The Christological Criterion

PART II

CHAPTER 4

Is It Founded in Jesus Christ?

Thi s is the first pro posed criteri on of theologica l adequacy: A Chri stian th e- ology mu st be fo unded and centered in Jesus Chri st. The "Chri sti e center" means that Jesus Chri st is our primary norm . Our premi se, of course, is that Jesus reveals God, and kn ow ledge of true deit y is the goal ofall theologica l inquiry. To say that, for Chri sti ans, all theologica l pro posals mu st be defensibl e chri stologica ll y is to say th at th ey mu st be shown to be co ngruent with our best understanding of Jesus Chri st. But thi s is exactly the rub. How do we reach thi s best und erstanding? Sin ce Chri st is understood in so many ways in so many different times and pl aces, according to such different readings of scripture, and in accord ance with so many differing interests and concern s, whi ch Chri st is normati ve fo r us? As l suggested in chapter I, thi s criteri on mu st be understood di alectica ll y with the prax is criterion: ls it li fe-givin g and lib ~ r:_a tin g? Jesus Chri st is fo und ational for us precisely becau se he--gives-life- arid liberty. Thus, in fa ithfulness to Jesus himself, we need a chri stology that is life-giving and liberatin gvOur best understanding of Jesus Chri st will be rooted and founded in th e biblical testimony to him, since th e Bible is our primary source of in fo rm ati on and testimony about Jesus and mu st involve di scussion of hi stori cal/critical questi ons about those texts. µMoreove r, th e praxis questi on implies th at chri stology mu st be pursued in a contemporary and contex tu al way. 'Further, th e rea li ty of Chri stian life in community implies that our christology mu st be ecclesial, takin g tradi tion and th e ecumeni cal Chri stian community into account. These con siderati ons, whil e they co mpli cate the chri stological norm , do not undercut its bas ic correctn ess. First let us explore how we have reached th e conclusion th at all good theology, at least fo r Chris ti ans, mu st be fo unded in Jesus Chri st.

Not A Priori

That Jesus Chris t is our primary norm and that Chri sti an li fe and thought mu st be chri stol ogica ll y based are not things that can be known a priori. That is

117 I 18 The Christologica/ Criterion why we have to begin by speakin g descriptively. As the primary ca non or rul e of theo logica l thought, th e chri stologica l criterion ari ses out of the fa ith of th e Chri stian community' It is onl y aft er th e fact , a posteriori, that is, from within fa ith, that we are abl e to speak both descriptively and prescriptively about theologica l method. It is a question of th e inn er necessity, th e intern al rationality or grammar of Chri stian fa ith itself. Simil ar ly, hi stori ans may not prescribe a priori to physicists how they will pursue their science; nor may chemists impose methods on sociologists. In each case, th eir objects of inquiry prescribe the mode in which they can be known. One must already know so me hi story, some ph ys ics, or so me sociology in order to discern (a posteriori) appropriate methods in each of those di sc iplines. To draw a different kind of analogy, Chri stians may not pre- sc ribe to Buddhists how th ey should think as Buddhists. From outside the Bud- dhi st community it is not possibl e to say how Buddhists should handle their scriptures, their traditions, and their med itative practice, or how these function as criteri a of truth and wisdom for Buddhists. Nor may Hindus prescribe to Mus- lims the inner rationality of Islam concerning the relation of Muhammad, the Qur'an, and the Hadith. It is onl y from within th ese trad iti ons that their inner rational ity and ways of knowing can be determined. v The point is this: Christi ans co nfess and proclaim that Jesus is kyrios (Lord or sovereign). The ea rl y Chri sti ans knew and rejoiced that Caesar was not kyrios; toda y we know that no political leader or id eology, not even capital or the mar- ket, is kyrios. None of these evokes our ultimate loyalty. Chri sti ans beli eve that they have encountered "deity" in Jesus, that th e true God is revealed in Jesus. They have found sa lvation, li berati on, and li fe in Jesus. That is , in th e crucified and risen Jes us, they believe th ey have met On e who is worthy of worship, trust, and final loyalty. That is why we may say that our li fe is "centered" in Jesus Chri st. He becomes the foc us of meaning and hope, and so also th e foc us or center of both our action and ou r thought. As kyrios he reigns over all our thinking about God, about humani ty, salvation and sin , creation and death, not to mention our ethi ca l thinking about perso nal life, our work, our sexuality, as well as tech- nology, the environment, and politi cs. If we deny that he ri ghtly reigns over all of our life and thought, we have effecti ve ly denied th at he is our kyrios and have confessed that we ha ve other lords or truths that are in some respects above him and hi s truth. Perhaps no more eloq uent statement of the centrality of Jesus Chri st ex ists than that of the Barmen Dec laration of 1934, by the German Con- fessing Church in oppositi on to the Nazi takeover of th e church: "We rej ect the fa lse doctrine, as though there were areas of our life in which we would not belong to Jesus Chri st, but to other lords- areas in which we would not need justi fica ti on and sanctificati on th ro ugh him. " 1 Thus, the di sc ipline of Chri stian Ii fe and thought is precisely to be di scipl es of Jesus Chri st in everything and th erefore to be centered in him . For those who co nfess Jesus as Lord, to depart from Chri st-centeredness is to lose bearings, to Is It Founded in Jesus Christ? I 19 fa ll into a kind of in coherence; it is precisely to become arbitrary in word and deed. What it means in practi ce is thi s: If we are di scussin g among ourselves as C hristi ans what our course of acti on should be in a particular circumstance (ethics), or w hat we are call ed to do as church at a parti cul ar time and pl ace (mis- sion), or what we should or should not do when we gath er fo r worship (li turgy), or how we should understand and teach some aspect of our fa ith (doctrine), the most fundamental question of adequacy we must put to any proposal is a christological one: Is it congruent with our best understanding of Jesus Chri st? To ask Is it biblical? is also essenti al (as we sha ll di scuss in a later chapter) but thi s in itself does not go deep enough, leaving us with an array of criti cal questi ons about interpretation and about the relati ve weight and emphasis we give to various books or passages of scripture. Unless th e scripture is read christologically it can become destructi ve and oppressive. This is why I suggest th at it is not scripture but Christ himself who is 11 orma 11 or ma11s 110 11 11ormata (th e norming norm which is not itself norm ed by any hi gher or deeper norm). 2 Nor is it enough to ask, Does it suit the times? or Does it fi t our context? (th ough th ese are also valu- abl e questi ons). In th emselves th ese leave us wide open to fa ds and ideological takeover and negate the lordship of Jesus. Nor is it appropriate to ask first: Is it in accord ance w ith tradition, or with th e majority of the ecclesia? (also a useful questi on in itelf) . An overemphasis on tradi tion would leave us stu ck in th e past, perhaps in accumulated, outmoded, or erroneous concepts and practi ces, leaving us without a li v ing Word fo r our own time and pl ace. Merely to make an eccl e- sial majori ty the primary measure o f truth would equate vox popufi with vox dei, thereby enthroning whatever is popul ar in the church at a particul ar time. Could th e Holy Spirit be our fo undatio n and center? Because the Spirit is God's own presence among and within us, she must certainly not be subordinated to Jesus Christ. But it is mistaken to think of th e Spirit apart from Jesus, since it is th rough th e concrete visibility of Jesus that we can di scern the p resence and work of the Spirit. Speaking epi stemologically and methodologica ll y, then, the Spirit cannot be the center and fou ndati on, even th ough it is the Spirit who draws us to Jesus and unites us to him. As we sha ll see in our di scussion of the triune God in th e next chapter, fo r Chri sti ans, to be " in Chri st" and to be " in the Spirit" are one and the same, since Christ and th e Spirit are one. Speaking descripti vely, we note that Christi ans live and think out of the con- creteness of Jesus, commonl y asking th emselves: What would Jesus do? (the fam ous WWJD!). Perhaps it is not far fe tched even to ask, What would Jesus drive? in this age of smog. Would Jesus favour this war? Would Jesus give hi s backing to capital punishment? Would Jesus favour this building proj ect? We may ask: What is th e will of Christ fo r today? Or: How do we meet Christ and celebrate his presence? Or: How should we discern what Christ is doing in the world today, and j oin him in it? It is not a simple matter to answer these ques- 120 The Christolog ical Criterion ti ons, but to ask the qu esti on is important. To be cente red or ori ented in thi s way is to kn ow where we are, where we stand , whi ch way to move. The center pro- vid es a va ntage point from whi ch to look in all directi ons. lfwe are un clea r about our center, we may find ourselves co nfu sed by connicting claim s to truth and auth ority. To use th e metaph or of constru cti on, we may say th at Jesus Chri st is th e foundati on ( 1 Cor 3: 11 ). It is a case of build ing our house upon a rock (Mt 7:24). The fo und at ion is a fi rm pl ace Lo sta nd . As th e questions j ust menti oned indi cate, chri stology ca nnot be divorced fr om practi ca l qu esti ons, nor, if we are Chri stians, ca n our co nsi derati on of practica l matters be divorced fro m chri stology. Our social analys is and vi sion, our politi ca l co mmitments and stra tegies, must also be co ngru ent with Jes us. Our perso nal relationships, fa mil y commitments, our relati onship Lo th e natura l ord er- all of th ese things mu st be congruent with our best understandin g of Jes us. Similarly, at th e level of theology and doctrine, we hear Chri sti ans say, "the doctrine of God yo u are ex press in g does not fit with my und erstandin g of Chri st"; or "we need thi s doctrine of th e Trin - ity if we are to make sense of the Lordsh ip of Jes us"; or "thi s understanding of the wo rk of the Holy Spirit is congru ent with what l believe about Jes us Chri st." In oth er words, among Christians, a bas ic test of adequ acy fo r any practi ca l or theological pro posal is thi s: ls it chri stologicall y fo und ed? And a test of adeq uacy fo r any whole or systematic theo logy is mu ch the sa me: ls it Chri st-centered? l n a theo logica l debate among Chri sti ans, whether a doctrinal/theoreti ca l one- th e nature of God , th e way of sa lvation, the nature of crea ti on, and so on- or a pra c- tica l ethi ca l or mi ssiologica l one, those who admit th ey are not "with Chri st" have surrendered the most im po rta nt gro und of th eologica l di scourse and debate within the Chri sti an community. One co ul d not hope to persuade a church mag- is terium , the sy nod or co unci I of a nati onal church, or even a local congregati on to adopt a course of acti on th at was not seen to be congru ent with our best understanding of Jesus Chri st. Jes us is not simpl y th e exempl ar of va lues, commitments, or ideo logies th at we already hold independently of him . Rather, as "reve lati on of God," as liberatin g and li fe -giving kyrios, Jesus Chri st is roc k bottom fo r our li fe , our worship, our th ought.

