Manifesto for the New Liberal Church

There are signs that something may be stirring in the more liberal wing of mainline Protestantism. Here and there new faces appear in the pew. No doubt some appear under the misconception that this pew will shake as it does in places calculated to lie more directly in the line of fire of the saving word. Others appear precisely because they look for a settled spot free from any sort of temblor. Whatever the reasons, such new faces do appear. In the meantime, among the scattered folk who have remained in the liberal pew from days of old, one begins to discern a faint glimmer of interest in such matters as God, prayer and the Bible. It is not clear yet whether this interest is part of the bicentennial remembrance or a contemporary concern. But something is stirring.

This development confronts the liberal church with some powerful temptations. For so long it has been told that its troubles are "bottoming out," while all the time it was the bottoms of all its statistical charts that seemed to be falling out. While their more orthodox brethren seemed to be taking on new life, the liberals watched succeeding generations of their own youth rise up and pass away into religious indifference or into forms of religiosity so private as to defy any sustained connection with Christian institutions. Now the urge is almost irresistible to try to gather up the crumbs that fall from those tables where some form of old-time religion is served up with new relish.

To shift to another metaphor, and one more fitting to the ecclesiastical heritage, it may be said that the ship of the liberal church has been drifting aimlessly, calking up the leaks as best it can, and looking for some heavenly breeze to sweep it out to sea and on to the Western Isles. The rudder sticks, the motor misses, and it is increasingly uncertain whether there is even a captain on the bridge. Therefore, if some strong current begins to pull in an illiberal direction, the disposition is to go along. It feels better to be dragged somewhere than to stay nowhere.

The time has come for some of the hands now curled up in the hammocks down below to stumble onto the deck, demanding that the liberal church begin to chart and to pursue its own course. If the breezes of the Spirit are ablow, there is no reason why such hands should allow others to pre-empt the opportunity that these breezes afford. To speak literally, the time has come for the liberal churches to declare boldly and without apology for their own option. Hence this provisional manifesto. I use the term "liberal" with great reluctance. It carries so much awkward baggage, theological and political, to say nothing of moral. Yet other expressions I have tried, such as "Progressive Church," "Pilgrim Church" and "Prophetic Church," do not seem to serve. So I stick with "liberal" but put before it the word "new" to indicate that, while there is a historical connection with the old liberal church, we speak of a church that finds itself in a different situation.

My manifesto contains a set of five rejections coupled with five affirmations. It is perilous to begin with rejections, especially since getting bogged down in negativities continually undermined the old liberal church. Yet I take the risk anyway, preferring to end on a positive note.

The New Liberal Church rejects:

1. Authoritarian and fanatical ways of thinking and behaving. This rejection is not limited to doctrinal positions that are "dogmatic" in the pejorative sense of that word. The rejection applies as well to styles of governance, to techniques of group dynamics, and to the general atmosphere of the church. The new liberal church rejects all methods of working with people which subject them to emotional duress. It also rejects all tyrannical fads, all obsessive enthusiasms, and all rigid, true-believing mind-sets, whether of the right, left, or in between.

2. The spiritual imperialism which approaches people not as persons to be respected, but as territory to be captured. I find that the phrase "spiritual imperialism" disturbs some people. I suspect that they suspect that something is implied with regard to evangelism and missionary activity. Well, something is implied. I do not believe that the new liberal church should reject its obligation to share such grace as it has received. Nor do I suggest that it should refrain from entering the fray against opposing points of view. On the contrary, the purpose of my manifesto is to say that it is now time for the new liberal church to come out of its corner fighting. However, it will refrain from the arrogance, the bad manners, and the assault on human personality sometimes found in connection with religious zeal.

3. Efforts to narrow down the Christian message to something less than a comprehensive strategy for human existence. In particular this means that the new liberal church will resist the temptation to confine itself to the private aspects of spirituality and morality. Yet this rejection implies as well an avoidance of all single emphases, whether the emphasis be that of spiritual healing, women’s liberation, liturgical reform, or the rights of lettuce pickers.

4. The impulse of society to use the church as an agency for keeping things as they are. The traditional role of religious institutions has been to declare the blessing of the gods on all other institutions. There have been exceptions: the prophets of Israel, the one who announced: "It was written of old . . . but I say," even at times the leaders of the old liberal church. But the exceptions have been rare.

The new liberal church will not forget its heritage; indeed, the hope is that it will do a better job of remembering that heritage than did the old liberal church. The new liberal church will not reject old values or customs or institutions simply out of rebellious pride. However, it will continually raise questions as to whether some old values may not be ancient prejudices; some old customs, antique superstitions; some old institutions, stubborn obstacles in the way of a more abundant life.

5. The proposition that because it is a liberal church, it should never stand for anything in particular. That proposition is the terminal disease which is "doing in" the old liberal church.

Now for the positive side. The new liberal church will affirm:

1. Faith in the God revealed in Jesus Christ that is secure enough to live with changing images of God. The new liberal church will not ship out like Jonah when the word entrusted to it becomes unthinkable. Nor will it panic into fundamentalism. At the very least, it will provide a setting in which people can struggle to steer clear of those disastrous shoals. It will find freedom and strength to engage in dialogue with the agnosticisms, atheisms and variant theisms of the day. It will do this not so much on the basis of concepts of God that it claims as its own, as out of the conviction that One beyond conceptualization claims us as his own. The new liberal church will find strength and freedom in the assurance that it is so claimed.

2. Reverence for each person’s spiritual insight. The new liberal church need not fall into the grievous error, so popular among tolerant Americans, of thinking that it doesn’t matter what people believe so long as they believe something. It will not inflict on people the insult of saying that it can care for them while showing indifference concerning their beliefs. However, such a church will recognize the need and the right of every person to arrive at a faith that is truly his or her own. It will provide a setting where people do not impose beliefs arrogantly, but rather share them humbly. Finally, its reverence for persons will link to a higher reverence in such a way as to yield the hope that, when people meet freely and in mutual respect to share their deepest concerns, something greater than the people themselves will appear.

3. A forthright dedication of itself to the social implications of the Christian ethic. Today people grow fatigued with social controversy. Denominational officials who once thought they were Elijah on the mountaintop now seem persuaded by shrinking budgets to speak their minds like shrinking violets. Consensus will not be achieved on many issues. Practical wisdom knows that the parish church is only rarely an appropriate or an effective structure for social action. Nevertheless, the new liberal church will labor to make people confront the issues in the context both of Christian community and of their own individual discipleship. It will insist that any version of Christian faith that does not grapple with war and peace, human equality, hunger, civil liberties, the hard decisions posed by medical technology, and a host of other social challenges is not a version of faith worth the time of either pulpit or pew.

4. A courageous acceptance of the open-endedness of the church’s task and the church’s perspective in a fast-changing world. Its faith will include not only the elements of belief and trust, but also those of venture and vision. Knowing that the future is open and that all creaturely endeavor is finite, the new liberal church will confer no finality on any way of doing things either in the church itself or in society at large. Confident that their God goes before them as he went before the people of Israel, the people in such a church will see themselves engaged not in a holding operation, but in a great adventure.

5. Standing for many things in particular. It will stand for answering the claim which God lays to us through Jesus Christ. It will stand for reverencing the freedom of the human spirit. It will stand for the social application of the gospel. It will stand for accepting the challenge to build new social structures and new styles of human relationships. In very specific ways it will follow through on these affirmations as it confronts day by day the issues of life and death.

The people in the new liberal church will acknowledge quite frankly that it would be more comfortable to gather in the kind of church that supposedly existed in past times -- a monumental place in the center of town where the same cycle of ceremonies was repeated from generation to generation, the same ordered doctrines were taught in the same words, the same relationship to the outside world went on and on. They will also admit that it would be more comfortable to close down the church and to blend into the surrounding landscape with their private light and their private doubt.

Nevertheless, the new liberal church will stand as an opportunity for those people who could never enjoy such varieties of comfort even if they tried. It will summon together those hardy souls for whom the way of Christ is an exploration, a quest, a seeking, and who look for company both in walking through the darkness and in celebrating the light.

Conservative Christians and Gay Civil Rights

When Bloomington, Indiana (population 62,000 and home of Indiana University), adopted legislation guaranteeing civil rights to homosexual persons, a heated controversy arose. By a city council vote in December 1975, discrimination based on sexual preference was prohibited in employment, housing, education and access to public accommodations. Many of the community’s conservative Christians saw the ordinance as a sign of moral laxity, and letters poured in to the local newspaper denouncing homosexuality on biblical grounds.

"Good versus Evil: it is that simple," declared a businessman’s letter urging Bloomington citizens "to prayerfully make it a matter of immediate personal decision: to shun the sodomites and their supporters, to use every lawful device to eliminate homosexual activity in this area, and to rededicate our community to standards set forth by God." More than 3,000 persons signed concurrence when the letter was circulated in a number of area churches, and it was later reprinted in a full-page newspaper advertisement along with as many signatures as could be fitted on the page. Additional paid advertisements (both radio and newspaper) stressed that "God says ‘no’ to gay."

To other Bloomington residents, the sexual preference amendment signaled a victory for human justice and civil liberties in keeping with the spirit of American democracy. In the tense atmosphere of the city council meeting the night of the vote, Presbyterian minister Paul Miller acknowledged that emotions were running high but told the overflow crowd he spoke from "deep pastoral concern"; he then read a prepared statement signed by 18 members of the clergy who decried "the recent efforts to single out a given group . . . and to seek to castigate them as being unworthy and unfit to belong to our community." He called for a "spirit of tolerance and understanding deeply rooted in religious faith." (A self-avowed lesbian of the Jewish faith later told me that Miller’s stand had touched her deeply and had given her a "better image of Christians," since she had considered herself to be a victim of what she termed a "hate campaign.")

"We were not acting out of hate, as many thought," says Douglas Hacker, pastor of the Sherwood Oaks Christian Church, whose views represent another group of ministers who disagreed with Miller’s statement. "I love the homosexual community, because I love sinners," Hacker told me, adding that it was the propagation of homosexuality that he worried about. "My concern was that the council was acting with seeming disregard for the teachings of Scripture. The statement of the 18 other ministers troubled me. . . . We had to get God’s side out." He pointed out that the human rights ordinance "had brought the community’s conservative churches face to face with the problem of homosexuality for the first time."

Scriptural Interpretation

Why the issue of homosexuality has posed such a problem for conservative churches relates to their understanding of Scripture. There is widespread agreement with the view presented in the article on homosexuality in Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics (edited by Carl F. Henry [Baker Book House, 1973]), which declares that "those who base their faith on the OT and NT documents cannot doubt that their strong prohibitions of homosexual behavior make homosexuality a direct transgression of God’s law." Chapter of Romans, with its account of humanity’s movement from God toward idolatry, has furnished the text for countless sermons claiming that homosexual behavior signifies the lowest depths of human depravity. The attempted "gang-rape" incident of Genesis 19 is interpreted as saying that Sodom’s destruction resulted from homosexuality. (Some gays ask why so many Christians ignore Ezekiel 16:49, which says Sodom was destroyed for its "pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease" and for failing to care for the poor and needy. Perhaps, they suggest, it is because that judgment hits so much closer to home.) Texts such as Leviticus 20:13 ("If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death") were frequently cited at the height of the Bloomington controversy, prompting one gay to write to the newspaper and ask: "Is God suggesting that heterosexuals kill us?"

"Maybe some of the things we said were too strong -- too harsh," says James Root, pastor of the Solsberry Christian Church. "But sometimes you have to shout to get attention. We wanted to counteract the view that the gay life style is a good alternative." At one point, he and others considered court action against the ordinance, having been told by attorneys that their chances of winning were good because of state sodomy statutes. But upon further reflection they decided "that wasn’t the route for Christians to take."

One graduate student at Indiana University, recalling the mood of the gay community during the winter controversy, told me that "everyone was conscious of intense oppression. It was a gut feeling that there were people out there who thought we shouldn’t exist." Her voice stung with hurt as she said: "I felt that what the Christians were doing was very vicious; I couldn’t understand why they hated us like that." Several homosexual persons said they even feared physical violence on the part of the conservative Christian group. (There was suspicion on both sides, I found, when later I reported that fear to one of the conservative ministers. His response: "Why, that really surprises me! I should think we should have been the ones to be afraid of them!")

First Encounter

But somehow in the midst of the contention, the two sides saw a need to talk together. In looking for a new approach to the gay issue some 20 pastors comprising the Monroe County Evangelical Ministers’ Association found themselves divided into two camps. "One group was concerned about showing love, and one group was concerned about showing the community moral leadership about the evils of homosexuality," reports Indiana University doctoral candidate Ronald Rife, who co-pastors a church in a nearby town. At Rife’s suggestion the group invited 52-year-old former gay activist Guy Charles to hold a series of meetings. Charles had practiced homosexuality for 37 years but had turned from that life upon his commitment to Christ in 1972. He then founded a counseling ministry in Arlington, Virginia, called Liberation, which is geared toward helping homosexual persons who want to change their way of life.

A number of evangelical student groups (among them Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, the Navigators, and Campus Crusade for Christ) joined the ministers in sponsoring a February visit by Charles, which included several days of seminars for ministers and counselors. His public lecture on the Indiana University campus was widely advertised. Braced for confrontation, a number of gays stood at the Whittenberger Auditorium entrance waving placards reading: "Gay is proud"; "Christian, Gay, Proud"; and "Stop Christian persecution of gays!" The gay community services center provided fliers for all persons attending the lecture. "Are you a homophobe?" was printed at the top, with "homophobia" defined as "the condition of hating or fearing homosexuality and gay people." At the bottom was an invitation to have refreshments and to meet gays after the lecture.

Jim Heuer, then co-chairperson of the gay community services center, saw the informal postlecture social time as profitable for both sides:

This was the first time ever that there was direct communication between the evangelical ministers and their flocks and the gay people. . . . There’s such a tendency among Christians to lump all homosexuals together as a group of faceless, nameless "perverts" and to make statements not rooted in fact. They don’t see us as people. . . . I had a fabulous dialogue with one of the evangelical ministers, who told me he couldn’t change his theological point of view -- and I said I could understand that. But he indicated he now had a different perspective on the human rights issue.

Speaking of that same conversation, General Association Baptist pastor Stanley Fowler called it "a step in the right direction" because both men had been so honest with each other. In considering a Sunday afternoon Bible-study group for gays from an evangelical background, Fowler said that he believes efforts to reinterpret Scripture to justify homosexuality are "unfair to Scripture," but that he would "be interested in examining Scripture with those who believe they can be both gay and Christian."

This spirit of open dialogue and of coming to see one another as human beings began to facilitate understanding on both sides. Much of what Charles had said paved the way, because he had hit hard at bigotry in churches. He contended:

Christians must befriend homosexuals. Rather than speaking of condemnation, Christians must share Bible passages which speak of love and hope. Instead, we have savagely caricatured, ridiculed, and condemned homosexuals in a way we have done to no other group. Homosexuality has somehow gotten pegged on top in pigeonholing sins, but it’s really no greater sin than lying or pride.

Asked about the value of the newspaper debates, Charles said that trying "to lead people to salvation by pointing out sins. . . only brings antagonism and rebellion and shoves them away. And, to the surprise of almost everyone, Charles came out strongly in support of gay civil rights. In reference to his own past political activism, he said he knew the pain of discrimination firsthand, having lost an important employment opportunity after someone revealed his sexual orientation. With an account of taking part in demonstrations for gay civil rights, only to have his efforts rewarded with a cracked skull, he reminded his gay brothers and sisters that society’s more tolerant attitudes and the rights they enjoy today were in large part earned by him and his colleagues who championed gay rights in the 1960s when such action was far more difficult than now.

Condemnation Replaced by Concern

"I wonder if the conservative Christians feel they’ve been cheated," somebody commented after the lecture. Asked about this, most ministers admitted surprise at hearing how Charles stood on gay rights. "I find the whole thing so repulsive from a Christian standpoint that it has been hard for me to be fair from a legal standpoint," said one candidly. Another pastor told me he had been "torn in two" over the ordinance, feeling it wouldn’t be beneficial to the city." I don’t think it’s good to advertise that we accept homosexuals as equals here," he said. "But after hearing Guy Charles, most of the ministers have come to the place that they realize these people must earn a living." In the opinion of S. C. Couch, president of the evangelical ministers group, bringing Charles in had been well worth the time and money; many gays, he said, have written to Charles since his visit because "he spoke the truth and showed the love."

A few ministers qualified their new position on gay rights and suggested some employment limitations, particularly in teaching sex education. One expressed fear that "homosexuality would be taught to a new generation." Complained another:

The present ordinance gives gay rights but could infringe on Christian rights. For example, suppose I owned a Christian bookstore. I could be taken to court for refusing to hire a gay person. Yet I wouldn’t want that person representing me or selling in my bookstore. Or suppose I advertised for a church secretary and a lesbian applied for the job?

Some pastors wondered if the principle of separation of church and state would exempt Christian schools from being forced to hire homosexual faculty members or admit homosexual students.

When asked if evangelical ministers had "changed" because of his ministry, Charles replied that he saw many struggling seriously to overcome prejudices and felt that there would be a different attitude in the future. I think he was right. In speaking with a number of the pastors in the months since the lecture, I have found that by and large the earlier spirit of condemnation has been replaced by sincere concern and compassion. The most prevalent attitude I encounter could be summed up as follows: Homosexuals are human beings, and it is not in keeping with Christian love to regard them as less than that. As human beings, they have needs for food, shelter, jobs and education, just as all other human beings do. Again, it is not in keeping with Christian love to prevent their meeting those needs. Viewed this way, the gay civil rights issue becomes not a matter of compromising with evil but rather a matter of showing Christ’s love, compassion and justice.

In other words, Bloomington’s conservative Christians came to realize that there are at least three sides to the subject of homosexuality: the civil rights factor, the human factor, and the theological factor. Before the Charles visit there was a tendency to lump all three together and consider them as one and the same. Afterward, many conservatives realized they could show compassion in recognizing the human side and could support the antidiscrimination ordinance without compromising their theological position (viz., that the Bible condemns homosexuality as sin from which persons need to be redeemed). Again and again, Charles hammered home the point that it is not necessary to oppose gay civil rights on Christian principle; but it is necessary to show love and acceptance, because the church has the responsibility of welcoming and sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with all people. Describing himself as a charismatic, Charles told his audience that he doesn’t hesitate to take homosexual friends ("even in drag") to his church and that fellow Assembly of God members warmly accept them. "Any changing of lives is up to God," he stressed. "Your part as Christians is to give a positive, radiant witness."

Disappointments Remain

While glad to see the change of attitude among conservative Christians with respect to gay civil rights and acceptance of gays as human beings, some persons were troubled over other aspects of the issue. According to one of the ministers who backed the gay rights amendment from the beginning: "The real, crucial question in all this is: Can the church’s ministry be directed to gays without demanding that they become heterosexual?"

