Harvard Divinity School

A Model for a Public Theology Author(s): Linell E. Cady Source: The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 80, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 193-212 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Harvard Divinity School Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1509607 . Accessed: 18/07/2011 18:33
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Harvard Divinity School are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Harvard Theological Review.

http://www.jstor.org

HTR80:2 (1987) 193 -212

A MODELFOR A PUBLICTHEOLOGY

Linell E. Cady Arizona State University

A small but growing number of theologians have begun to call for the development of a "public theology." Although the proposals vary, they are of contemfueled by a common desire to counteractthe culturalmarginalization lost its to influence debate about former power public porarytheology. Having our beliefs and actions, theology has increasingly become a privatizedform of reflection. Too often theologians have become comfortable with this state of affairs, abandoningall presumptionsto speak to or for those outside their narrow communities. Theological arguments have degenerated into dogmatic assertions or confessional accounts of personal beliefs which lack the power or intent to persuadeothers. As David Tracy so aptly puts it, we have fled to local "reservationsof the spirit" where we need not confront the wider indifference to and impotenceof our work. The parochialization and marginalization of contemporary theology, of course, reflect historicaland sociological developmentslong in the making. The Enlightenmentconstrual as public of facts potentially recognizable by all reasoning beings graduallyforced religious, moral,and aestheticjudgmentsinto the sphere of the subjectiveand private. This legacy remainsa powerful determiner of our sensibilities, fostering the attitudethateverythingnonscientificis a matter of mere opinion. Changing demographicshave also affected the social impact of theological reflection. The more homogeneousreligious and culturalmakeup of our country's ancestors rendered biblically rooted symbolism and motifs intelligible to the majority. Our more pluralistic situation precludes any such common discourse, reinforcingthe assumptionthat theological reflection bears little relationto the public realm.

1 David Tracy,TheAnalogical Imagination(New York:Crossroad,1981) 13.

194

REVIEW HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

of contemporary One of the most vocal critics of the culturalmarginalization this state of affairs will conwho that been David has Tracy, argues theology tinue until theologians, especially, reaffirmthe public characterof theology. By virtue of theology's preoccupation with God, understood as that necessarily universal reality, theologians must not rest content with private confessions of faith which seek neitherto inform nor to persuadeothers.2For Tracy, however, the way in which a theologian strives for publicness will vary according to the particularaudience he or she is addressing. Insofar as the public is not one homogeneous whole but composed of various social realities with distinct traditions, values, and assumptions, the theologian must tailor a theology to the primarypublic for which it is written. Distinguishing the three major constituencies of the academy, the church, and society, Tracy argues that different subdisciplinesof theology utilizing distinctive forms of discourse and warrants must be developed for each. Thus far Tracy has elucidated two of his three subdisciplines of theology: fundamentaltheology addressedprimarilyto the academy and systematic theology oriented toward the interests and needs of the church.3 Although acknowledging that each type appropriatesa different sense of "public," Tracy argues that each, nevertheless, constitutes a legitimate form of public address suitable to the assumptionsof a specific audience. Fundamentaltheology deals with issues of religious meaningand truthwhich are potentiallyintelligible to all reasoning persons. It presupposes, Tracy contends, "the first and obvious meaning of publicness (viz., as meaning and truth available to all intelligent, reasonable and rational persons through persuasive argument)."4 Systematic theology, on the other hand, initially appearsto be decidedly nonpublicinsofar as it appropriates symbols, doctrines, and texts which are rooted in specific traditions. Such particularity, however, need not precludepublicness. Closely folGadamer, Tracy argues that classics in both art and religion achieve a lowing genuine publicness "because of, not in spite of, an intensified particularity."5 Thus, he writes, "although radically particularin origin and expression, the classics are public in our second sense: groundedin some realized experience of a claim to attention,unfolding as cognitively disclosive of both meaning and of personal,social and historicallife."6 truthand ethically transformative
2 Ibid., 51. 3 Tracy's understandingof fundamentaltheology is developed most fully in Blessed Rage for Order (New York: Seabury, 1975) and of systematic theology in The Analogical Imagination. He has indicatedthat a study of practicaltheology will be forthcoming. 4 David Tracy, "Defending the Public Character of Theology," The Christian Century(1 April 1981) 352. 5 Ibid., 353. 6 Tracy,Analogical Imagination, 132.

LINELLE. CADY

195

The two different senses of public underlying fundamentaland systematic theology warrant,Tracy argues, markedly different theological tasks. Fundamental theology, appealing to common human religious experiences, explores metaphysicalquestions and necessarily remains at an abstractlevel. Systematic of the religious classics of a tradition,thereby theology entails the interpretation enabling a more concrete form of reflection. Tracy is careful to allow each subdiscipline substantialindependence,being particularlyapprehensivethat fundamental theology be regardedas a substitutefor or externaljudge of conversation with the religious classics. Far from usurpingthe role of systematic theology, fundamental theology can buttress its importance by demonstrating the existence of the religious dimension in human experience, thereby legitimating the engagementwith a particular religious tradition. Tracy has made a considerablecontributionto theology in calling attentionto the importanceof reaffirmingits public character. However, his defense of the publicness of these forms of theology rests upon an equivocationin the meaning of "public." Far from being analogous meanings of one term,his two senses of public, presupposingdifferent understandingsof the nature of reason, are not readily assimilable. As a consequence, they legitimate two types of theology which are in greatertension than Tracy is willing to acknowledge. Ratherthan having isolated two related but separate subdisciplinesof theology with analogous senses of public, Tracy has identified alternatemodels for a public theology. Is either model a viable candidatefor extricatingtheology from the privatiwithin which it currentlyflounders? zation and marginalization Before answering this question, it is necessary to reconsiderbriefly Tracy's two senses of public and identify more fully the interpretations of humanreason correlated with each. As noted above, fundamental theology engages in reasoned argument,dealing with questions and answers "which any attentive, andjudge in keepintelligent,reasonableand responsibleperson can understand for with criteria This fully public argument."7 ing interpretationof public reflects the Enlightenmentmodel of reason, understoodas a universal,ahistorical capacity of all rationalbeings. Much modem philosophy has sought to combat the hold that the Enlightenmentpicture of reason has exerted over Western consciousness.8 Discounting the myth of an ahistorical, universally shared human reason, philosophershave increasingly stressed that reason is inextricably rooted in a specific historical and culturalmatrix. Reflection takes place in
7 Ibid., 63. 8 This would include figures such as Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Gadamer. For more recent philosophical argumentsagainst the Enlightenmentmodel of reason, see, e.g., Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press, 1979); Richard J. Bernstein, Beyond Objectivismand Relativism (Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress, 1983); HilaryPutnam,Reason, Truthand History (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress, 1981).

