Is It Ethical for a Theologian to Believe in God?

I enjoy reading the Religion in American History Blog. I don't usually agree with most of the posts, but there is usually something of interest there. But on July 28, I read the following article. I am not arguing against Randall Stephens, but against K. L. Noll's "The Ethics of Being a Theologian."

Noll discusses the pure academic quality of Religious Studies. I don't really have any problem with that; I am sure that he is correct. My son was a Religious Studies major at UCSB -- and I think that he would agree. My problem stems with his statements about theologians:

It would be reasonable to begin every theological discussion with the disclaimer "the god described in this sacred text is fictional, and any resemblance to an actual god is purely coincidental." This is not an outsider's dismissive opinion, but the reality, and theologians have an ethical obligation to teach that truth even if they also want to believe and teach, as is their right, that a god exists.

Noll seems to believe that he has the only real understanding of knowledge and what we may know. It seems like he believes that a theologian, even if they believe in God, has an obligation to tell the students that the Bible (or Koran etc.) is pure fiction. First of all, isn't a theologian, by definition, someone who teaches the knowledge of God. Just because Noll doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist (and believe in Noll)! People do have a right to believe as they desire. Noll has a right to believe, teach and write about things from his perspective, but I think he is over the top when he says that anyone who disagrees with him (believes in God) is obviously mistaken; they should warn students in advance that their views are wrong.

Of course, I believe in God. I know God. I trust God. He exists. He loves me. He loves the world. Anyone who doesn't believe and who doesn't agree may do so. It is their right and may be "their reality". There is more than one way of knowing. Everything is not academic or scientific. There is the spiritual. I have quoted most of the post below (including all of the quotes from Noll).

Randall Stephens

A provocative essay appeared in yesterday's Chronicle of Higher Education. K. L. Noll offers up prickly ideas about the nature of truth and knowledge all the while distinguishing religious studies scholars from subjectivist, loopy theologians. The essay reminds me of that great piece that appeared in Lingua Franca years ago titled "Is Nothing Sacred? Casting out the Gods from Religious Studies" (Nov 1996).

Highlights from K. L. Noll's "The Ethics of Being a Theologian"

Most people do not understand what religious study really is. Professors of religion are often confused with, or assumed to be allies of, professors of theology. The reason for the confusion is no secret. All too often, even at public universities, the religion department is peopled by theologians, and many of those theologians refuse to make the distinction that I am about to make....

Theologians who do not think of themselves as unethical nevertheless sell their pew-sitting laity a bill of goods. The failure of theologians to remind the members of their churches and synagogues that the Bible is an anthology of ancient literature composed by ancient people in an ancient culture has consequences. The laity are entitled to know that any god described in a biblical text is an ancient god, a byproduct of the ancient culture that produced the text. The god of the Bible is the sum total of the words in the text and has no independent existence. It would be reasonable to begin every theological discussion with the disclaimer "the god described in this sacred text is fictional, and any resemblance to an actual god is purely coincidental." This is not an outsider's dismissive opinion, but the reality, and theologians have an ethical obligation to teach that truth even if they also want to believe and teach, as is their right, that a god exists.

Am I trying to imply that theology is without value? Certainly not. I do not presume to tell theologians how to be theologians, and I will not attempt to define the value of theology. I simply request that theologians fulfill basic ethical obligations, such as the affirmation that theology is not knowledge and must position itself apart from those academic disciplines that try to advance knowledge, such as history, anthropology, religious study, and (perhaps especially) the natural sciences.