How various Christians approach that question seems to hinge upon whether they regard homosexuality as a matter of choice or as a developed condition or orientation over which the individual has little or no control. In Charles’s view, homosexuality is "an act of the will which becomes a habit which becomes a life style." Since Paul Gebhard, director of Indiana University’s renowned Institute for Sex Research (sometimes incorrectly referred to as the "Kinsey Institute" after its founder), had attended the lecture, I asked his opinion of Charles’s statement. Disagreeing with the emphasis on choice -- "I have never known anyone who is homosexual by choice" -- Gebhard added that the die is cast early. "But one may choose to accept one’s homosexuality." He explained that there are many ways to become homosexual and the etiology is simply not clear.

Some members of the gay community, perhaps to follow up on that line of thought, have indicated a desire to speak to the evangelical Christian community. During the early stages of the controversy, they too used the newspaper as their vehicle. One letter pointed out that once it was Christians who were thrown to the lions. Some referred to behavioral science research. Others appealed to the rights of gays as tax-paying citizens. And some spoke of their own Christian experience. Wrote Ed Parrish: "I personally have accepted Christ as my Savior. Most churches, however, flatly deny us. We have had to form our own churches to worship the same God heterosexuals do. . . . Christ died for all!"

When another letter-writer called it "nonsense" to think a homosexual could be a Christian, Parrish replied: "There is One there [in heaven] who knows whether or not I am a Christian. I do know that for me to live a life without someone to love (in the only way I can) would be hell for me." When I later asked Parrish about that newspaper letter exchange, he commented: "I felt like someone was trying to sit on God’s throne and pronounce judgment. God knows where I’m at, and he still loves me.

Most gays interviewed have told me they feel that Charles did a tremendous service in increasing understanding between the gay community and conservative Christians -- although a few remained skeptical. "Probably more people have learned to think of us as human beings, but they’ll still think of us as primarily sexual human beings," said one lesbian activist. "And perhaps they’ll try to love us now, but it will be conditional love rather than accepting us as we are." On the other hand, doctoral student Collin Schwoyer declared, "I can live with them if they think it’s a sin, as long as they give me my right to live."

Schwoyer made the point that many people think of homosexuals as concerned only with lust. "That’s not true of a lot of us. True, some gays are promiscuous, just as some heterosexuals are. But for a lot of us, it’s love and a lasting, committed relationship we care about." Many were unsatisfied with Charles’s answers on same-sex marriage and felt that he had not addressed himself to homosexual love even though he spoke of having experienced it in his own past (at one time, he said, he had lived with a male lover for 14 years).

Another area disappointing to a number of gays was Charles’s refusal to regard as authentic the experience of those who were persuaded they could be both Christian and gay. One man, now living in a permanent committed relationship, told of his struggles with guilt and self-acceptance and said: "Accepting Christ and becoming openly gay have changed my just plain sexuality into love-expressive sexuality." He believes, however, that Charles and other conservative Christians would not accept his experience as a valid Christian one.

Dealing with Theological Complexity

Since Bloomington’s conservative Christians have spoken out to the gay community, many gays feel it is now their turn to reach out to Christians of all persuasions. At the next Gay Awareness Conference, scheduled for spring of 1977, the Bloomington Gay Alliance is planning to deal with the theological concerns and to facilitate dialogue and understanding between heterosexual Christians and the homosexual community. In addition to seeking cooperation, from gay movements in mainline Christian bodies, such as Dignity (Roman Catholic) and Integrity (Episcopalian), the group has invited Ralph Blair, director of the Homosexual Community Counseling Center in New York city. Psychologist Blair studied at a number of evangelical schools (Bob Jones University, Dallas Theological Seminary and Westminster Theological Seminary) and is a former pastor and Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship staff worker.

During this year’s convention of the National Association of Evangelicals, Blair, an NAE member, launched a group called Evangelicals Concerned, which is described as "an educational task force for ministry with homosexuals and their families and churches." The official news release carefully pointed out that the organization was "not officially connected" with the NAE’s convention but that its statement of faith is the same and its membership (open to both homosexuals and heterosexuals) is composed of "members of NAE and various evangelical churches." Many Bloomington gays are hoping Blair and other speakers invited to the Gay Awareness Conference will engage in dialogue with ministers and laypersons, both heterosexual and homosexual, in efforts to deal with biblical passages, theological viewpoints, worship, and ethical concerns.

Commented a deeply religious member of the gay community during a summer interview:

A lot of gays don’t really see the complexity of the theological issues. And churches haven’t dealt with the issues responsibly. There has been intolerance rather than understanding -- on both sides. Gays feel they can affect politics, so they get involved there; but often they feel the church won’t listen to them, so they simply leave.

One outcome of the events surrounding the civil rights controversy in Bloomington has been a new concern to face the myriad questions relating to homosexuality and religion and to minister to the spiritual needs of gay persons. Some churches are considering workshops or seminars on the subject. The Center for University Ministry (interdenominational) is endeavoring to reach out to gay persons through its counseling staff, through worship and Bible studies, and through the publication of a special bibliography on homosexuality and religion designed particularly to aid clergy and other counselors.

Evangelical Continuum of Views

Where will conservative Christians fit in all these discussions? Several of the ministers said the questions raised by the human rights ordinance had "caught them offguard" but had forced them to face up to the fact that homosexuality exists and can no longer be evaded. Some would like continued dialogue with the gay community in order to show Christ’s love.

What has been happening in Bloomington, it seems to me, is part of a pattern occurring throughout much of that segment of Christendom that uses the labels "conservative" or "evangelical." The official publication of the Christian Booksellers’ Association recently carried an article on trends in religious publishing which predicted more books on homosexuality "down the road (maybe five years or so)" and noted that just as there has been evidence of more compassion toward divorced persons, "Christians in the future will be saying homosexuality is still wrong but God loves homosexuals and values them as persons" (Bookstore Journal, January 1976).

I see a continuum of views developing. On one end is the noncompromising "sin perspective" summarized in these words from an article in a conservative periodical: "The New Testament blasts homosexual activity as the lowest, most degraded kind of immorality" (Alliance Witness, July i6, 1975). On the other end is the view of the Metropolitan Community Churches and of Evangelicals Concerned, both having doctrinal statements most conservatives could sign -- except for the acceptance of homosexuality as a viable life style for persons of that orientation. In his booklet An Evangelical Look at Homosexuality (Homosexual Community Counseling Center, 1972), Ralph Blair suggests that "part of the task of evangelicals is to abandon unbiblical crusades against homosexuality and to help those who have quite naturally developed along homosexual lines to accept themselves as Christ accepted them -- just as they are -- and to live lives which include responsible homosexual behavior."

Between these two ends of the continuum range a number of views both questioning and compassionate. Perhaps the emerging one most widely held is the "dichotomized view" which distinguishes between homosexual acts (sinful) and a homosexual nature (an orientation not the fault of the individual). Engaging or not engaging in homosexual activities is viewed as a choice, and thus the power of Christ is needed to enable the person to change or resist homosexual temptations. The 1975 Continental Congress on the Family (a nationwide gathering in St. Louis of more than 2,000 evangelicals) issued a statement declaring that "while we acknowledge the Bible teaches homosexuality to be sinful, we recognize that a homosexual orientation can be the result of having been sinned against." The statement called for understanding, forgiveness and spiritual support of homosexual persons; expressed opposition to "the unjust and unkind treatment given to homosexuals by individuals, society and the church"; and pledged to minister to homosexuals and "to help them to change their life style in a manner which brings glory to God."

Also on the continuum is a view that might be called "compassionate questioning." Joseph Bayly, a widely read evangelical author, confesses honestly: "For years I have been troubled by a strict application of the Bible’s strong condemnation of homosexuality, and total judgment of the homosexual person. . . . I accept the Bible’s authority; at the same time I have wondered -- as with suicide -- about a precise identification of every person of this type with the biblical model" ("The Bible and Two Tough Topics," Eternity, August 1974). Two books published by Inter-Varsity Press also call for compassionate understanding, with one showing the struggles of a young male homosexual who seeks to live a celibate life although he deeply loves another man (The Returns of Love, by Alex Davidson, 1970). The other book (Who Walk Alone, by Margaret Evening, 1974) speaks of the gifts, sensitivity and loving natures characterizing many homosexual persons and includes this statement:

If people wish to regard homosexuality as a freak of nature, and even if it is not the condition ordained by God when He said that it was not good for man that he should be alone, then we can only rejoice that God is, as ever, bringing good out of evil. We can thus accept with humility the special gifts mediated to us through those who are His homosexual children, our brothers and sisters whom we cannot and would not disown.

Two somewhat bolder views on the continuum include one of "cautious accommodation" suggested by Fuller Theological Seminary ethics professor Lewis Smedes (in Sex for Christians [Eerdmans, 1976]), who speaks of options for the Christian homosexual. First and foremost is the goal of seeking change. But if that is not possible, he discusses two forms of accommodation: preferably celibacy, but, if that seems impossible, "optimum homosexual morality" (nonexploitation and especially a permanent relationship). To develop such a morality, emphasizes Smedes, "is not to accept homosexual practices as morally commendable. It is, however, to recognize that the optimum moral life within a deplorable situation is preferable to a life of sexual chaos." A Netherlands pastor makes the point even more strongly by urging Christian moralists to "develop a morality for homosexuality in consultation with homosexual people" (The Sexual Revolution, by J. Rinzema [Eerdmans, 1974]). He calls for a "viable homosexual ethic" which "comes down to a plea for permanent relationships between unchangeable homosexuals."

Bridges to Be Built

Like Christians of all persuasions, conservatives are being forced to face the homosexual question and make important decisions about attitudes toward those of homosexual orientation. Over a decade ago, in his book The Comfortable Pew (Lippincott, 1965), Pierre Berton chided the church for its tendency to "cast out the outcasts," with homosexuals at the top of the list. "A very good case can be made that the homosexual is the modern equivalent of the leper," he added.

Many Christians are now concerned about changing that. The theological issues are far from resolved; but, judging from what has happened in Bloomington, even conservative Christians (though traditionally among those most opposed to gay civil rights) are learning that theological concerns need not blind any of us to the needs and rights of homosexuals as human beings. Navigator staff member Jim Proud had already made that point in a letter to the newspaper during the earliest stages of the controversy: "We have no grounds then to condemn the ‘gays’ but rather should seek to communicate meaningfully to them and help them to know the joy and fulfillment we have in Christ. We ought to pick up the stones around us and instead of throwing them, use them to build bridges."

In God’s Ecology

In his book Earth in Balance, Al Gore asks, "Why does it feel faintly heretical to a Christian to suppose that God is in us as human beings? Why do our children believe that the Kingdom of God is up, somewhere in the ethereal reaches of space, far removed from this planet?" Gore expresses here the yearning of many Christians for resources in the faith that will equip them for engaging environmental issues. In an era when the earth seems out of balance, how can Christians commit themselves to socially and environmentally responsible public policies and ecologically sensitive individual and communal lifestyles? Many theologians as well as laypeople have decided, along with Al Gore, that we need a "fresh telling" of the old religious stories.

Over the past three decades, numerous Christian thinkers have called for a new theology of nature and a new ethic for the earth. The discussion of environmental issues has expanded so much that a recent bibliographical study cited more than 500 entries on the topic of ecology, justice and Christian faith.

Several schools of thought have emerged, the two most formidable being what I call the reconstructionists and the apologists. The reconstructionists insist that a totally new theological word about nature must be spoken in our time. Reconstructionists take it as a given that traditional Christian thought offers few if any viable theological resources to help people of faith to respond to our global environmental crisis. Instead, a new edifice of thought must be designed from the ground up, with new foundations and new categories.

Some reconstructionists, including those who espouse New Age thinking, have turned away from Western religious traditions and have embraced insights from primal and Eastern religions. This is happening with increasing frequency in numerous church camps across the country, where Native American culture is a priority, and in parish settings, where interest in "new" spiritualities is booming. These protagonists blend such materials as Taoism from the East, alchemy from the West, and a neolithic spirituality that they claim to find in various Native American traditions.

The most illustrious reconstructionist is Matthew Fox, who draws extensively from mystical traditions in the Christian West as well as from the spiritualities of primal religions. Other reconstructionists, including Catholic writer Thomas Berry, project theological arguments based on findings of the natural sciences that are sometimes enhanced by philosophical or literary insights.

Still others draw on the insights of feminist thought, often with the intent of breaking away from what they perceive to be the patriarchal tyranny of classical Christian theology. Ecofeminists such as Rosemary Radford Ruether and Sallie McFague are committed to a radical reconstruction of traditional Christian thought, and sometimes, as in the case of Mary Daly, to its total deconstruction. Some authors find inspiration in the insights of primal religious experience, often invoking the name of a newly celebrated mother earth goddess.

For reconstructionists, the primary perspective may be New Age thinking, the sophisticated insights of Western or global mystical traditions, the projections of a new scientifically oriented ecotheology, or the imaginative, groundbreaking constructions of ecofeminism. But the result is the same: a conscious or unconscious rejection of the classical kerygmatic and dogmatic traditions of Christianity as the primary matrix of theological knowing.

So, for example, the World Council of Churches has called for a "just, participatory and sustainable society," and ecumenical theologians like Thomas Derr and Douglas John Hall focus on environmental issues and place them in the context of the North-South divide between rich and poor. Their concerns were publicized at the WCC’s 1991 Seventh Assembly in Canberra, when the WCC lifted up the theme "Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation" and the prayer, "Come Holy Spirit, renew the whole creation.

These two theological schools occupy most of the discussion in Christian circles. Yet something is awry. If the Christian community is to equip its members for political engagement or to enter into serious theological dialogue with other faith traditions about environmental issues, it must address the liabilities of both the reconstructionists and the apologists.

The reconstructionists characteristically truncate the discussion of the cosmic vocation of Jesus Christ. Theirs is not a cosmic Christology as expressed by Paul in the Letter to the Colossians or the Letter to the Ephesians. Instead they typically advocate a "christic cosmology." Matthew Fox and Sallie McFague play down and even reject what Emil Brunner calls "the scandal of particularity": the Word becoming flesh in Jesus Christ (John 1:14). For McFague, Jesus Christ is not the body of God, surely not in any singular or unique sense. For her, the cosmos is the body of God. Jesus is "paradigmatic of what we find everywhere; everything is the sacrament of God" (the universe as God’s body). For Fox, Jesus Christ is an example of the relationship of indwelling that exists between God and every creature.

It is no surprise that our churches have been slow in appropriating these theological projections. On Christmas Day congregations celebrate the Word made flesh. During the Epiphany season, they announce the manifestation of the Word to the whole world, and during Lent and Easter they proclaim the death and resurrection of the incarnate Lord for the salvation of the whole creation. Is a new edifice of theological thought, one that tends to deconstruct biblical and classical Christology, a theology that the Christian community requires in our time?

The efforts of the apologists are scarcely more helpful for a community seeking to come to terms with the global environmental crisis. A theology that works mainly with an anthropological framework and that accents the idea of good stewardship cannot inspire the faithful in our ecological era with new minds and hearts.

"Stewardship" is too functional, too manipulative, too operational a term, and too tied in with money. This approach does not allow the faithful to respond to the earth and to the whole cosmos with respect and with wonder. A theology focused anthropologically on ethical issues remains anthropocentric, not theocentric or christocentric. The idea has outlived its usefulness, especially in a North American context, where it carries strong connotations of "managing our own resources" regardless of the mandates of God or the divinely ordained rights of natural systems themselves.

The reconstructionists fail to connect with the core convictions of the Christian community, while the apologists fail to address that community’s need for a theology of nature shaped by central Christian faith commitments.

At the same time, however, the dynamics of the classical tradition call for a re-forming of the tradition itself. The revisionists tend to see themselves as reformers. From their vantage point, what the theology of justification by faith meant for a church in need of reformation in the early 16th century is precisely what the theology of nature must mean for a church in need of reformation in the 21st century.

The revisionist school surfaced with Joseph Sittler’s 1961 address to the World Council of Churches in New Delhi. "Called to Unity" was an exposition of the cosmic Christology of the Letter to the Colossians. Sittler also helped shape the 1972 social statement of the Lutheran Church in America, "The Human Crisis in Ecology." Sittler published his own study, Essays in Nature and Grace, in 1972. Following Sittler, I researched an historical base for environmental theology in my 1985 book The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian Theology, which explored theologies of nature in the work of such classic theologians as Irenaeus, Origen, Karl Barth and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

By 1992, revisionist thinking about the theology of nature reached a culminating point with the publication of James Nash’s Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility. Its argument is rooted in the classical theological tradition, and mediated by the neo-orthodox theology of Reinhold Niebuhr.

There were also signs that scholarly biblical exegesis had taken a major turn in the direction of affirming creation-history- -- not just human redemption-history -- as the primary biblical "horizon." These trends were best expressed by Old Testament scholar Terrence Fretheim in his 1991 essay, "The Reclamation of Creation.

This reemergence of creation theology in biblical studies has been paralleled and partially sustained by an expansion of scholarly interest in Old and New Testament biblical theology of wisdom. That interest helped set the stage for new developments in theological reflection about nature. The most forceful and focused expression, firmly rooted in both biblical exegesis and classical christological and trinitarian theology, was the 1995 study by Australian Catholic theologian Denis Edwards, Jesus and the Wisdom of God. We can think of Edwards’s work as the emergence of a neo-Catholic revisionism in ecological theology. Drawing on the thought of Karl Rahner, Edwards picked up and developed many of the themes that preoccupied Sittler 30 years earlier.

The entire discussion has been shadowed (if not always illuminated) by the powerful but elusive revisionist theology of ecology developed by Jürgen Moltmann. While Moltmann’s works have been widely read in North America, his revisionist theology of nature, complexly woven into the entire body of his writings, has not had the kind of direct impact on the discussion of ecological theology that it merits. Many who have helped to keep Moltmann’s works on the theological best-seller list have had other, nonecological interest in his work. Many with ecological interests, on the other hand, have not read his works or not appreciated the ecological saliency of his theology. (An exception is the recent book by Steven Bouma-Prediger, The Greening of Theology: The Ecological Models of Rosemary Radford Ruether, Joseph Sittler, and Jürgen Moltmann.)

Second, biblical interpretation will have, as did the theologies of Luther, Calvin and Barth, a christological focus, even, in Barth’s language, a christological concentration. This christocentrism will take on a more universal scope than it did in the works of the Reformers and Barth, and will highlight, as Sittler did, the cosmic creational and salvific purposes of God with all things, ta panta, according to the schema of Colossians 1:15ff. Here I would highlight the insights of Teilhard de Chardin, whose evolutionary christocentrism is in its main lines profoundly biblical and profoundly relevant for our ecological concerns.

This biblical and christological theology of nature will also be ecological in the sense that the objects of theological reflection will be holistically envisioned: God, on the one hand, and humanity and nature, on the other hand. Both humanity and nature will have their own integrity in the plans and purpose and providence of God. No longer can theology written as exposition of the scriptures be, as Barth said it must be, the-anthropocentric: focusing on God and humanity, with nature included only in some instrumental sense or even as an afterthought.

A theology of nature that is biblical, christological and ecological will also be ecclesiological. It will be incarnate in the life of the Christian community. In worship, the community of faith will form its identity and the theological matrix of its spiritual and ethical praxis in the world. Revisionist ecological ethics will be first and foremost communitarian and only secondarily principled and prescriptive.

A revisionist theology of nature will then be free to explore the following theological insights in conversation with the scriptures:

1) God has a universal, evolutionary history with all things -- with many communities of being, large and small. God is not just interested in human beings and human well-being.

