Archives: Articles

No One is Disposable: The Fight Against Slavery in the New Global Economy

According to the Exodus story, the Egyptians had begun to fear that the Israelite people living in Egypt had grown more numerous and powerful than the Egyptians themselves. To prevent these Israelites from joining Egypt’s enemies, fighting against the Egyptians, and escaping from the land, the Egyptians set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor. . . The Egyptians became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites, and made their lives bitter with hard service in mortar and brick and in every kind of field labor. They were ruthless in all the tasks that they imposed on them (Exodus 1:11-14).

To most of us, the word "slavery" brings to mind images of a terrible oppression: the Atlantic slave trade of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries with all its shameful and nightmarish horrors. We are likely to think of slavery as a long-vanquished anachronism, a horror safely confined to a shameful and barbaric past. Article 4 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees that "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude, slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."

Yet slavery still occurs and is, in fact, on the rise in the new global economy. Kevin Bales, the world’s leading expert on contemporary slavery, estimates that 27 million humans are held in slavery today. This is so shocking and horrible that one doesn’t want to believe it. Even Archbishop Desmond Tutu has expressed his surprise: "Slavery. . . I didn’t know about all these forms that existed. I think it’s largely because we aren’t expecting it. It is hidden. Generally people would not believe that it is possible under modern conditions. They would say ‘No, I think you are making it all up’, because it’s just too incredible."

Although we would like to think that ships transporting slaves and cotton fields cultivated by slave labor are a thing of the past, the horrors and humiliation associated with slavery have not vanished. They have simply taken on other forms in which outright ownership of another human being is generally avoided.

Many modern slaves are, for example, debt slaves and bonded laborers. These are persons whose labor is demanded as means of repayment of a loan or of a debt inherited from a relative. Worldwide, millions of bonded laborers are caught in a cycle of debt and forced to work in conditions that violate their basic human rights. Kevin Bales has estimated that most of today’s 27 million slaves – as many as 15 to 20 million – are bonded laborers in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal. Other slaves in the new global economy are forced laborers – people who are illegally recruited by governments, political parties or private individuals, and involuntarily forced to work, usually under threat of violence or other penalty.

Contract slavery is the second most common form of modern slavery. Workers are offered contracts that guarantee employment in a workshop or mine or factory, but when the workers are transported to their place of "employment," they find themselves enslaved. If legal questions are raised, the contract can be produced, but the reality is that the "contract worker" is a slave, threatened by violence, lacking any freedom of movement, and paid nothing or virtually nothing. Contract slavery is most often found in Brazil, Southeast Asia, some Arab states, and some parts of the Indian subcontinent.

Many of those who work in exploitative or dangerous conditions in the new global economy are women and children. Tens of millions of children worldwide work full-time at the expense of their education and their personal and social development. In addition, children are often kidnapped, purchased, or forced to enter the sexual slavery market – exploited for their commercial value through prostitution and pornography. Women and young girls are also often married off without choice and forced into a life of servitude, often marred by frequent and repeated physical violence.

And, yes, the old-fashioned barbarism of plain and outright chattel slavery still exists, although chattel slaves constitute a very small proportion of today’s slaves. The transport and/or trade of humans, usually women or children, for economic gain and involving force or deception is most often found in northern and western Africa and some Arab countries. Contracts are sometimes given to chattel slaves to conceal the fact of their enslavement

What can we do to help? We can do everything in our power to make sure that we do not buy goods made by exploited laborers. We can call upon our congressional representatives and the president to do something about this issue. We can ask the churches to which we belong to demand that our national governments and the United Nations do something about this modern horror. We can support organizations like Anti-Slavery International.

Anyone looking for more information on this topic should visit Anti-Slavery International’s web site at http://www.antislavery.org/ or read Kevin Bales’s The Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, a book just published by the University of California.

Personal Life Inspired by the Spirit: Redefining Virtue

I should say at the beginning that when I was asked to do this, I asked Jim Adams what the subject matter of my remarks should be, given the title of this session, and he couldn't tell me. We all have our own ideas on this subject he said and he didn't want to constrain me. So I can only say that these are my own ideas about "rethinking religion and redefining virtue in the modern world." I don't claim more for them than that, but I hope they will be stimulating enough to generate some good discussion. My background is I think very different from most people here, although I have run into a number of academics, so I don't feel totally alone. First, I am a professor of philosophy and a professional philosopher, I guess you could say, privy to the philosophical movements of the twentieth century, many of which, for better or worse, have had an influence on theology and thinking about religion. Second, because I teach at a very large secular state university, one of the largest in the nation in one of the largest states, with a growing multicultural population, I am constantly required to think about religion (and what my own Christian faith means) in a pluralistic setting. With the influx of a tremendous number of Asians moving into Texas of all varieties, we have added to the usual mix of Protestants (of all denominations), Catholics and Jews at the university, many Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and so on. The surprising thing is that, despite the religious differences, they are all, or most of them, Texans and Americans. They grew up in Texas and are part of Texan and American culture now, which tells us how rapidly the world is changing.

In any case, I know from this experience something about the young and their confusions, and the dangers of drifting away from organized religion. Doubts of these kinds seem to be a common problem these days, no matter what the religious persuasion. A couple of months ago, for example, I saw several different students successively one afternoon, one Jewish, several Christian, but also a Muslim student, whose parents immigrated to this country from the Middle East, and a Hindu student whose parents came here from India. All felt the threat of secular culture. And it is funny how the pattern is always the same. My parents remain religious. They hold to their traditions, but I find myself drifting away in modern American culture. It's not just a problem for Christians, but for believers in general. What I tell them in almost every case is to go back and take another look at their own tradition and give it another chance, if they still retain their religious aspirations.

