A middle school teacher asked her class, “Who can tell us what are two of the biggest problems in society today.” A smart-alecky student quickly replied, “I don’t know and I don’t care.” The teacher then wisely responded, “Right! Ignorance and apathy.”
Those are also two of the biggest problems related to people’s perception of God and God-talk (theology). This blog post is specifically about the latter, which is sometimes referred to as apatheism, a term and concept I have not been adequately cognizant of.
Apatheism is a relatively new term,* although the condition it connotes is certainly
not new. It is a combination of the words apathy and theism, and it denotes the attitude of apathy toward the existence or non-existence
of God(s).
With reference to belief in God, people have usually been considered
theists, atheists, or agnostics. In contrast to theists, who are people who
believe in God, atheists are those who deny the existence of, and thus belief
in, any transcendent Being.
Agnostics are people who neither believe nor disbelieve in
God because they don’t know whether such a Being exists. But the apatheists not
only don’t know, they don’t care whether or not God exists.
When I began teaching Christian Studies in Japan, I
soon realized that most (90%or so) of my students didn’t believe in God, not
the Christian God nor a supernatural being of any other religion. Many said
they were agnostic, but others claimed to be atheists.
After a few years, I began to realize that, in reality, most
of my students were apatheistic, although I didn’t have that word to describe
them then. They just didn’t care whether God existed or not, for they didn’t
see how that would make any difference in their daily lives, one way or
another.
And now in the U.S., and even longer in Europe, an ever-increasing
percentage of younger people, even those with a nominal connection with Christianity,
seem to be apatheists, although most would not use that word to describe
themselves.
With the clear decline in emphasis on or even belief in
Hell and Heaven in the theological position of many Christian
churches/denominations, the younger generations seem to have lost interest in theological
matters, beginning with the root of all theology (theos + logos =
words about God).
Commenting
on my previous post, a Thinking Friend wrote, “Wonder what’s
next. ‘Theology not relevant at all?’” It seems clear to me that that indeed is
now a widespread attitude among many. Devoid of interest in God, there is mostly
apathy toward other theological issues as well.
However, I am
not apathetic about apatheism. I think it is a real shame that belief in God has been related so much
to words and has not been seen for its relevance to how people live.
When I finally
developed a course in Christian Studies that focused on the way some exemplary
God-believers had lived, many students showed considerable interest in that.
I introduced
students to some of those I have on my “top ten Christians” list,** people such as Francis of Assisi, Kagawa
Toyohiko, and Martin Luther King, Jr. My students were interested in what such
Christians did, even though not so much in what they believed.
While not
always using those words, I tried to emphasize a key emphasis of liberation
theologians: “To know God is to do justice.” Since “justice is simply love distributed” (Joseph Fletcher), this is acknowledging the truth of
1 John 4:11
…love is from God, and everyone who loves is born from God and knows God.
That’s why I am not apathetic about apatheism: I want more people
to know and to practice love broadly (=work for social justice). That’s what
the best Christians, who have known God intimately, have always done.
Whether they will self-identify as Christians or not, I
strongly hope there will be an increasing number of people who overcome their
apatheism and come to know God (by whatever name) in order to love those in
society most in need of social justice.
_____
*
Wikipedia says the
term was coined in 2001 by Robert Nash—but it mistakenly says that Nash was a
professor at Mercer University. Robert N. Nash, who is an acquaintance of mine, was indeed a Mercer professor, but it
was the late Robert J. Nash of the University of Vermont who apparently coined
the word apatheism in his book Religious Pluralism in the Academy
(2001).
** The blog article I
posted on 9/15/10 was titled “Top Ten Christians,” and then in my 9/30/10 post I
wrote about the criteria used in composing that list. Although I didn’t change the
blog article itself, just last week in a comment at the end of the 9/15 post I noted
that I have now changed one of the names on my list.