2) God actualizes universal, evolutionary history from alpha to omega, immediately and intimately, by the agency of God’s creative word and within the energizing matrix of God’s life-giving Spirit.

3) Within the universal history of God, God calls forth the human creature in the midst of a world of living creatures, all of whom have their divinely allotted and protected places and vocations.

4) Humans are called by God to care for the earth, not only for the sake of their own being and well-being, but so that the biosphere might flourish for its own sake. Amassing of wealth from the earth for the sake of self-aggrandizement is thereby excluded. Any attempt to dominate the earth is likewise excluded.

5) Humans are also called by God to live within divinely mandated limits. Since humans are earth-creatures, not gods, they must live with, and can only flourish within, limits of knowledge, capacity and environmental niche. Hence humility and restraint before all the creatures of the earth are divinely mandated virtues.

6) God places the human creature -- the only creature fashioned according to "the image of God" -- in the human community for a unique life of praise, communion and self-giving. In this community, the blessings of the earth are to be regarded as a commonwealth given by God in abundance for the sake of constant sufficiency and seasonal festivity, and to be shared equitably with all other members of the human family. Humans are also blessed with a certain communion with all the other creatures of the earth. In this respect, humans are free to take the lead, in solidarity with all other creatures, in giving praise to God the Creator.

7) Since the divinely covenanted, universal goal for all things is shalom, the divinely mandated life for humans in this world is a life of shalom, with God, with each other and with all creatures, in anticipation of the dawning of the great and glorious seventh day, the eternal sabbath of God, when all the hungry shall finally be fed and all relationships of domination will finally be overcome, when the lamb will lie down with the lion, death shall be no more, and all things shall be made new.

8) Since throughout their history as a species humans have turned away from God, self-conscious violence has become the de facto norm of their relationships with one another and with other creatures. The fatal flaw in human history is located in the human heart, not in the finitude of the earth, nor in some imagined fallenness of the cosmos. This is the crisis that lies at the root of the desolations of human history.

9) This is the crisis, also, that God has struggled to resolve beginning with the promise to Abraham concerning the land, and concluding in the mission of the Christ of God. Christ died on the cross to make peace with all things, rose again to inaugurate the coming of the New Heavens and the new Earth, and will come again to hand over his rule to the Father, so that God may be all in all.

This is the shape and content of a revisionist Christian theology that seeks to announce the rebirth of nature in a time of global environmental crisis.

Ecology, Justice and Theology: Beyond the Preliminary Skirmishes

Only in its infancy -- or perhaps its latency period -- the ecology movement has come under attack on every side. The Daughters of the American Revolution condemn, its "communist tendencies." Utilities and other corporate interests, in a parade of TV advertisements defending atomic power plants and off-shore oil wells, suggest that environmentalists are sincere but misguided "reformers." Workers in such fields as the aerospace industry, championed most vocally by Senator Henry Jackson, are profoundly disturbed by what the senator refers to as "ecological extremists." At the other end of the political spectrum, activists and political organizers charge that the movement is a white middle-class cop-out. Meanwhile, within the ranks of the ecology movement itself, the fervor that sparked the first Earth Day and the publication of the Environmental Handbook in 1970 seems to have died down.

Out of these environmental issues a theological dispute has arisen -- one that could bode serious ill for the life and mission of the church if it gives rise to a full-fledged polarization.. The debate between those who maintain an interest in "ecological theology" and the more firmly established exponents of "political theology" must be resolved without delay. At a time when spiritual discouragement, pietistic fervor, narcissistic monetary preoccupation, and quietistic political withdrawal are increasingly in evidence within the churches, we can ill afford a frenetic dispute between two theological movements dedicated, overall, to radical re-formation of both church and society.

I

The preliminary questions have focused on the issue of survival versus justice.

Ecological theologians have, as a rule, taken seriously the predictions of crisis advanced by responsible scientists. They have also been influenced by the much-contested argument of Lynn White, Jr., and others that the classical Western theological tradition has proved ecologically problematic. Writing with a sense of urgency, they have sought to develop new theological approaches to nature, emphasizing, in varying degrees, the politics of justice.

Political theologians, on the other hand, have tended either to ignore ecological problems altogether or to regard them as expressions of unresolved political or economic problems. They have been suspicious of much of the literature associated with the ecology movement, seeing it as an expression of First World ideology, as yet another way of keeping oppressed peoples in their places. Political theologians have often implied and sometimes directly stated that theologians with ecological interests must be politically naïve or insensitive. Guilt by association has been a frequently invoked form of polemics -- and an effective one, since the ecology movement has been a bizarre congeries of political reactionaries, romantic conservationists, political cop-outs, solitary poets, anarchic life-stylers, as well as genuine political radicals, serious-minded reformers, and level-headed natural scientists.

To move the discussion beyond these preliminary skirmishes, let me offer the following basis for a working consensus.

First, it should be acknowledged that there is a strong tendency within the ecology movement to give "survival," understood in conservative, even elitist terms, pre-eminence in our national policies. The increasing popularity of the "lifeboat ethic," championed by Garrett Hardin and others, is only the latest expression of a trend. This tendency must be fought at every turn in the name of social justice. Generally social justice must be given priority over survival in our theological hierarchy of values (here the way of the cross can be paradigmatic). Survival should then come next in importance, since obviously there can be no social justice without survival of the human species.

Second, it should be noted that exponents of ecological theology are not necessarily bound to accept the traditional, conservative, organic, hierarchical model for society. This model has been pointedly identified by Richard Neuhaus:

Ecology deals not with the interaction of human power, but with man’s relation to the nature of which he is a part. It is at heart apolitical, although its concerns may lead to political engagement. The ecological archetype sees man in his unity, forced to solidarity in the face of a common threat. The ecologists call us to the struggle for survival. The revolutionaries scorn survival in the struggle for a new order [In Defense of People: Ecology and the Seduction of Radicalism (Macmillan, 1971), p. 70].

It is quite possible for an ecological theologian to argue self-consciously on the basis of a political "root metaphor," rather than an organic metaphor. Also, the question must be raised whether all revised uses of the organic model (e.g., by John Cobb or Kenneth Cauthen) are by definition reactionary, or so geared to evolution that they have no room for or interest in revolution. Simply because the organic metaphor has had politically undesirable ramifications in the past should not disqualify it forever as an object for theological reflection and argumentation. Each theology must be judged on its own merits.

Third, in contrast to the hasty judgments about the extent of the ecological crisis expressed by some of the more politically oriented theologians, it must be agreed that there is an environmental crisis of profound dimensions facing the planet today. The life-support system of our species is threatened, and it is the poor who first bear the weight of the crisis (e.g., poisonous air for the slum-dwellers of New York city, famine for the impoverished of Bangladesh). So it is not a question of either ecology or justice, but both/and. The environmental crisis is a hard fact that we all must acknowledge, however disdainful we may be of ecological doom-sayers or countercultural faddists, however politically radical we may consider ourselves.

II

Preliminary debates and misunderstandings aside, then, a number of fundamental theological and ethical issues related to the ecological crisis require sustained critical reflection by both ecological and political theologians.

First is the historical and sociocritical task. It has been widely assumed by those concerned with the ecological crisis that Western theology, except for certain isolated figures like St. Francis, is ecologically bankrupt. Yet there seems to be good evidence (a) that such an assumption is historically inaccurate; that our own Western theological tradition, particularly in its premodern expressions, has been replete with rich ecological dimensions, which we ignore to our own impoverishment; (b) that Western theology is only one factor among many that helped to set the stage for the contemporary ecological crisis; and (c) that those who assume that the Western theological tradition is to blame for our present environmental situation are discounting the culpability of the structures of modern scientific-technological industrialism (capitalist or Marxist), and the stake of the affluent classes which benefit most from that system. The importance of research in these areas as a foundation for substantive theological reflection should not be underestimated.

Among the areas of study most urgently requiring attention is biblical theology. Virtually all of the most renowned biblical scholars of our era -- the names of G. Ernest Wright and Rudolf Bultmann come to mind -- either have not investigated the biblical theology of nature or have "discovered" that the biblical approach to nature is substantially the same as the modern theological approach. Nature, then, has been presented as "the servant of history" or the "stage for history" in much modern writing about biblical theology. But there is evidence -- beginning with Genesis 1, where we are told that God looked at the whole creation and saw that it was good -- that biblical thinking is not nearly so anthropocentric as many interpreters of the Bible have supposed. But if nature is not merely a stage for history, what is it? In what sense does nature have a role in the sweep of God’s history with God’s creation, as it is depicted in the Bible? The time is overdue for biblical scholars to examine the Old and New Testaments anew, raising ecological as well as political questions.

The second and perhaps most fundamental area requiring joint attention by ecological and political theologians is the problem of properly conceptualizing and expressing the relationship between nature and history. The ecological theologian sometimes falls prey to the traditional romantic danger of submerging the distinctively human dimension of the created order in nature, thereby undercutting the biblical norm of social justice. On the other hand, political theologians are sometimes prone to the opposite danger, so historicizing their conceptualization of reality that nature comes to be treated, as it generally was in 19th century continental Protestant thought and on into the 20th century, as a mere stage for history. But this kind of theology plays into the hands of the exploiters of the biosphere, especially the dominant classes in the affluent West. In the modern West, the acting on the stage of nature has become so destructive (for the sake of "progress," "a constantly increasing gross national product," "development," "exploitation of new resources" ) that it threatens to destroy the stage itself. The carrying capacities of our ecological platform are finite. That platform is a delicate living matrix out of which the human species evolved and on which it is still dependent for life. Too much emphasis on history, therefore, pushes us in the direction of ecological collapse. But if theologians are to develop theologies with a tangible and comprehensive ecological dimension, how should they conceptualize and express the realities of nature and history and their interrelationship?

III

Third is the whole problem of finding a fundamental imagery or root-metaphor that can embody both ecological and political concerns. Whitehead once observed that there is a hidden imaginative background behind even the most refined and abstract of philosophical systems. His observation is even more valid for theology, given the theologian’s self-conscious use of mythological and narrative materials. What imagery, then, can best do justice to both our ecological and our political interests?

The traditional "City of God" imagery can be politically helpful, but it tends to mold theological thought in an insular-anthropocentric fashion, virtually excluding any meaningful substantive interpretation of nature. The various metaphors from nature, on the other hand -- organism, process, body, ground of being -- tend to rule out full explication of the historical dimension as it is attested by the biblical writers. Still another alternative, the biblical and classical theological image "the Kingdom of God," seems to be a possibility for creative theological development, both politically and ecologically, but it brings problems of its own. In our time a kingly image seems contrived, perhaps unintelligible. It is also problematic when viewed from a feminist perspective. Some would argue that it is the key metaphor of patriarchy. In contrast the image "spaceship earth," recently given currency by a number of ecological thinkers, is intelligible in terms of contemporary experience and seems to be free of sexist implications, but it brings with it the liabilities of its technological and authoritarian implications. Is our world best thought of as a machine?

Fourth, in regard to the nature-history question and to the problem of finding the best root-metaphor, is the debate between those who would uphold the concept that nature has intrinsic value before God, and those who would eschew that idea as either unintelligible or wrong-headed. Does nature have its own integrity, worth and goodness, as humanity does? Or is the human species the only one in the cosmos that has rights, the only creature that has intrinsic worth, goodness and integrity in the eyes of God? If we opt for the view that nature has intrinsic worth, how do we protect the biblical emphasis on human rights? (For example, a wilderness area may have to be flooded in order to provide electric power for a slum.) If, on the other hand, we opt for the view that nature has no intrinsic value before God, apart from its relationship with humanity, how is the relationship between humanity and nature to be defined? How is nature to be anything but the slave of the human master? How, then, are we to avoid all the ecological problems inherent in the exploitative, domineering anthropocentrism of modern Western culture?

IV

Fifth, perhaps the most difficult theological question of all is the issue of our understanding of God as it relates to sexual dualism. This issue has been sharpened in recent years by such liberation theologians as Rosemary Ruether. Among political and ecological theologians the issue has been largely bypassed or ignored.

The classical deity of Western theology has been depicted as a patriarchal ruler. This is the God who performs "mighty acts," who creates the world ex nihilo at the very beginning, and who remains -- in the popular theological imagination, if not in explicit theological doctrine -- the Wholly Other God, the transcendent God of power. Symbolically and politically, this God has functioned to oppress women. In the modern period the classical Western deity more and more took on the garb of the One who ultimately validates scientific and industrial progress, including not only much that was truly progressive, but also the industrial rape of nature and, ultimately, through a variety of corporate structures, the oppression of the poor, and the dispossessed.

Originally, however, from the perspective of the Exodus story and the prophets, the "God who acts" motif entailed the liberation of the oppressed and the renewal of the earth. It seems, then, that the "Male Sky God" imagery of the West has incorporated both negative and positive aspects.

Female theological imagery also has both positive and negative connotations. Female imagery has sometimes functioned to validate a markedly positive attitude toward women (for example, the young Psyche, the image of a liberated woman, or Artemis, the free, assertive huntress). Female imagery has also functioned to create and sustain a vital and sensitive relationship to the world of nature (especially in connection with the archaic Earth Goddess imagery). But female theological imagery has had its darker sides. On occasion it has encouraged a turning away from the challenges of historical existence, especially the life of the city (one thinks of the Bacchae), and a turning toward the stable and unchanging -- sometimes orgiastic and destructive -- rhythms of nature. This movement has meant a turning toward political stasis and a certain ruthless acceptance of social inequities as eternally ordained by the Deity.

Male motifs can function to encourage political liberation, but they can also encourage the rape of women and of the earth, and the oppression of the poor. Female motifs can encourage positive approaches toward women and nature, but these motifs can also bring with them the tendency to undercut the struggle for social justice in the city. The question, then, in this theological era "After the Death of God the Father" (Mary Daly) is this: How as we to draw on the positive political and ecological aspects of the male and female motifs, while rejecting the negative tendencies of each? Is some kind of synthesis, or advance beyond, the ancient female-male theological dichotomy possible?

V

All these are complex areas for research and reflection. They will require a concerted effort by theologians who take both ecology and justice seriously, and who are prompted by a sense of urgency that will allow them to struggle creatively and resolutely with the deeper issues -- if not in perfect harmony, at least with a sense of solidarity.

"We seek to overcome the deadly Leviathan of the Pentagon of Power," Rosemary Ruether has written, "transforming its power into manna to feed the hungry of the earth. The revolution of the feminine revolts against the denatured Babel of concrete and steel that stifles the living soil" (Liberation Theology [Paulist, 1972], pp. 125 f.). Is not this, in brief, the challenge before all of us today, whether our interests are primarily ecological or political, whether we are Jews or Greeks, males or females, First World or Third World?

A Selected Bibliography:

Bernard W. Anderson, "Human Dominion Over Nature," in Biblical Studies in Contemporary Thought, edited by Miriam Ward. Greeno Hadden, 1975.

Emile Benoit, "The Coming Era of Shortages." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1976, pp. 7-16.

Conrad Bonifazi, A Theology of Things. Lippincott, 1967.

Carl E, Braaten, Christ and Counter-Christ: Apocalyptic Themes in Theology and Culture. Fortress, 1972.

Kenneth Cauthen, Christian Biopolitics: A Credo and Strategy for the Future. Abingdon, 1971.

John B. Cobb, Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology. Bruce 1972.

Thomas Sieger Derr, Ecology and Human Need. Westminster, 1975.

Thomas Sieger Derr, "Religious Responsibility for the Ecological Crisis: An Argument Run Amok." Worldview, January 1975, pp. 39-45.

Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Vol. II, Part 2, "God and the World." SCM, 1961, 1967.

Richard, Falk, Our Endangered Planet. Random House, 1971.

John C. Gibbs, Creation and Redemption: A Study in Pauline Theology. Brill, 1971.

Charles S. Hall, "Look What’s Happening to Our Earth: the Biosphere, the Industriosphere, and their Interactions." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1975, pp. 11-28.

Nathan Hare, "Black Ecology." Black Scholar, April 1970, pp. 2-8.

Gordon D. Kaufman. "A Problem for Theology: ‘The Concept of Nature." Harvard Theological Review, LXV (1972), pp. 264 ff.

Annette Kolodny, "The Land-as-Woman: Literary Convention and Latent Psychological Content." Women’s Studies, I(1973), pp. 167-182.

Richard Neuhaus, In Defense of People: Ecology and the Seduction of Radicalism. Macmillan, 1971.

Rosemary Radford Ruether, Liberation Theology: Human Hope Confronts Christian History and American Power. Paulist, 1972.

Rosemary Radford Ruether, New Woman, New Earth: Sexist Ideologies and Human Liberation. Seabury, 1975.

H. Wheeler Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament, Part I. Clarendon, 1946.

H. Paul Santmire, Brother Earth: Nature, God, and Ecology in a Time of Crisis. Nelson, 1970.

H. Paul Santmire, "Reflections on the Alleged Ecological Bankruptcy of Western Theology." Anglican Theological Review, April 1975, pp. 131-152.

Joseph Sittler, Essays on Nature and Grace. Fortress, 1972.

Charles West, "Justice Within the Limits of the Created World." Ecumenical Review, January 1975. pp. 57-64.

Lynn White, "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis." Science, CLV (1967), pp. 1203-1207.

Amos N. Wilder, "Eschatological Imagery and Earthly Circumstance." New Testament Studies, July 1959, pp. 229-245.

Farming for God

Book Reviews:

The Paradise of God: Renewing Religion in an Ecological Age. By Norman Wirzba. Oxford University Press, 240 pp.

The Yahwist’s Landscape: Nature and Religion In Early Israel. By Theodore Hiebert. Oxford University Press, 210 pp.

The Ethos of the Cosmos: The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible. By William P. Brown. Eerdmans. 458 pp.

 

Thirty years ago "ecological theology" was a new phenomenon. By 1995 it was a major concern for the church and for many theologians. A comprehensive annotated bibliography published in that year (Ecology, Justice, and Christian Faith: A Critical Guide to the Literature, by Peter W. Bakken) had 512 entries. However, only 23 of those entries focused on biblical interpretation. This was striking indeed, since during the preceding decades much, if not all of ecological theology had been developed in response to the charge, most memorably launched by historian Lynn White Jr., that Christianity is ecologically bankrupt in large measure because of its dependence on the Bible.

With hindsight we can discern some of the reasons for the apparent reluctance, even principled refusal, of many biblical scholars to enter the discussion. From the middle years of the 20th century and for several decades thereafter, both Old and New Testament studies were self-consciously anthropocentric. For example, G. Ernest Wright juxtaposed the essence of Israel’s faith -- a religion of history, he maintained, born in the Exodus event and honed by Israel’s desert wanderings -- with the faith of the Canaanites, a religion of nature. Rudolf Bultmann set the historical faith of the early Christian community over against the "objectifying," naturalizing faith of other religions. This kind of "history of salvation" approach dominated biblical studies for many years, both in Europe and North America, and is still presupposed by numerous scholars.