196

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

and through a linguistic medium which reflects the assumptions, values, and interests of a particularplace and time. A common human reason or common human experience is, from this historicist perspective, a false construct which obscures the irreducible particularityof human life and reflection. Indeed, Tracy himself accepts this critiquewhen he insists on the need to acknowledge a second "less obvious" sense of public, one which recognizes that reason is necessarily informedby the particularsymbols, texts, and events of a tradition. If this second sense of public reflecting a contextual interpretation of reason is granted, it underminesratherthan supplementsthe more common understanding. Thus it calls into question the very possibility of a fundamentaltheology which, isolating a common religious experience, can be universallyunderstood andjudged.9 Although Tracy's second model for a public theology, based on the interpretation of the classics of a tradition,avoids the Enlightenmentblindness to the historicityof humanexperience and thought,it suffers from the converse problem. By emphasizingthe hermeneuticalcharacterof theology, this model places too many constraintsupon the critical and reconstructivedimensionsof theological reflection. Built into this model is the assumptionthatthe classics of a tradiThe tradition,in other words, is tion are fundamentallyadequateand truthful.10 in determinative while systematic theology, being illegitimately filtered overly out in fundamentaltheology. As I shall attempt to demonstrate,a more adequate form of public theology would recognize the necessary and legitimate influence of a particulartraditionin theological reflection without abandoning the need to criticize and reformulatethattraditionin fundamentalways. Before proceeding with this task, however, it is useful to consider several other recent references to public theology. Although Tracy has perhaps been the most visible on this topic, these other proposals shed additionallight on the constitution of a public theology. Martin Marty, for instance, uses the label "public theology" to designate theological reflection which takes explicit account of the concrete circumstanceswithin which it takes place. Althoughnot the dominantform of contemporary theological reflection,it does possess a long traditionwithin Americansociety. As Martynotes: "While the nation has produced a number of philosophers of religion who have written without much thinkershave taken on themselves reference to situation,the more characteristic behavior as these have been embodied and the burdenof interpreting experience
9 For a strong argumentagainst the possibility of a common religious experience, see Wayne Proudfoot,Religious Experience(Los Angeles: Universityof CaliforniaPress, 1985). 10For similar criticisms of the conservative implications of this theological model, see John Cobb's review of The Analogical Imagination in Religious Studies Review 7 (1981) 283; Gordon Kaufman, "Conceptualizing Diversity Theologically," JR 62 (1982) 397; Elisabeth Schiissler Fiorenza,BreadNot Stone (Boston: Beacon, 1984) xvi; 9- 10.

LINELLE. CADY

197

in religious groups and in the nation itself."1 Whetherreflecting theologically upon the life and experiences of the religious community as did Edwards and Rauschenbusch,or upon the nation as did Jefferson and Lincoln, or some combinationof the two, as did the Niebuhrbrothers,these figuresexemplify a theology which has had the ability to illuminateand critiquea sharedpublic life. Robert Bellah has been most responsible for calling attentionto the importance of this tradition of critical reflection in American life and thought.12 Although once wielding considerableinfluence over our social and political life, such critical discourse has lost much of its power to shape our sensibilities and behavior. The loss is particularly acute, according to Bellah, insofar as it deprives American life of the resources of a traditionwhich helped to cultivate the communalvirtues and loyalties of our republic, without which a democratic society cannot long survive, he argues. Recognizing thatBellah has largely confinedhimself to analyzingthe historic role of public theology in Americanlife, Max Stackhousehas recently attempted to sketch out what a public theology should be today.13After discussing seven into a public theology (includingcreation, themes which should be incorporated and vocation) Stackhouseexplores the moral under God's law, purposes, history in of public theological discourse. He argues for the justification problem of appropriateness appealingto the four classical theological criteria-scripture, tradition,reason, and experience. Attemptingto develop a position in light of all four constraints,he argues, will guardagainstan uncriticalacceptanceof past religious beliefs as well as an automaticsanctioningof contemporarysensibilities and assumptions. He, of course, recognizes that there remainsgreat leeway in how these four sources are to inform a public theology, leading him to construe these sources as the identifying marks of a single game which can be played in various ways. In many respects Stackhouse is primarilyconcerned to develop a theology which will not be viewed as merely the ideological legitimationof one form of life or the privatemusings of a single individual. Like Tracy he is attemptingto defend the rationality of theological reflection, a rationality which precludes regardingsuch reflectionsolely as ideology or privateopinion. Societies inhabit systems of meaning which are expressed through metaphysical-moralvisions.
11Martin Marty, "Reinhold Niebuhr: Public Theology and the American Experience," JR 54 (1974) 333. 12See Robert Bellah, The Broken Covenant (New York: Seabury, 1975); idem and Phillip Hammond, Varieties of Civil Religion (San Francisco: Harper& Row, 1980); idem et al., Habits of the Heart (Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress, 1985). Public theology, for Bellah, is that form of religious reflection in American society which has lacked a legal status but which has gone civil religion. See Bellah, Varietiesof Civil Religion, 14. beyond the formal,institutionalized 13Max Stackhouse,"An Ecumenist'sPlea for a Public Theology," This World8 (1984). See also the shortessays respondingto Stackhouse'sargumentwhich immediatelyfollow his article.