.jpg)
Not many comments have come in yet this morning. One Thinking Friend wrote, "I know and I care." (I hope this is true for most of you.) And then Thinking Friend Greg Hadley, who left Missouri many years ago with his Japanese wife and has lived in Japan ever since, sent this brief comment by email:
ReplyDelete"The thing I like about new words is that they give you a way to name something that has always been there. It’s a remarkable thing. I love this new word. It does describe very much what’s going on in the lives of young people and old people here in Japan."
Thanks for your comments, Greg--especially your last sentence. Since I wrote about my students, I may have given the impression to many that apatheism was particularly the situation of younger people in Japan as in Europe and the United States. But that was increasingly the position of the vast majority of Japanese born after the WWII--and it also included even many older people in the 1960s when I first went to Japan, for they had been disillusioned with the link of the Shingo "kami" (gods) to the Japanese war activity of the 1930s and '40s and with the Emperor being considered a "kami" (until Emperor Hirohito renounced that position in 1945).
DeleteIn this connection, I think the early Christians (mainly Protestants) in Japan made a mistake when they decided to use the word "Kami" as the translation for God. The use of the old Catholic term "Tenshu" (Lord of Heaven = God) would perhaps have been better--at least it wouldn't have linked the Christian God to the myriad of "kamigami" (gods) in Shinto.
I read the article. I don't know but do care. I may be something of an apatheist, as I am a bit skeptical about theology, at least theology of the systematic variety. I take a major cue from the first petition in the Model Prayer: "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven." I hope I have had and can have some small contribution to the "on earth" part of that prayer. I also clicked the other link. What those folks (I'll call them Christian Nationalists) want has little to do with God's Realm on earth.
ReplyDeleteThey're talking about a theocracy. But who's gonna be Theo? I don;t trust any human being for that role.
[These comments were posted yesterday, but I am re-posting them this morning with some small errors in the original post corrected. -- LKS]
DeleteCharles, if you care but don't know, you are not "something of an apatheist" but rather something of an agnostic--and that is not a bad thing. There is so much that so many of us don't know or know sufficiently. And that, to me, is what theology is all about: faith seeking understanding. That is why I even agree with the old claim that theology is the "queen of the sciences," for it seeks understanding not only of God but of all of God's Creation. Moreover, theology as I understand it is the ongoing and never-ending search for Truth. And I believe that all truth is God's truth, so all that is discovered about the physical world by science is a part of that truth.
Some of you who read this may not be on my Thinking Friends mailing list. In the email I sent to all on that list this morning, I included the following link to a blog post I made on my supplementary blotsite yesterday. And, indeed, as you noted, Charles, those who are seeking to gain control of the government by the election of Trump or a "Trumpist" in 2024 are mostly Christian nationalists, it seems, and, yes, they do seem to want to establish a theocracy. But the big problem is, as you indicated, how do they conceive of the God they want to be in charge of the nation? I am afraid their concept of God is far from the God Who was made known through Jesus Christ, the God who created the universe and loves all of Creation, including the world of nature and not just human beings--but certainly including all people of all kinds.
(See: https://wordpress.com/posts/lifelovelightliberty.wordpress.com)
I want to thank you for the Joseph Fletcher quote above. For years, I've been attributing that quote to Paul Tillich, which explains why I've not been able to find it in his writings.
ReplyDeleteIf, in fact, "God is love," then what does it matter how widespread apatheism is? Historically and currently, so far as I can tell, there is little or no evidence that believers in God have been any more humane or loving than nonbelievers. And some of our most revered wisdom teachers--such as Confucius, the Buddha, and Gandhi--did not apparently hold any mental concept of a personal creator God.
I would add that generally I'm personally more comfortable keeping company with nonbelievers than believers. At least, the nonbelievers don't say strange things, assuming I agree with their superstitious notions. A turning point for me occurred about five years ago when I attended a funeral for a former parishioner whose highly educated son afterwards said something to the effect, "Now, mom and dad are up there together again." That's a sentiment neither biblical or sensible. At that moment, I realized I could never again pastor a Christian church.
I agree with the process theologian Schubert Ogden who wrote, “Rightly understood, the problem of God is not one problem among several others; it is the only problem there is.” This is true from a meta-theological perspective. I think it is implied, too, in Tillich's Dynamics of Faith; in my view, the best book ever on faith. But, then, one can understand why some evangelicals argue that Tillich was not a Christian.