As Gandhi said, it is hard to be religious in general. You have to be so in some tradition or other. If you are not totally disenchanted with it, why not give your own another look. After all, your knowledge of it when you drifted was probably of a twelve or thirteen-year old level. There are more sophisticated versions you need to explore as an adult. If good people leave because of a few doubts here and there, traditional religion may be left to the fanatics, the bomb-throwers and those who cannot communicate with the secular world we all must live in. The truth is that values have a hold on us only in so far as they are the continuation of the people we learned them from, some other cherished persons, somebody we love or care about, or some groups we love or care about. The search for meaning, like spirituality itself, when it loses its roots, tends to either wither away or become self-indulgent.

The main theme I want to communicate to you today (related to all of the above) is that reactions to the modern secular world are of two kinds: on the one side are those people who slowly but inexorably drift away from religion, becoming indifferent to it. Let's refer to that as secular drift. We know how prevalent this reaction is and we have heard about it from many other discussions and talks since last night. The other reaction, which we've heard something about as well is what I call fundamentalist retrenchment. One takes a look at the modern world, finds it alien and hostile to one's beliefs, and retrenches into one's own tradition, claiming on authority that it is the one true faith and all other beliefs misguided and perverted. What I'd like to say about this split between secular drift and fundamentalist retrenchment is that it is not merely a temporary or a local phenomenon in the modern world.

First, it is worldwide; you can find it throughout the world where modern secular culture has penetrated. The recent Israeli elections are a good example of polarization into these two groups—secular Jews and orthodox retrenchers—the latter wanting to prohibit driving on the main streets of Jerusalem on the Sabbath, the latter wanting to conduct their business any day they please. Nor I think is the split temporary either. It's going to be with us for a long time—at the center of things in the twenty-first century. For not only is this split between secular drift and fundamentalist retrenchment not local or temporary, it's also not superficial, but very deep. I think it is symptomatic of a new stage of human consciousness that we are reaching at the end of the twentieth century--a stage of consciousness that is calling for us to develop new kinds of spirituality and new understandings of religion and, indeed, of ethics and values as well.

There have been other periods like this in human history. In the first chapter of my book Through the Moral Maze,* I talk about the most significant of those periods of great intellectual change in human history, the so-called "Axial Period" about 2,5OO years ago, also sometimes called the period of "The Great Awakening." All over the world at that time, simultaneously in different cultures, there sprang into existence many of the religious and spiritual ideas that have guided the human race ever since. It was the age of Confucius in China, of the Buddha in India, and of Mahavira, founder of Jainism, the period also when the principal Hindu Upanishads were written, of Lao-tzu and the flourishing of Taoism in China, of the prophet Zoroaster in the Middle East, of the great transformative prophets Ezekiel, Jeremiah and second-Isaiah in Israel, and finally this was the period of the birth of philosophy and science and what we call Western culture in Greece, all these developments at the same time arising independently in different cultures for reasons not yet fully understood—a kind of quickening of human consciousness all over the globe.

I think this sort of transformation does, in fact, happen, and I think it is happening today. In fact, it has been happening for about four centuries, in the West at least. We call it "modernity." And the reactions of secular drift and fundamentalist retrenchment are the two most natural reactions to this change of consciousness we are experiencing in the modern era. I think we need to see these reactions in this broader context to see them aright and to know how to address them.

The two features of modernity that give rise to the two opposed reactions of secular drift and fundamentalist retrenchment I refer to in my book as pluralism and uncertainty. Pluralism is just the fact that there are many different religions and conflicting points of view about important matters out there in one's cultural environment—the recognition if you will of a modern Tower of Babel. Such pluralism when it becomes pervasive is a very corrosive thing. If there are other views besides my own, and they are taken seriously by other people, that has to erode or at least threaten my own convictions. In a pluralist world, what may be called moral innocence tends to be lost, that is, the innocence we have as children growing up that our own religion and the views about right and wrong we were taught are the only ones, unchallengeable and unambiguous. When we confront others with different views about how to live, we are tempted to ask: "If others can do it, why can't I?" C. S. Lewis suggested that a modern version of the Fall in the Garden of An Eden (coming to "know good and evil") might be interpreted this way—coming to know that one's own view of good and evil is not the only one and may not be the correct one.

But pluralism alone need not lead to doubt and secular drift. There is something else playing a role—namely uncertainty. Pluralism would be no problem if we had the assurance and certainty that our own view was the absolutely right one and all others wrong. But many other trends of modernity have conspired to undermine that certainty. Indeed, in a world of many points of view, there is a deep philosophical problem involved in trying to defend the claim that one point of view is right and all others wrong when fundamental beliefs and values are involved. To argue that one view--your own, for example--is objectively right and others wrong, you have to present evidence. But the evidence must be gathered and interpreted from one's own point of view. If the dispute is about values, some of the evidence will include beliefs about good and evil that are not going to be accepted by those who have fundamental disagreements with your values in the first place. Values must be defended by appealing to other more fundamental values and beliefs that are also yours (perhaps you will refer to the Bible or the Qur'an or some other sacred text) which are not going to be accepted by those who have basic disagreements with your point of view in the first place. (Even those who share your sacred text may not interpret it as you do).

There is a troubling circularity involved in such debates--the circularity of defending your own point of view from your own point of view, of defending your values in terms of other values you also hold, but others may not. The problem arises because, as finite creatures, we inevitably see the world from some particular point of view limited by culture and history. How can we climb out of our historically and culturally conditioned perspectives to find an objective standpoint above all the competing points of view? This problem haunts the modern intellectual landscape. One sees variations of it in many fields of study (for example, in trendy new movements like postmodernism) and everywhere it produces doubts among reflective people about the possibility of justifying belief in objective intellectual, cultural and moral standards.