That situation has begun to change dramatically, thanks in part to Theodore Hiebert and William Brown. Hiebert shows how the Yahwist, the anonymous narrator of much of the Pentateuch, refers to the agrarian terrain of the biblical hill country. Hiebert maximizes the implications of a literal reading of "earth" in Genesis 2. Adam is made not from "the earth" (eretz), Hiebert stresses, but from the "arable soil," which is what the word adamah means. The story of Israel is thus a story of farmers. The claim that Israelite religion valued history while it devalued nature can no longer be derived from a formative desert experience."

Serving and protecting the land is part of Israel’s innermost identity This is reflected in the Yahwist’s approach to Israel’s rituals: "Made by God from arable soil and commissioned by God to farm it, the worshiper offers the soil’s produce as service to God, as an act, one might almost say, of self-definition." Moreover, cities appear in the Yahwist’s narrative as sites where "the great harvest festivals mandated in the Yahwist’s liturgical calendar were celebrated." Hiebert brilliantly sets the dominant hermeneutic of the 20th century on its head. Whatever else it was, the religion of Israel, at least the religion of the Yahwist, was a religion of nature.

Brown adopts and adapts many of Hiebert’s findings but broadens the scope of the inquiry. He shows how in the divine drama of the creation, redemption and consummation of the world, nature, or the earth in its fullness, was understood as a player in its own right, with its own moral claims. Brown seeks to "rejoin what has been rent asunder": nature and history. To that end, with thoughtful precision and expository richness, he explores the various and variegated theologies of the Priestly traditions, 2 Isaiah, the wisdom theology of Proverbs, the 1and-theology of the Yahwist and, perhaps most strikingly the wilderness ethos of Job. All of these, Brown demonstrates, work "to convey a thoroughly cosmic profile of God’s reign of righteousness and peace."

Hiebert's and Brown's work set the stage for the arresting theological argument of Norman Wirzba. His felicitously written study is the first major theological monograph in conversation with the findings of Hiebert and Brown and with the work of other biblical scholars who have moved in similar directions. Its dialogical character makes Wirzba’s work engaging. His biblically informed theological reflection is self-consciously correlated with the kinds of questions that have long preoccupied ecologists and agrarian thinkers, especially the pioneering American ecologist Aldo Leopold. This accessible, sophisticated essay in quest of theological understanding should command widespread attention.

The Paradise of God is well titled, since the biblical theme of "the garden" shapes the entire discussion, Drawing especially on Hiebert, Wirzba shows that the theme of "the arable soil" (adamah) unifies the Yahwist’s theology in Genesis 2 and beyond, and that the teaching about the Sabbath, announced in Genesis 1 by the Priestly source, gives biblical thought about creation a profound and thoroughgoing ecological and indeed eschatological character, as well as a pronounced emphasis on justice. Wirzba explains how human culture, despite its many progressive elements, generally represents the sinful denial of God’s good creation, most dramatically in the modem era. The machinations of human aggrandizement now have eclipsed the agrarian life and produced an abstracting, godless world of dominance, exploitation and death.

In this context, Wirzba argues, the agrarian and scientific discipline of ecology, exemplified especially by the writings of Leopold, is critically important, helping us to envision an "ecological ethic" and "a garden aesthetic." He then brings together these ecological insights with the garden theology of Genesis 2 to set forth a new vision of humans as the servants -- rather than the stewards or citizens -- of creation: humans are placed in the garden not to till and keep the earth (misleading translations), but to serve and care for the land. All this, in Wirzba’s view, makes possible the vision of a new kind of "culture of creation," a world of justice for all creatures, shaped by a "Sabbath economy" joyfully celebrated in a feast of the whole creation.

Impressive as it is, the book is only a partial statement, precisely because of its consistent and often compelling agrarian focus. Though the Sabbath-theology of Genesis 1 forms Wirzba’s argument, the land-theology of Genesis 2 most fundamentally undergirds it theologically -- which leaves his discussion firmly rooted in the garden. But of course there is more to biblical theology than paradise and its immediate aftermath, This is not to suggest that Wirzba is unaware of other major biblical motifs, it is more a matter of emphasis.

In claiming the agrarian theology of Genesis 2 so pervasively, Wirzba bypasses the cosmopolitan vision of Genesis 1, which presupposes the Sabbath as celebrated in the city of Jerusalem, envisioned as the center of the cosmos. In keeping with ancient Near Eastern civic motifs, Genesis 1 also presupposes a vision of the cosmos ruled by a divine monarch who creates humans in his own image and bids them to fill and rule the earth -- presumably wisely and with care -- and so to image forth the shepherd-like dominion of the divine king himself. Wirzba could have drawn more fully on the findings of Brown in this respect.

He also gives scant attention to countless other biblical texts that address the fateful dynamics of urban life, or that, like Psalm 29 and Job, testify to the awesome and sometimes awful workings of the Creator in the wilderness, far beyond human habitations. Again, Wirzba’s argument would be stronger had he given substantive rather than passing attention to Brown’s studies of Job. In a world where more than half the human population now lives in cities (and is often impoverished), and where the great wilderness areas of the planet are fast disappearing, a more complete exposition of the biblical witness -- to the city and to the wilderness, as well as to the farm -- is urgently needed. Necessary conversation partners for this kind of theological enterprise would be thinkers like Lewis Mumford and John Muir as well as Leopold.

Its primary focus on the theology of creation, rather than on the grand sweep of the biblical narrative from Genesis to Revelation, also makes Wirzba’s work incomplete. Again, it is a matter of emphasis. Wirzba is well aware of the claims of the entire biblical narrative, especially the New Testament witness to the new creation in Christ and to the redemption of the entire creation through Christ. But such themes play minor, sometimes almost invisible, roles in this study. Is it possible to have a biblically informed theology of creation without giving a commanding position to the New Testament testimony about the cross and resurrection? Think in particular about the apostolic witness to Christ’s victory over radical evil, sin and death. Though this topic clearly matters to Wirzba, he gives it only marginal attention.

Wirzba is aware of the dangers of romanticizing the agrarian life, and he is profoundly concerned with global issues of social justice and ecological integrity. But without addressing head-on the issues of sin, violence and death in the seemingly godforsaken city and in the awesome and sometimes awful wilderness, how can an agrarian theology really command our allegiance today? Without a pronounced christological witness, can an agrarian theology convince us that the principalities and powers of death and violence have been fully overcome, allowing us to rejoice in the biblical promise of an eschatological Sabbath and eagerly work to embody that promise in our global economy?

One cannot fault Wirzba too much at this point, however, since the revolution in biblical studies signaled by the works of Hiebert and Brown has not had a pervasive resonance in New Testament studies. Not that the New Testament is not ripe for this kind of scholarly investigation. For example, Edward Adams’s tightly argued Constructing the World: A Study in Paul’s Cosmological Language convincingly refutes the anthropocentric history-versus-nature hermeneutic of Bultmann and his followers and paves the way for an interpretation of Paul’s theology as cosmic in scope and in continuity with the Old Testament trajectories traced by Hiebert and Brown. Absent works by New Testament scholars themselves, moreover, theologians like Joseph Sittler, Colin Gunton and Jürgen Moltmann have shown how the theology of the New Testament as a whole can, and perhaps should, be read in cosmic terms.

The struggle for an ecological theology that is fully conversant with the biblical witness and fully correlated with our cultural and ecological crisis must continue. Wirzba has insightfully harvested many of the fruits of Hiebert’s and Brown’s seminal studies, and we can be grateful for his own creative theological labors.

Contextual Theology: Liberation and Indigenization

(This essay is thirteenth in a series on New Turns in Religious Thought.)

We live in a time in which the entire human situation must be explored, a time in which our perspective must move from the particular to the universal. Universalism is abstract; particularity is concrete. This move implies a serious encounter with ethnic theological programs everywhere. The context of belief, life and action must now be given priority.

I

Christian theology is required to take the world of all human beings seriously. All must be reached in their Lebenswelt if faith is to be a live option. Theology as developed in Europe and America is limited in its approach. A "universal" arising from the experience of a small sample is a myth. Christian theologians so unaware of the thought and belief of peoples elsewhere in the world make only a false claim to universalism.

There is no completely universal perspective, since all human thought and belief are limited by structural bounds. However, there can be an openness to the universal. When it is objected that we are dealing with a universal revelation, we must raise the issue of finite human understanding, through which God’s self-disclosure is communicated. The eventual locus of divine revelation is our personal, social, cultural and ethnic existence.

Christian theologians may generally be numbered among the colonizers of the peoples of the Third World. Many have been "God’s colonizers" not by intention but by default; the results, however, have been the same. As a theologian, Albert Schweitzer went beyond most of his peers in his involvement in Africa. Paradoxically, it is the manifestation of this European mind, set in an African context, which dramatizes that his philosophy of civilization is pro-Western. Aristotelian logic and Platonic dualism do not exhaust the thought-structures of the human race. It is arrogant for persons who have been exposed only to these categories of thought and their derivatives to speak ex cathedra for all Christians. It is more honest to admit our particularities.

My eyes have been opened by an exposure to the thought and belief of Asian and African peoples. The study of "religion" is the key to a deeper understanding of a particular religion. This is true of the study of theology as well. Paul Tillich said to Mircea Eliade late in life that if he had an opportunity to begin again, he would study the history of religions first. The study of world religions is a great resource for a more meaningful theological understanding. World religions have not escaped the social Darwinism of the Western mind, either. It is essential, therefore, to do some independent study, travel and field work in order to appreciate more completely the unity and diversity of the various religions and the systems of doctrine flowing from them.

Christian theologians and missionaries have often been the "colonizers" of the minds and spirits of non-Western people. Non-Western religions were often dismissed as heathen; the highest compliment was to accept such a religion as a preparation for the gospel. Western missionaries were not aware that the very gospel which they sought to transplant was blighted by the "Constantinian captivity" of the church. In their pharisaism, they did not observe anything of worth in other religions or in the cultures that sustained them.

II

It has deeply enriched my appreciation of the universal reach of the human spirit to encounter giant intellects and cosmic spirits in Asia and Africa. In an essay on "The Theology of Religion" (I.T.C. Journal, I/1, 1974), I have argued that a theologian can have his life and thought enriched by this experience precisely because he views the faith of other persons from within his own system of belief and thought.

The search for a cosmic Christ has broadened my horizon. Christocentrism has not been abated, but Christ as giver of grace is seen as author of nature and Lord of history as well. The incarnation remains the center of God’s redemptive revelation. The circumference of revelation, however, has been expanded. It is through Jesus as the Christ that we now discover the meaning of God’s all-pervasive cosmic revelation. It is manifest in creation and providence and is in all times and among all peoples.

My studies in Christian Platonism, centering on the Cambridge Platonists, during my doctoral program at Edinburgh and Cambridge universities have made me sensitive to this vision. The discovery of William Temple’s Nature, Man and God, together with my personal conversations with Canon C. E. Raven, a theologian and scientist, opened my mind to this new perspective.

Islam, as I meet it in south Asia and the Middle East, pointed to a legal and political outreach of religion without a rejection of the mystical. One encounters Islamic theologians, past and present, who blend the spiritual and political dimensions of faith in one life. This unity led me to look again at the priestly and prophetic unity in biblical faith.

All my encounters with human religious experience have been invigorating for theological reflection. The élan vital of preliterate religions, the Tao of Lao-tzu, the Jen of Confucius, the compassion of Buddha, the Brahman of the Hindus, are examples of the richness of these explorations. My more recent reflections upon the African roots of black religion have been a great source of insight and inspiration. African religions combine the semblance of the family system of Confucianism with the deep spirituality of Hinduism and Buddhism. In my view, the African perspective provides a basis for a holistic interpretation of religious experience.

What we are developing is a theology of liberation. If theology is to be more than dry bones for faith, if it is to address human beings of flesh and blood, if it is to deal with the ultimate issues of life and death, it must be more than a logical statement of doctrine -- though it should be that. Theology cannot be truly universal if it refuses to deal with the particularities of the human situation. It must not, however, rest with the particular -- it must move from the particular to the universal. In moving to the universal, it must abandon the concrete particular, for there is where we meet the human situation. There is no abstract universal that makes any difference in the relief of human misery. There is no universal revelation which separates salvation history from political history. Systematic theology must become theological ethics. It must speak not merely from ivory towers, but from the marketplace. Theology, to be worthy of the name, must now address "nonpersons" as well as "nonbelievers."

III

Theology and ethics are inseparable in the black religious experience; The context of the faith of black people is a situation of racist oppression. Religion, and especially the understanding of the biblical faith, has been the source of meaning and protest far blacks. Our religious heritage has nurtured and sustained, us through our dark night of suffering. Without this profound religious experience and the churches which have institutionalized it, blacks might not have survived the bitterness of American oppression.

Consciousness is not adequate by itself to liberate a people; it must be empowered. The assessment of the "radicalism" of black religion has led to a concern for operational unity in order to provide a united front against racism. A black theologian cannot enter into the quest for personhood and peoplehood of his or her people without having his or her ethical concern sharpened. Thus, my recent essay "Black Theological Ethics: A Bibliographical Essay" (Journal of Religious Ethics, III/1, 1975) has argued the case for the ethical bent of black theology. In fact, any theology worth the name must make contact with the human situation in the context of world history. When one takes the biblical faith and the incarnation seriously into account, the result is a theology of liberation. Whether we find ourselves as theologians in the camp of the oppressor or the oppressed, what we have to interpret is a gospel of liberation.

My own pilgrimage has been an extended one, beginning with a search for a reasonable faith. Emotional piety and intellectual honesty provided a serious conflict. Much of my life has been given to wrestling with truth. The encounter with natural science, literary and biblical criticism and philosophy accelerated the crisis. The anchor which sustained life’s purpose in the passage through doubt to a more mature faith has been the Bible, reinforced by a steadfast sense of having been called to a ministry in the church. This philosophical direction of my mind led me into philosophy of religion and later into philosophical theology. Much of my early research and writing were preoccupied with epistemological questions of faith. My first two books, Faith and Reason (Christopher, 1962) and From Puritanism to Platonism in Seventeenth Century England (Martinus Nijhoff, 1968), make this point.

My responsibility has been that of a theologian of the church. As a systematic theologian in a theological school within a predominantly black university, I have sought to interpret the faith for future leaders in the church. Most of my students have been black or non-Western. Their ministry, therefore, has been to all sorts and conditions of people. Almost from the start I was challenged to match intellectual honesty with the social and political imperatives of the gospel. It became clear to me that faith should have the priority but that reason should be included. Augustine, Anselm and Pascal led me to a faith seeking understanding. Or put another way, these theologians helped me to find my way.

IV

What we learned from the Detroit Conference on Liberation Theology (August 1975) was that the North American reality is different from that of Latin America. We also discovered that while the mood of black and Latin American theologies is similar, the context is quite varied. While oppression most often takes the form of classism in Latin America, it is evident that racism is most rampant in the United States. This is not to minimize the obvious fact of oppression based on sex. Black women experience a double oppression, but many of them observe that racism is the most stubborn form of oppression. Furthermore, it is destructive of the entire black family and community.

We may observe, then, that in this country we are faced not merely with an overlap or network of oppressions. There is beyond this, in the experience of blacks, a hierarchy of oppression, of which racism is the most systemic, historical and far-reaching form. Blacks as a people are faced constantly with the threat of nonbeing. On the one hand, genocide could result from repression, given adequate provocation arising from sheer frustration. On the other hand, the negative effects of continued oppression may trigger the self-destructive tendencies now evident in widespread drug abuse and black-on-black crime.

Existentialism has been most attractive to black religious thinkers. The experience of racism has prompted blacks to enter an introspective mood. We are, a long-suffering people. Our psychic health has been sustained by a faith that has defied all human limits of endurance. Amid despair and powerlessness, we have carved out meaning and sanity. We have been able to hold life together through faith even though we have not had the ultimate control over our destiny or the issues of life and death. Existentialism, "a creed for crises," has been useful to blacks as they have faced the extreme situation in this country. In an essay titled "Religio-Ethical Reflections Upon the Experiential Components of a Philosophy of Black Liberation" (I.T.C. Journal, I/1, 1973), I have sought to establish these aspects of the psychology of black religious thought. The existential posture of Augustine’s "self-understanding," Pascal’s "reasons of the heart," Bergson’s "duration," and William James’s "stream of consciousness" have had a marked impression upon my thinking.

Discovery of Kierkegaard was a moving experience. His analysis of human existence seemed unusually profound, but his revolt against reason repelled me. His affirmation of the individual seemed wholesome up to a point, but he did not give sufficient attention to persons in relation to one another. His critique of religion and society stirred up my prophetic instincts, but there was an absence of a profound theological ethic as he insisted on a teleological suspension of the ethical for the sake of faith. However, there radiated from his work a penetrating insight into the human "sickness unto death," which was put in a profound psychotheological context for me in Tillich’s Courage to Be.

This existential posture of my thinking has been mixed with a strong mystic bent. Howard Thurman s writings have been a great inspiration. I find the manner in which he combines a deep spirituality with a passion for social justice extremely attractive. The question of how one maintains sanity in a society bent on inhuman oppression based on race is a matter that must be faced before one can find health and wholeness as a person within a community of persons.

V

The type of theological discourse suggested in this essay requires unitive thinking. It transcends the split in thought and life of much Western thinking. The discovery of the total person, the corporate personality and the unity of humankind leads directly to an understanding of salvation as liberation.

The existential theologians taught us a great lesson -- that theology can begin with the human situation as the locus of God’s revelation. But for the most part, they overlooked the collective dimensions of human nature. They unwittingly played into the hands of those who espouse a privatized expression of faith. The theologians of hope, on the other account, pushed the collective aspects of human life; they analyzed human solidarity in oppression and expressed faith in political terms. The individual is exchanged for the social being. Anthropology is replaced by eschatology. The either/or mold of Western thought is evident. The holistic outlook of thought in the Third World (including the Bible) is not predominant.

An adequate anthropology will take the insights of Freud and Marx with all seriousness but will go beyond them. The imago dei is at the heart of the Christian understanding of humanity. It is the relation of the human person to God which is the "wholing" dimension of human nature. It is essential to move from the human to the divine and to view the human in the context of this encounter. If the weakness of traditional theologies has been God-talk, may It not be that the shortcoming of much theology today is that Feuerbach’s observation is being fulfilled -- that theology is becoming only anthropology? While it is the person who is being approached by God’s revelation of his saving grace, we should be assured that it is the whole person who is being considered. The human person is a child of God at the same time that he or she is a fellow to all humans.

Liberation and Reconciliation: A Black Theology (Westminster, 1972), my first comprehensive effort to provide a theology of the black experience, was dismissed by some as a social treatise. Curiously, other theological programs developed out of dialogue between the social sciences and Christian belief have not lost their recognized theological character: this is true of existential theology in relation to depth psychology; it holds for Latin American liberation theology as well and the theologies of hope in relation to Marxism. And yet a theology which emerges out of the identity crisis and the social pathology created by racism is ruled out of court by the theological guardians at the gate. There is a sense of urgency surrounding the theological task of black theologians. We will not be silenced by the criticisms of the theological elite, for we are convinced that we have found a different and vital way of doing theology.

