first trend began with the "death of god" fad of the middle 1960s which sought to eliminate the reality of the living God and opted for secular equivalents to keep religion in business. But if there is no God, declared many church members, then what's the point of religion? The answers were sought elsewhere and so emerged the cults. Since the early 1970s we have seen the proliferation of various forms of liberation theology-black, feminist, Latin American, American Indian, and so forth. These one-dimensional isms have focused their attention almost exclusively on one important issue, and God consequently became

Deane William Ferm is Dean of the College Chapel and Lecturer in Religion, Mount Holyoke College. A frequent contributor to THEOLOGY TODAY, Dr. Ferm is on sabbatical leave studying at St. Andrews University, Scotland, and engaged in research in Sweden.

98 - Wanted: Theologians Who Are Theologians

black, feminist, Marxist, or red, depending on how God could be best used. Thus, the reality and truth of the living God as transcending all human boundaries (race, sex, nationality, political ideology, etc.) was lost. Once again many would-be believers had to look elsewhere for answers to their ultimate questions. Enter the cults.

The second trend was the outcome of the influence of the philosophical school of phenomenology on the study of religion. Phenomenology is essentially a methodology which studies each variety of human experience without regard to its truth-value, focussing rather on its function in human life. Its goal is complete objectivity in ascertaining the essence of the phenomena of human existence. It seeks to describe rather than to interpret. The presuppositions of the investigator must be suspended. To be sure, phenomenology in religion has matured considerably in its investigative techniques. (Note, for example, Jacob Needleman and George Baker, eds., Understanding the New Religions, 1978). But still the chief purpose is to understand and even empathize, not to criticize and evaluate. Any attempt to assess is improper-a result of "the myth of the evil eye," as one theologian asserts. Questions of truth and falsity have no significance. "All religions are equally good or bad," as far as the phenomenologist is concerned. Religion becomes a non-cognitive human activity. "God" is but a useful symbol for signifying certain human aspirations. In other words, the human utility of a God-concept takes precedence over whether in fact God exists.

It comes as no surprise, then, that some of my theologian colleagues, in their own (unacknowledged) bias in favor of phenomenology, say they are no longer interested in the problem of God's existence, do not attend church any more, and a few of them who are ordained have demitted the ministry in order to demonstrate their (pseudo) objectivity. Not much leadership there. What they have failed to see is that facts are neutral unless interpreted and that no observer-even the phenomenologist-can escape a certain bias. The phenomenologist, however worthy the motives may be in seeking for objectivity, ends up valuing function over truth, and use over reality. Frankly, I don't understand the point of making the God-symbol useful and functional unless we first affirm that God is for real. To paraphrase some choice words of Bertrand Russell: I can honor individuals who deny the existence of God, but I can feel only profound reprobation for those who simply say that it is useful to believe in God and that to ask whether such a belief is true is a waste of time. It is no surprise that the cults are having a field day, for they at least are giving people something to believe in, a faith that claims to speak of what is true and real.

My hope is that responsible theologians should once again address themselves to the basic theological questions. Is there a God? What is God like? What is the evidence? What are valid grounds for belief? Is ultimacy black holes or eternal light? What is truth? These are the most

99 - Wanted: Theologians Who Are Theologians

difficult yet most important questions of all. There are no easy answers. To avoid these questions either on the grounds of caring only for their descriptive content (phenomenology) or wanting to focus on a particular social issue (liberation theology) is to betray the theological task. I respect those who disagree with my answers to the ultimate questions, but not those for whom these issues are irrelevant. The atheist today is not the one who disbelieves but the one who doesn't care.

How can we discriminate among the Jim Joneses, Jim Bakkers, and Jim Dandys? Do we refuse to try and thereby give the field to the lunatic fringe of believers? Or do we hang in there and use our minds, imperfect though they may be? Why can't we say that the Jim Joneses of the world are morally repugnant, the Herbert Armstrongs in their use of the Bible historically naive, the Jim Bakkers spiritually superficial, the Moonies intellectually non-sensic? I can hear the theologians among the phenomenologists complaining: but that isn't our job; who are we and you to judge? Well, if theologians won't perform this role, who will? William James's three criteria for religious truth-immediate luminousness, philosophical reasonableness, and moral helpfulness-may be vague, but at least they are guidelines worth noting and pursuing.

In the final analysis, for the unbeliever, ultimacy can only mean eternal nothingness, a "graveyard of frozen darkness," in the words of one scientist. For the believer, ultimacy means eternal light and hope and God. Such an issue is too critical to be decided either by those who don't care or those who don't think. My plea is for theologians to become theologians once again, to take the offensive in the market place of ideas. In the words of Catholic theologian Hans Küng:

Faith must not be blind, but responsible. Man ought not to be mentally coerced, but rationally convinced, so that he can make a justifiable decision of faith. Faith must not be void of reality, but related to reality. Man ought not to have to believe simply, without verification. His statements should be proved and tested by contact with reality, within the present-day horizon of experience of men and society, and thus be covered by the concrete experience of reality. (On Being A Christian, p. 65)