It is this combination of pluralism and uncertainty that does in the attempt to solve the modern problematic by fundamentalist retrenchment. The fundamentalist retrenches to his own particular fortress and claims that it is the correct one and everyone else is wrong, which can only be done by ignoring the real problems of pluralism and uncertainty. If there is anything that must define a progressive Christianity in the modern age, it is that you simply can't retrench to your own position, appeal on authority to your given text and let it go at that as far as seeking the truth of your own view is concerned. But if secular drift is not to be the only other option, we must rethink the meaning of being religious—and Christian—in an age of pluralism and uncertainty.

To do this, I suggest we must start with an idea of what I call aspiration. This is an interesting term, insofar as it signifies an "out-flowing of the spirit"—a flowing outward beyond our own selfish interests and limited perspectives. Aspiration is more than hope in the ordinary sense which Cicero defines as expectatio boni (expectation of the good), insofar as one can hope for something while sitting around in an armchair doing nothing to bring it about. Aspiration, by contrast--as outflowing of the spirit--is an entire form of life involving a patient spiritual or intellectual search for what is hoped for. (In that respect it is far closer to the Christian virtue of hope than to the ordinary meaning of the term "hope.") But my particular take on aspiration is to view it also as a search for the truth of what one believes in a pluralistic and uncertain world. Let us grant to the modern spirits of the times that, as finite creatures, our view of the world is necessarily limited. (This finiteness of point of view is after all a traditional religious idea, not just a modern one.) Aspiration would then involve a search beyond one's own selfish concerns and limited perspectives to find out what is true from every point of view (objectively true)—an "outflowing of our spirit" beyond oneself.

What does this mean in practice? It means first acknowledging that we can hold to our religious belief with all the conviction we can muster, believing it is true, but cannot claim certainty for it, because our perspective is limited and only one among many. (Another Christian virtue suggests itself here, namely humility.) The truth of our religion is not something we have, whole and complete here and now, but something that will reveal itself gradually over time to a patient a-spirational search—a search in which our spirit flows "out from" ourselves to see what is true from all points of view (objectively true), not just from our own. What kind of search? Well, taking a clue from outflowing beyond one's own point of view, the first step would be to practice a certain openness to other points of view besides your own. "If you want to know what's true from every point of view (not just your own), then you have to open your mind to every point of view." I recall Gail Harris's talk to us last night in which she spoke of seeing God's presence in those who are most different from us.

That's the basic idea here. It means among other things respecting other religions as well as other people and trying to learn from them, without giving up conviction in one's own. This is the opposite, be it noted, of fundamentalist retrenchment. Instead of holing up in one's own limited point of view and claiming objective truth for it, one has to be willing to let one's spirit expand--flow outward with genuine understanding--to find the objective truth. What I am suggesting is not merely being charitable and tolerant to others who are different, but rather that this respect for difference, openness, is an indispensable part of the search for the objective truth of one's own beliefs. (In short, charity, yet another fundamental Christian virtue, viewed not merely as a commandment or a disposition of the heart, but as a way of showing that one's view is true from every point of view.)

The modern fear is that such openness and tolerance practiced without restriction will lead to relativism--the belief that no view about right and wrong and no religion is any better or more correct than any other. Relativism in this form is the scourge of the times, everywhere creating indifference to objective intellectual, cultural and moral standards. But this is where things get really interesting. What I show in my Through the Moral Maze is that starting with such openness as part of an aspirational search for the truth (rather than merely an indifference to what is true or right), one does not arrive at a relativism about fundamental values and beliefs, but at the result that some ways of life and systems of belief are objectively more worthy of respect, or more true, than others and some less worthy. And one also arrives (surprisingly) in the same way at certain universal principles of right and wrong. And it is of special interest for Christians that these principles of right and wrong at which one arrives include the Golden Rule (which is stated by Jesus in the gospel of Matthew, as well as in most other major world religions) and the middle ethical requirements of the Ten Commandments (thou shalt not kill, lie, steal, cheat, etc.).

The claim that one can get all this by starting with such an openness to other points of view may seem surprising, and perhaps altogether incredible. But I think it can be made. The important point is that openness not be viewed merely as tolerance or indifference, but as part of an aspirational search for the truth from every point of view--as a genuine outflowing of the spirit toward others, including those who are different. (When you think about it that way it may not seem so surprising that such a search should lead to the Golden Rule and universal principles of right and wrong applying to everyone, like the Commandments--though the steps involved in getting to these results are by no means trivial.)

This is one kind of openness that I think aspiration requires—openness to other points of view. But there is another kind of openness that is also crucial, it seems to me, to the future of spirituality and religious belief-openness to the future. This is another kind of "outflowing" of the spirit, in this case in a temporal direction. It implies a new view of religious "revelation" that is "future directed" rather than entirely "past-directed." Past-directed views of revelation are familiar and traditional. The revealed truth is set down once and for all in a book or revealed through prophets or otherwise handed down from the past; all the truth we need is already there; we preserve it, interpret it and see that it is not debased or corrupted. The future directed view, by contrast, is that revelation about God and religious truth is a continuing thing and, in fact, a lot more of it is ahead of us than is behind us. Being part of a religion or a community of faith is being part of an aspirational search for that truth, a search that is guided and constrained by past revelation to be sure, but still unfolding. As Gotthold Lessing said at the height of the Enlightenment, "no religion has the whole truth, only God has the whole truth." We might add, it will only be slowly revealed to us. As openness to other points of view allows one to reconcile faith with pluralism, so openness to the future in the form of future directed revelation allows one to reconcile faith with uncertainty. The whole and complete truth is not something we can claim to have with certainty at any time, but it reveals itself to us slowly in a community of faith.