VI

A Black Political Theology (Westminster, 1974) builds upon the earlier work. In this more recent book there is an attempt to develop a theological ethic. The context of black theology is racism in the midst of ethnic pluralism: We are oppressed in a society that is highly developed economically, technically and militarily. While Third World countries experience oppression externally from the United States, we as blacks experience oppression internally as victims of racism. A whole set of problems crush our people. We must not, however, mistake the effects for the cause. If there is not to be a root-and-branch dismantling of racism, then unemployment, illiteracy, all sorts of crimes, economic deprivation and political indifference will continue to destroy our people.

We have not to this day participated fully either in the democratic, process or in the prosperity of this nation. America has been more like Babylon than the promised land of freedom and brotherhood. As America embarks upon its bicentennial celebration, it should be remembered that there are millions of citizens who have been excluded from the American dream. These have not known this nation as "a righteous kingdom," but more as an Antichrist. What will America do to correct this situation today and in the future? What will America do about its "prides" of race, wealth and power? These concerns should lay the foundation of a homegrown theology of liberation.

It has been the genius of black religious experience to speak to personal and social needs. Without this bifocal religious affirmation of meaning and protest, we could not have survived the harshness of our oppression in the American environment. W. E. B. DuBois illustrated this point in The Souls of Black Folk, where he speaks mainly to personal faith. In his "Litany from Atlanta" he raises the theodicy question as he cries to a God of social justice. This is the faith of our black parents living still. The "Second Reconstruction" through which we are now passing underscores the need for the faith "that has brought us thus far on the way." It is a faith which is not content with things as they are. God is a God of Promise, and we struggle for the freedom which is a gift from this God who makes all things new.

We need a theology to address the whole person. Human life must be understood from the depths. Economic analysis treats only one important dimension of the human situation. We must consider the existential and the political aspects of human existence together -- both are important. Human nature is more than either in the Christian perspective.

Christology is the capstone of a theology of liberation. The God who wills and acts for the liberation of the oppressed does so as we encounter him through the words and deeds of Jesus as the Christ. It is in and through Christ that we know God, the meaning of history, of life and death, and the direction of events in human communities. Christ is the center; he is the liberator. It is through the incarnation that we discover how we are to become co-laborers in the liberation struggle.

Salvation is the result of participation in the liberation struggle. Christ frees us that we may free others. Christ is the center, but not the circumference of God’s universal revelation. God’s revelation is in all nature, all history, and among all peoples. It is our task to observe where God is at work and to join in the liberation of the oppressed. Each must discover God in Christ at work where he or she is and move from that center, being guided by the Spirit, toward making life more human. It is thus that we are set free as human beings both from the slavery of sin and the sin of slavery. It is thus that we participate in liberation in order to uproot the systems of bondage -- that there may be no slaves or masters, but a co-humanity in Christ Jesus our Lord, in the church as an extension of the incarnation and consequently among all people.

Jesus and Liberation Theology

Reluctant as I am to be party to the proliferation of contemporary theologies, much preferring to talk simply about "Christian theology," I find that the word "theology" appears no longer to have the more or less unequivocal meaning it once had. My preference, therefore, is to identify with "liberation theology," though I have found this somewhat difficult to do without some clarification of what liberation theology is or might be. Let me then attempt to distinguish between two types of liberation theology, and between both types of liberation theology and what I would call "university theology."

University Theology

The past decade and a half has witnessed a sharp rise in numbers of university departments of religion, and with that rise a movement of theology away from the seminaries into the universities and an exodus of theologians from their ministerial orders into the ivied order of academia. At the same time, a "university theology" has emerged, in both the literal and figurative sense (which is not to say that every university theologian does university theology, or that no seminary theologians practice university theology). One of the more notable indications of this shift is the remarkable growth of the American Academy of Religion -- which used to be known as the National Association of Biblical Instructors.

This most recent theology no longer addresses the doubts and questions of faith raised by the community of faith but the doubts and questions of the contemporary cultured ignorers of faith. Newly received and accepted by the world of honest intellectual doubt and scientific achievement, the university theologian is understandably awed and impressed by the authority and, power of its reason and the meaningfulness of the worlds it has constructed.

Just as understandably the theologian is concerned to find a mode of analogously meaningful discourse with which to participate in and be at home in this community. Thus university theology is characteristically in search of the very possibility of theology as such and tends, on the one hand, rarely to advance beyond prolegomena, programmatic probings, or an apologetic natural theology -- unless it turns, on the other hand, with no little relief, to the very respectable study of the history of theology (as demonstrated, for instance, by the Bonhoeffer Society, the 19th Century Working Group of the AAR, the Tillich Working Group, or even the recently founded Karl Barth Society).

Insofar as it attempts material constructs, university theology characteristically is moved by the secularism and godless maturity of the university to turn to "God the problem," and to offer itself to God to help him with his problem of finding a place in a world which has no place or need for him.

In all this, university theologians are of course addressing their own personal need -- namely, that of maintaining their existence as Christian theologians in a world that cannot understand what they are about or why. Because of its historical relevance (not to say contemporary relevance) to theology. I should point out that biblical studies has a distinct advantage over theology when it comes to finding a place in the university, since it is a historical discipline which can and often does just as well locate elsewhere -- for instances in a department of Near East studies. It must only dissociate itself from theology, which it can readily do.

Liberation Theology Type A

Liberation theology, by contrast, has its beginning in a different kind of community, a "marginal" community that has only token presence or possibility in the university. Such are the communities of, e.g., blacks, native Americans, women, and the oppressed of Latin America. Liberation theologians who come from these communities frankly do not find their worlds so meaningful that they care to find a correspondingly meaningful mode of theological discourse. Their worlds are characterized by powerlessness, and so they seek not a meaningful word about God, but a powerful word from God -- not to give God a place in their world but, on the contrary, to overcome their world and bring them into God’s world, a new world of justice and liberty.

Furthermore, they dare not speak initially of "God the problem," for theirs is the problem. If their world is godless, it is not because in their maturity they have displaced God and find him therefore unnecessary and problematic. They are not the mature and mundig atheists of a Bonhoefferian age. Rather, they are victims of the oppressiveness of this very maturity and godlessness; they must look to God to vindicate himself, to reveal himself powerfully as the liberating God of the exodus and resurrection. Only in this faithful hope can and do they speak of "God’s problem" -- the problem of theodicy, not atheism, the problem of God’s self-justification in the execution of his righteous will, not the problem of humanity’s justification of God in the exercise of mature human reason.

Liberation Theology Type B

Let us now take a further step and talk about another dimension or kind of liberation theology -- we might speak indeed of liberation theology type B, as opposed to the original type A. The necessity of this move is suggested by some observations about both university theology and liberation theology type A.

First, both are theologies determined in significant measure by the community to which the theologians belong; both speak to needs of theologians of that community -- the one to find a home in that world, the other to find a world in which to be at home. Furthermore, in both cases theologians imply or assert that the community in which they operate and whose questions they raise is the authentic context for theology. In both, theologians claim that access to the divine is the privilege of those who belong to their community.

Now, it is clear that many of us are excluded from these communities and therefore from the possibility of true theology. I am not black, native American, female or marginal, nor am I an oppressed member of the proletariat. Nor do I find myself comfortable within or primarily identified by my membership in the university community. Thus I do not have the privilege of access to theological existence, or so it would seem.

Liberation theology type B responds to both of these issues -- the determination of theology by the needs of a community and the claim of privileged and exclusive access to theological existence. But it does so not primarily because of their apparent limitations, but on behalf of a neglected focus -- namely, Jesus Christ, and the biblical witness to him. Jesus Christ comes first of all as an advocate of God’s kingdom and not as the justification of the university or the sanctifier of the hopes of the oppressed. Accordingly, neither these communities nor any other has privileged access. Indeed, the only locus of privileged access to God’s kingdom of which the Christian can speak is Jesus himself, and in him the community of Israel and the Christian community. By his grace and his alone, and in the community of his people, even I, who am not black, female, marginal or native, am bold to say, with Jesus, "Our Father."

Nevertheless, this theology is liberation theology because it witnesses to the power of Jesus Christ to liberate me from my white middle-class world, from the university, and to place me beside the marginals, the oppressed, in hope and promise of their liberation. And not only does it promise liberation from present oppression, but even liberation from the limited dreams of the oppressed for the eternal vision and dream of God, his own promised kingdom.

Liberation theology type B is biblical theology, theology determined by Jesus Christ and the witness of faith to him and his own witness in that faith. Positively it must hear therefore from the Bible above all, else it has nothing to say. Negatively, it will have to address itself to the ideological appropriation of Christian faith, which is inevitably the case where theology is claimed by a particular human community alleging privileged access. It will be suspicious of university theology, both systematic studies and biblical studies, for they are in the service finally of the establishment -- the white, middle-class world, whose mind is indeed the university. And it will be suspicious, a bit less so, of the theology of the marginals, at least to the extent that it is defined negatively by the margin that separates it from the center. It will therefore be ideology critique. And, as it looks to the Bible, it will be interested in the paradigmatic way in which Paul, for instance, in his gospel of liberation addressed the ideologies which claimed communities and which were always a contentious element within the ethos of those communities.

Theology and Ideology Prevention

At this point it is only fair to ask how such a liberation theology as I propose will itself avoid ideology. But before attempting an answer, I should say that I understand "ideology" pejoratively as "the integrated assertions, theories and aims constituting a politico-social program, . . . with an implication of factitious propagandizing . . ." (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary). In other words, ideology is the self-understanding of such a program advancing itself in the guise of another program or idea. Thus, for instance, so-called Christian freedom may very often be nothing more than the concealment of a capitalist economic individualism. Similarly, a black theology of liberation or a feminist theology of liberation may, like the university theology its proponents criticize, be little more than ideological expressions of autonomous political movements that owe no fundamental allegiance to the Christian vision. One may justly suspect that the fascination of some espousers of liberation theology for Marxist analysis may also conceal a tendency to ideology that unfortunately vitiates efforts to unmask competing capitalist ideology.

In a proper liberation theology there are certain emphases that resist such ideology, each of which is implicit in the claim of faith that in Jesus Christ God acts to liberate humankind. The first and obvious emphasis is the theological -- the witness to God and his liberating act. It is this assurance of divine liberating power that makes unnecessary the impatient employment of such human devices as ideology, which are generally felt to be necessary where power is urgently needed and divine power is not hoped for.

The second element has to do with the implications of liberation theology’s concrete focus on Jesus Christ. Theologians must remember for the sake of Jesus that the only people who have privileged access (by the grace of God) to the liberating God are a very particular people, the children of Israel, the "chosen" Jewish people, who came into being through the liberating event of the exodus. Christians share that liberating power when through that Jew, Jesus, they are brought to the God of Israel and thus into the community of his elect children. In other words, liberation is divinely defined as the very particular liberation of God’s chosen people. Liberation is not defined by the individual in terms of his place in the world, where it is so subject to ideological appropriation; it is defined by the place God has set apart, the community of Israel. Christian liberation theology is first of all theology; second and equally important, it is Jewish theology.

In the third place, Christianity recognizes that in this Jew, Jesus, the liberating God of the chosen people comes to all who are in need. In Jesus, the particular God of the Jews is revealed as the universal God of the needful. God offers to the oppressed and needy everywhere God’s particular freedom. God offers this particular freedom to all who are in need, without regard to their particularity -- their race, sex, ethnic origin. This means that liberation and liberation theology are possibilities for all -- blacks and whites, females and males.

Somewhat paradoxically, the universality of liberation is an invitation for liberation theology to be done from every particular perspective. Here again, ideology is discouraged, for no particular position or viewpoint is advantaged or privileged since all are. Liberation theology is not the occasion for the ideological promotion of a vantage point, and the fact that it can be done from all vantage points, ecumenically and universally, with each correcting and corrected by the other, should effectively discourage such.

Particularity calls for a common focus on the biblical event and provides the unity and identity of theology, whereas universality permits and calls for the doing of theology from all perspectives -- black, feminine, and native American, for instance. And the divine, liberating event that this universally particular theology witnesses to is its ground, sustaining power and final hope.

Interreligious Encounter and the Problem of Salvation

Two types of contemporary Christian lay-people and religious are, along with theologians, concerned with problems arising out of today’s encounter among religions. One type represents the average practicing Christian, largely uninformed about the content of the several world faiths; the other, a more inquiring Christian sincerely interested in seeing some sort of rapprochement among believers in God of all faiths. The problems that concern the two differ slightly, but of special relevance for both is the problem of salvation for those not of the Christian faith.

How Approach Non-Christians?

Sincere Christians who have never been taught to think in terms of finding positive truths in other religions may well feel confused at the mounting stress on the need for interreligious exchange. On what basis, they may ask, are Christians expected to approach the teachings of another religion and the persons who adhere to them? Are not such persons, however well meaning, simply misguided believers in a benighted faith? Can they find fulfillment in other than a wholehearted embracing of the Christian revelation?

It is all very well, such average Christians may add, for believers of all persuasions to deal with one another in sympathy and respect. But if Christianity represents, as it surely does, God’s whole plan of salvation for humankind, must not all persons sooner or later accept its authority? If that is so, why approach believers in non-Christian religions except to convert them?

Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, would seem to have reassured these average Christians in a forthright manner:

Obviously we cannot share in these various Afro-Asiatic forms of religion nor can we remain indifferent to the fact that each of them, in its own way, should regard itself as being the equal of any other and should authorize its followers not to seek to discover whether God has revealed the perfect and definitive form, free from all error, in which he wishes to be known, loved, and served. Indeed, honesty compels us to declare openly our conviction that there is but one true religion, the religion of Christianity.

And here, though by "Christianity" he means something very definite (i.e., Roman Catholicism), his words taken at face value speak for the vast majority of believing Christians no matter what their denomination.

But now the more inquiring Christians, sincerely interested in interreligious exchange, may feel confused. Reading these words, they may be at a loss to know in what spirit to approach the dialogue with Hinduism or other non-Christian faiths. If the pope’s sentiments are to be interpreted literally, what are ecumenically minded Western Christians to think, not only about their relations with those professing religions differing from their own, but also about the ultimate worth of those religions? Are the reachings out for spiritual community with sincere believers of other faiths to be one-sided, in that the insights of Western Christianity alone are to be held true and sufficient, and the insights of Hinduism and Buddhism and Islam (and Judaism, for that matter) simply yearnings toward fulfillment in Christianity, as has been held for so many years?

Since Christianity is the "perfect and definitive" form of religion, "free from all error," it would appear that Christians have nothing to learn from outside their own fold. Or, at the most, perhaps the learning is only how to appreciate better the essence of their own tradition of faith. Taken literally, Paul VI’s words seem to rule out all possibility of finding any considerable body of truth outside the church and place in jeopardy the whole subject of the dialogue, seen as honest exchange. The inquiring Christian must ask whether he or she has somehow misjudged the purpose of the dialogue with other religions.

The confusion that a literal reading of Paul VI’s statement might cause is understandable. But since it was Paul himself who promulgated the various liberal constitutions and decrees of Vatican II, it is possible that there is more in his words than is immediately apparent. Perhaps they may be read on two levels. A consideration of what the council itself had to say on the matter of salvation for non-Christians may help here.

Anonymous Grace

In "Vatican II and ‘Outside the Church No Salvation,’ " an article published in the American Benedictine Review for September 1972, Jerome Kodell, O.S.B., provides an exposition that should satisfy the questionings of the ecumenically disposed Christian while correcting some of the prejudices of the more uninformed Christian. As he points out, the old doctrine of "Outside the Church there is no salvation" was in Vatican II completed by the correlative idea, "Wherever there is salvation, there is the Church." In a word, all redemption, wherever and whenever it occurs, is through Christ. The question of salvation and church membership, he adds, came into most of the council’s key discussions: those on the nature of the church, its role in the modern world, ecumenism, missionary activity, religious freedom.

In Lumen Gentium the council fathers stated: "Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do his will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience." That statement is in conformity with the thinking of St. Augustine, St. Justin Martyr and St. Thomas Aquinas, all of whom grappled with the problem. Even in the present century the council fathers’ words have been anticipated in surprisingly forceful form. As cited by Martin Lings in his A Sufi Saint of the Twentieth Century (University of California Press, 1973), Pius XI declared, in instructing his newly appointed apostolic delegate to Libya: "Do you think that you are going among infidels. Muslims attain to salvation. The ways of Providence are infinite."

The council fathers further said, in Gaudium et Spes: "Since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery." Those who, without knowing Christ by name, are living the life of grace -- and thus, as some would say, are "on their way" to salvation -- have been termed by some theologians "anonymous Christians." Such persons are being saved by the same power that is at work among members of the visible church. But, as Father Kodell declares in his article, the church "is raised up among the nations to identify this saving power as the power of Christ." Through its missionary work it "helps the present anonymous grace to develop into living and visible faith."

What membership in the church truly signifies and how Christians are to assess the operations of grace outside its visible boundaries, Father Kodell says, are questions to be discussed in the study of the meaning and role of the church.

Toward a More Universal Vision

Questions like these raised by constitutions and decrees of Vatican II are of particular interest to me; I was for 25 years a member of a Hindu monastic order before returning to Christianity and thus feel a deep concern for interreligious encounter. Further, and quite as important, I myself am no theologian and so can easily appreciate the dilemma of the average Christian as well as that of the ecumenically minded Christian. On the other side of the dialogue, my long association with, and belief in, Hinduism enables me, I feel, to put myself in the place of many non-Christians confronted with the church’s approach to interreligious relations. From my own peculiar point of vantage I sense that many Christians may be missing something -- a message hidden in Scripture, in the words of the church fathers, and in the deliberations at Vatican II -- without which our attempts at interfaith dialogue will be of little or no avail.

I have been confirmed in this belief by a discussion I had not long ago with a man who has pondered long and deeply on interreligious relations and the problem of salvation for non-Christians. He is Cipriano Vagaggini, O.S.B., a theologian formerly associated with the Facoltà Teologica Interregionale in Milan and now rector of the Pontificio Ateneo Sant’ Anselmo in Rome. His remarks about the beliefs proper to Christians regarding their own faith, the possibility of salvation for non-Christians, and particularly the efficacy of other faiths for salvation, provided a push forward for my own speculations. He would be the first to agree that his views do not add anything revolutionary to what may already be found in theological manuals. But his summation provides me -- and, I think, those who, like me, are not trained in systematic theology -- with a basis for achieving a more catholic vision. He has given me permission to publish the substance of his remarks.

There are, Father Vagaggini pointed out, four matters of faith that a Christian accepts with certainty. First, God wills the salvation of everyone and does not positively condemn anyone unless he or she is guilty of an unrepented grave personal sin. Second, Christ is the supreme Savior and sole mediator of salvation: after Adam committed sin, no one has been able and no one will be able to obtain salvation except through dedication to Christ’s person. Third, one cannot pass by means of Christ to salvation except in uniting oneself -- at least in an invisible manner -- to the church, which is at the same time visible and invisible, and in having a real, positive relation to baptism (and also, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, to the Eucharist). Fourth, the duty of the church is to preach to the world the whole plan of salvation ordained by God and by Christ. These four truths avoid the errors of syncretism and indifferentism.