The Whole Christ

Wh en we spea k of Jesus Chri st as primary norm , ce nter, and fo undati on, we need to be clea r th at we mean the whole Chri st. We do not refer, fo r example, on~)I to th e "Jesus of hi story," or "Jes us of Nazareth" pri or to the events of the cross and res urrection. Nor we do mea n some abstract Chri st cut apart from the Jes us of hi story.! The center and fo undation of Chri sti an fa ith is Jesu s of Nazareth , the ~ hri s t , cru cifie d and ri sen, and present with us now in th e power of the Spirit. 3 It is poss ibl e and va lid to draw a dis tincti on between (w hil e not separating) Is It Founded in Jesus Christ? 121 the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, or the pre-Easter and post-Easter Jesus, as this has been developed by the long quest for the historical Jesus in its various phases. The distinction has legitimacy and value.4 Clearly, the story of Jesus of Nazareth prior to the resurrection is told with hindsight in light of the resurrection. To cite just one example among many, we may note that many, perhaps most, New Testaments scholars agree that the "I am" sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John are not likely to be from the mouth of Jesus of Nazareth himself. The Johannine Jesus is so different from the Synoptic Jesus and John 's christology appears to be so far developed by the postresurrection church that we may indeed see these sayings as inspired early-church reflection on Jesus in light of the resurrection. The scriptural value of these texts does not, at any rate, depend on their hav- ing come from the lips of Jesus himself. They are canonical because they were regarded as faithful postresurrection testimony to Jesus. Nor do we believe in Jesus' divinity because Jesus himself taught it. We need to recognize that the whole of the New Testament, including the testimonies of the Synoptic Gospels about the pre-crucifixion Jesus, is postresurrection early-church proclamation of the risen Lord. Christian faith is a response to this whole Christ. Where historical-Jesus scholarship is concerned, surely it is good for Chris- tians to know as much as possible about the hi storical Jesus, insofar as this may be discernible through historical investigations into his context and through com- parative detective work on the Gospels by such scholars as John Dominic Crossan, Richard A. Horsley, Marcus Borg, and N. T. Wright.5 We would be mistaken, I think, to try to ban or to dismiss such inquiries, which in recent years have been very rich and fruitful. Jesus, after all , is a gigantic figure in human history, of great interest to and in some degree accessible even to secular historians. Christian faith is rooted in historical events and must have nothing to fear in the investigation of these events, insofar as such investigation is possible. Moreover, any theological concentration upon Pauline and Johannine christology, barring questions about or neglecting the Synoptic testimony to the man of flesh, Jesus of Nazareth, runs the danger of docetism (denying the true historical humanity of Jesus). One must keep in mind, however, the limitations of such investigations, utterly dependent as they are on the New Testament sources, which are testimonies of faith. We also need to be cautious about the philosophical presupposi- tions of modem historical scholars about what is or is not possible.6 In fact, the history of the historical Jesus is not by any means a precise science, and it has been difficult for historical inquirers to find unanimity on many questions. 7 Christian faith , while it may distinguish the pre-Easter Jesus from the risen Christ and may (given ditlerences among the Gospel witnesses) take note of possible or probable differences between the Jesus of history himself and the church's testimony about him, cannot simply separate the two. lt is basic and essential to the Christian confession that the rabbi of Nazareth is the Christ. The Christ is this one who resisted the structures of imperial Rome in his native 122 The Christolog ical Criterion

Palesti ne; who taught in parabl es and proclaim ed th e reign of God; who heal ed th e sick, stood in so lidarity with th e poor and outcaste, and forgave sins and taught love above all else. The ri sen Chri st is not so me metaph ys ica l principle, some abstract divine presence, but is this one wh o was cru cifi ed for politi cal crim es under Pontius Pil ate. The cruc ifi ed Jesus is th e one who was ra ised, and th e ri sen Chri st is none oth er th an th e cru cifi ed one. Thi s mea ns that the Chri st to wh om we respond in fa ith is not sim pl y a hi storica l Jesus, perh aps so me min- im al, verifi abl e .J es us and hi s 1jJs issima verba etfacta (hi s very words and deeds) that th e criti ca l scholars ca n agree upon. Such a .J es us would not account fo r th e ri se or fa ith itse lf or th e continuing fa ith of th e church. Paul is sayin g so mething like thi s when he declares, "even th ough we once knew Chri st from a human point of view, we kn ow him no longer in th at way" (2 Cor 5: 16). It is the whole Christ, cru cifi ed and ri sen, "Chri st cloth ed in th e gospel," who is centra l and found ational fo r us and Lo whom we res pond in fa ith. Jes us in hi s wh ole li fe, teaching, and deeds, and in hi s dea th and res urrection, and present with us now by the Spirit, is the ky rios of Chri sti an fa ith .