This point takes me to a broader theme that I have been working on for years about values in general with implications for religion. Return for a moment to modernity—that great sea-change of human consciousness of the past several centuries (characterized by pluralism and uncertainty) that is leading us to a new Axial period. Thoughtful, reflective persons are on the near side of this great modern divide, and I don't think they can go back to premodern ways of thinking, about values as well as religion (any more than they can go back to thinking that the world is flat or lies at the center of the universe). Now one of the things we all know has characterized this great divide between the ancient and the modern world-views is the importance of science. The endless strife between science and religion has been characteristic of the modern era, from Copernicus to Darwin. Indeed, the tendency of modernity has been to gradually substitute science for religion as the last court of appeal on controversial matters—though religious people have resisted this tendency every step of the way.

Now my purpose in mentioning this is not to get into these familiar modern disputes between science and religion such as that between creation and evolution. Rather I want to suggest that we look at science in more positive ways and ask, "what is its secret?" Why has science come to be regarded as the proper method for seeking the objective truth in the modern age? And what might that tell us about religion and values? What science says—its secret so to speak—is that all knowing is a very patient process of learning through experience that is never complete. We call this process experimental, which basically means that we don't know the answer with certainty at the beginning (nor can we simply accept an answer on authority without testing it), but only when the experiment is over. You will note that this is very much like what we were calling earlier "future-directed" revelation. The whole truth is not given to us in advance on authority, but must be teased out over time through patient searching. But now I want to relate this experimental idea more broadly to the idea of value. We also test values in experience, by living them. So it is appropriate to speak (as I have done in the past) about "value experiments."

Some people think one can only have genuine "experiments" in science. You can't experiment with values. That's why, they believe, we can have objectivity in science, but none about values. But that's absolute nonsense. We are performing value experiments all the time. The two most fundamental ones I can think of (which have a captivating effect on my students because of the stage of their lives) are a marriage and a career. Both of these are value experiments and we know they can fail miserably for many persons over against their aspirations and expectations. Karl Popper, the great twentieth century philosopher of science, insisted that what makes experiments genuinely scientific is that the experiments can falsify the theories being tested as well as support them (his famous "criterion of falsifiability").

In short, they can fail or turn out badly. So genuine theories take a risk of failure. But this is eminently true of value experiments as well. Some marriages and careers succeed, some fail. Social and economic policies put into practice are also value experiments; some fail and some succeed. We can experiment with political ideologies (e.g., Marxism) and expose them to failure in practice. At more mundane levels, a vacation, a party or a date are value experiments and we have all had experiences of success and failure with all three.

Value experiments, of course, are not exactly like scientific experiments. (We are talking about an analogy here, but a powerful and suggestive one.) They have to be lived and then tested over against our expectations, our needs, our goals and purposes. But, like scientific experiments, when you go into them you don't expect certainty before you start. What can you reply to someone who says "I am not going to get married until you prove to me with absolute certainty that this is the right woman for me!" Sometimes a student will sit in my office and say, "Unless you can show me that being a doctor is what I should do, I just can't bring myself to do it. " Well, no one can give you that kind of certainty. Everything worthwhile in life is a risk. We try to become wise in order to select value experiments that are worth trying, but they all involve to some degree or another (in direct proportion to their significance) a leap of faith.

Which brings us back to religion. Since religions are not just abstracttheories about the world, but ways of life, it is enlightening to view them also as value experiments. Their truth is in the living and cannot be known with certainty in advance. "You demonstrate to me that this is true. Otherwise, I'm not joining up! "—doesn't make any more sense for religion than for marriage or career. The demonstrating is in the living, and it's not over 'til it's over. And the thing about religious value experiments, why they are different from others is, of course, that the payoff isn't even in this life. That's all the more reason why it should be a considerable amount of uncertainty connected with it.

So if we look at modern science—not as an enemy of religion here—but as telling us something about seeking the objective truth, then we ought to look at it as teaching us that the truth is something you work out patiently in practice, by experimenting. It is an object of aspiration, not of certain knowledge. And the experimenting is done by living, since we must ultimately test values by living in accord with them (or imaging doing so in our minds so as to judge what's worth testing) and religion is a way of life, not just a theory. Note how in many of the world's major religions, the idea that religion is a "Way" is crucial. Christ said, "I am The Way, The Life and the Truth" an interesting juxtaposition of words in the light of what was just said about value experiments and ways of life. The truth is demonstrated by living a certain way. Buddhism has its "Eightfold Way" and the Chinese word that captures the notion of the highest reality and also defines the way of life that is the most revered in the Chinese tradition is the Tao, (the "T" pronounced as a "D," of course) which means literally, "the Way." It is represented by a Chinese character with the bottom part of it meaning moving or going, and the top part meaning thinking or reflecting. The truth of the religion is in the thoughtful living of it. "See those Christians, how they love one another." There would be evidence for the truth of the religion, not in the theories and the beliefs alone, but in the lives.

Thinking about religion in such value experimental terms is therefore far from being eccentric, if we think of the prevalence of expressions like the "way," the "truth" and the "life." But I think this is also how you must deal with values in general. The value of anything is in the living of it and in the fruits as we like to say, of the experiment. In my book, I quote William Butler Yeats, one of the greatest poets of the twentieth century who, in his book A Vision, asked after all of his studies and everything he learned, what was the one great truth he had discovered. "It's this," he said. "Human beings can embody the truth but cannot know it." I think you can see how this fits what I've been saying. We embody the truth when we live the right kind of life, but we should not claim to know it with certainty because it is still work in progress--an object of aspiration--and we will not know till the end. (The virtue of humility once again.) Yeats I think was right. His is a great truth, a profound truth.