Salvific Elements in Non-Christian Religions

Two overriding problems remain, Father Vagaggini stated: first, the salvation of non-Christian persons, especially those born after the time of Jesus Christ; and second, the validity for salvation of the non-Christian religions, as institutions, after the time of Jesus Christ. These problems are met by means of two theological hypotheses:

1. Those not belonging to the Christian fold who receive the grace of God and are saved obtain their salvation through an implicit faith in, love of and desire for Christ, his church and the sacraments -- at least baptism (and the Eucharist). "Implicit faith" and "implicit desire" indicate a general interior state by which one gives oneself truly -- and so it includes love -- to God and his will, and one is ready to carry out his will as soon as one recognizes it. Those non-Christians who enjoy this interior state become dedicated to Christ and his church in an invisible spiritual manner by this faith-and-love condition and by God’s grace. Even though they do not receive the sacramental rites, God gives them the grace of the sacraments because of their inner spiritual state.

This explanatory hypothesis of "implicit faith" and "implicit desire" is in large part traditional and seems to preserve all the basic requirements. Among others, it preserves the church’s missionary obligation, not only as regards Jesus’ commandment, but also concerning the right of those who are not Christians to know the whole plan of salvation ordained by God. Implicit faith and implicit desire tend in themselves to become explicit, and must become so as soon as circumstances permit. We must not, however, forget the general principle which demands, as a matter of pastoral prudence; that in certain cases people should be left to their own sincere faith in order to avoid the risk, if one troubles them in that faith, of making the situation worse than it was before.

2. The hypothesis for the second problem starts with one basic idea that is certain: God can approve neither of evil things (i.e., things against his will) nor of false teachings. But in a religious situation that includes matters both good and evil, teachings both true and false, he may indeed use things and teachings that are good or of indifferent value as instruments of salvation.

Two other basic ideas are commonly accepted, as for example by St. Thomas: (a) before the Mosaic law, people obtained salvation by professed faith in rites (such as sacrifice) of a sacramental type; and (b) among the Jews there were also rites of a sacramental type (such as circumcision and the immolation and partaking of the paschal lamb). It should be noted further that although the Jews -- and especially in the pre-Mosaic religion -- accepted doctrines that were incomplete or even mistaken and rites more or less imperfect, this fact did not deny to the Jewish religion itself, through other of its elements, the positive validity of assuring salvation.

All this being granted, Father Vagaggini said, it would appear that one can accept a further hypothesis: There is nothing to deny the fact that in the non-Christian religions even after Jesus Christ there have been elements, in greater or lesser number -- whether of a ritualistic, institutional or doctrinal nature -- with a positive value for salvation, in the sense that God makes use of them to effect the salvation of those persons of sincere faith who belong to these religions.

One cannot find any convincing proofs that, for such persons, the positive value of their religion in assuring their salvation was done away with after Jesus Christ. Indeed, since, as we have stipulated, their faith is sincere, it is not their fault that they are unaware of or do not accept the true religion that Jesus Christ has ordained. One cannot see why, from that time on, God should have made their situation more difficult by the coming of the saving Christ.

According to Father Vagaggini, there are numerous basic ideas in the statements of Vatican II that point in this direction, but they have not been made sufficiently explicit.

From the Christian point of view, the foregoing remarks amount to a very generous statement of sympathy for other faiths. The Christian interest in a rapprochement among believers of all faiths should welcome the assurance that there are indeed elements in the non-Christian religions with a positive value for salvation, which God makes use of. It should also be taken as a sign of hope that in certain special situations such individuals should be left to their own beliefs. Perhaps these remarks provide a hint as to how we may learn to read Paul VI’s statement in Ecclesiam Suam on another, less literal, level.

Two Types of Hinduism

The approach of Vatican II to the question of salvation for non-Christians, as clarified and amplified by Father Vagaggini, represents one side of the dialogue. For the other side, we may well ask what might be the response of a believing Hindu, for example, to the claims of Christianity. Believing Hindus today may be roughly divided into two general groups: those who accept the philosophy of nondualism (or neo-Vedanta, as it is sometimes called), and a far larger group of a devotional nature, who are often of a more orthodox type. Though there is a certain amount of overlapping, the two approaches will here be treated as separate.

Modern nondualist Hindus believe that in essence a person’s soul is nondifferent from the essential reality of the suprapersonal Godhead, and that all the great religions, whether they recognize the fact or not, are paths toward communion with one and the same truth or God. Hence they would probably be puzzled by Pope Paul VI’s declaration in Ecclesiam Suam that there is only one "true religion." Also, since modern Hindu belief (unless in one of its orthodox "dualistic" forms it claims a unique rightness) asserts that God’s mystery is unfathomable, there can be no one "perfect and definitive form" in which he may be "known, loved, and served."

The Christians’ claim, the nondualist would say, is unrealistic; for scriptures, though inspired by God, are transmitted through the minds of fallible humans. To assume that Christian authors of the New Testament in the first century could have known what God had said elsewhere, and that Christian thinkers of the 20th century, on the basis of that Scripture, could pass judgment on any non-Christian revelation without thoroughly objective and unbiased study would be, at the very least, parochial.

Since there are many ways, in the view of non-dualist Hindus, to know God and to love and serve him, their tendency would be to hold that the Christian revelation, though binding on Christians, was not necessarily binding in every detail on non-Christians. They would never demand that any member of another faith -- as the statement of Pope Paul VI seems to imply -- should "share in" their form of religion. And they would not be forbidden by their faith to seek to discover whether God has revealed an error-free form in which people can know, love and serve him. All nondualist Hindus have always been free to inquire anywhere they liked, for though they may not feel impelled to abandon their own religion and adopt another, they would expect to derive only benefit from sharing the insights of other people of God.

In contrast, orthodox devotional Hindus would, like Paul VI on behalf of Christians, hold that it was to themselves and the members of their sect that God had long since revealed the "perfect and definitive form, free from all error." They might, though, feel that Jesus Christ was an avatara or "descent" of Vishnu, all-pervading Sustainer of the universe, rather than the only begotten Son of the Father. If they had only the forthright statement of Paul VI -- as understood literally -- as a guide to an exchange of ideas with Christians, both types of Hindu would find little reason to join enthusiastically in the dialogue.

Christ’s Power Outside the Visible Church

Let us next try to picture the reaction to the Vatican II affirmations on the part of Hindus for whom the Lord Krishna is Redeemer. The Christian belief that Jesus Christ is God’s unique self-revelation to humankind runs counter to the assurance in their scripture the Bhagavad Gita that whenever there is a decline in righteousness, for the salvation of humanity the Lord embodies himself as man. Further, these Hindus look at the depiction of Christ as "the true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world . . . yet the world knew him not" (John 1:9-10), and at their scripture which tells them that the Lord Krishna is the light that guides every soul. If they are to accept the Christian view, they will have to acknowledge that Christ is with every person whether he or she knows it or not. The question then becomes: Who exactly is this Christ?

Is it Jesus of Nazareth who "enlightens," or Christ the Word who was from the beginning? On learning that, although Jesus Christ is the Word who was from the beginning, the power of Christ that was working for salvation before the time of Jesus, in virtue of his coming, is still working in people of sincere faith, devotional Hindus will want to know why they must abandon their own sacraments. Is there no meaning in all the revelations of their faith except as a foretaste of the full truth revealed only in Christ? If they are assured of salvation through an invisible church, why must they accept the statement that the function of the church is to "identify" the power that saves them as the power of Christ? They will not want to be told that it is not the "fault" of people like themselves that they are either "unaware of or do not accept" the true religion ordained by Jesus Christ.

In the end, if I do not misjudge, these devotional Hindus will prefer their own Redeemer’s words in the Gita: "Even those devotees who, endowed with faith, worship other gods, worship me alone." Perhaps they will never feel inclined to participate in the dialogue unless introduced to a less literal understanding of who their Lord Krishna is.

A more positive approach will perhaps come from nondualist Hindus (or other non-Christians of similar outlook). As I see it, they would be able to interpret the idea "wherever there is salvation, there is the church" to their own satisfaction. In response to Father Vagaggini’s statements on the "four matters of faith" that every Christian "accepts with certainty," Hindus who combine the philosophy of nondualism with faith in a personal God would certainly agree that God wills the salvation of everybody and that drastic punishment for grave sin comes only if it is unrepented. They would, however, question the finality implied in the word condemn, believing that sin is a form of ignorance and that, being limited in nature, it cannot produce an unlimited effect such as eternal banishment to hell.

As for the second statement, if there is indeed a Christ who belongs as much to non-Christians as to Christians, there would be no difficulty with the assertion that only through Christ can salvation come. The third, that on uniting with Christ’s church in an "invisible" manner, might bring some hesitation. Christians’ insistence that a valid non-Christian church capable of being used by God to effect salvation must be part of the "invisible" church of Jesus Christ might seem to non-Christians to demand of them a great deal of forbearance. It also might seem to them to betray a certain insecurity on the Christians’ part -- unless it was agreed that by the invisible church was meant (at least potentially) the whole of humanity.

About the duty of the Christian church to preach the plan ordained by God and by Jesus Christ, there should be no difficulty at all. In the light of what Father Vagaggini said toward the end of his statement, it would be clear to the non-Christian that those preordained to become professing Christians ought to be given access to the true teaching for Christians. This can be accomplished only if all non-Christians are given an opportunity to hear the gospel.

But there is another angle to this last matter, the Hindu would insist. Since there is salvation outside the visible church -- since, that is to say, Christ is somehow working outside organized Christianity -- and if non-Christians have a right to know God’s "whole plan of salvation" for Christians, then it follows that Christians have an obligation to know God’s plan of salvation for those outside the visible church, for those who are not preordained to become professing Christians.

The Beloved as Redeemer

One who is not a Christian (especially the modern nondualist Hindu and perhaps a Mahayana Buddhist) might ultimately agree to go along with the idea, from the Christian point of view, of an invisible" church of a Christ not tied to any one religious or cultural tradition. In return, it would hardly be asking too much, this non-Christian would very likely feel, to expect Christians -- in a new twist of the Golden Rule -- to allow others to ask of them the same thing that the Christians are asking. That is, non-Christians are being asked to believe that wherever any spiritual ideal is exalted as the Beloved -- under whatever name: Amida Buddha, Durga, Krishna, Shiva, Allah -- he whom Christians name and know as Christ is exalted. That being so, Christian brothers and sisters should be willing to allow Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims to affirm that wherever Christ is exalted by Christians as the Beloved, what is universal in their own saviors is exalted. They should be willing to grant that their Christian faith-and-love manifests a corresponding "implicit faith" and "implicit desire" for the Beloved upon whom the non-Christians look as Redeemer.

Here might be a non-Christian’s test of responsible Christians’ sincerity in the dialogue. Honest dialogue need not, as some Christians seem to feel, imply merely a forthright statement that Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and humankind, and that the God of Israel is the only true God. For if God is indeed acting, in whatever degree, through the rituals and institutions and doctrines of non-Christian faiths, surely the difference between "these" Gods and "their" God must seem suspiciously slight. Shortcomings in interpretation of revelations on both sides may account for whatever differences in rituals and doctrines cannot be reconciled. But where the interpretations produce similar fruits, surely they have been instituted by the same Power. It is not one God who "makes use of" the provisions of another God!

And if there is an invisible church, then the question might be raised: Is there not an invisible Christ at work in all the great religions? It is this One Christ, it might seem to those of other faiths, who is the only begotten Son and the sole mediator between the One God and humanity. It is he who is "the way, and the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). If that is so, what does it matter how he is named? No name fully expresses the "name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9). But persons holding this view would not seek to equate one religion with another any more than they would hold that their faith was the only faith, and that others’ were only "religions." The term "anonymous Christian" is in questionable enough taste without one’s trying to propose an "anonymous Christianity" or "anonymous Hinduism" or any other anonymous "ism." But who could deny that Christ the Word, whose grace brought salvation to people before the time of Jesus, is still bringing salvation to people who are not Christians?

The Christ Beyond Christianity

If persons of goodwill on both sides of the dialogue could agree to work in terms of the two concessions I have mentioned, honest comparing of notes might in the future help to eliminate what the dialogue participants prayerfully agreed were mutual insufficiencies in interpretation of revelation. Christians might then confidently seek enrichment from others’ insights without fear of "indifferentism." Non-Christians might find perfect justice in Paul VI’s forthright statement that there is "only one true religion" -- were the final phrase altered to read, instead of "the religion of Christianity," simply "the religion of Christ." Not that they would in any sense wish to belittle Christianity; they would merely be emphasizing the fact that though God’s revelation may be for all, the cultural garb in which it is dressed need not apply to all. And by Christ they would be indicating a timeless, illimitable, universal Christ -- the "true light that enlightens every man," the reality who is the fulfillment of all faiths just because he is beyond (though not outside) all specific faiths, but who for Christians is also one with Jesus of Nazareth.

I am presenting, of course, only surmises. It is unlikely that either Christians or Hindus (or any other non-Christians) would find the will to undertake any such exchange in large enough numbers to guarantee its bearing immediate fruit. But there could be a start. And only some such openness of Christians to other religions will give any fruitful meaning to the present earnest attempts at encounter.

Jesus said to the puzzled Pharisees, "And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold" (John 10:16). Modern devotional Hindus, believing that Jesus is a "descent" of the all-pervading Sustainer Vishnu, could easily see themselves among these "other sheep." Jesus is here speaking, nondualists might say, from the point of view of the universal Christ, and the phrase "not of this fold" need not apply merely to Greeks and Romans or signify "not yet of this fold."

Again, Jesus said to his disciples, "In my father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you I go to prepare a place for you?" (John 14:2). Surely these "many rooms, any Hindu might say, were for sincere non-Christians as well as for faithful followers of Jesus. In identifying the "I" in that sentence exclusively with God as revealed in Jesus Christ, a Hindu might continue, would one not limit him in a way inconsistent with the Christ who could say, almost immediately, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life"?

To a nondualist Hindu we are dealing here not with a historical Jesus only, but with a timeless Christ who in some inexplicable way is known to the Hindu through his own revelation. It is in St. Paul that the universal significance of the historical Jesus is most consistently stressed. Is the recognition of that universal significance, and of the universal significance of the Christian creation story and eschatology, demanded of people in the East, the Hindu may well ask, or may there be sympathy and respect and adoration, without unqualified acceptance of any article of faith but Christ?

Confronted with the problems involved in the question of salvation for non-Christians, one is driven to ask whether Christians have yet grasped the total Christ. The Gospels and Epistles are full of guideposts in a strange tongue that seem to direct us to a realization of a Christ who could include the Christ beyond Christianity and so the sincere believer in God outside the visible church. Perhaps the universality of Christ is to be understood in a sense we have yet to penetrate. Can it be, we Christians may well ask ourselves, that, unlike the "men from every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5) on the day of Pentecost, we have failed to master that hidden tongue, which allows every sincere believer to say with David, "Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of gladness with thy presence" (Ps. 15:11).

If Christians are to get to the heart of the problem of salvation for those who are not professing Christians, they will, I submit, have to learn to think in terms of a truly universal Christ. This they can accomplish only if, first of all, they honestly open their minds to what other religions "on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26) have said and are still saying on the great questions of life. Once they have understood such insights -- and on those religions’ terms -- they may well discover not only that Christ has been revealing himself in non-Christian faiths throughout history, but also that to those non-Christians temperamentally unfitted to become professing Christians he has been revealing himself in ways fully sufficient to their deepest needs.

Women and the Language of Religion

The rising feminist consciousness of the past decade is beginning to effect significant changes in the English language. Linguistic sexism, while still dismissed by many with ridicule, is being confronted with increasing concern by those who recognize the concept of inherent sexual inequality as a scandal that must be resolved. It is not surprising, therefore, that many Christians and Jews are examining with new awareness some of the implications of traditional religious language.

Religious thinkers are forced to depend on symbols, particularly on metaphors and analogies, to describe and communicate what is by nature indescribable except in terms of human experience. The symbols are not intended to be taken literally but to point beyond themselves to a reality that can be only dimly perceived at best. "We must strain the poor resources of our language to express thoughts too great for words," wrote Hilary of Poitiers in the fourth century. "The error of others compels us to err in daring to embody in human terms truths which ought to be hidden in the silent veneration of the heart."

Since the major Western religions all originated in patriarchal societies and continue to defend a patriarchal world view, the metaphors used to express their insights are by tradition and habit overwhelmingly male-oriented. As apologists of these religions have insisted for tens of centuries, the male symbolization of God must not be taken to mean that God really is male. In fact it must be understood that God has no sex at all. But inevitably, when words like "father" and "king" are used to evoke the image of a personal God, at some level of consciousness it is a male image that takes hold. And since the same words are used in reference to male human beings -- from whom, out of the need for analogy, the images of God have been drawn -- female human beings are perceived as less godlike, less perfect, different, "the other." The most powerful symbols are often the simplest, those closest to experience -- in the case of words, those we use daily, almost without thought. But these symbols can also lead most easily to distortion.

I

Linguist Mary Ritchie Key provides a pertinent example. In the Aztec language, which does not have masculine and feminine gender in its grammatical system, the third-person-singular pronoun yejua can refer to he, she or it. Key is convinced

that this is relevant to the concepts which the Aztecs devised for the explanation of their origins. They believed that the origin of the world and all human beings was one single principle with a dual nature. This supreme being had a male and female countenance -- a dual god who conceived the universe, sustains it, and creates life [Male/Female Language, by Mary Ritchie Key (Scarecrow, 1974), pp. 20-21].

The god is called Ometeotl -- from ome, meaning "two," and teoti, meaning "god." Sometimes the deity is described as having a partner or equal counterpart, or is referred to by a term that means "the mother, the father, the old one." Yet despite the notion of plurality, the god is always spoken of in the singular grammatical form. There is a plural in Aztec which the ancients could have used, Key notes, but instead they referred to Ometeotl by the genderless third-person-singular pronoun yejua. Since our language has no personal pronoun equivalent to yejua, she points out, there is simply no way to translate the Aztec concept of a personal God into English.

"Nevertheless," Key says, "the eminent authorities who discuss Aztec religion all use the pronoun ‘he’ in the discussions. There is no more reason to use the male referent than to use ‘she.’ We can substitute the female referent just as correctly: ‘She is Queen . . . and she rules.’" As for the concept of partner or equal, the translators use the words wife or consort. "Again, there is no word in English . . . to refer to this single dual being."

The authorities on Aztec religion are not the only translators who have allowed cultural or religious bias to affect their renderings of ancient texts. Phyllis Trible’s analysis of the creation story in the second chapter of Genesis provides other examples in the translation of the Hebrew ’adham as "man" rather than by a more inclusive term, and in the choice of "help meet" or "help mate" as the meaning of ’ezer ("Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation," Journal of the American Academy of Religion, March 1973, pp. 35-42). Neither rendering is a mistranslation. When the King James Version of the Bible was completed in 1611, the Old English sense of man as "a person of either sex" was still recognized, though the word had already become ambiguous, and ’ezer does not imply either grade or rank. But no widely accepted translation has ever performed the urgently needed clarification of these Hebrew words by substituting a more accurate rendering of man to include both sexes, and not until 1970, when the New English Bible translated ’ezer as "partner," has the connotation of "handmaiden" been corrected.

