327 - Evil and the Morality of God

Evil and the Morality of God
By Harold M. Schulweis
Cincinnati, Hebrew Union College Press, 1983. 168 pp. $12.95.

In this fresh treatment of the problem of evil, no matter that Harold Schulweis has not provided an adequate solution; after all, who has? What he does supply instead is an invaluable analysis of the bedrock reason for evil being so problematic in the first place-and for traditional theodicies being in the end so unconvincing. Schulweis perceptively suggests that the stumbling block to faith and theology alike is nothing other than the thoroughgoing moral character of the God spoken of in Scripture and liturgy, and hence he wisely asks, "Could it be that the major irritants of … faith lie within the corpus of monotheism itself?" (p. 3). In framing his response to that rather disturbing question, the author draws heavily from his own background as both a formally trained theologian and an active congregational Rabbi, and therein lies the book's true power and contribution. At once avoiding the rather hard-hearted stances frequently encountered in academic works on the subject and the somewhat soft-headed approaches often found in pastoral pieces, this volume unflinchingly acknowledges the existential suffering of the believer and the philosophical perplexity of the theoretician as each being legitimate and real.

Nevertheless, many theodicies, in Schulweis' view, seem bent on denying that very point as they employ strategies apparently aimed at explaining evil by explaining it away. Assigning the failure of such theodicies to the underlying theologies, Schulweis astutely notes that theologies in turn reflect certain paradigmatic notions of perfection that shape their respective conceptualizations of God and the world. These various ideals of divine perfection are typically taken to be virtually self-evident, are thus left generally unarticulated, and are subsequently utilized in a theological sleight-of-hand that transforms our common linguistic usages, most notably those pertaining to the meaning of "goodness."

To make his case, Schulweis leads us through a sure-handed survey of the theological constructs of such diverse figures as Aquinas, Maimonides, Hartshorne, Wieman, Tillich, Barth, Buber, and John Hick. Whether they, be -metaphysical" theologies (and theodicies) linking divine goodness to ideas of perfect being (or becoming), or more "personalistic" ones matching such goodness to conceptions of perfect subject (or personality), Schulweis concludes that such projects share a common modus operandi that sacrifices the specifically moral character

328 - Evil and the Morality of God

or God's goodness for the sake or sonic theoretical Weltanschauung. But sacrificed as well is the God or biblical faith-and whatever comfort the believer might take or credibility the theologian might have.

Consequently, Schulweis advises that our concern ought not be with talk about sonic abstract Subject termed "God." totally exalted beyond human comprehension, but with various concrete predicates enabling human beings to speak intelligibly or "godliness." In such a scheme:

the religious contention [therefore becomes] … that the humanly comprehensible qualities of goodness, love, intelligence and creativity are godly: that they themselves are worthy or adoration, cultivation, and emulation in the lives of the believers. In Feuerbach's formulation [in The Essence of Christianity], God does not love, He is himself love, He does not live, He is life, He is not just but justice itself', 'not a person, but personality itself' (pp. 122-123).

For Schulweis' "predicate theology,'' divine goodness is firmly lodged within the ken of human beings and so, too, is ungodly evil. Rather than being ascribed to a single supernatural subject's inscrutable will, evil by contrast is attributed to several different sources within the world of human understanding, such as, the realms of society and nature. Furthermore, evil is not re-described so as to appear wholly innocuous, but instead retains its own terrible integrity, thereby allowing human beings to retain the opportunity to find real godliness through "acts of encouragement, compassion, mutual aid, and cooperative effort…"(p. 138).

Paradoxically, however, this new predicate theology seemingly falls into the same trap that previously ensnared various subject theologies. For Schulweis' account, too, is based upon a paradigm of perfection-moral goodness-which he takes to be self-evident and consequently in need of no explicit articulation. It just assumes that what constitutes "morality" is something plainly known by all.

If those raised in the biblical traditions do in fact prize the sort of moral character marked by such traits as stead fastness, justice, and compassion, it is precisely because they have been schooled by those biblical narratives that depict a character called "God" displaying those selfsame virtues as moral hallmarks. Moreover, even the Feuerbachian claim that "God is … love" is largely unintelligible-and unjustifiable-when removed from the broader context of the scriptural stories. While story-rooted considerations such as these may not resolve the problem of evil, they nevertheless set the boundaries for any discussion of theodicy that may ultimately prove worthwhile.

Michael Goldberg
School of Theology, Jewish Studies
Saint John's University Collegeville, Minnesota