I conclude with two final ideas that I think we will also need to revision faith in a new Axial period. First, what we ultimately seek in value experimenting I believe is objective meaning and significance in our lives. I define this in my book in terms of a notion of objective worth. The loss of belief in such a notion is characteristic of secular drift. So getting people to think about this notion is the first step in getting them to think again about religion. You can take persons who have lost their religion and have drifted into secularism and drag them back by asking them whether they think that things they do in life should or should not have objective worth.

One example I use in Through the Moral Maze to test the matter is about a fellow named Alan, the painter. Alan is deeply into painting and wants to be a great artist, but he isn't having much success. A friend, who runs an art gallery, seeing Alan's depression and fearing suicide, buys Alan's paintings and pretends to be selling them for $10,000 leading Alan to believe that he is becoming a famous painter. Alan comes out of his depression, and sometime later he dies happily.

I pose to the reader, or any person, the following dilemma: Imagine Alan in two possible worlds: one world like the one just described in which he thought he was a great painter and felt completely happy about this, and died, but was deceived and another world in which he really was a good painter and his paintings sold for a high price because he was being recognized as such and was not deceived, and again dies happily. Which world would you rather live in? Alan opts for the second world where he really is a great artist and is not deceived because his painting is important to him. And so would most of us. We would find it demeaning to be told: "oh, you know, your paintings (or whatever we think we're doing that's important) aren't worth a hoot, but you're having a good time doing them and that's all that matters."

Now notice what is at issue here. In both worlds Alan dies happily. His subjective happiness is exactly the same in both worlds. So if someone says, like Alan, that he would rather live in the second, non-deceived world (as most of us would) he is committing himself to saying that something beyond subjective happiness is important to him, namely the "objective worth" of his life and whatever he accomplishes in it. And most people tend to answer in the same way. Even those who have drifted far from religion and into secularism find it hard to sincerely answer that it wouldn't matter to them which world they lived in. They find it hard to lose touch with objective worth and the desire for it in their lives. But this is a hook it seems to me to bring them back to revisioning religion, for reflecting on objective worth and what is required to attain it will lead one back to a deeper and more profound understanding of religion. But this is another story that I try to tell in my book and is too long to tell here.

The second and (I promise) the final idea I want to discuss this afternoon that we will need to revision religion in a new Axial period is the idea of a mosaic of truth and value. When we think in future about the truth of religion, I think we must think in terms of this idea also. When we want to know the truth, we want to know the way the world really is. But there is no single way that the world really is--but many ways. Take New York City. You can describe it in an endless number of ways from different points of view. You get one picture of New York City during a given day from the weather man, another from the society columnist, another from the head of subways and sewers, another from the economist who covers Wall Street, and so on and on indefinitely. Now if someone were to say "I don't want all these different partial descriptions of New York City, I want the real New York City," the proper answer would be the real New York City is in all the different partial descriptions put together, like a mosaic--an inlay of different colored stones (the different perspectives of the weatherman, the society columnist, etc.) that make a total picture when put together. Since each perspective is partial and limited, we think that none gets the real or objective picture of New York. But the real New York is not something over and above the partial perspectives, but the summation of them. No perspective gets the whole truth yet each is an indispensable part of the whole truth. I think we are going to have to think about religious truth also in this way in the future, not insisting that "I have the whole spiritual truth" but rather that "I have an indispensable part of that truth, so you'd better listen." It seems to me that it should be enough to be indispensable (LAUGHTER) without having to have the whole truth. We Christians have something essential to tell the world, and that's good enough for evangelizing, I think. If I'm carrying a torch in a dark world, I'm going to be glad down the road that some Hindu or Buddhist who is also carrying a torch, because all that does is add a little more light to a very dark world. If they don't fully understand me and I don't fully understand them, well we both need time. In the meanwhile, be glad they are carrying another torch. It's the darkness that is the enemy.

To sum up, I have suggested a few ideas—aspiration (understood as an "outflowing" of the spirit), openness, future-directed revelation, value experiments, objective worth, the mosaic of truth—that I think will be needed to revision Christianity and religious faith in a new axial period and perhaps may also help us find a way between secular drift and fundamentalist retrenchment. Thank you for listening.

* Robert Kane, Through the Moral Maze: Searching for Absolute Values in a Pluralistic World, M. E. Sharpe Publishers, Armonk N.Y., 1994. (A North Castle Paperback)

Progress Toward an Open Church

Helping a congregation to identify itself as a Progressive Christian Church can be a challenge. In September of 1999 I was called to minister at the Church of Universal Fellowship in Orono, Maine. This church has identified itself as a Christian Community Church and believes that it is on the cutting edge of ecumenical Christianity by being "post-denominational".

In its formative years during the 1940's, nondenominational tolerance of Christian diversity was highly prized in this university town and the congregation thrived. One could attend church and thus identify oneself as a good citizen, active community participant and good Christian without subscribing to irrational creeds or divisive denominational distinctions. This way of church life, popular with those born before 1945, largely assumed a "don't ask - don't tell" approach to personal religious beliefs.

The church proclaimed and lived its tolerance while adopting a very traditional Protestant hymnody and worship style and a classical instrumental and choral repertoire. The political and social attitudes of its members and the message of its pulpit have not been particularly progressive, but the tolerance for diversity carries over to these areas as well. Since younger people do not see church attendance as a "given" or necessary in order for one to be a good citizen, an active community participant or even a good Christian, their need to find a "tolerant" church is much diminished. In spite of talented pastoral leadership, high quality music and many wonderful and active members, the congregation has been aging and slowly shrinking for decades.