II

Female God imagery, clearly present in the Hebrew Scriptures along with male imagery, has often been ignored in English translations. When Moses, near the end of his life, speaks to the Israelites still wandering in the desert, he says, according to the King James Version, "Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee" (Deut. 32:18). Two problems are involved. (We are indebted for this information to Phyllis Trible , who discusses the female imagery of Deuteronomy 32:18 in her article "God, Nature of the Old Testament" in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume, Abingdon Press, scheduled for publication in 1976. This article and Dr. Trible’s paper "Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation" provides numerous other instances of female imagery for God in the Bible.) The first is that the English word "beget" fails to convey here the full sense of the original Hebrew verb, which means either a father’s act of begetting or a mother’s act of bearing. Modern translations like the Revised Standard Version (1952), the Jerusalem Bible (1966) and the New English Bible (1970) repeat this limited interpretation, possibly because we have no equivalent in English to express the wider meaning conveyed in the Hebrew original.

The second problem has been handled with varying degrees of fidelity. "Thou . . . hast forgotten God that formed thee" is not incorrect, but "formed" is an indefinite rendering of a Hebrew word that specifically describes the action of a woman in labor, and it is therefore never used in reference to a man. The Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible come closer to the Hebrew in their wording "God who gave you birth" and "God who brought you to birth." Even so, the imagery in translation is not as strongly or exclusively female as it could be. The Jerusalem Bible’s reading, "unmindful now of the God who fathered you," is both patriarchal and erroneous.

The meanings of Greek texts also have sometimes been changed in biblical translations. For example, the King James reading of John 16:21 says: "A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world." Modern readers quite naturally attribute the woman’s joy to the birth of a son. But the Greek word here translated "man" means "a human being," prompting the translators of the Revised Standard Version to say "for joy that a child is born into the world." Two more recent translations, however, the New English Bible and the Jerusalem Bible, again opt for "man."

In her widely read essay "Games Bible Translators Play," Ruth Hoppin, of the NOW Ecumenical Task Force on Women and Religion, notes several other instances in which masculine nouns and pronouns have been substituted for those of common gender. In John 1:12 and in I John 3:1-2, for example, the phrase "sons of God" occurs in the King James Version, a reading changed to "children of God" in both the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible. In view of the enormous weight given by Christians to every word of the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, the use of "sons" is not easily explained.

While Western religions have traditionally portrayed the spiritual nature of human beings and their relation to God in male terms, sexuality is portrayed as female, the embodiment of sin, forever distracting men from godliness. Men are sons of God; women are daughters of Eve. Catalysts in a cosmic struggle between good and evil, women are defined in terms of the extremes of sexuality men experience -- whore or virgin, agent of Satan or mother of God.

III

Krister Stendahl, dean of Harvard University divinity school, has come to see the seriousness of the problems created by male-centered religious imagery, and he links the way Christians speak about God with the way they tend to think about God. "All good theologians," he has said, "have always been in tune with that story about the person who came back from heaven and told what God looked like, saying: She is black." Stendahl continues:

The masculinity of God, and of God-language, is a cultural and linguistic accident, and I think one should also argue that the masculinity of the Christ is of the same order. To be sure, Jesus Christ was a male, but that may be no more significant to his being than the fact that presumably his eyes were brown. Incarnation is a great thing. But it strikes me as odd to argue that when the Word became flesh, it was to re-enforce male superiority.

Much so-called liberal theology has a special problem here, for it has tended to increase the anthropomorphism of Christian language. In moving away from the deeper aspects of trinitarian speculation, it centered more and more on the idea of God as the Father and made the imagery of Fatherhood the overarching metaphor for God. One started with the idea of "Father" and blew it up into divine proportions. The old process was reversed: Instead of saying that the One who created the world and nurtured the galaxies could even be called "Father" by the mystery of faith, anthropomorphism won out and the Father image became supreme. A metaphor of faith, with a specific and limited intention, hardened into a concept that was not checked by genuine transcendence, and it became trivialized. The time has come to liberate our thoughts of God from such sexism; and a richer trinitarian speculation with the Spirit (which happens to be female in Hebrew) may be one way toward that goal. It is obvious that those who say "God" and mean it cannot accept a male God without falling into idolatry.

Such attempts at rethinking and re-experiencing call for a critique and renewal of the traditional language of theology and liturgy and everyday life. For that reason, I take the matter of pronouns seriously. To many, such concerns seem trivial or ridiculous. They are not. Language is powerful. Generic "man" is a real obstacle to the digested understanding and feeling of "male and female created he them" ["Enrichment or Threat? When the Eves Come Marching In," in Sexist Religion and Women in the Church: No More Silence! edited by Alice L. Hageman (Association, 1974), pp. 120-121].

About a year before Stendahl made these remarks, two Harvard divinity school students, Linda Barufoldi and Emily Culpepper, who were enrolled in a course taught by Harvey Cox, had called for "concerted efforts in the lectures and discussions of this course no longer to use sexist language." As reported in the Harvard Crimson, "The proposal specifically called for a ban on the use of ‘Man,’ ‘Men’ and masculine pronouns ‘to refer to all people.’ It also urged that masculine names and pronouns not be used with reference to God." The class voted overwhelmingly to adopt the proposal, which Professor Cox characterized as responding to "the basic theological question of whether God is more adequately thought of in personal or suprapersonal terms" ("Two Women Liberate Church Course," Harvard Crimson, November 11, 1971).

The incident received wide coverage, including an article in Newsweek ("Pronoun Envy," December 6, 1971) which labeled it "yet another tilt at the windmill," and called the students "distaff theologians." This tongue-in-cheek attention was not paid, however, until 17 members of the university’s department of linguistics, including the department’s chairman, Calvert Watkins, had written a letter to the Crimson on the subject of the students’ action. The proposal "to recast part of the grammar of the English language reflects a concern which we as linguists would like to try to alleviate," the letter began, and it then explained the properties of what linguists call "marked and unmarked" pairs.

Many of the grammatical and lexical oppositions in language are not between equal members of a pair but between two entities one of which is more "marked" than the other (to use the technical term).

For people and pronouns in English the masculine is the unmarked and hence is used as a neutral or unspecified term. This reflects the ancient pattern of the Indo-European languages. . . . The fact that the masculine is the unmarked gender in English (or that the feminine is unmarked in the language of the Tunica Indians) is simply a feature of grammar. It is unlikely to be an impediment to any change in the patterns of the sexual division of labor toward which our society may wish to evolve. There is really no cause for anxiety or pronoun-envy on the part of those seeking such changes [Harvard Crimson, November 16, 1971, p. 17].

In a letter to Newsweek (December 27, 1971), James L. Armagost, of the department of linguistics at the University of Washington, commented on his fellow linguist’s explanation of marked and unmarked pairs: "A reasonably inquisitive person might wonder why the masculine is unmarked. The question deserves a better answer than: ‘What a coincidence that the masculine is unmarked in the language of a people convinced that men are superior to women. Randall Blake Michael, a member of Cox’s class, also sensed the deep currents of pain his fellow students were expressing. The Newsweek account "does not seem to recognize that language, including pronouns, is capable of participating in the reality to which human beings must react and respond," he wrote. "Our society’s oppressive nature is all too obvious and all too real to these female human beings; and their expressions of pain should not be dismissed as a party game."

IV

How tendentious the whole issue of God’s "sex" becomes was demonstrated by Episcopal Bishop C. Kilmer Myers of California, in a statement opposing the ordination of women to the priesthood. "A priest is a ‘God-symbol’ whether he likes it or not," Myers wrote. "In the imagery of both the Old and New Testaments God is represented in masculine imagery. The Father begets the Son. This is essential to the givingness of the Christian Faith, and to tamper with this imagery is to change that Faith to something else." But "this does not mean God is a male," the bishop continued, for

biblical language is the language of analogy. It is imperfect, even as all human imagery of God must be imperfect. Nevertheless, it has meaning. The male image about God pertains to the divine initiative in creation. Initiative is, in itself, a male rather than a female attribute. . . . The generative function is plainly a masculine kind of imagery, making priesthood a masculine conception ["Should Women Be Ordained?" in the Episcopalian, February 1972, p. 8].

Conception? The word is a curious one to use in this context, bringing to mind as it does the union of ovum and sperm. And curious, too, is the notion that givingness is somehow more of a male than a female attribute, especially in the context of "generative function." The bishop’s theology here, as well as his biology, appears to be based on the linguistic assignment to males of exclusive credit for procreation. From the begettings of Scripture to the latest seminal idea for saving the world, the English language tells us that males alone are responsible for new life. According to this biology, the male inseminates whereas the female merely incubates. It is a scientific inaccuracy still reflected in the very different meanings assigned to the verbs "to father" and "to mother" -- and it remains a potent factor in traditional theological formulations of God’s nature.

Religious educators maintain that the use of literal images in teaching children about religious faith does not limit a child’s ability to reach a more mature understanding, provided the metaphorical concepts are such that adult faith can be built on them. Certainly from all the evidence available, a child, in modern times at least, would have to be a religious prodigy not to visualize some kind of human male figure out of all the masculine pronouns and the imagery of father, lord, king, etc., used to describe the deity. That many do hold such an image is illustrated in a small book called Children’s Letters to God. A special poignancy leaps from one page: "Dear God," wrote a little girl named Sylvia, "Are boys better than girls. I know you are one but try to be fair" [compiled by Eric Marshall and Stuart Hample (Pocket Books, 1966), unpaged].

The test of a metaphor, said British psychiatrist Robert H. Thouless, is not whether it is true or false, but whether it is adequate. "The test of adequacy," he wrote, "is whether it leads to understanding of and appropriate behaviour with respect to the thing referred to" (Authority and Freedom [Hodder & Stoughton, 1954], pp. 71-72). When Women challenge the masculine linguistic symbols for God, what they are asking, among other things, is whether these metaphors do not encourage a double standard for evaluating human beings in addition to reinforcing an idolatrous concept of the deity.

V

In an effort to avoid the overmasculinized symbolization of modern Christianity, it has become popular to speak of the "masculine" and "feminine" attributes of God. But this is a case of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, for clearly there are no words more slippery or more susceptible to stereotyping than these. Some religious thinkers shy away from such an obvious cultural trap -- "We have to stop either masculinizing or feminizing God and go for something fundamentally different" -- but from the Vatican to the smallest village congregation, other religious leaders seem all too eager to divide everything in life into sex-differentiated categories as a way of counteracting past prejudices, and they end up complicating the dilemma. For unless the categorizers have reached a level of understanding that frees them from at least the grossest cultural preconceptions in applying to God the words feminine and masculine, they merely add the weight of religious sanction to the polarization that stifles genuine individual distinctions.

"I would suggest the following parallel list as descriptive of the difference between the masculine and feminine sides of life," a minister wrote in his weekly newsletter:

rational, ordered spontaneous, free

form, plan matter, context, content

authority supportiveness

penetrating, aggressive receptive, submissive

linear, pointed voluminous, containing

government community

direction area, space

"Few would have trouble picking the left side as the masculine side and the right as the feminine side," the minister observed. "It is not merely a matter of cultural upbringing, since all of life, even physical objects, can be shown to have its masculine and feminine sides. Where cultural bias comes in is in the assignment of these various characteristics to the male or female" (Earle Fox, writing in the Bell Ringer, St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, East Had-dam, Connecticut, February 27, 1972).

Yet that is precisely what the writer has done in imposing a "masculine-feminine" division on all of life, even physical objects. For what do "masculine" and "feminine" (as distinct from "male" and "female") mean except that they describe characteristics a given culture assigns to or associates with males or females? Can any culture that makes such assignments -- and all do -- be without bias from the viewpoint of another culture whose parallel lists of "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics are quite different? It is hard to see what can be gained, pedagogically or theologically, by still another list of such contrasts. Apart from its transparent sexual analogies, the characteristics it assigns to "the masculine and feminine sides of life" do, however, reinforce a sex-role division consistent with Judeo-Christian cultural traditions.

In Thinking A bout Women Mary Ellmann tackles the problem of such analogies from a different perspective. She is speaking of the space program, and what it has to say about strength and weakness:

The shape of the rocket no doubt misleads many observers, along the cement paths of Freudian correspondences, to a masculine conception of the program. But its human role is not energetic or forceful.

Like a woman being carted to a delivery room, the astronaut must sit (or lie) still, and go where he is sent. Even the nerve, the genuine courage it takes simply not to run away, is much the same in both situations -- to say nothing of the shared sense of having gone too far to be able to change one’s mind.

It is, then, a time in which sexual differences are more visual than actual. We see a man doing what we would ordinarily think of as feminine, sitting still, and manage to think of it as masculine because a man is doing it. . . . Perhaps as long as sexual interest in any sense is strong, we will continue to comprehend all phenomena, however shifting, in terms of our original and simple sexual differences; and to classify almost all experiences by means of sexual analogy. The persistence of the habit is even, conceivably, admirable. It might be taken as proof of the fertility of the human mind that, given so little sexual evidence, it should contrive so large a body of dependent sexual opinion" [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968), pp. 5-6].

Mortmain, a word that literally means "dead hand," came into being as a legal term referring to the perpetual ownership of lands by ecclesiastical or other authorities. "There was a time when the thought of Christendom was in mortmain no less than its land," J. B. Mayor wrote in 1876, and a hundred years later women find themselves still oppressed by the dead hand of sexist theology. Their new self-awareness opens perspectives that in the past have been obscured by "a male-centered cultural and religious heritage which continues to assume that man sets the standards and is the norm for being human."

The words just quoted are from the report of a conference of theologians, all of whom were women. The dual role of language in expressing experience and conditioning it, and the historical fact that males have been the namers and definers and, if not the sole originators, at least the chief interpreters of religious metaphors, were recurring conference themes. In the course of exploring new theological models, one of the concepts that evolved was the need for a greater emphasis on verbs rather than on nouns, the need to speak, for example, of "ruling" rather than of "king." Positions of power have traditionally been held by men, and so the noun forms used to describe images of power have for the most part been masculine. Women, however, have exerted power in other areas of life, the conference report noted. "Since the verb is a more dynamic form, it is more open to additional meaning that women’s experience may bring to it." The greater use of verbs would also avoid "attempts to place both masculine and feminine qualities in God," a step that tends "to eternalize what we now understand as social and historical cultural conditioning."

VII

The radical theologian Mary Daly is also interested in the liberating power of verb-forms -- of "God" as "Being," for example -- and in the power of naming.

The myth of the Fall . . . amounts to a cosmic false naming. It misnames the mystery of evil, casting it into the distorted mold of the myth of feminine evil. In this way images and conceptualizations about evil are thrown out of focus and its deepest dimensions are not really confronted.

Out of the surfacing woman-consciousness is coming the realization that the basic counteraction to patriarchy’s false naming of evil has to come primarily from women. By dislodging ourselves from the role of "the Other" . . . women are dislodging the mystery of evil from this false context and thus clearing the way for seeing and naming it more adequately [Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation (Beacon, 1973), p.47].

When Daly speaks of naming she refers to bringing into, being "a new meaning context . . . as we re-create our lives in a new experiential context." She says, "To exist humanly is to name the self, the world, and God."

The "method" of the evolving spiritual consciousness of women is nothing less than a reclaiming of the right to name.

It would be a mistake to imagine that the new speech of women can be equated simply with women speaking men’s words. What is happening is that women are hearing each other and ourselves for the first time, and out of this supportive hearing emerge new words. Words that, materially speaking, are identical with the old become new in a semantic context that emerges from qualitatively new experience. Thus the word "sisterhood," wrenched from its patriarchal context, no longer means a subordinate semibrotherhood but an authentic bonding of women ["The End of God the Father," Unitarian Universalist Christian, fall/winter 1972].

To Mary Daly, the essential thing is "to hear our own words, always giving prior attention to our own experience, never letting prefabricated theory have authority over us" (Beyond God the Father, p.189).

What is happening in language now seems simply to reflect the fact that, in the words of Pauli Murray, candidate for ordination in the Episcopal Church, "women are seeking, their own image of themselves nurtured from within rather than imposed from without." Woman as temptress, the eternal Eve, the gateway to Hell, and woman as virgin, pure, undefiled keeper of hearth and home are polarized images in Western religious thought -- impossible extremes of evil and good that leave no place for a real person. But as women free themselves to reflect on their own experiences and longings, they are creating new images and symbols that will bring into being not a "feminine" theology, but new, more inclusive ways of describing the indescribable.

The Fading of an Era: The Last Missionaries in the Punjab

The great missionary era of the church is over. An equality among Christian communities is beginning to replace the dependency and inequity of the past. That is a welcome change. Still, there is something poignant about the shifting of eras, and a small event may signal the shape of a much larger history.

Several years ago, I witnessed the farewell to the last evangelistic missionaries in the north Indian state of Punjab. I had been doing research in the Punjab on the social movements of the oppressed untouchables, many of whom had joined the Christian church during the great missionary era; so it was an event of sociological interest to me and to the lower-caste community of converts. But perhaps it was a historical event as well: a moment of meaning for a community in transition, a world church in change.

I

That event began for me with a visit to Y. C. Mall, an impish old-time indigenous pastor of the united Protestant church in Jullundur, a busy town in central Punjab. It was a hot day, dust churning in the crowded streets; the mission compound, where the church was located, was set away from the main roads, with room to breathe. Aging cream-colored bungalows, their arched verandas burdened with vines, were surrounded by a geometry of flower gardens and thick trees; early missionaries must have found the only eucalyptus grove in Jullundur. It was a place of great calm, perhaps calmer than the church would like it to be.

But there were some gestures of excitement in the compound that day. Morgan and Dorothy McKelvey, a missionary couple, were retiring, leaving the next night on the Frontier Mail. Mr. Mall suggested that we visit them. I didn’t know the McKelveys very well, but I did remember being struck by the fact that they were doing adult education and rural evangelism in the villages. Few missionaries did that sort of thing anymore. The roles of missionaries had changed. In fact, they were the only ones I could think of who were doing strictly church work, as opposed to work with Christian institutions -- schools and hospitals -- in the whole of the Punjab.

As Mr. Mall and I walked along the dusty road, a thought occurred to me. "Tomorrow is a historical occasion."

"How’s that?" he asked.

I told him that by my calculations, the missionary era in the Punjab spanned 137 years. The first missionary came for evangelistic work in October 1834, and tomorrow -- April 26, 1971 -- the last missionaries would leave.

"Well," said Mr. Mall, "Praise the Lord, that means our church has finally grown up.

The McKelveys were sitting in the middle of the high-vaulted room of their mission house, a bit of packing clutter strewn about, the walls naked. They did not seem quite fit for their roles. She was round-faced, motherly, and seemed suited for baking pies on the Colorado plains -- where, in fact, they intended to live when they returned to the States. He had full white hair and trim features; one imagined him as a sweet-faced, athletic lad 60 years ago when he was growing up in the Punjab, the son of missionary parents, and when he joined the mission himself in 1944. Nor did they act as if they were performing a scene in history. Rather, they seemed tired and pensive.

Mr. Mall and I mentioned our discovery that they were the last of their kind, and that tomorrow would be the closing of an era. If that was true, they said, they were not too happy about it. They had seen their colleagues, good ones, retired early, shipped off to bureaucratic roles; they felt that the newcomers -- teachers and doctors -- had time only for their institutions, and none for the church. The principle of shifting the leadership of the church to indigenous hands was undoubtedly a good one, they said, but if that meant shoving out all the church-related missionaries, that was pushing principle to a fault.