198

REVIEW HARVARD THEOLOGICAL

Theology is public insofar as it "involves the critical examination of these meanings and the metaphysical-moral groundson which they stand. Its purpose is to give normative guidance to the meaning system."14 Stackhouse's and of the publicness of theology is more closely connected Tracy's understanding to the status accorded such reflection than to the specific content of that reflection. Bellah and Marty,on the other hand, emphasize a differentaspect of a public theology: its substantiveconcern with the topical issues of a society. These differing emphases are not wholly unrelated. As theology has lost its status as a form of critical discourse, becoming viewed as a confessional or ideological enterprise,the impetus to address the social and political issues of the day has weakenedcorrespondingly. Conversely,the increasinggap between the themes and concerns of traditionaltheology and those of contemporarylife has appeared to confirm the private and parochial character of theological reflection. If theology is to overcome its relegation to the margins of contemporary culture and again become a form of public discourse, it will have to addressboth of these symptomsof its malaise. Thus while the above proposals furnishimportantclues to follow in constructinga public theology, taken singly they do not provide a sufficientlycomplete portrait. In the remainderof this essay I shall attemptto sketch out a model for a pubboth the methodologicaland substantivecharaclic theology which incorporates teristics identifiedin the above formulations. Ratherthan define public theology I shall preserve either thematicallyor in terms of the statusof its argumentation, ooth of these emphases and add a third specificationconcerning style. Instead of constructingsuch a model in the abstract,I shall develop it in relationshipto several twentieth-century theologians. In my judgment, some of the writings of Josiah Royce, H. Richard Niebuhr, and Gordon Kaufman embody a form of theology which meets the demand for publicness and hence can serve as an excellent blueprintfor contemporarytheological reflection.15 I shall concentrate and then conthe model work, underlyingRoyce's upon uncovering theological Kaufman's work. Given the how and it informs Niebuhr's more sider, briefly, their not all of of this and the fact that limitations theological works essay space reflect the same model, I will focus on one text from each author: Royce's The Problem of Christianity;Niebuhr's Radical Monotheismand WesternCulture; and Kaufman'sTheologyfor a Nuclear Age.

15There is strong historical influence operative here insofar as Niebuhr borrowed much from Royce's writingsand, in turn,had a significantimpactupon Kaufman,who was his student.

14 Ibid., 51.

LINELLE. CADY II

199

In his majortheological work, The Problem of Christianity,Royce sets out to interpretthe essential meaning and to assess the truthof the Christiandoctrine of life. Recognizing that the beliefs and attitudeof the interpreterwill greatly affect such a project, Royce distinguishesthree approaches. The first and most familiar approachis that of the apologist, one who seeks to defend the truthof the faith. Committed to Christianity as the one true faith, this individual endeavors "to defend, to propagate, and in one way or another, to render efficacious the Christianview of God, of the world, and of human destiny."16 Standingin sharpcontrastto the apologist is either the "hostile critic" of Christianity or the one who remainscompletely indifferentto it. Hostility or indifference to Christianityhas been, Royce notes, increasingly common in public discussions of religion. Significantly,Royce considers both of these predispositions a hindranceto his project. Rejecting the biases of both the believer and the indifferentor hostile critic, Royce delineates a thirdapproachmore suited to his task: that of the "sympathetic interpreter." Unlike the critic, the sympathetic interpretershares with the apologist a positive appreciationof the importance and value of religion in human life. However, the interpreter lacks the apologist's conviction about what constitutesthe essence of the true faith, being more impressed with philosophical, historical, theological, and practical challenges to traditionalChristianity. Clarifyingthis thirdapproach,Royce writes: thisreligionregarding wouldapproach Sucha student it, at leastprovisiontradition to andnotas anoutworn ally,notas theone truefaithto be taught, as an intensely butas a central, withan enlightened be treated indifference, to to be interpreted, to be appreciated, of humanity, life-problem interesting, forreaandwiththe striving withthe seriousness be thoughtfully reviewed, which we owe to every life-problem and for thoroughness sonableness interwoven.17 is inseparably human wherewith destiny In defending this third approachto the Christiantradition,Royce is advocating a form of theology which remains integrally rooted in a religious tradition without being parochially confined to it. Concurringwith the Enlightenment attacksupon heteronomousauthorities,Royce refuses to consider scripture,doctrine, or ecclesia as the arbiterof religious truth. Dogmatic theologies which continue to appeal to such authoritiesas the guardiansof revelation have not appreciatedthe paradox of such forms of argumentation. Citing revelation as the source of religious truth fails to account for the grounds upon which one
16 Josiah

Royce, The Problem of Christianity(1913; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,

1968) 59.
17 Ibid., 61.