We are in the midst of a major effort to update our presence in this community. Among other things, we brought a consultant on board to aid in our sharpening our mission statement, revamping fund raising, and to guide us in raising the resources for a $1.4 million program enhancement and building project scheduled for completion in 2002.

Our new mission statement says in part, "Our mission is to support each other's spiritual journey and those of members of the wider community." To begin, I have encouraged the congregation to participate in something new to them: a congregation-wide theological conversation. I have hoped that this conversation would help us discover together what we have to offer that might be compelling to younger members of the larger community. I launched this effort in January of 2000 by initiating a study of "Mourners or Midwives", a video course outlining the challenges to traditional congregations in this changing world. I also introduced TCPC and the "eight points" in our January 2000 newsletter and began an eight week sermon series covering each of the points. Even though I had only been on board for a few months it was already clear that this congregation was not self-consciously progressive in any way other than the "tolerance" cited earlier. A culture of open dialogue needed to be established. We began a small group ministry, which has attracted a growing number of participants for Sunday and weekly noon and evening discussion series.

In January of 2001 we revisited the TCPC eight points in the monthly newsletter and a new eight week sermon series on each of the eight points was introduced. This time discussion guides and questions for each of the eight points were included in the Sunday bulletin. Also included was a consensus form on which members of the congregation were invited to register their responses and comments. There were six levels of consensus indicated on the form from which to choose:

1. I give an enthusiastic and unqualified "yes" to the statement with satisfaction that the statement represents the wisdom of our congregation. 2. I find the statement perfectly acceptable. 3. I agree to live with the statement, but I am not very enthusiastic about it. 4. I don't fully agree with the statement and will need to state my view about it, but I choose not to oppose its adoption. I am willing to support the consensus of the majority. 5. I do not agree with the statement and feel the need to oppose its adoption. 6. In order to increase my level of consensus, I would change the statement to read_____

The results were published in the March 2001 newsletter and revealed that almost all respondents agreed with the statements at either the "1" or "2" level of consensus. There were, however 2 "5s" and 9 "6s" which revealed more dissatisfaction with the way the statements were framed than substantive disagreement.

In our April 2001 newsletter, we introduced and recommended Jim Burklo's Open Christianity: Home by Another Road. I used his "creed" in my newsletter meditation on the resurrection and connected his approach to our ongoing consideration of "progressive Christianity."

In our May 2001 newsletter, I revealed my response to the consensus survey: I recast the statements of the eight points as questions and invited response.

 

 

By calling ourselves open, we mean that we are Christians who open ourselves to the questions raised by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, including (but not limited to):

1) Are we respectful of the faithfulness of other people whose lives are guided by other teachers and other traditions?

2) Does our sharing of the bread and cup in Jesus' name represent our commitment to share and care for all people?

3) Do all sorts of people find a warm welcome to join in our worship and common life as full partners, as they are, regardless of race, gender, ability, sexual orientation, class, spiritual condition, etc.?

4) Is the way we treat one another and other people a positive expression of what we say we believe?

5) Does our life together honor Jesus, those who have gone before us, and those among us who are: Renouncing assumed privilege, conscientiously resisting evil, striving for justice and peace, bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers?

6) Are we a spiritual community in which the resources required for costly discipleship and our work in the world can be discovered?

By calling ourselves open, we mean that we are Christians who find more grace in the search for meaning, in the questions we have yet to answer, than in the answers we already possess.

 

 

Responses have indicated a great deal of appreciation for the question format which seems to fit the "questioning" tradition of the pulpit ministry here. Our plan is to have another sermon series in January 2002 on each of the framing statements and the six questions. Once again we will use our "consensus" forms and this time we will also have small group discussion before and after worship. By Spring of 2002 we hope the congregation will be ready to wholeheartedly vote for application to TCPC for membership and listing in the directory.

Certainly, this has been a long and involved process, but it has allowed us to make progress toward being a church that is open to the aspirations of a wider community and a younger generation. When we approach this university community with the message that we are an open church espousing a progressive Christianity, we will be speaking the truth about our ongoing process.

 

 

Corporate and Community Life

I'm going to tell you a little about myself by way of introduction and how I happened to get into the work that I do - of working primarily with congregations and occasionally with other religious organizations around issues of human differences. For about 15 years, I was the rector of a church in Washington, D.C., an Episcopal church, and that church, when I went there in 1979, was a very - I would call it - monochromatic congregation. It was interesting. Everyone liked to talk about how much we valued our diversity, but there was none to be identified. And that made it easy, of course, to live with diversity. But, over the years, the congregation did, in fact, become more diverse, and by the time I had been there for 12 years, there were maybe 50 gay and lesbian persons, there were about 30 Hispanic individuals, there were a number of African Americans and African natives, and there was other diversity as well; and we talked a lot about how pleased we were that this was all happening. I took too much for granted, and I assumed that parish leaders were as enthusiastic about our growing diversity as they said they were. I'm sure they said in part what they thought I wanted to hear. I was gung-ho and pushing forward and probably not listening as well as I might have, and there came a time when all of this came to a crisis point and it became apparent that people were not as enthusiastic as I had thought that they were, and I eventually left around that crisis, and one of the things that I thought about a lot after I left was what I might have done that would have served the congregation better in terms of coming to terms with growing diversity, and helping people be more intentional about dealing with the diversity, and honoring different points of view

In the course of that I read a little book called something like, Living With Diversity in the Local Congregation. I didn't like the book very much, but there was one thing in it that now seems so obvious to me. I can't believe I hadn't thought of it before. It was a statement to the effect of, if you want diversity to work in a congregation, you had better plan, and plan carefully because it won't just happen. There may be congregations where this isn't true, but at least in most I think it is, in fact, true. It's not an easy thing. Anyway, I have since then devoted myself more and more and now more or less full time to helping congregations deal with what I once felt I hadn't helped a congregation deal with very well. And what I'm going to do today is less theological actually than it is pragmatic. I am going to share with you some of the things that I have learned from my experience and also some of what I have learned from others.