Well, Anton, as usual, you have posted thought-provoking comments, and this response is only some of what I wish I had time to think through and write.
DeleteYou noted that “some of our most revered wisdom teachers--such as Confucius, the Buddha, and Gandhi--did not apparently hold any mental concept of a personal creator God.” That is true perhaps, although I found it interesting that you put Gandhi in the same boat as Confucius and Buddha. Of course, Confucius as well as Gautama Buddha are often seen as ethical, rather than religious, teachers and Confucianism and some forms of Buddhism as ethical systems rather than religions. There is a wide variety of Buddhism with some forms far more, or less, “religious” than others. (I’ll say more about Gandhi later.)
In the teachings of Confucius and Buddha, there are certainly teachings regarding not harming others (sometimes including non-human life), but there is little about actively loving others by trying to make life better for them by eradication of societal mistreatment. From my study of religions and direct contact with the religions prevalent in Japan, I am quite sure the practice of active love is far more pronounced in a faith that is centered in a loving God.
On the other hand, and there is always another side to any issue, some of the most vilified tyrants in human history have also been non-theists. The names of Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot quickly come to mind. While there may be some non-theists who have done/taught good and helpful things, I think there are certainly not examples of God-believers who have done anything close to the harm as the examples above, although some “Christians” with political and military power have, indeed, committed atrocities. If you are going to compare the deeds of theists and non-theists, and whole gamut on both sides must be considered.
You also said that you are “personally more comfortable keeping company with nonbelievers than believers.” Well, that depends on who the people with those “labels” are. Clearly, not all nonbelievers nor all believers are alike. My guess is that I could pick three believers whom you would much rather spend company with than three nonbelievers I could also pick.
And then you wrote that “nonbelievers don't say strange things, assuming I agree with their superstitious notions.” Well, again, various conspiracy theories going around are “superstitious notions,” and while some of them are, quite certainly, spouted by “Christians,” my guess is there are perhaps as many nontheists who espouse the same or similar “superstitious notions,” although not the one you referred to—and perhaps the man you referred to needs a Christian pastor to help him understand real Christianity rather than continuing to believe in folk-religion.
As for Gandhi, don’t forget that he was importantly influenced by Tolstoy, and he was good friends with and appreciative of missionary C.F. Andrews, whose initials he reportedly said stood for Christ’s Finest Apostle.” Although he remained a Hindu, perhaps Gandhi had an understanding of God that was superior to many Christians. But what about his Hinduism, the religion that, among a multitude of gods and goddesses, worships Ganesh(a), the god usually depicted with an elephant head. I don’t know what Gandhi thought about Ganesh, but such a depiction of a god seems strange to me. And the whole idea of reincarnation and the transmigration of souls so basic to Hindu thought seems to me a far more “superstitious notion” than the example you gave.
I’m not sure why you choose to ignore all the butchery Christians have exert, even in just the last few hundred years in Africa, the Americas, and, remembering the Third Reich, Europe. In any case, here’s a photo of the Ganesh on the bookshelf in my living room:
DeleteOops, apparently I can’t post a photo in the thread on your blog. I’ll email it to you. —Anton
DeleteAnton, I wrote above, "I think there are certainly not examples of God-believers who have done anything close to the harm as the examples above, although some “Christians” with political and military power have, indeed, committed atrocities." So I did not "ignore all the butchery" done by some who bore the name Christian, but that butchery was done not because they were Christians acting on the basis of their beliefs about the Christian God but because they were using political and military power to increase their wealth. Most of that butchery was done because of allegiance to the "gods" of capitalism, but certainly not because of their commitment to the loving God made manifest in Jesus Christ. (I will be writing more about capitalism in my next blog post.)
DeleteI, too, have regretted not being able to post images in the Comment section of Blogspot, but thanks for sending me that photo by email. That is a striking image, and must be quite a conversation piece when you have visitors in your home. Do you have any idea what Gandhi thought about Hindu gods such as Ganesh? At any rate, I am sure devout Hindu believers worship what they see when they look at the sculpture of Ganesh rather than what I see when I look at it.