200

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

recognizes it as genuine.'8 Without recourse to the category of revelation to defend a theological position, it is necessary to marshalthe relevant historical, philosophical,experiential,and moralreasons which commend it. Although sharing the Enlightenmentcritique of heteronomous authorities, Royce abandonsthe long dominantmodel of reason which the Enlightenment developed to carrythroughits critique. To escape from the heteronomousdomination of reason, the Enlightenment,as noted above, construed reason as a universalcapacity of each humanbeing. The responsibleexercise of this capacity was modeled upon the sciences; judgments should be based upon empirical evidence and, potentially, be confirmableby all reasoning persons. Spheres of inquiry which failed to meet this test of objectivity lost status, graduallybeing relegated to the realm of subjectivity, inaccessible to reasoned, public debate. Despite its continuedhold over the popularimagination,the Enlightenmentideal of objectivityhas been increasinglyattackedfor failing to accountfor the historin all knowledge. All forms of inquiry,including science, are ical determinants dependentupon intellectual traditionswhich determinethe warrantsas well as The Enlightenmentgoal of eliminatingall the questions which are recognized.19 forms of prejudicefrom reason was, as Gadamerhas argued, itself a prejudice and of values as which has led to the popularconstrualof reason as instrumental subjective.20 To recognize the historicalcharacterof the reasoningprocess is to recognize that humans do not reflect in isolation from their traditionsbut in and through them. A theology's rootedness in a religious traditiondoes not automatically brand it as a form of parochial discourse. It is necessary to determine how a theology makes use of the texts, symbols, and creeds of a tradition. As Royce argues, there is a significantdifference between a theology which draws its criteria from its traditionand one which interpretsand evaluates its traditionfrom humanexperience. the moral,intellectual,and experientiallens of contemporary The former traditionalmodel construestheology as largely a translationprocess in which the theologian seeks to articulatethe perceived truthsof the tradition in a more contemporary,intelligible manner. The critical and constructive functions of the theologian, if recognized at all, are minimized, largely limited to the effort to reformulatethe "eternal truths" in a new idiom. The latter model, on the other hand, seeks to extend the traditionby selecting those aspects to of it which, from currentintellectual and moral lights, can be appropriated
18For Royce's discussion of the philosophicalproblemsin appealingto revelationto justify a religious position, see The Sources of Religious Insight (New York:Scribner's,1912) 19 - 25. 19See, e.g., the well-known argumentsby two philosophersof science: Paul Feyerabend,Against Method: Outline of an AnarchisticTheoryof Knowledge (London:NLB, 1975) and Thomas Kuhn, The Structureof ScientificRevolutions(Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press, 1970). 20 Hans-GeorgGadamer,Truthand Method (trans. and ed. GarrettBarden and John Cumming; New York:Seabury,1975) 245- 50.

LINELLE. CADY

201

articulatethe natureof the humanand the ultimate. Far from abdicatingcritical the insights judgment in this latter model, the Christiantheologian appropriates of science, history, and ethics, among others, to determinewhat constitutes the essence of Christianity. A theological judgmentof the essence of Christianityis not a historicaljudgmentconcerningthe dominantset of beliefs and practicesin the tradition. It is ratheran evaluative judgment, one which seeks to highlight that which is most significantand vital within the tradition. Consequently,a theological judgment about the essence of Christianityneed not coincide with earlierformulations. This is readily seen from a consideration of Royce's delineationof its essence. He argues that the essence of Christianity centers upon the recognitionof the saving power of the "beloved community," what Paul called the new life in Christ. Royce readily acknowledges that the Christianfocus on communityhas, since its inception,been interwovenwith and often overshadowedby a variety of other historical,cosmological, and theological beliefs. Nevertheless, these other beliefs, despite their centrality, are expendable insofar as they are peripheralto the essential focus on community. Just as the church rightly rejected deeply entrenchedapocalyptic expectations, as events disconfirmedthem, Royce argues it should now abandonmany of the traditionalclaims about the person and work of Jesus Christwhich the contemporary setting has renderedless intelligible and persuasive. Given the variance between his interpretation of the essence of Christianityand the historicalforms Christianityhas taken, Royce concedes that some critics will find his an inadeof Christianity has "hisquateportrait. Althoughinsisting thathis interpretation torical rights," in the final analysis its fit with the traditionis not the overriding consideration. Although relevant, it must be balanced with philosophical, moral, and theological considerations, among others, to arrive at a judgment concerningwhat is most vital and significantwithin the tradition.21 Although not grantingtraditionan authoritativestatus in the developmentof his theology, Royce considers it an importantresource to ponder and critically in the constructionof a viable theology. The criteriafor theological appropriate judgments are drawn from the combined insights of moder life and thought. However, for Royce, genuine insight is not available in a historical vacuum. It is made possible throughan appreciationof the lessons of history, "a significant summaryof what the ages have taught mankind."22Thus even though Royce insists that a traditionbe critically assessed through the lens of contemporary
21 The model of extending a tradition assumes, of course, that some complex of symbols and beliefs within the traditioncan be appropriated to provide a meaningfuland truthfulvision of reality. A theologian unable to grantthis minimal consent to the adequacyof a traditionwould be forced to construct a theology which eclectically drew from a multiplicity of resources. Such theological eclecticism risks becoming merely a privatereligious vision which fails to address,illuminate,or critique the religious visions thatcontinueto empowerindividuals. 22 Royce, Problem of Christianity,63.

202

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

moral and intellectual insight, such insight depends upon the contemplationof the history of the race, "viewed, if possible, as a connected whole."23 Theology, therefore, may not relinquish its critical judgment to the sacred texts or creeds of a tradition,but neither can it hope to attain insight without extended dialogue with such historical resources. Royce sensed a growing tendency among Americans to disregardthe cumulative wisdom of a traditionunder the pretense of maintainingindependentand criticaljudgment. Too little appreciation for the insights of the past was fostering a simplistic and facile attachment to new ideologies. Warningin a public address that the "spiritualplasticity of our American public has gone too far," Royce suggests that independentjudgment be temperedwith more respect for the establishedtraditions,particularly in areas aboutwhich the individualis ignorant.24 A theology which cuts itself off from a historical traditionnot only isolates itself from an important source of potential religious insight but it fails to address the religious problems of persons who continue to inhabit, however ambivalently, specific traditions. Because Royce's potential audience was largely Christiansfor whom Christianityhad become a "problem" in the light of contemporarythought and practice, his theology took the form of a sympathetic but critical analysis and evaluation of the essence of Christianity. It is this form of theology, according to Royce, which "the thoughtfulpublic of our day both most desires and most deeply needs."25 Avoiding the Enlightenmentequation of public with universal,Royce advocates a form of theology which operates within the symbolic setting of a living tradition. Like Tracy and Stackhouse,Royce is arguingthat a theology making use of historicallyrooted texts and symbols does not preclude its public character. In this respect Royce's understanding of theology is similar to Tracy's delineationof systematictheology. However, they are not identical. Royce places much greater weight upon present knowledge and experience as the filter throughwhich the traditionis appropriated.Although recognizing the need for the critical moment in systematic theology, Tracy more readily grants a fundamental consent to the givens of the tradition. As a result, Tracy proposes a hermeneuticalmodel for theology while Royce advocates a theology which extends a tradition,a difference which accounts for Royce's creative reinterpretation of the essence of Christianity.