I have tried to come up with a definition of inclusiveness and, as I understand, the topic we are discussing this afternoon is inclusiveness and recruiting in congregations. Inclusiveness, ultimately is not about groups or about categories. It is about affirming every person as a child of God. The goal is to create communities where every person is free to contribute fully to the life of the community and to receive its benefits. One reason why, and maybe the main reason why, I'm emphasizing here that inclusiveness is not basically about categories and groups, even though it is about both of those things, is that if you ask most people what we mean by inclusiveness in the church, they will see it as a perhaps even subversive way of avoiding naming the one or two or three groups they think we're out to make dominant. Of course those groups do come to all of our minds, and I see heads nodding, when we think about inclusiveness.

Inclusiveness does have to do with gays and lesbians right now in the church, and we think of race when we think of inclusiveness. We probably think of gender, and maybe not much else. It's very important for us to broaden our definition, and it's important in part because, if we can make it broad enough, everyone in our communities can be helped to see just how much diversity there is, and also to identify their own places of fitting into all of this diversity and, therefore, we can start to build connections rather than walls. I have a list here of some human differences that are present in every congregation. If we had more time, I'd ask you to name them. But since we don't, I'm just going to rattle this list off. And this doesn't begin to exhaust the possibilities. There's nationality, race, gender, ethnicity, religious affiliation, religious background, sexual orientation, physical abilities, physical traits, age, education, job, socioeconomic status, primary relationship status, parental status, taste, value systems, political views, length of time in the community and accent. Those are just some.

Now, I also want to say, because recruitment is supposed to be part of what we are dealing with this afternoon, that affirming everyone, including white heterosexual males, as a key element of The Good News, is increasingly crucial to the success of mainline churches. Mainline churches that want to grow and that want to flourish have got to take this seriously. We no longer, and there may be places where we do, but less and less do we have the luxury of having communities where everyone at least appears to be, and thinks of themselves as, alike. And certainly this radical inclusiveness at the heart of the Gospel is part of what we must proclaim if we hope to reach out to the unchurched, the group that Jim Adams said is the largest growing religious group in our society.

Now I want to spend a little time talking about what I see as some hindrances to this vision being achieved and then to talk a couple of minutes about some things that I think work in helping us achieve the vision of inclusive communities. Last night Gail Harris quoted a bishop, I'm not sure which bishop she was quoting, but I could guess, as saying that Christianity began as a movement and then became a philosophy and then an institution and then a culture. Finally it came to this country and it became an enterprise, one might say a business. I know that there are all kinds of problems with Christianity as an enterprise; however, there's another image of the church that I see very often that bothers me more even than the image of the church as an enterprise, and the model that comes to me again, and again and again as I am working with congregations, is the image of the congregation as the Junior League. What I have in mind when I say this is, of course, a kind of clubbiness, but it's a specific kind of clubbiness where people are in agreement that very important for us to be working with those less fortunate people out there. We shouldn't be focusing entirely on ourselves. We have a social responsibility; however, we still want to control who gets inside the club. And not only that, even when people who are different come in and become part of the community, we want to, in a way, and much of this is unconscious, we want to make it clear that it is really our club, and they are, in a sense, still visitors, maybe even guests, but not fully members. This leads me to raise what I believe may be the biggest single barrier to inclusive communities, and that is what I will call privilege. What I have in mind, and some of you may have read that little article that I left on the table downstairs on privilege in which I say much of this, but, what I have in mind by the word privilege is those attitudes and those, in fact, those realities which keep us in a one-up or dominant versus subservient position to one another. I use the example of the white male who honestly doesn't see the need for affirmative action any longer, and he really doesn't see it. He doesn't see it because of his privilege, because he has always existed in the system which limits his vision.

Such people really aren't aware that the playing field is not even, and that some people are at a disadvantage when it comes to getting what they want compared to other people. The church is full of this, and I want to emphasize, again, this is not bad people we're talking about, it's not even the Religious Right, it's people like, and including, all of us. Because what I'm talking about is so subtle very often, and it does not operate at an overt level. It operates very much under the surface and in our subconscious.

I want to give you a couple of examples from my very recent experience. I have been working with a congregation that has always had male clergy, and both the rectors and the assistants have always been males. This congregation finally called a female assistant. They had a perfectly positive experience with her and, when she left, the people who were making the decision about calling the next assistant, or who were advising the rector on this decision, were unanimous in saying, "We don't have to worry about that anymore". We've done that and now we can call a man, if a man happens to be the best-qualified candidate. Guess who was the best-qualified candidate! He was a man. These people didn't even see what they were doing. They believed that they were going to call the best candidate, whether it was a man or a woman but, because of all their unconscious baggage, they went back to what was comfortable.

I'm working with a diocese right now that is trying to build bridges among several disparate groups, and each is very diverse. The bishop has appointed a committee of eight people to oversee this process, and guess who is on this committee: Eight white, straight men. Now the bishop is not a "bad guy." He wants a more inclusive diocese, and yet this still happens. I was in a colleague group for almost 15 years. It was an all-male colleague group made up entirely of Episcopal clergy. I finally left that group fairly recently because the group would not have a female member. Now, I'm a slow learner. It took me 15 years to reach my decision, so there's not much by way of self-righteousness here. But when the subject came up of asking a female to join this group, I assumed, because all the men in the group are bright, enlightened, progressive people, that there would be no problem, and I was surprised. People made statements like, "It would make our communication more complex".

