PART II The Christological Criterion 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 stologi- ca ll y is to say th at th ey mu st be shown to be co ngruent with our best under- standing 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 crite- rion: 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 con- tex 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 com- munity into account. These con siderati ons, whil e they co mpli cate the chri stolog- ical 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 theo- logica 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 meth- ods 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 cen- ter 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 jus- ti 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 chris- tological 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 vari- ous 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 scrip- ture 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.