The Christ-centeredness of Christian Worship and Life

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The law of prayer is th e law of beli ef. Thi s old adage of Pros per of Aquitain e (c. 390- c. 463) from th e ea rl y Middle Ages mea ns that th eo logy can never be di ssociated fr om the worship of the community. Worship ex presses th e fa ith and th eology of the communi ty, but also helps to fo rm it. 8 Doctrines grow out of people's ac tu al li fe of praye r and worship, th at is, their ac tu al re lationship with God. Thi s in sight coheres with our argument th at theologica l method operates a posteriori, not a priori. Let us spea k descripti ve ly fo r a moment, th en, about th e wo rship and prayer of th e ecum eni ca l Chri sti an commun ity. The actual Chri st-ce nteredn ess of Chri sti an fa ith is nowhere more evi- dent. The liturgical year- th e ca lend ar and lecti onari es- revolves around Chri st's adve nt , birth, and epiphany; hi s sufferin g and death ; hi s res urrection and ascension; and hi s continuing presence by the Spiri t. The worship of a Chri sti an congregati on often opens with a sa lutati on: "The gra ce of the Lord Jes us Chri st be with yo u." Hymn s of pra ise and th anksgivin g ex tol not onl y the majesty and goodness of God th e Creator but also th e love of Jesus, our cru cifi ed and ri sen Saviour, present with us by the power of the Holy Spiri t and ex pected to come again in glory. Confess ion of sin and fo rgiveness are so ught "th ro ugh Jes us Chri st our Lo rd ," and pardon is ass ured on the bas is of "the grace of our Lord Jes us." Readings from sc ripture always includ e Gospel readin gs, whi ch are ex pli citl y about Jes us Chri st himself, oft en fo ll owed by the ve rsicl e, "Prai se be to you, 0 Chri st' " The serm on proclaims God's Word , and the Word made fl esh is understood to be Jes us Chri st himse lf. The sacraments too are foc used on Is It Founded in Jesus Christ? 123

.Jesus: We are bapti zed in to hi s dea th and res urrecti on; in th e Lord 's Supper we hear of and receive "my body brok en for yo u ... my bl ood shed fo r yo u. " Prayers are offered in Chri st's name and are sometimes addressed to Chri st him se lf. Benedi cti ons, like Chri sti an worship as a whole, are usuall y trinitari an, lifting up "the grace of our Lo rd Jesus Chri st" to th e sa me divin e level as "th e love of God" and "th e fell owship of th e Holy Spirit." Chri sti an worship, wheth er Reform ed, Roman Cath oli c, Bapti st, Eastern Orth odox , An glican, Luth eran , Menn onite, Meth odi st, or Pentecostal, is Chri st-centered and trinitari an in structure and content. The indi ca ti ons we have fro m th e New Testament , if we look at Paul 's let- ters or th e boo k of Acts, are th at the church's wo rship has been Chri st- centered in thi s way from th e begin nin g. It is ev id ent from a rea din g of th e ea rli es t stra nd s of th e New Testament that th e first Chri sti ans were foc used on Jesus as th e Chri st. They testifi ed that th ey had met him ri sen and ali ve and th at, through the Holy Spirit, he continued to be present in th eir mid st. They related to him in an attitude of praise and th ank s- givin g. They related to him as th e Messiah/Chri st, as th e one who had in augu- rated God's reign dec isive ly in human hi story. In Jesus' life and dea th and resurrec ti on, God's reign had bro ken in upon th em and changed th eir li ves utterl y. It is ev ident th at ve ry soon th ey related to Jesus Chri st as to Go el , beca use he was th e one wh o had saved or deli ve red th em fr om th e powers of sin and death . They tru sted in him as th eir Jew ish fo rebears had tru sted only in Go el . In one se nse, th eir wo rship re fl ec ted th eir be li ef, but in anoth er way, their relati onship to Jes us in pra yer and wo rship pu shed them to articul ate certain beli efs about him , about hi s identit y and mi ss ion. lf we prai se and th ank him, if we trust and hope in him , Wh o is he? Does thi s prove anything about appropri ate theo logica l meth od or about chri stology? Could thi s not be an argum ent fo r a merely conse rvati ve status quo in Chri sti an theology and worship? lncl eecl , thi s description of th e grammar of Chri sti an worship does not itself prove th at Chri sti an th ought must be chri stologica ll y based. Conce iva bl y the church should cease to worship in thi s way. Per- haps Chri st should be re moved from th e center of Chri sti an worship. Paul Newman, a pluralist th eologian, has argued th at Chri sti an fa ith and th eology should become theocentri c (Go el -centered) ra th er than christocentric/trinitarian. He suggested th at th e wo rship of the churches, its son gs and rituals, should grad- uall y move away fr om its excessive fo cus on Jesus. He regrets that "[i]t is and has been Chri st ian liturgies th at, by addressin g prayers and confessions to Jesus and not onl y th ro ugh Jesus, make him equi valent to Goel in reli gious practice."9 He is surely quite ri ght about thi s. Simpl y to desc ribe Chri sti an wo rship as tra- ditionall y Chri st- centered does not immedi ately prove th at thi s is appropriate, sin ce traditi on as such is not our primary norm. and no doubt there have been all kinds of abu ses and wrong direc ti ons in Chri sti an liturgy over th e centuri es. Nor does it pro ve that theology should move in th e sa me directi on. Yet the long- standing fact of the Chri st-centeredness of Christi an worship cann ot be ignored 124 The Christolog ical Criterion theo logica ll y. Our wo rship rell ects actu al Chri sti an consciousness and ex peri - ence from th e beginning and up to th e present. Whil e Paul Newman depl ores th e th eo logica l impact of Chri st-centered worship, I rejoice in it. A liturgica l scholar has pointed out quite ri ghtl y th at "th eo logica l study becomes abstract and hi ghl y spec ul ati ve ir it is not grounded in th e wo rship li fe or a fa ith community." 10 Th e di ctum lex orandi. lex crcdendi suggests that worship is primmy, theology is sec- 0 11 dm y. The developed, arti cul ated doctrine or th e ancient church fo ll owed upon long years or Chri sti an wo rship centered in Chri st. Long-standing, even ancient and primiti ve practi ces and prayers put us in touch with our hi stori c roots and identity as Chri sti ans and with our co ntinuing personal and community ex peri - ence of Christ as Lire-Giver and Liberat or. Most Chri sti ans fee l that when liturgical li fe is not Chri st-centered, or when Chri st is redu ced to a sid eline in th e worship or th e church, it is gettin g off course. It seems to foll ow that, if we are go in g to worship chri stocentri ca ll y, our th eology, preaching, teaching, and ethi cs mu st also be ri gorously chri stocentri c.