Anton, since we have been talking about Gandhi, I was interested in these words in Fr. Richard Rohr's "daily meditation" for today: "Jesus’ teaching on nonviolence is self-evident. As Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948) observed, 'I am convinced that [Christianity] has distorted the message of Jesus.... When it had the backing of a Roman emperor it became an imperialist faith as it remains to this day.'" [1]
Delete[1] Discussion with C. V. Raman and Dr. Rahm (May 1936), in "The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi," vol. 62 (New Delhi: Publications, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India, 1975), 388.
And then yesterday (July 21) Fr. Rohr posted these words in his "daily meditation":
Delete"Instead of legitimating what we are already doing, liberation theology simply tries to read the text from the side of the pain. That’s all. For me, that is the icon of Jesus—to read not from the side of power, but from the side of pain. Who has the pain? Where is the pain? As many have said, Jesus is on both sides of every war. The Germans in the First World War had their 'Gott mit uns' [God with us] on their belt buckles, but God is in the foxholes of both sides. God is with all people crying out in their pain. Doesn’t that leave us feeling helpless? It’s not an exclusive god of our group anymore; it’s the universal God of all the earth, of all peoples. But it’s only possible to think this way when we move to the level of wisdom, which is the level of liberation. We don’t have time for group-centric religion anymore. There is too much suffering." [2]
[2] "Adapted from Richard Rohr, “Gospel Call for Compassionate Action (Bias from the Bottom),” CAC Foundation Set (Albuquerque, NM: Center for Action and Contemplation, 2007). Available as MP3 download."
Thanks, Leroy, for evoking these thoughts.
ReplyDeleteMy own journey toward “apatheism” is significantly affected by my formation in the context of church.
The kind of “indifference” to “theism” I try to practice has been evoked by Meister Eckhart’s “For the sake of God I take leave of god” and Bonhoeffer’s “As if God were not a given” [etsi deus non daretur].
I might rightly say it was reading Tillich [“Dynamics of Faith” “Courage to Be”] that turned me toward philosophy. I remain curious about what is meant by the “name (of) God” [as John D. Caputo likes to write]. As the sociologists emphasize, what we take ideas/thoughts to mean is evidenced in what we do and how we do.
In “Situation Ethics” (1966, p.87) Fletcher writes “Love and Justice are the same, for justice is love distributed, nothing else.” He means his notion of “Christian Love” [agape, which he differentiates from philia and eros]. Many have taken issue and state that “Love and Justice are not the same.”
Cornel West is reported to have said (and say) “Justice is what love looks like in public.” His phrasing allows for the nuance that love might be experienced and practiced differently in multiple contexts.
My own (bible elicited) hunch is that justice/righteousness [social justice (?)] encompasses (as sub-systems) restorative/distributive justice leadership, commitment to the care that enhances all life, and practicing solidarity through mutual trust/faithfulness (walking together attentively).
Perhaps God is Love, and justice is our divinely inspired work. Even if we are “indifferent” to “god-talk.”
Shalom, Dick
Thanks, Dick, for posting these comments--and for posting a comment last month in which you used the word apatheism. That is what spurred my thinking and reading and then the writing of this blog post.
DeleteThanks, too, for the additional information about the Fletcher quote, which I have often mentioned since 1966 (or soon afterward). Thanks, too, for the reference to Cornel West's words, which I also like. (I am not sure I like him running for President next year, though.)
I mainly agree with your conclusion, although saying "God is Love," and "justice is our divinely inspired work" is, in fact, "god-talk."
Here is the link to an online article posted by Christianity Today. It is related to this blog post as well as my previous one.
ReplyDelete"In the US, belief in God has fallen by 16 percentage points in the past 20 years. Belief in angels and the Devil have both declined by 10 points." (see https://news.gallup.com/poll/508886/belief-five-spiritual-entities-edges-down-new-lows.aspx )