You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
As the gods die, theology struggles to save itself from a similar fate. Aware of the different maneuvers afoot to revitalize the theological enterprise, Homans' Theology After Freud suggests that theology, of the Protestant variety at least, be allowed to die. He does this in the hope that his reading of psychoanalysis can guarantee a new life and cultural significance to theological speculations and religious imagery. What happens to theology after it allows itself to experience Freud is the theme of the work. This is unquestionably a worthy aim, but one which is more hinted at than realized. The book contains some interesting theological-psychological speculations, and it has short asides of real merit, such as its study of behaviorism. But Homans builds his argument on what he calls a third reading of Freud, and it is this, the book's methodological model, which is the focus of my critique.
The author raises the question of a possible reinterpretation of, and thus a new meaning for, the theological terms “transcendence” and “immanence.” To do this, Homans examines the notion of transference and the psychoanalytic meaning of phantasy. His procedure is to present the thought of Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich as the representatives of classic existential theology. Finding them wanting because of Niebuhr's mechanistic understanding of psychological development and Tillich's inability to free his theology from “oppressive imagery,” such as “the God above God,” Homans turns to Freud's study of phantasy, to the reality of the superego and ultimately to the possibility of a theology of nostalgia (immanence) and hope (transcendence). It should be noted in passing