Lex Seq11 endi. Lex Credendi. The law of foll owin g is the law of beli ef. We may go on to note how not onl y liturgy bu t Chri sti an life, ethi cs, and mi ssion are also, de facto, centered in Jes us Chri st and that (as Jon So brino frequently in sists) fo l- low in g Jesus is a so urce fo r understanding him . 11 We speak of fo ll ow ing and obeying him . Our practi ca l commitments to justi ce and peace, to the oppressed and the poor, are seen to be part of our di scipl es hip of Jes us. Debates about vi o- lence, about human relati onships, about ra cism or sex ism, in evitabl y make reference to .J esus, hi s teac hing, and the implica ti ons of hi s cross and res urrecti on. When ethi cal di scussion ceases to make reference to Jesus Chri st, it ceases to be co herentl y Chri sti an, becomes co nfused and un foc used, and fail s to be persua- sive in the church. Simil arl y, our mi ss ion is sa id to be (at least in part) ''to proclaim Jesus, crucifi ed and ri sen, our judge and our hope," but also to "seek justi ce and resist ev il , to li ve with respect in creati on," 12 because we beli eve that the Christi an mi ssion is nothin g else but our parti cipa ti on in Christ's own ongo- in g mi ss ion in th e power of the Spirit. Th e co ncept or lex sequendi, lex credendi suggests that Chri sti an doctrines about Jesus Chri st arose in part out of th e ex peri ence of fo ll ow ing him . Chri s- ti ans fo und th emse lves in a re lati onship of fo ll ow ing and obedience to Jes us Chri st and fo und life within thi s relati onship. But if we foll ow and obey him, Wh o is he? Thi s liberati oni st in sight is entirely co ngru ent with our bas ic methodologica l stance : th at libera ti ve praxis and the chri stologica l found ati on are a dual bottom line fo r th eology. It is not Jes us Chri st in the abstract who is normative but the life-giving, liberatin g Chri st. Here I draw in sight, but also differ from, Clodov is Boff, in hi s mass ive , meti cul ous stud y of the epi stemology of Latin Am eri ca n liberati on th eology. Bo ff argues for "pra xis as criterion of truth," and "the prim aL:y of praxis over th eo ry," contending that " it is praxi s that gets theory goin g . .. that leads th e way in th e di alec ti cal method in questi on, standing at th e Is II Founded in Jesus Christ? 12 5

beginning point and encl point of thi s movement. " 13 lfwe consider chri stology as theological "th eory," it is surely true th at our theological affirmati ons about Chri st fl ow (at least in part ) fr om th e ex pe rience of following him. Boff is right about thi s. Unfortunately, when he speaks of "th eo logica l criteri ology" he does not spea k ex plicitly or Chri st or scripture (though these seem to be impli cit or ass um ed), and therefore hi s trea tm ent of criteri a is in suffi cien tly di alectical. The praxis criterion has insufli cient dialogue with th e chri stological criteri on. If praxis is th e criterion of truth , we have to ask , What is th e criteri on of praxis? 14 That be li ev in g fl ows out of foll ow in g underscores the necessity that theology, Iik e Chri sti an Ii fe itself, mu st be Chri st- ce ntered. Again, why do I bother to describe what is so obvious and well known? Does th e fac t th at we fo ll ow Jes us prove anythin g about theo logical method? Th is descripti on of Chri sti an ethi ca l Ii IC and th e gra mm ar of ethical refl ection does not in itse lf prove that Chri sti an th ought mu st be chri stologically based. Conceiva bly the church should cease to think in thi s way. Perh aps we should find other eq uiv- alent, more up-to-date and relevant models of ethical li fe. Why should we not find eq uall y help ful models or gu id es in Ga ndhi , Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, and Jean Vanier? Perhaps we have personal moral and spi ritual heroes- mothers or grandm others, teachers, pastors, fri ends , leaders, co-work ers- who will never be fa mous but who are an in spi ration to us. These and others like them of our own time, whether famous or not, may surely be more relevant as moral and spiritual teachers and exampl es for contemporary Ii f'c. But in fact it is not any of these, or others like th em, that we follow. Quite clearly, fo r Chri stians, Jesus is far more th an moral teacher or exampl e of spiritual Ii fe . He is unsubstitutab le as th e one to be fo ll owed, obeyed, and trusted. As th e one cru ci tied and risen, it is he who has blazed th e path, even for th ese ad mirable peop le of our own tim e. Aga in , the practice of fo ll ow ing him implies so methin g about hi s identity. The arti cul ated doctrine of the ancient church fo ll owed upon long years of fo ll owi ng Jesus, so that not on ly prayer and worship but ac ti on too has shaped doctrine. Gustavo Gutier- rez made the poi nt clearly about both lex orandi and lex sequendi when he declared: "The first phase of theological wo rk is th e li ved fa ith th at find s ex pres- sion in prayer and commitment. .. . The second ac t of theology, that of refl ecti on in the proper sense of th e term , has fo r its purpose to read thi s compl ex praxis in li ght of God's word. " 15 One thing must be faced: If we decide theologically that we should be centered somewhere else than in Jes us Chri st, if we conclude that our norm fo r Chri s- tian theology is to be found elsewhere, then indeed our language of worship and Ch ri st ian life must change drastically. A decentered Chri st, understood in te rms of a reduced chri stology, mu st cease to be so prominent , both in our worship and in our ethi cal re flecti on or practi ce . l lym ns of praise to Jesus must cease. Our trinitarian worship and prayer must be eradicated. We must no longer speak of obeying or fo ll owing Jesus. To continue as we do in praye r and hymn ody, sacrament and preac hing, following and obed ience would be sheer idolatry' 12 6 The Christological Criterion

Can We Be Cosmocentric or Centered in Creation'?