23 Ibid., 64. 24 Josiah Royce, "On Certain Limitations of the Thoughtful Public in America," in John J. McDermott,ed., The Basic Writingsof Josiah Royce (2 vols.; Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1969) 2. 1115. 25 Royce, Problem Christianity,61. of

LINELLE. CADY

203

form of argumentation, A public theology involves more than an appropriate however. If it is to be intelligible to the "thoughtfulpublic" it must also adopt an accessible style of reflection. Technical,jargon-filleddiscourse fails as public address. Recognizing the importanceof rhetoricin addressingthe concerns of the public, Royce strives in his theological writingsto communicatehis position clearly and simply, not assuming any theological expertise on the partof his audience. He hopes to help his readers think throughsome fundamentalproblems of the moral and religious life. Thus despite some of the technical sections of The Problem of Christianity,he claims: "I have indeed tried, in this book, to speak as one wandererspeaks to anotherwho is his friend, when the way is long and obscure."26Although one may be inclined to dismiss such statements as reflect a concern to be overly modest, his theological writings characteristically audience of thoughtfulpeople."27Techniintelligible and useful to "a general cal terms are used sparingly, references to the literature are minimal, and extended theoreticaldiscussions, sometimes apologized for, are set in relationship to theirpracticalimplications. Royce's style of theological reflection is a function of both his own professional identity and the literarygenre for which it was written. In his theological writings Royce cautions that they are not the work of a "technical theologian."28 As a "student of philosophy" Royce is able to address a broad range of religious issues without being hamperedby the established conventions of theology. The form in which Royce communicates his theological reflections furtherdetermineshis style. The Problem of Christianity,as well as his other major theological and ethical works, are collections of lectures originally delivered as public addresses. As oral communication they lack the highly technical discussions and numeroussecondaryreferences which are characteristic of contemporary theological writing. Also a function of its context, the style of contemporary theological discourse is geared for the specialist, not the general public. Insteadof the public lecture, theology is largely writtenfor publicationin academic books andjournalswhich clearly assume an expertise in the field. Technical language and extensive references to the secondary literaturehave become conventions of "serious" theological writing. Following the model of the sciences, theology has, for the most part, become a specialized area of expertise, unintelligible to those outside. Although the exponentialgrowth in knowledge and technology makes such specialization essential in some disciplines, it is difficult to see how it benefits the
26 Ibid., 40. For similar statements about his intentions in his other theological writings see "What is Vital in Christianity,"in WilliamJames and OtherEssays (New York: Macmillan, 1911) 99; Sources of Religious Insight, 4. 27 Royce, Sources of Religious Insight, 3. 28 See Royce, Problem of Christianity,39 and idem, "What is Vital in Christianity?"99.

204

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

enterpriseof theology. Lacking the practicalapplicationsof sophisticatedstudies in the naturaland social sciences, theology writtenby and for other professionals becomes a culturallymarginalizedactivity carried out by an elite. Far from illuminatingour common religious concerns, it appears merely to foster If theology is again to function as public individual professional recognition.29 discourse, it will have to alter its customarystyle, adoptinga form of communication suitableto a general,educatedaudience. Overcoming the cultural marginalizationof contemporarytheology, however, will depend upon more than successful communicationto a wider public. Unless the content of the communicationis relevant and persuasive, the intelligibility of its expression is immaterial. For Royce this means that theology should (1) addressthe centralproblemsof the age ratherthanperennial,abstract theological issues and (2) reconstruct the tradition in light of contemporary insight. Without the "timeliness" involved in reflection upon the problems of the age, theology will have little impact upon our common life. Without the continual revision of a religious heritage, it will eventually be ignored as the outmodedworldview of a bygone era. The Problem of Christianityfollows both of these directives. Royce's reputation as a philosopher of absolute idealism has fostered an image of a highly abstractthinker whose reflections have little relationshipto real life. Anticipatingthis charge Royce sought to combat it, arguing that his concerns were ultimatelypracticaland the "outcome of experience" not of any "sterile intellectualism."30 Supportinghis claim, a contemporaryof Royce's notes "very few thinkers ever have with Royce's passion and persistence so completely fused their technical interestswith the problemsof their country.... From the outset of his philosophic careeruntil its very end the Americanpeople had in Royce-the speculative thinker-the interpreterof its practical problems."31 Indeed the novelty and enduring significance of Royce's theology is to its responsivenessto the ills of modernAmericansociety. largely attributable Far from developing his theology in any ahistoricalrealm of ideas, Royce bases it upon an acute analysis of the dynamicsof Americanlife. Locating the basic problematicof American life in the relationshipbetween the individual and society, Royce discerns tendencies towards two extremes: a radical individualism and an incipient collectivism in which individuality is

29 For a fuller discussion of the conventions governing contemporarywriting in the field of religious studies, see RichardWentz, The Contemplationof Otherness:The Critical Vision of Religion (Macon,GA: MercerUniversityPress, 1984). 30 Royce, Problem of Christianity,39. 31 J. of American Problems," University of California Loewenberg, "Josiah Royce: Interpreter Chronicle 19 (1917) 39 -47.