The McKelveys did not say so, but the implication seemed to be that the local church needed the soothing hands of at least a few missionaries before it could ride totally alone. And in fact, the stories of the past couple of years -- the fights over church property rights, the factional struggles among the leadership -- had given an unpleasant air to the church’s reputation. McKelvey was apparently one of the few remaining missionaries who had the courage, or the interest, to wade into these messes and try to straighten them out. The missionaries in the institutions just didn’t have the time.

Mrs. McKelvey looked at me sternly and said, "The only true missionary is an evangelistic missionary, you know. Once the Punjab had hundreds. And after tomorrow, there’ll be none.

II

The big years for the missionaries, apparently, were around the turn of the century. The Punjab was bigger, then, before Pakistan claimed the western half, and the English ruled with a sense of destiny matched only by that of Ranjit Singh, the "one-eyed lion of the Punjab," whose empire had been routed by the British a century before. The missionaries caught that sense of destiny.

Once while rummaging through old missionary reports in a storage room of Baring Union Christian College in the Punjab, I came across old letters and reports from the field. Urgent, vibrant reports -- the writers felt that they were onto something big. Gospel Romance Among the Huts of the Punjab was the title of one book, and the letters were full of passionate appeals to send more missionaries to "reap the mighty harvest." The crop at that time was composed almost entirely of the lowest untouchable caste, the sweepers, who came unsolicited by the tens of thousands to receive baptism and the benefits of getting out of the Hindu caste system. The Protestant church of the Punjab was born from that mass movement.

The McKelveys were busy with packing and presents for the servants, so Mr. Mall and I went outside, where evening was coming on. We walked past the old church. I asked him to show me around, since I had never been inside. The church was in the middle of the trees, far from the road, and perhaps a century from Jullundur. It was a structure of old, weather-worn bricks, topped with a large bell, surrounded by flowers, shrubs and a brick wall. A plaque on the wall, commemorating the first pastor, a Bengali missionary whose descendants still form a strong arm of the church, placed the date of its construction at about 80 years ago. The floors were solid marble tile; there were carved altar and brass ornaments, and Bible inscriptions written in the florid Arabic script of the Urdu language, outlining the chancel and the side doors. The small church, with its straight-backed pews, could seat about a hundred, and on most Sundays it was fairly full, said Mr. Mall, the 67 local members complemented by students and visitors: four or five families were well-to-do; they drove cars to church. The others, members of the lower classes, walked.

"But there’s no caste or class in here," Mr. Mall exclaimed, waving at the walls. The congregation drank communion wine from one unhygienic but beautiful old brass chalice, rather than shifting to the modern style of individual communion cups. At issue was the symbolism of overcoming intercaste eating restrictions, a problem that persisted in many churches.

Outside, in the approaching dark, the sense of musty historical calm carried over to the rest of the compound. The missionary bungalows were almost all empty. The one where the McKelveys were now packing would become a literature center. The indigenous Church of North India used other bungalows as offices. And the old Christian high school near the church -- the first high school in Jullundur district -- was no longer a school; it was now used for conferences. The city these days was full of high schools run by the government, and by other religious groups, the Hindus and Sikhs.

Directly across the street from the mission compound, to the east, crowds were gathering in the early evening for the satsang -- religious services not unlike Christian services -- of the Radhasoami sect, a new religion based in the Punjab which, like the new religions of Japan, was gaining followers rapidly in Europe and the U.S. In India, Radhasoami was attracting thousands of new converts yearly, especially from those lower classes which once provided Christian converts during the days of the mass movement earlier this century. The bustle of the crowds arriving at the Radhasoami meeting place was in marked contrast to the quiet of the church within the eucalyptus grove.

III

The next day the last missionaries in the Punjab were to leave. It was a historical day for the church, but a working day for me, as I had several people to see in connection with my project on social movements among the lower classes. Since Christianity in the Punjab, particularly in the rural areas, has its origins in that stratum of society, my attention had been drawn to some erstwhile "Christian Associations" (Masihi Sabhas) formed to exert political pressure, and to run candidates in recent parliamentary elections. A leader of one of these groups, I was told, could be found as a teacher at the Christian schools in Suranassi, a town perhaps four miles from Jullundur.

Those four miles comprised a small adventure in discomfort, since I had determined to take the local buses, and spent a good part of the journey hanging out of the rear doorway by one arm. The bus reached the Christian schools and slowed down, and I dropped off, like a mail sack from a slow train. The Christian schools were a modern version of the mission compound: new buildings, wide lawns and, seemingly ubiquitous with things Christian in India, lots of flowers in neat little plots.

The Christian schools at Suranassi were relatively a new thing. They were built mostly after Independence in 1948, when the new government’s policies of providing primary schools on a vast scale wiped out the missionary institutional efforts prior to that time. The church switched to high schools and technical schools, consolidating their old institutions into a few major centers. On the high school and college level, however, the Christian institutions had to compete with the large networks of Hindu and Sikh institutions which, paradoxically, were begun earlier in this century in response to the Christian institutions, the conversion appeal of which seemed to challenge the Indian religions. The rationale for continuing Christian enterprises along this line was that the poorest people, many of them Christians, needed special opportunities, and that religious training in the schools helped keep alive the faith. But half the 650 students were Hindu and Sikh, tuition-paying, to supplement the money from America which kept the schools solvent.

The compound where the schools were located was orderly, purposeful; well-dressed students were sipping tea at a clean little stand. I imagined the incredible culture shock which most of the village youth must have experienced on their arrival at the boarding schools. Straight from mud huts to all this brick and plumbing, the narrow village society of caste and family replaced by Boy Scouts, the 4-H, and evening Bible studies. It struck me that it would be hard for a graduate from an institution like this to go back to the village -- and it was either that or the competition for scarce jobs in the cities.

I had tea with Dr. Theophilus, the director of the schools. A pleasant sort, obviously devoted to his administrative and educational duties, he reminded me a little of a Methodist district superintendent I once knew in southern Illinois. He was Indian, of course, and from the lower classes at that. I had no idea how he came by his name; I speculated briefly that it might have been a Greek translation of an original Hindi name such as "Ram Das" or "Dev Anand" -- which mean "lover of God."

Dr. Theophilus once went to the United States on a church grant, and managed to complete a Ph.D. in education from Iowa State in only two and a half years. He rhapsodized about Iowa as if it were Paris, and I could picture Theophilus as guest speaker at Ames’s church socials and Rotary clubs.

His house was modern ranch-style, full of bookshelves, and I had the feeling that it must have been originally built for a missionary. The kitchen gave it away: modern, convenient, made for American wives rather than Indian servants. His books were light novels, theology and school administration. And his kitchen was American.

We talked a bit about the schools, their problems. Aside from the new library cum administration building under construction, Dr. Theophilus was concerned about two other matters: getting a volunteer from the German Peace Corps to teach in the mechanics’ training course, and completing a wall that was being constructed around the school buildings. Its purpose, he explained, was to demarcate the land used by the schools from the land used for boarding hostels, homes and general church use. The point of all this was that in the event of nationalization of church institutions, the government could claim only so much and no more.

IV

Through Dr. Theophilus I was introduced to the fellow I came to see, Amar Nath Singh, a young teacher with a well-trimmed beard and fiery eyes who turned out to be a nephew of Y. C. Mall. He said he could indeed give me the inside story on Christian politics. After some poking around for a quiet place to talk, we settled on a storage room about the size of a large closet, next to the tea stall. Amar Nath produced two folding chairs and some tea, and we talked for three hours.

Amar Nath Singh was one of those fellows who came from a poor family in a poor village, was educated at the Christian schools, and never went back to the village. Around 1900, his grandfather was swept up on the edges of the mass movement and became a Christian. The conversion didn’t stick, however, as village intimidation forced him to redeclare himself a Hindu. Similarly, Amar Nath Singh’s father claimed Christianity for a time, then went to Sikhism, a religion which is as strong as, or stronger than, Hinduism in this part of the Punjab. His father’s liaison with Sikhism explained the Sikh name "Singh" attached to Amar Nath’s otherwise Hindu name. Amar Nath also went through religious wavering, despite his association with the Christian schools. He believed that Christianity could put a "new man in new clothes," and other groups, religious or political, emphasized only one or the other, the man or the clothes.

From what I had seen of village Christians, and from what Amar Nath told me, they were in need of both. Their family incomes hovered around 100 rupees per month ($14), and most lived in one- or two-room houses made of mud, straw and cow dung. Many couldn’t afford to send their children even to a free school because the kids earned money tending cattle. India’s "green revolution" seemed to have passed these people by, since they didn’t own land, and the new farming machines simply took away their old jobs. It was no surprise that those who could get away, through employment or education, did so as quickly as possible, and those who stayed in the village, or returned there, turned to quarreling and drinking bootleg liquor -- familiar diversions of the poor everywhere.

No one knows exactly how many village Christians there are. Once there were around 500,000 in the Punjab; the latest census figure gives 162,000. But because of a chronic shortage of pastors (the congregations are not equipped to support them, and missionary funds were cut off several years ago), the church tends to be only dimly aware of Christians more than ten or 20 miles from the cities. Since Christian doctrine has never been particularly well learned in the villages, and because many villagers didn’t bother to keep the westernized or biblical names given them when they became Christian, Christianity could be an ambiguous matter. Wesley Samuel could be, on other occasions, Ravi Ram, and no one would be the wiser.

The erosion of Christian membership continued not only for lack of nurture from the church but also because the jobs which the government reserved for "scheduled castes" (the official term for the so-called untouchables) in government employment were not open to those who claimed to be adherents of a non-Hindu religion, and therefore no longer in any caste at all, "scheduled" or otherwise.

Amar Nath fixed the blame for the government’s policy decision on the church leadership at the time the government was drawing up the list of scheduled castes, before Independence. That leadership was composed of a missionary-trained elite and a few converts from high-caste, Muslim, and Maharahas families. They had some influence on the British government because of their status, but out of pride and a refusal to confuse Christian identity with caste identity, they refused to allow Christianity to be placed on the list. There were a few leaders, like Dr. Theophilus, who stood up for the masses of Christians, but they lost out, and now the poor Christians were paying for that mistake.

But the thing that intrigued both of us was not that so many villagers were leaving Christianity, but that so many still hung on to their Christian identities despite the obvious liabilities. This was particularly remarkable in-light of the fact that the village Christians’ forebears, joining the faith in mass movements, had but the vaguest notion of what they were getting into -- just that it was likely to be better than being an untouchable Hindu. And if they were treated as badly as before, the ex-untouchables, with their Christian names and pictures of Jesus, were free only within their own minds.

V

Christianity, however, gave pride to the former untouchables in the villages. They renamed their caste "Christian." And if they eschewed the economic benefits of reserved places in government service by refusing to claim any relationship with their ancestors castes, this was as much a testimony to their sense of dignity as human beings as it was a witness to their Christian faith.

Given their economic situation and the sense of estrangement from the old society that belonging to a new faith brings, it was natural that some political movements emerged to protect the Christians’ rights and promote their welfare. This was happening at the same time that political groups of all sorts proliferated in India -- during the heightened political sensitivity of the nationalist movement (especially 1925-1940), and after Nehru but before Indira (i.e., 1964-1970).

Some of the Christian organizations were of the social-uplift type, encouraging education and better living conditions, with no overt political schemes. Other groups were political in the narrowest sense, running candidates in various elections. Amar Nath speculated that these people had simply wanted to see their names on the ballots, or had hopes of being bought off at a good price by the dominant parties.

Amar Nath’s organization, the Bharatiya Masihi Dal (Indian Christian Party), was a new group with a half-dozen organizers, centered in Jullundur and Amritsar, another city 6o miles away. Aside from Amar Nath, the other two officers were Bilaur Masih, an illiterate laborer from Jullundur, and Samuel Mal, who had a scrap-metal shop in Amritsar and lived in the mental hospital where his wife worked. Mal had run for a parliamentary seat as an Independent in the last election, and the newspapers had made something of the fact that he gave his address as the mental hospital. Out of approximately 350,000 votes cast, Mal received 874.

In India, voters tend to follow along caste and religious lines, and in an area where Christians have perhaps 1 per cent of the population, the prospects for Christian candidates didn’t seem particularly bright. Amar Nath seemed to be a reasonably sensible fellow, so I asked him why they persisted in running candidates in elections they didn’t have the slightest prayer of winning. According to Amar Nath, it was to publicize their demands, which were essentially six: (1) land for poor landless Christians, (2) reserved places for Christians in government jobs, (3) reserved places in government schools, (4) protection from intimidation, (5) protection against anti-Christian and anti-missionary legislation, and (6) protection against the government’s occupation of church land.

Mostly, they wanted the rights and benefits the scheduled castes were getting. The biggest problem, Amar Nath felt, was organization. The poor people didn’t have the money, and rich Christians couldn’t be bothered. Amar Nath tried to do what organizing he could, on his bicycle on weekends, but that wasn’t enough, The educated Christians, if they passed the state examinations, got government jobs; and by law government employees were prohibited from being involved in politics. Amar Nath speculated that this rule might be a way of co-opting the scarce leadership of the poor.

So far, the Bharatiya Masihi Dal had relied on old men and weekend politicians for the organizing, but Amar Nath wanted to tap another source -- the unemployed college graduates, who often wandered about for a couple of years before they found jobs. This volatile segment of the population was a mainstay of other parties’ organizing and formed the core of the Maoist Naxalite movement; so, Amar Nath reasoned, the Christian unemployed could certainly be used for organizing among poor Christians. Knowing quite a few Indian Christian students, I wondered how many would eagerly soil their nylon shirts in the villages. And Amar Nath admitted that the idea had yet to get off the ground.

Someone brought a bowl of fruit in, and Amar Nath enthusiastically chopped up the oranges, mangoes and bananas into little pieces with a large knife. As we ate the bits of fruit, Amar Nath began to wax eloquent on his millenarian vision of Christian rule in India. After all, he said, the Romans gave Christianity to the British and they conquered the world; now, he said, the British and Americans have brought Christianity to us. I tried to complete the parallel in my mind, but it was difficult.

VI

I said good-bye to Amar Nath, and stopped by to pay my respects to Dr. Theophilus before returning to the city. I asked him about the Bharatiya Masihi Dal; he said he didn’t know anything about it, as he wasn’t interested in politics himself, but that Amar Nath was a nice fellow.

I caught a ride back to Jullundur with Dr. Theophilus and his wife, which was pleasant, despite the rich, middle-aged couple who also joined us. They were considering sending their daughter to the Christian girls’ school, and were asking about the plumbing and the fans -- the sort of things parents of boarding-school children fret about.

Dr. and Mrs. Theophilus were going to Jullundur for a reception at the home of Bishop S. Ghulam Qadir honoring the McKelveys, the last missionaries to leave the Punjab. I had planned to get out before we got to the bishop’s house, but before I realized where we were, the car had stopped in the mission compound. Dr. and Mrs. Theophilus insisted that I come in for the tea.

There were maybe a dozen people sitting in the dark parlor, waiting for something to happen. Besides Dr. Theophilus and his wife, there were the chaplain of the military cantonment and his wife; a retired woman principal of a girls’ school, dressed in an immaculate white sari; and some other people associated with the local church. The bishop’s wife, looking dazzling in a splendid sari, was fussing over the cakes and tea in the next room. The McKelveys were sitting like statuary in one corner of the room, looking very white in the ring of brown faces. I must have looked fairly white myself, I thought; seeing them reminded me how foreign whites look in India, simply by the color of their skin.

Soon Bishop Qadir came in, looking youngish in a sport shirt and full curly hair. He ducked into a side room and in a moment returned as if from an Anglican chrysalis, elegant in white robe and golden embroidered stole. He read some Bible passages in Urdu, gave a long prayer in impossible Panjabi, and then made a little speech, in simpler Panjabi, illuminating the significance of the day’s event.

Finally he recited a list of some of the more illustrious foreign missionaries in the Punjab -- John Lowrie and William Reed, the first missionaries in 1834; Charles Forman, who founded the distinguished college which bears his name; Hervey Griswold, the missionary scholar who pioneered in Pun-jab sociology; and some of the more recent missionary heroes, such as Ernie Campbell, who received an Indian government citation for helping resettle refugees; James Alter, who established a center for interreligious understanding; and Clinton Loehlin, who founded the Institute for Sikh Studies at Baring College. The list was long -- and it culminated, of course, with the McKelveys.

Then each person in turn stood up and gave little testimonies about the McKelveys and their work. When Mr. McKelvey stood, he told the gathering with quiet emotion that he’d miss them and his years of service in this place. His little speech was in English, which seemed unusual, since everybody else spoke in Panjabi, and Mr. McKelvey’s Panjabi, which he had learned in childhood, was absolutely flawless. Later, Mrs. McKelvey told me she always had trouble with language, so perhaps the English was for her; or perhaps it was intended for me.

Just when it appeared that the formalities were over, my old friend Pastor Mall came bustling in, apologized profusely, and sat down. There was silence. When it seemed clear that he was expected to give a speech, he stood up and mentioned what we had discussed on our afternoon walk: that this was something of a historical event, the last of the old-style missionaries, and that to him it meant that now the church was 100 per cent on its own for indigenous leadership. That, Mr. Mall said, was cause for celebration, though, he hastened to add, the McKelveys would of course be missed.

Then garlands of garish red and gold foil were put on the McKelveys, in the Indian tradition. Then the tea, lots of munchy Indian snacks and pastry with chocolate icing.

It was about time for the McKelveys to catch the Frontier Mail, and the party moved outside. They shook hands all around, and the group waved as they walked off. I waited to talk with the bishop, who was busily discussing church politics with a couple of the men. Mr. McKelvey reappeared briefly with a handful of American church magazines he thought someone might like; there was no immediate response, so he handed them to the bishop’s wife, who looked at them uncertainly, and thanked him for his thoughtfulness.

I had my chat with Bishop Qadir about the lower-class village Christian community, from which he himself had emerged; and I waved goodbye to Dr. Theophilus, who was getting into his car, and to Mr. Mall, who left by motorscooter. Outside the mission compound the dark was coming on, and I caught a cycle-rickshaw in front of the Radhasoami meeting hall, where the evening crowds were beginning to gather.

Later that evening in my hotel room, I tried to frame some of my questions regarding the sociopolitical character of lower-class Punjabi Christianity: was it a movement of the oppressed, or a movement of the oppressors? Was it an escape from reality, or a shift to a more authentic alternative society? Was Christianity perceived as the ideology of the foreigner, or as the vision of an India fulfilled, its deep divisions made whole?

But then another question surfaced, which seemed more compelling and immediate than my rather esoteric concerns. Would Punjabi Christianity survive at all, given the formidable pressures to assimilate into the dominant culture, and given the absence now of foreign rewards?

And yet, I felt that that question would resolve itself positively, despite the perils, the tensions and the fears. The Christian community had become a fact on the landscape of the Punjab. It had an identity, a culture, an internal world of its own, as secure in the Punjab’s future as the Muslim community had become after the departure of the Moghuls some centuries before.

It would not be the same Christian community, of course, as it had been during the great missionary epoch. For the eras had changed and I had seen it happen, that evening when the last missionaries boarded the Frontier Mail.