Two major altern ati ves to a th eology found ed and cente red in Jes us Chri st are the pluralist thcoeenlri c or soleri oeentri c theo logies, whi ch are conce rn ed with the relati onship or Chri sti ans to the world reli gions (to be considered in chapt er 6), and th e erea li on-centered or cosmocentri c theo logies, which are moti - va ted by enviro nm ental/eco logica l co ncern s. Sometim es these are linked, in th at so me th eo logies or 111terreligous dialogue are al so ecologica ll y ori ented, and vice-versa. We may co nsid er th e cosmocentri c theo logies bri efl y in order to clar- ify what it may or may not mea n fo r a Chri sti an theo logy of crea tion to be rounded in Chri st. Eco logica l theo logies have grown out of an intense awa reness of global cli- mate change, th e vast destructi on or fo rests and th e ex pansion of deserts, th e di s- appearance of th ousa nd s of bi ologica l species, the depl eti on of the ozone layer, and the threat to human hea lth through pollu ted air and water. Their goal is to awaken our sense of kin ship with th e Ea rth and all li vin g bein gs, to dee pen our grat itude and love fo r all creatures, and therefore also fo r God as Crea tor. We should note th at not all ecologica l th eo logies are cosmocentri c. A wide spectrum ex ists, in cluding on the one hand Eva nge li cal s for Social Ac ti on,16 and on the oth er hand th e proponents o f' "creati on-centered spirituality."17 Th e spectrum includes also substanti al chri stologica ll y ce ntered trinitari an theo logies such as those of Jlirge n Moltm ann in hi s eco logica l doctrin e of creati on, as we ll as hi s messiani c chri stology; Leonardo Boff, in hi s Lati n Ameri ca n trinitari an, libera- tio ni st/ecologica l, and pro-femini st th eology; Douglas John Hall , in hi s stron gly biblica ll y based contex tu al th eology of steward ship.18 Major contribu tors and pionee rs in thi s area are the ecofeminists who may or may not be "Chri st- centered" (a mong whom Rosemary Radfo rd Ru ether was a tra il blazer nea rl y thi rty years ago),19 who em ph as ize th e connecti on between the dominati on of nature and the domin ati on of women. Eli za beth John so n is an ecofeminist who unites eco logica l th eo logy to a trinitari an wi sdom chri stology, emph as izin g the Creator Spirit. 20 Some eco logica l theo logians ex pli citl y decenter the Chri st, an d Th omas Berry would be a good exampl e of thi s. Be rry ca n be ca ll ed a cosmocentri c theologian in th at he co nside rs the universe. th e so lar system, and pl anet Ea rth as "the pri ma ry revelati on of th at ultimate mystery whence all things emerge into be in g. "21 Berry can say that, since Goel is now speak ing to us th ro ugh th e uni - verse , we should set as ide th e Bible fo r twenty years and li sten to God in nature.22 On e hes itates to be criti ca l of an auth or wh o is doin g so mu ch to ra ise consciousness in North Ameri ca about enviro nm ental destru cti on; hi s work is provocati ve, in spi ra ti onal, and proph eti c, es pec iall y in hi s analyses of the co n- Is It Founded in Jesus Christ? 127 necti on between the ecologica l crisis and th e profiteering of the capitali st system.2:1 However, I suggest that it is imposs ibl e for most Chri sti ans lo agree th at the uni ve rse is the " primary revelat ion " or God. It is tru e that "the heavens are telling th e glory or Goel and th e firmament procl aim s God's handiwork" (Ps 19: I), th at th e mystery and majesty of crea tion , both in its immense and its mi croscopi c dimensions, do incl eccl speak to us of the grea tn ess and mys tery of th e Crea tor. Yet the crea ti on in and of itsel r does not show us th e graciou s Goel whom we find cli sclosccl in th e story of Israel, and in Jesus. It was onl y the liberatin g event of the exod us and th e presence of the holy One with the Isra elites in exi le th at led the ancient Hebrews to beli eve in the universa l Creator of a good crea ti on (Gen I :3 I). It is onl y because or the Jew ish Jesus that Gen ti le Chri stians have co me to know the God or grace as th e Creator of all. It is not observation or th e world but our kn ow ledge of Goel found ed in Christ that assures us that creation is good and th at it wi ll ultimately be brought to a glorious co mpl eti on and fu Ifi II ment. Sa lli e McFague, a major cco fc minist contributor to ecological theology, is another important and challengin g thinker in whose th eo logica l work Jesus Chri st plays a major role . But McFague describes herse lf' not as chri stocentri c, but as theocentri c and especia ll y as cosmocentri c. 24 McFague argues that Jes us' command to love Goel and one's neighbour as oneself should be ex tcnclecl to nature: We mu st also love the animals and birds, in sects and plants, th e so il and th e seas, mountains and rivers as neighbours. We should love and ca re for them not onl y because our ve ry survival depends on all of them. but in and fo r th emselves as prec ious and va luabl e in th emse lves, as God 's crea tures. McFague thinks that Jes us' mini stry, while it obviously far pre- cedes in time our contemporary concerns abo ut the we ll -bein g of the natu ra l environ ment, is implici tl y pro-nature. Jes us overturned ex isting hi erarchies of ri ch over poor, ri ghteo us over unrighteous, powerful over weak. It makes sense in our tim e, she argues, to ex tend thi s at titude and to overturn th e hi erarchy of human over nonhuman.25 Further, in hi s healing acts, Jes us ex hibited love and ca re not onl y for so ul s but also for bod ies, embedded in the physical , natural world. Jesus' practices or feeding th e hun gry, eat in g with outcast peo pl e, promis- in g an eschatologica l banquet aga in emphas ize Jes us' affirmation of the natural and th e physical. 26 McFague is surely ri ght about these things. Through the lens of our present eco logica l difficulti es we may noti ce other things too about Jes us' relati on to nature. We hear that, when Jes us retreated to the desert to face temptati on , he was "with the wild beas ts" (Mk I: 13), su rel y an allu sion to hi s redemptive signi fica nce for th e beasts. Jesus speaks ofa Goel who ca res fo r sparrows (M t I 0:29), who adorn s the lili es or the field (M t 6:28). Nat- ural creatures- yeast, mu stard seeds, moth er hens- bear witn ess to God 's reign and God's maternal lo ving ca re. Jes us, as we meet him in th e pages or the New Testament, evinces a definite ad mirati on and affec ti on fo r the world of nature. 128 The Christolog ica/ Criterion

Jesus' vision of God's cornin g rule is not a heavenl y kin gdom so mewhere else but a thi s-worldl y tra nsform ati on o f' th e earth . It is ev ident th at .J es us cheri shed God's good creati on and ex pec ted its transformati on and sa lv ati on. Wh at McFague omits to menti on in thi s rega rd is th e bodil y res urrecti on or Jes us. Surely thi s is a cent ra l New Testament witness to the signifi ca nce of th e natu ra l and the ph ys ica l in God's sc heme of things. Bodi es are not merely expend abl e shell s th at temporaril y house the all -import ant so ul s of human bein gs . On the co nt ra ry, th e bodil y ra ising of Jes us, however strange and in com- prehensibl e th is may be (we shall di scuss it aga in in th e next chapter), is the bas is for the Christi an hope fo r our ow n bodil y resurrect ion ( I Cor 15) and fo r a "new heaven and new ea rth '' (Rev 2 1: I). These eschatologica l hopes are also very stra nge and beyond comprehension. But the res urrecti on of Jes us (as we shall di scuss in the nex t chapter) is our glimpse into that eternal rea lm . Th e in ca rn ati on or Goel in .J es us Chri st is also, of course, a prime reason for Chri sti ans to take th e ph ys ica l wo rl d seri ously as the sphere of God's ca re and ac ti vit y. We are told that God's Word became.flesh in Jesus (J n I: 14) demon- strating God's love and ca re fo r all fl es h (not onl y hum an be in gs), honour ing and givin g di gnity to fl es h as a medium of th e di vin e presence and acti vity. But McFague's handling of th e in ca rn ati on is also probl emati c. She can spea k of th e Word made fl es h in .J esus, or Jesus as inca rn ati on of God, but she has reinter- preted thi s dras ti ca ll y as one in stance or paradi gm within a ge nera li zed in ca rn a- tion or God in th e wo rl d. In her ea rli er wo rk The Body of Cod, she pro posed th at th e primary Chri sti an beli ef in in ca rn ati on should be "radi ca li zed beyond Jes us of Naza reth to in clud e all matt er. Goel is in ca rn ated in the wo rld ."27 Thus she wishes to ''relati vize the inca rn ati on in relati on to Jes us ofNazarth , and . .. max- imi ze it in relation to the cosmos. Jes us is paradigmati c of what we find everywhere: everything th at is is th e sacrament of Go el (the uni verse as God's bocl y). "28 Accordin g to McFaguc, th en, God is inca rn ated not onl y in Jes us but in th e uni verse as a whole. Jes us is the clue, and a paradi gm or exampl e of the pattern of Goel 's presence and ac ti vity in the world in the service of love and justi ce, but th ere are oth er special irrupti ons of the di vin e presence in perso ns or events. "Jesus is one such pl ace for Chri sti ans, but there are other paradi gmatic perso ns and events. "29 McFague names her vision of God's relati on to th e world as "panentheistic": All things are in Cod. and Cod is in all things. She pro tests th at, tra ditionall y, Chri sti ans have separated Go el fro m th e creati on and have all owed fo r the di vine presence in the world onl y in th e inca rn ati on in Jes us, thus rend erin g the natu ra l world profa ne and open for abu se and ex pl oitati on.30 I thin k she is partl y right about thi s; Chri sti anity has a long hi story of profa nin g th e created order, desacra li zin g it by separatin g it ra di ca ll y from the Creator, encourag ing human bein gs to "subdue" and "have domini on" over oth er creatures (as in Gen I :28). In recent years th e Chri sti an tracl it on has been accused, with so me justifi cati on, of sponsoring the domin at ion of nature, leadin g all too o~e n to its ra pe and des- Is It Founded in Jesus Christ? 129 ecrati on3 1 Thi s argum ent mu st be heeded by Chr is ti ans, and the dominati on of nature mu st be seen as a di stort ion or th e Chri sti an message, a heresy about God and crea ti on. However, McFague has overstated her charge th at th e Chri stian th eologica l traditi on has removed God rrom the phys ica l world except for th e divine presence in .J es us. Most obviously, th e ca th oli c sacramental traditi on (in cludin g not onl y Roman Ca th oli cs, but, in th eir diffe rent ways, An gli ca ns, Lutherans, Calvini sts, and Wes leya ns) has always affirm ed the rea l presence of God/Chri st in th e Eucharis t. Beyond th at, traditional doctrines of God have always in cluded the di vin e omnipresence in all crea ti on. One of th e clearest statement s of thi s tra dition is round in th e wo rd s of Luther:

God in hi s essence is present everywhere, in and through the whole creati on, in all its parts and in a ll pl aces, and so th e world is full of Goel , and he fill s it all , ye t he is not limited or subscribed by it, but is at th e sa me tim e beyond and above th e whole crea ti on.32

It is tru e, however, that thi s traditi onal doctrin e has been insuffi ciently empha- sized and th at Chri sti ans, es pecia ll y in th e modern era, have seen the world as merely pro fan e, ava il able fo r our mas terful technologica l control. A number of ecologica l theo logians (e.g. , Moltm ann , Leonard o B o ff~ Eli zabeth Johnson) have offered major panenth eisti c trea tm ents of th e doctrines of God and crea ti on, in spired 111 part by our present contex t or ecological destru cti on. They were able to do thi s without diminishin g th e spec ifi city and uniqueness of th e in carnation of God in Jesus Chri st. And why is it in ad mi ssibl e fo r Chri sti an th eology to transfer th e doctrine of in ca rn ati on fr om Jes us Chri st to th e uni verse as a whole? I would argue th at thi s bas ica ll y mi sunderstand s the roots and rai son d'etre of the doctrine in Chri stian fa ith. Jesus is sai d to be th e in ca rn ati on of th e di vin e Wi sdom and Word not because he exemplifies, as paradi gm, a moral ideal of justi ce and compass ion, and th erefore of di vin e presence, but becau se hi s life, death , and res urrection are ackn owl edged as th e esch atologica l event of sa lvation. Th e ea rl y Chri stians wor- shiped and prai sed .J es us, and Chri sti ans do so still , not beca use he was an ex tra- ordinaril y good man but because he reconcil es us to Goel , overcomes the power of death , and ushers in decisive ly th e eschatologica l reign of God. Fo r th ese rea- so ns Chri stians relate to him as to God, in worship, tru st, and obedi ence. But the created ord er as such ca nn ot in carnate God, ca nn ot be fo r us the obj ect of worship, beca use it does not save or liberate us. In fact , the divine di sc losure in Jes us stand s in cont ra di cti on to the world as we kn ow it, in whi ch typi call y the stro ng dominate th e weak. Th e gospel of cross and res urrecti on contradicts the realm of "nature red in tooth and cl aw," because Chri st has " brought down th e powerful fr om th eir thrones and lifted up th e lowl y; he has fill ed th e hungry with good things and sent th e ri ch away empty" (Lk I :52- 53). Th e cosmos as we know it does not incarnate or reveal the grac ious God, th ough Goel loves it and is inti- 130 The Christologica/ Criterion mate ly present and al wo rk within it ; ra ther the cosmos itse lf stand s in need of redemption from its ow n horror, confli ct, pain, and dea th . The apos tl e Paul says th at the whole creati on "groa ns inwardly" while we wait for th e redemption of our bodies (Rom 8: 19-23). Thus it is not th e whole creation that incarnates Goel , but th e cru cified Jew, tortured, executed, and ri sen from the dead. It is only in him th at th e Chri stian church linds th e glory of Goel incarn ate. Thus, th e uni ve rse as "God 's body" is no t, as McFague suggests, a radical- izati on of the doctrine of the incarnation, but a cl eradi ca li zation, a domestication of th e in ca rn at ion. It s grea t danger is th at it te nds to clivini ze and romanticize the creati on- a move th at has, in th e long run , conservative impli cations, in that it lends lo bless whatever is so. This is co ntrary, of co urse, to McFague's intention, but we mu st as k: Ir th e world is God's body, can we strive to change it radically? Does the God or Israel, th e God of hope and promise, not protest and challenge th e world as it ex ists- not onl y th e world of human sin but also th e whole crea- turely rea lm of violence, sickness, decay, and death?33 The New Testament proclaim s Jesus as both Creator and Saviour not onl y of human so ul s but of whole persons, and indeed of th e whole created ord er of which human bodies are a part. 34 Echoing th e Heb rew and Greek wisdom literature concerning th e di vin e medi ator of crea ti on, th e apostl e Paul spea ks of Jes us Chri st as the one "through whom arc all things and through whom we ex ist" (I Cor 8:6). John also speaks of Jesus as th e di vi ne logos who was with God and was Goel from the beginning, th e one "through whom all things ca me into being," in whom was li ght and life (Jn 1: 1-4 ). Coloss ians sees .J esus as a Cosmic Chri st, Creator and Saviour not onl y of' hum an bein gs, but of la pan/a, all things '

in [Chri st] all thin gs in heaven and earth were created, things visi- ble and in visibl e . .. all things have been created in him and fo r him . He is before all things and in him all things hold togeth er. . For in him all the fullness of' Goel wa s pleased to dwell , and through him Goel was pl eased lo reconci le lo him se lf all things, whether on ea rth or in heaven, makin g peace by the blood of hi s cro ss. (Col I: 19-20)

The Chri stian relati onship to Jesus, one of gratitude and praise, worship and follow in g, implies that the crea ti on as such, of which we ourselves are a part, cannot function fo r Chri stian s as the ''in ca rnati on of Goel. " It is ev ident also that our chri stologica l norm rul es out cosmocentri sm, but it is rul ed out also by scripture and tradition. Th e con textual requ irements of the eco log ical cri sis do ind eed call fo r new direct ions in th eo logy fo r our time; we urgently need a widespread appropriati on of eco logica l th eo logy among Chri stian people. We need to see, in li ght of our chri stol ogical ce nter, th at the dominium of Chri st implies that human domini on in the wo rld is nothing else but a servi ce of lov in g steward ship and lov- ing se rvice to th e other crea tures th at share pl anet Ea rth with us35 The chri sto- Is It Fo1111dcrl in Jesus Christ? ! 31 logica l center does not hinder, but enh ances such an app ro pri ati on, deepens it, and rend ers it more credibl e to th e Chri stian eccles ia.

The Variety of Christocentric Theologies

It is important to rea li ze th at Chri st- centeredn ess does not impl y that th ere exists a sin gle, correct th eology fo r all Chi stian s. Many different but more or less compatibl e Chri st-centered th eo logies ca n coex ist peacefull y (in an atm os ph ere of vigo rous debate) within th e church. It seems use ful at thi s poin t to note th e widespread agree ment with th e church's de facto chri stocentri sm by gatherin g together a diverse group of th eologians and to hea r th eir statements on thi s matter. Let us listen, for exa mpl e, to a Swi ss Reform ed th eo logian, a Roman Cath oli c Peru vian libera ti oni st, a Pres byteri an femini st from the United States, a Canad ian United Church contex tual th eo logian , and an American Meth odi st process th eologian : Barth , Guti errez, Russe ll , Hall , and Cobb. Alth ough all of th em ca ll fo r theology to be Chri st-cent ered , th eir theologies differ fr om one anoth er in major ways, and in th ese di fTerences they may, or may not, be in di s- agreement; they may differ mainl y in ernrhas is or contex tu al locati on, or may di fTer in important doc trinal ways. Karl Barth ( 1886- 1968) was unquesti onabl y th e greatest champi on of Chri st-centered th eo logica l meth od in th e twe nti eth century. As we have menti oned, he was one of th e main leaders of th e Germ an Confess in g Church resis- tance to Hi t Ier, th e mai n auth or or th e Ba rm en Declarati on, a Ii felong democ rati c sociali st, and a vigorous opponent of the nuclear arm s race. He is generall y regarded as the most powerful leader of the movement comm onl y ca ll ed in North Ameri ca "neo-orthocl ox. "36 It was prec ise ly the accomm odati on of th e ea rli er libera l th eology, in whi ch he had bee n raised and edu cated, to the imperi ali stic and wa rlike world of late modernity th at moved him to qu esti on th e so lidity and depth of that th eology and convin ced him to take se ri ously what he ca ll ed th e "stra nge new world of th e Bibl e." In th e Bible, and more spec ifi ca ll y in Chri st, he fo und firm ground on th e bas is of whi ch to res ist Nazism: "Jes us Chri st is th e one Word of Goel whom we have to hea r and be! ieve in Ii fe and in dea th ," said the Ba rmen Declarati on. Consis tent with thi s co mmitment, in hi s mature Church Dog111 atic.1· Barth const ructed every doc trine upon an ex pli cit christological fo un - dation. There he in sists,