LINELLE. CADY

205

destroyed.32 Many Americans,celebratingfreedom as the primaryvalue, regard commitments as unwelcome infringements, interferingwith the self's expression, desires, or goals. An unfetteredself, free to be and become at whim, was increasingly being heralded as the American ideal. On the other hand, certain trendsin American society portenda very differentfuture: a homogeneous colby rigid conformity,not free self-expression. Ratherthan lectivity characterized view these trends as conflicting extremes, Royce insists they are dialectically related, each intensifying the other in an upward spiral. Recognizing the dangers of this spiral and learning how to avoid it are tasks which "the present state of the world's civilization, and of our own national life, make both prominent and critical."33 Royce's theology grows out of his efforts to illuminateand resolve this fundamental problematic. The dangerous antagonismbetween the individual and society is only overcome, he argues, throughthe self's willing devotion to a corporate life. Through a voluntary commitment to a community, to which the individualhas been attracted,the self can secure meaning and order for its life without suffering the divisiveness and inward rebellion which the naturalrelationship between the self and society fosters. Indeed the fullest meaning and coherence for an individuallife consists in the love of the universalcommunity, the actualizationof which becomes the self's primarytask. In light of the meaning and value of the creation and extension of community in securing human modeled in terms of goods, Royce suggests that the divine is most appropriately community and most completely expressed in the form of the universal community,the eschatological goal towardswhich the spiritof communityaims. My concern here is not in explicating the details of this theological vision but in underscoringits roots in Royce's diagnosis of societal ills. It is not a theology which is indifferentto its historical location but one which seeks to addressthe particulardilemmas of the age. Even his formulationof the ideal of the universal community is supplementedby a considerationof specific trends in American life, such as the rise of social mobility and technology-inducedhomogenization, which are undermining communal life.34 Thus instead of painting an abstracttheological vision aboutthe universalcommunity,Royce considers how this ideal can be, realistically,approximated given existing social conditions. Although for Royce Christianitydoes have resources to addressthe needs of the age, it requiresa selective appropriation and translationof the tradition. As we have seen, he is not employing a correlationalmodel under the assumption
32 Royce, Problem of Christianity,110-14, 128- 30.

33 Royce, "Provincialism," in Basic Writings,2. 1067. 34 Ibid., 1072-76. Recognizing the political realities which impede the emergence of the univer-

sal community, Royce even goes so far as to propose an international insurancesystem to safeguard world peace in his work Warand Insurance(New York:Macmillan, 1914).

206

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

thatthe traditioncan "answer" the questionsof every age. The social and intelof modernityhave produced a significant gap between lectual transformations our age and the biblical and medieval worldviews which renders much of the classical Christianbeliefs and imagery mute, if not false. Ratherthan lambast modernityfor its lack of belief, Royce seeks to comb the resourcesof Christianity for the insights and symbolism which can, with modification, address the situation. contemporary Analyzing the theological model informing Royce's The Problem of Christianity has enabled us to identify several features concerning its method, substance, and style which, in my judgment, are integral for a public theology. First, Royce attemptsto differentiatebetween a theology which is dogmatically bound to a traditionand one which is deeply informedby a traditionbut which critically appropriatesand extends that tradition. The former model operates The difference is through citation whereas the latter requires argumentation.35 critical since it constitutesthe basis for contending that theology can indeed be reasoned, open inquiry. It is not, as the Enlightenment assumed, historical which precludethe public characterof discoursebut the contention determinants that some first principles lie beyond critical argumentation.Insofar as a theology avoids "special pleading" for its warrantsand criteria,it can be considered a form of public discourseeven thoughit continuesto be deeply informedby the texts, symbols, and beliefs of a specific tradition. does not Although an indispensablefeature, an open form of argumentation It be must the character of itself theology. supplementedby by guarantee public an attention to "timely" societal issues and by stylistic accessibility, thereby ensuring its relevance and intelligibility. As we have seen, in The Problem of Christianity Royce seeks to illuminate the problems of his age, critically the Christiantraditionto address the pressing and reinterpreting appropriating needs. And, finally, assuming an audience which encompasses more than the professionally trained,he adopts a style with which he can communicateto the general public A brief consideration of the more widely known work of Niebuhrand Kaufmanmay help to clarify furtherthis model for a public theology and show the forms thatit has more recently assumed. III Radical Monotheism also reflects the form of argumentation,substantive focus, and style which I am suggesting are constitutiveof a public theology. In this book Niebuhr develops a typology of three forms of faith: (2) henotheism, faith directed to a single finite object or cause; (2) polytheism, faith directed to
35 For an excellent discussion of classical theology's reliance upon citation, see EdwardFarley, Ecclesial Reflection: An Anatomy of Theological Method (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) esp. 107- 27.

LINELLE. CADY

207

several finite objects or causes; and (3) radicalmonotheism,faith directedto the "One Beyond the Many," that which underlies and encompasses all that is. Although often regardedas an exponent of a confessional theology, in this work Niebuhrconstructsa powerful argumentfor the greateradequacyof monotheistic faith in the formationof selves and communities. Some of Niebuhr's own comments obscure the form of argumentation operative in this work. He insists that theological reflectionsbegins with faith, that it does not presume to move inferentiallyfrom reason to faith. "When we carry on theological work," he notes, "we must do so as men who participatein faith."36It would be easy to interpretNiebuhr as advocating a form of confessional theology, presupposingthe content of faith as a given. His concern, however, is not to demonstratean inviolate sphereof faith which the theologian dogmatically assumes, but to emphasize the contextual nature of theological reflection. The reasoning of the theologian is informed by faith in two senses. First, theological reflection, like all human reflection, does not proceed from some neutral standpointbut presupposes an underlying faith commitment or value center. Faith, understoodas "the attitudeand action of confidence in, and fidelity to, certainrealities as the sources of value and the objects of loyalty" is operative in all that we think and do.37Although reflection cannot escape from its dependence upon a center of value, it can and should become consciously aware of this dependenceand seek to defend its value commitments. Theological reflectionis dependentupon faith in a second sense as well. The theologian does not begin to reflect in a vacuum but within the history of a particular community of faith. Thus the Christian theologian reflects upon the specific claims about God and Jesus Christ,for instance, which have structured the Christianconsciousness. This does not preclude a critical assessment of these beliefs. Reason "organizes, compares, reflects, criticizes, and develops hypotheses in the midst of believing."38Theology, consequently, "doubts some beliefs about God and about man and seeks surer beliefs."39 Thus although Niebuhr seeks to be faithful to the memory of the Christiancommunity, it is a critical faithfulness. Nor does faithfulness to a particularcommunity of faith prohibit a reasoned defense of the beliefs and practices of that community. Niebuhr's commitmentto monotheismdoes not detractfrom the effectiveness or legitimacy of his argumentsin defense of this form of faith. His arguments, however, do not depend upon the acceptanceof some theological authoritysuch as scriptureor ecclesia. He focuses upon the consequences of alternativefaiths
36 H. Richard Niebuhr, Radical Monotheismand WesternCulture (New York: Harper& Row, 1960) 13. 37 Ibid., 16. 38 Ibid., 13.

39 Ibid., 14.

208

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

for selves and communities in order to defend radical monotheism. This pragmatic orientationwhich leads him to compare the social and political implications of the various faiths, reflects a commitmentto public inquirywhich traditional apologetic has typically lacked. It is not only the way Niebuhr argues in Radical Monotheismbut the issues he addresses which justify regarding this work as a form of public theology. Rather than focusing upon abstract, timeless theological issues, Niebuhr explores available faith orientationsand assesses them in light of their implications for our religious, political, and scientific choices. His focus follows from the mandate of the lecture series for which this work was written. He was invited by the University of Nebraskato give the MontgomeryLecturesin ContemporaryCivilization and to address himself "to the subject of contemporary civilization for the purpose of generating constructive thought on its problems."40 He consideredthe conflict of faiths an illuminatingway to expose and critiquethe loyalties and values guiding our lives. As a consequence, this work does not attempt to provide any complete portraitof Christianfaith but very deliberatelyconcentrateson the dimension of Christianfaith which illuminates situation. A public theology requiresthis selectivity insofaras the contemporary its primaryconcern is to respondto the peculiar issues of the age ratherthan to develop a historicallybalanced summaryof the content of Christianfaith. Thus public theology will more typically produce "occasional writings" ratherthan systematictreatiseswhich strive for ahistoricalcompleteness. Radical Monotheismis also a useful model for a public theology in terms of its style. It is notablethat, like Royce's The Problem of Christianity,it was originally written for a series of lectures. Although geared for an educated audience, it clearly does not requiretheological expertise to be understood. There is no plodding review of the literatureto intimidatethe theologically uninitiated, nor any extensive footnoting providing endless qualifications. In straightforwardprose Niebuhrdelineates the types of faith and gracefully weaves theoretical analysis with practicalillustrations,an indispensableskill if a theology is to captivatethe attentionof those outside its disciplinaryborders. Lastly, I want to consider this model for a public theology in light of Gordon Kaufman's Theologyfor a Nuclear Age, the most recent of the works I am examining. Like so much contemporarytheology, this book exhibits an extreme self-consciousness about methodological issues. Although Kaufman's characterization of his theology as "imaginative construction" suggests a different theological model than the one I have been delineating,the work closely parallels the theological patternof Royce's and Niebuhr's writings.

40 Ibid., 11.

LINELLE. CADY

209

Kaufmandescribes his theology as an activity of imaginativeconstructionin order clearly to differentiateit from traditionaltheology with its authoritarian mode of argumentation.This latter form of theology, Kaufmanargues, illegitimately presupposes the truth of its assumptionsby sanctioning their source in scripture or the ecclesia. As a consequence, theological argumentationhas tended to be a circularprocess, essentially conservative, unable to raise critical questions about its premises.41The erosion of theological authoritieshas made possible the recognition of the creative function of the theologian in constructing more adequatereligious visions. active metaphorssuch as building, constructing,and imagBy appropriating to describe theology, Kaufman underscores this creative dimension of ining of theology tends to underminethe reflection. This characterization theological in of tradition theological argumentation,suggesting that Kaufman's place model for theology is markedly different from the one informing Royce's and Niebuhr's writings. A considerationof what Kaufmanactually does in Theology for a Nuclear Age, however, belies this conclusion. Because this work is a form of theology, it deemphasizes the role of polemic against the authoritarian the past in orderto highlightthe autonomyand creativityof the theologian. The of position Kaufmandevelops, however, reveals a more extensive appropriation traditionthanhis labels convey. Kaufmanretains traditionas a theological resource for the same reasons that Royce did. First, as the deposit of generationsof religious reflection, it constitutes an importantsource of religious insight. For example, the concept of God that has developed within the Jewish and Christiantraditionsprovides, he contends, an importantcritical principle against which to judge human commitments. Theological reconstructionof Christianityshould retain this significant function of the idea of God. Theology should develop in relationshipto a tradition for pragmaticconsiderationsas well. Because it seeks to provide more adequate orientationfor human life, it must revise the symbolic worlds that people actually inhabit. Unboundedtheological creativitymay produce ingenious religious visions but insofar as they are unconnected to extant religious traditions they will have minimal influence. Recognizing this pragmaticconstraintupon the theological imagination, Kaufman seeks to reconstruct the fundamental Christiansymbols, God and Christ. His theology, therefore, parallels Royce's and Niebuhr's works which also seek to reconstructthe Christiantheological traditionin light of contemporaryinsights and experiences.42All three thinkers
41 GordonKaufman,Theologyfor a Nuclear Age (Philadelphia:Westminster,1985) 18. 42 Although all threetheologians seek to extendthe traditionin light of contemporary insight, their substantivejudgments over the nature and extent of what is retrievableclearly differ. Thus this model produces theologies with varying degrees of continuity with a traditiondepending upon the theologian's judgment about its adequacy. I do not think that it is possible to articulateabstractly and in advancethe criteriawhich should guide this reconstruction.Attemptsto provide specific cri-