Theo logy mu st begin with Jes us Chri st and not with general principl es, however better, or, at any ra te, more relevant and illuminat in g, th ey may appear to be .. . . Aga in st all im ag in ati ons and errors in which we seem to be so hopelessly entangled when we try to spea k of Go el , God will indeed maintain Hi111 se ll'ir we will only all ow th e name ol'Jesus Chri st 132 The Christologica/ Criterion

to be maintained in our thinking as the beginning and encl of all our thoughts3 7

Gustavo Culierrez is an exampl e of a Chri st-centered th eol ogian who repre- se nts anoth er, quite di fferent schoo l of th ought and writes out of a ve ry different tim e and pl ace- lat e twe nti eth -ce ntury Latin Am eri ca. He has o ft en been accused (unjustl y) of havin g bee n co-opted by a politi cal , spec ifi ca ll y Marxist, ideol ogy. In fac t, alth ough Guti errez ha s sometim es utili zed a Marxist soc ial analys is, he is also clea rl y and ex pli citl y Chri st-centered. Hi s intenti on is a liberati ve politi ca l th eo logy, arti cul atin g a vision of Chri stian fa ith th at will help to free and uplift the poor of Lat in Am eri ca. He dec lares a cl ea r politi ca l/theo logica l agend a at th e out se t of hi s first majo r book:

Thi s book is an attempt at renecti on, based on th e gospel and th e experi ences of men and wo men committed to the process of liberati on in the oppressed and ex pl oit ed land of Latin Am eri ca. 18

Th at th eology is based on both th e gospel and the experi ence of struggle in a specifi c context makes clea r th at thi s is intenti onall y a contextu al th eology. To describe hi s context as "oppressed and expl oited" is alread y to operate with a thought-out social analysis and consciously to allow thi s social analys is to have a bea rin g on hi s readin g of scripture. In thi s explicit, intentional contex tu ality, he differs methodologica ll y from Barth . Yet thi s contextuality does not compromi se hi s Chri st-centeredness, fo r he ca n oft en be heard to say, "The basis and fo undati on of all theologica l reasoning is Jesus Chri st. "39 A close reading of hi s theo l- ogy demonstrates that thi s is no holl ow cl aim . In a later book, Guti errez wrote:

The primordi al, and in a ce rt ain sense unique, so urce of revealed truth is Jes us th e Chri st. The ann oun cement of the kingdom mu st be made to persons li vin g in a parti cul ar hi stori cal and cultural situation, but it takes on its full mea nin g onl y when conn ected with Jes us .. .. The good news is Jes us Chri st himself. An y renecti on on the truths of Chri sti anity and on the language needed for communicating them must start from him who is the truth .40

Gutierrez is certainl y not al one am ong liberati oni sts in thi s respect. He is fo und together with Leonard o B o fl~ Jose Miguez Bonino, Jon Sobrino, and many others. Am ong femini st th eologians th ere is great di ve rsity on th e questi on of cen- terecln ess in Chri st. Within th e wide spectrum of feminist th eologies there are many wh o would certainl y put Jesus Chri st off center and to the sid e; some adopt a theocentric (God-centered), or "survival " or " li fe -centered" approach .4 1 For so me, the mal eness of Jes us is a pro bl em, and for some, what appears to be the Is It Founded in Jesus Chris /? 13 3

Western ori gin of Chri st-centered th eology is obj ecti onabl e. Some wo uld simpl y make women's ex peri ence the th eo logical foundati on, or make th e Spirit more primary and central th an Jes us Chri st. Herc one would have to menti on major fi gures such as Rosemary Radfo rd Ru eth er, Eli sabeth Sc hCi ss ler Fi orenza, Sa lli e McFague, Ca rter Heyward . Oth ers, such as Eli za beth John son, whil e not spea k- ing or chri stocentri sm, operate out or a hi gh, trin itari an chri stology and may be described as Spirit-centered4 2 Oth er femini st theo logians wh o may be described as Chri st-centered are th e America n Roman Ca tho Iic Cath erine Mowry LaC ugna, the wo mani st th eolog ian Jacqu elyn Grant, the La tin Ameri can Mari a Clara Bin gemer, and the Wes t Afri ca n, Mercy Amba Odu yoye. The Ca nadi an femini st theologian Pamela Dickey Young, whi le not es pousin g a hi gh chri s- tology, wo uld be an exampl e of one who supports the idea of Chri st as "central sy mbol."43 Lelly Russell is most notabl e perhaps as a substanti al, biblica l femini st th e- ologian, a professor at Ya le whose th eo logy has grown also out of many years of pastoral mini stry with the ur ba n poo r. Femini st eccles iology, ca llin g th e church to be a "house of freedom," has bee n perh aps her most important contribution. For her "the authority of ex peri ence," and especiall y women's ex peri ence, is a very import ant and necessary element fo r theo logy in its attempt to arti cul ate fa ith in contemporary te rm s. She is kee nl y aware of what she ca ll s "standpoint depend ency," and of th e va ri ous aspects of our contex ts and perso nal life ex peri ence whi ch shape th e character of faith fo r individuals and groups. She is affir- mative also of th e legitimate influence of bl ack ex peri ence on bl ack peopl e's th eo logy. 44 Yet it is also clea r to her th at,

The self- revelati on of God in Jes us Chri st and through th e Spiri t is th e so urce of auth ority in ou r li ves as Chri stians . ... In the Chris ti an fa ith th ere is a center (com mi tment to Jes us Chri st) and a circle (a hermeneuti ca l circle) . Every theo logical interpretati on affects every oth er, so th at we co ntinue to move aro und the circle tryin g to crea te metaphors and models th at are fa ith ful to th e center of our commitment. 45

Ru sse ll is quite in sistent about thi s ce nter, even th ough she has been criticized by so me fe mini sts fo r thi s. She contends th at a group that wishes to assert th e liberati ve character of th e church " ul timately find s auth ori ty in God's ac ti on in Chri st." Tradi ti ons in the church, she says, should be afforded we ight onl y if th ey are "auth oritati ve or life-g i v in g. " ~ 6 Ru ssell di stingui shes tradition, trad iti ons, and Tradition. But "the Trad it io n" (th e one hand ed over by God) is Chri st himself. Fo r her, Chri st is essenti all y an eschatologica l fi gure, pro viding us a fo re-view of the future that God intend s fo r the wo rld . Thus she argues:

Although some fe mini sts would qu es ti on that th e story of Chri st has spec ial privil ege as a witness of God's intenti on to create a new house- 13 4 The Christological Criterion

hold , l myselfconsid er that th e bibli ca l witn ess to thi s acti on still makes sense of my ex istence and th at th e wi tness of th e church continues to be .. . a "tra nsforming memory or the future."47

Douglas John Hall. to spea k agai n of a theologian very different fr om those above, is th e "contex tu al" theo log ian par ex cell ence. A Ca nadi an concerned to pro mote a theo logy th at is ac utely bo th contemporary and contex tu al, address in g th e press in g needs and concern s or North Ameri ca n Chri sti ans, Hall has spell ed out perh aps more th oroughl y than anyone th e meaning of contex tu al method. 48 Hi s approach to co ntex tuali ty is to do th eo logy within a holisti c vi sion of hi s age and culture (late twenti eth-centu ry, ea rl y twenty-first-century North Am eri ca) ra ther th an in relati on to a spec ifi c group or spec ifi c concern s. He is especi all y notabl e as a th eo logian who has thought deepl y about suffering and evil , and as an ecologica l th eo logian.49 Hall find s a Pauline/Lutheran th eology of the cross helpful for thi s task . It is with th e eyes of th eologia crucis th at he vi ews and cri- tiques the "offi ciall y optimisti c" outl ook of North Ameri can life, di sclos in g the ·'covert despair" th at li es benea th .50 It is clea r to Hall that a th eo logy of the cross th at gives tru e rath er than fa lse hope in a time of despair implies christocentri sm:

Revelati on in th e Chri sti an understandin g of it is medi ated through hi s- tori ca l event s, th e dec isive event being the one in which Jes us as the Chri st is center. In so me res pects thi s is the most diffi cult aspect of the Chri sti an view of revelati on because here th e presence is identifi ed ex pli citl y with a hi stori ca l person. The parti cul ari sm of thi s identificati on seems, among other thin gs, to make di alogue with other faith s impossibl e, or at least di ffic ul t. As was demonstra ted during th e peri od of theo logica l liberalism, however, th ere is no escapin g the fac t that Chri sti ans are bound to a revelati onal reli gion whi ch is chri stocentri c.51

Aga in in a later work Hall speaks of "Jes us Chri st and him crucifi ed" as the "fo und ati on and core of th e whole Chri stian profess ion of beli ef " Jesus th e Chri st, he argues, is th e perce ptu al fo undati on th ro ugh whi ch Chri sti ans gai n in sight and fo res ight by whi ch to make sense of existence: "A theology is Chri s- ti an if and when it find s in Jesus as th e Chri st the meditative core in and around whi ch it intends to weave its refl ec ti ons about 'everything. "'52 John Cobb, one of th e leaders of the process theology movement, is again a very di ffe rent kind of th eologian, parti cul arl y interested in framing Chri stian doctrines in ways th at correspond to contemporary scientific understandings of the ph ys ical world and the evo luti onary process; he is notabl e al so for hi s interest in interfa ith theo logy. In response to pluralist theologies whi ch di splace Chri st from the center of fa ith and theology, Cobb den ies that th eology can begin Is It Founded in Jesus Christ? 135 with a perspecti ve shaped neut ra ll y by all th e reli gious ways of the world rather than by one of th em in parti cul ar: " I pro test aga inst th e implicit relativi za ti on and even negati on of bas ic Chri sti an commitments."53 Cobb proposes a wi sdom chri stology, affirming .J esus Chri st as the incarnate Wi sdom of Goel , recogni zing at the sa me time th e uni ve rsa l presence of God's Wi sdom in the whole world and among all peo pl e. He argues fo r an in clu sive chri stology, recogni zin g the va lu e and tru th in other reli gious tra ditions whil e maintaining th e specifi city of Chri s- ti an claim s about Jesus Christ:

As a Chri sti an theo logian I comm end all efforts to break Chri sti anity out of its parochi al limi ts and epeciall y out of its implicitl y or ex pli citl y negati ve relati onship to the oth er great ways of humank ind . But I am tro ubl ed by the dominant pro posals for ca rrying out thi s tas k. I do not be li eve th ese pro posals will comm end themelves to th e most sensitive and committed representati ves of so me of the oth er great ways. I do not beli eve th ey commend th emselves to Chri sti ans. Hence I am calling fo r a di ffe rent approach- fo r Chri stians, a Chri stocentr ic catholi c one. 54

Cobb is notabl e fo r hi s res pec tful openness to other reli gious "ways," and wi shes to go beyond plu ra li sm to an open ness to others based precisely in Chri st:

Centering on Jes us or Chri st oft en fun cti ons as a fo rm of closure, as an in sistence that nothing more needs to be lea rn ed .. .. The deeper questi on is wheth er cente rin g ourselves on Jesus or on Chri st trul y has thi s effect of clos ure or wheth er thi s it self is a mi sunderstanding of th e meaning of Chri stocentri sm. . . It is my convicti on that Christocen- tr is m prov ides th e deepest and full est reason fo r openness to others. 55

Thi s bri ef glance at a few selected Chri st- centered theo logians illustra tes that it woul d be a mi stake to think that chri stocentri sm locks Chri sti an theo logy into a sin gle stra itj acket. It wo ul d be a mi stake also to characteri ze th e Chri stie center in th eological method as merely conserva ti ve, or merely orth odox in some stul- tifyin g se nse . In fac t it is shared by many who wi sh to conserve the ce nter of the his tori c fa ith whil e ex hi biting an acute awareness of contem porary human crises and radi cal commitment to ad dress ing th em th eologica ll y.

A Note on Method for Christology

Christo logy, of course, is controversial and does not consti tute a simple mea- surin g stick fo r theo logy, even fo r th eologians such as th ose menti oned above wh o und erstand th eir theologies as Chri st- centered. Since most Chri sti an th eologies, including those that do not claim to be Chris t-centered, will claim that they 13 6 The Christolog ical Criterion

are in some se nse congru ent with th eir best understanding of Jes us Chri st, we mu st as k: What cri te ri a do we use to meas ure and assess th e primary criteri on? All of our best und erstandings or Chri st also have to be criti cized and assessed for their adequ acy. If .I cs us Chri st him se lr is our so l id fo und at ion, how do we put content into Jesus Christ? To reiterate, th e praxis qu estion- ls it li fe-g iving and liberating?- is bas ic here, but thi s in it se lf needs to be in fo rm ed by oth er criteri a of adequ acy - scripture, co ntex t, ccc k sia. We have, of course, a kin d or di alect ic, and a num ber of herm eneutica l cir- cles here. We interpret scri pture in li ght of Chri st, ou r primary norm , but sc ripture, whi ch mu st be read in view 01· contemporary critica l sc holarship, is obviously our in co mparable source of in fo rmati on and of the ori ginal testimony about Chri st. Further, we in te rpet and assess our present cultu ra l, soc ial/politi ca l, and economi c contex t out or our center in Chri st, yet our co ntext, whi ch we understand also with the help of' social sc ience and social analys is, has an unde- ni abl e rol e in our percept ion of Chri st himself, in th at we see and hear him thro ugh some co ntex tual lens. In fa ithfulness to him , we deliberately choose to interpet him thro ugh th e lens of th e underside and thereby intenti onall y adopt a Iib era ti oni st herm eneutic of chri stological tex ts. Simil arl y, we eva lu ate traditions and commun ity perspec ti ves th ro ugh Chri st, our primary norm (as attes ted in sc ripture); and yet traditions, understood through hi stori ca l stud y, together wi th the fa ith of the wo rld wid e community, co nstitute another kind of lens whi ch is indispensable to our interpretati on o f' Chri st himse lf. Chri stology is cl one di alec- ti ca ll y, th en, hav in g all our criteri a in mind ; it is cl one out of our fa ith ex peri ence, whi ch is rooted in sc ri pture, ex peri ence th at is never a-cultural or a-contextual, and never merely indi vi du alis ti c or a-communal. Wh at we will say in later chapters about all of these criteri a in theo logica l method will also pe rt ain to chri stology. In what I shall say in th e nex t ch apter about .Jes us Chri st, th e reader will observe all th ese criteri a in operati on: I shall speak out of sc ripture, with an eye to hi storical/criti ca l hermeneuti ca l considera- ti ons, viewin g Chri st th ro ugh the lens of co ntemporary and contex tu al ex peri- ence and dra win g upon the wisdom of traditi on and ecum enica l perspectives . Wi thout pretendin g to do chri stology at all th orou ghl y here, I shall suggest a number of reasons fo r th e fo undational place of Jes us Chri st in the minds and hearts of Chri sti an peopl e, and so hi s ce ntrality fo r theological meth od.