210

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

exemplify a way of doing theology which neithergrantsan a priorilegitimacy to a religious past nor denies the need to operate within a specific historical context. Kaufman's work also resembles Royce's and Niebuhr's in terms of its substantive focus and style. As the title indicates, Theology for a Nuclear Age religious position for the historicalsituaattemptsto develop a more appropriate tion within which we find ourselves. Arguing that we have entered a radically new situation with the technological capabilities evidenced in the use of the atomic bomb, Kaufmancritiquesand reconstructsthe idea of God in light of this context. Specifically, he criticizes a complex of traditionalbeliefs concerning God's power and actions for fostering an irresponsibilitytoward the possibility of a nuclearholocaust. Like Royce's concern with an excessive Americanindividualism and Niebuhr's apprehension about modem forms of idolatry, Kaufman's theological reflection responds to the dangers which are peculiarly ours. Like The Problem of Christianityand Radical Monotheism,Theologyfor a Nuclear Age does not attempt to produce a comprehensive portraitof the and revision of Christianityin Christianfaith but seeks a selective appropriation orderto addressmodem problems. Kaufman's style is similarly accessible. Also written originally for a series of lectures, the book avoids jargon, extensive footnoting, and exhaustive references to the literature. In short, it presumes an audience that is not confined to professionaltheologians and avoids the scholarly conventions which have made theological writinginaccessible to those outside the discipline. IV Theologians are still battling the ghosts of the Enlightenment. Recent calls for a public theology are seeking to put these ghosts to rest by defending theological reflection against charges of ideology, parochialism,and irrelevance. It is not enough, however, simply to proclaim the publicness of theology since these charges have, all too often, been accurate. We need, in short, not merely to defend the public characterof theology but to develop it. To identify the specifications of a public theology I have proposed a model a focus which incorporatesthree components: an open form of argumentation, on timely issues, and an accessible style of communication. We are not without examples of this model of theology as the precedinganalysis of Royce, Niebuhr,
teria tend to be overly dogmatic or exceedingly general. As Jeffrey Stout has persuasivelyargued,it is only in the historicalconversationwith our traditionsand each other that we can hope to arriveat more truthfuland moral religious visions. See Stout, "The Voice of Theology in Contemporary Culture," in Mary Douglas and Steven Tipton, eds., Religion and America (Boston: Beacon, 1982) 250 - 52.

LINELLE. CADY

211

All three seek to incorporatethe Enlightenand Kaufman has demonstrated.43 ment critique of heteronomous authorities without appropriatingits prejudice against tradition. They recognize the legitimacy of religious reflection which is rooted in but not bound by a specific religious tradition. The result, as we have seen, is a theology which selectively appropriatesits past in order to extend a tradition according to the insights, questions, and needs of the present age. Refusing to resortto citation, it seeks to defend its religious vision accordingto currentintellectualand moral insights. Royce, with his autonomy from theological disputes, is most explicit about this form of theological argumentation. Although Niebuhr's and Kaufman's works follow the same pattern,their methodological reflections and polemical responses to other forms of theology tend to obscure this pattern. Hence, Niebuhr's emphasis upon the contextualbasis of theological reflectionveils, but does not obliterate,a recognition of the critical and creative dimensions of his theological reflection. The reverse is true for Kaufman: his much needed insistence upon the critical autonomyof the theologian overshadowsthe important function of traditionin theological argumentation. Their works leave the impression that the major alternativesfor contemporarytheology are confessional or constructive.44 Reading their works throughthe lens of this theological model offers a more useful and, I think,more accurateglimpse of the theologies they actually develop.

43 Only in the last century have the conditions emerged which would make possible the form of public theology I am delineating. Aquinas, for instance,could not have aspiredto this form of theology given the general illiteracy of his time. In light of the sociological constraintsof his audience, he inevitably wrote for an elite group of the educatedand theologically sophisticated. The increase in literacy and the availabilityof the printingpress allowed Lutherand Calvin to write for the public and not for a theological elite. However, by antedatingthe age of historicismthey were able to conceive of their task as one of retrievalratherthan extension. Certainlythere are other contemporary theologies which could be cited as illustrationsof this theological model. Perhapsthe closest would be the genre of liberationtheology which explicitly addressesthe political and social situation and seeks to write for the people ratherthan the academy. Although there are certainlyexceptions (e.g., Ruether's Sexism and God-Talk), liberation theologies have tended to operate within the authoritarianmode, substitutingan orthopraxisfor the traditional orthodoxy. Consequentlythey would typically meet only two of my threespecificationsfor a public theology. 44 Neil Gillman has explored issues concerning authorityand traditionas they relate to Jewish theology in his article "The Jewish Philosopherin Search of a Role," Judaism 34 (1985) 474-84 and "Authorityand Authenticityin Jewish Philosophy," Judaism 35 (1986). He also is seeking to defend a form of theology which neither takes traditionas authoritativenor denies the importance and legitimacy of engaging tradition. Gillman likens theology to midrashin order to identify this nonauthoritarian engagement with the Jewish tradition. If combined with the stylistic and substantive specificationsnoted above, Gillman's midrashicmodel would constitutea form of public Jewish theology, analogousto the Christianpublic theology I have been delineating.

212

HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

All three direct their attention to the dilemmas of the age, simultaneously seeking to illuminate these dilemmas and modify their religious frameworksin light of them. This focus is not conducive to the productionof systematictheologies which emphasize comprehensivenessover relevance. As all three authors show, it fosters occasional writings which make selective uses of tradition. Finally all three authors refuse to limit their audiences to the theologically trained. Recognizing that their topics are not of interest to theologians exclusively, they strive to communicatein a genuinely public fashion. The sociological, historical,and philosophicaldevelopmentswhich have contributedto the marginalizationof theological reflection are not easily reversed. Indeed many of the factors lie beyond the control of those in the field. However, some constructivesteps are possible to minimize theology's currentplight. If theology is to gain a largervoice in our culture,it would do well to follow the theological model embodied in the writings of Royce, Niebuhr, and Kaufman. They have charteda course which may help develop theologies which deserve once again to be partof our public discourse.