These stories are desired to illustrate just one thing and that is that what I am talking about is everywhere and it's something that we need to be very attentive to. We need to start out by doing our own work and by looking at those places in our lives where we embrace privilege, because every single one of us does, and I find that just as soon as I think I've really gotten rid of it, I get surprised unpleasantly by finding myself pulling privilege in another situation. I'm afraid it's a lifelong journey.

Another barrier to inclusion and growth is resistance to recruiting. This is something that we might want to talk about, because the more progressive a church is the more resistance there often is to recruiting. It's regarded as a kind of evangelical thing to do. It's what conservatives do, and Ialways find myself being surprised by this because I don't hesitate for a moment to recruit, to evangelize from a progressive perspective. Another problem is the notion that somehow inclusion in churches is a peripheral issue, one that, at this moment, has somehow managed to steal center-stage. This attitude I find almost every place I go, and it's expressed in statements like, "I wonder when we're going to get all of this inclusive stuff over with and we can go on with the real business that we need to be taking care of?"

I don't understand how someone could have read last Sunday's Gospel about Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners, and not just eating with them, but seeming to have no difficulty eating with them, and not even moralizing insofar as I could figure out, and still see this as peripheral. Or how can one read Peter's vision in the book of Acts and see this as a peripheral issue, or read the book of Ruth, and we could go on and on and on. We may all have our favorite passages to deal with these issues - there are hundreds of such passages - and yet this notion persists that inclusiveness is peripheral to our real work as Christians.

Now, the good news is that people in communities, people and communities, really do change, and I want to say a couple of things about what helps people change. During this conference I've already heard five people mention one thing that works, and probably works better than anything else. It is simply getting to know people who are different. This takes work. It's something you've got to be intentional about, make conscious decisions about, but I will promise you there is no single thing that helps people get over their phobias over differences and become more open, nothing works as well as getting to know people across differences.

There's a really good book called Sexual Orientation and Identity: Heterosexual, lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Journeys. It has to do with how heterosexuals become more open to gay and lesbian people. It was written by two psychologists who have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours interviewing people on this topic. What the book tells us is that every single time a person has a major change in attitude around this issue, it involves getting to know a person who is lesbian and gay, finding out that it is a child, is a friend, is a brother, a sister, you name it. That's what changes people. I mention sexual orientation. These sample people have also done work on race, and they have found the same thing is true on race, and it's true concerning any difference that we can name.

This leads to another thing that I have heard people talking about this morning: The importance of telling our stories and listening to one another's stories. Everyone can find something to identify within another person's story. And it quits being something that's academic and out there, and it becomes a way to connect with the other person. There is a lovely surprise that I often experience in asking people to tell stories, and I'm always asking them to tell stories when I'm doing a workshop. I ask people to tell stories around experiences with human differences. People will often start to tell a very negative story about an experience that they have had with someone of another group. And I wince and expect the worst. Then, very often, by the time the person has finished telling the story, it ends up having been positive and transforming for the person to have been able to tell the story. Any authentic story has power, and it's amazing to me how even the most apparently intolerant people can change when they are listened to with respect.

I have talked almost entirely about personal change and dealing with differences on a personal level. It's also crucial to deal with them on a systemic level. This is because even if every one of us in this room changes and becomes more open, the systems we are a part of have a life of their own. But that is for another workshop.

Honest to Jesus: Giving the Historical Jesus a Say in Our Future

Introduction: Historical Jesus Studies as a "School of Honesty"

In 1906 Albert Schweitzer commented:"The critical study of the life of Jesus has been for theology a school of honesty."(The Quest for the Historical Jesus)

That is a most revealing observation, and it comes from someone who had just reviewed the efforts by historical Jesus scholars over more than 100 years. It reminds us that coming face to face—or even reasonably close—to the historical Jesus will not be a comfortable experience. The Jesus who trod the pathways of ancient Galilee is a stranger to our times and to our churches, and we may not find it easy to take on board what he has to say to us.

So: Jesus scholars, beware! Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!

In his recent book, The God of Jesus. The historical Jesus and the search for meaning, Stephen J. Patterson begins with an observation about the struggle that is occurring within New Testament scholarship in North America. He describes it as involving "a fundamental realignment" in the way we understand Jesus, Christian origins and the New Testament itself. He says:

This struggle, which has been developing behind the scenes and in polite conversation, has now been forced into the open as groups like the Jesus Seminar and individuals like [Burton] Mack have produced materials for public consumption, exposing a wide audience to some of the most challenging critical work being done in New Testament scholarship today. (p. xii)

A point of disclosure! Patterson is a member of the Jesus Seminar. Further, Burton Mack himself was also a Fellow of the Jesus Seminar for many years, although he is no longer involved in that project.

You can determine whether Patterson is a credible witness. Assuming that he is, Patterson is highlighting how significant turmoil in scholarly work is starting to impact on the wider public as materials now being produced bridge the traditional gap between the scholar and the lay person.

But Patterson goes further. He writes:

Critical scholarship—not only historical critical scholarship, but also newer approaches to the Bible using critical theory—has pressed our understanding of the texts and traditions of ancient Christianity to the point where organized Christianity, if it were to be guided by such work, would have to begin to rethink some of its basic theological commitments. (p. xii)

That, of course, explains the enthusiastic welcome given to such studies by some people. It also goes a long way towards explaining the visceral hostility encountered. It seems that not everyone drawing personal meaning—and/or professional status—from the churches as presently structured wants to see a radical reformation!

But Patterson appears to embrace the prospect of such a radical "rethink." He goes on to add:

The church must take seriously what scholars today are saying about the Jesus tradition. But for this to happen, scholars must also be willing to say what they think their work means, … Scholars should not shrink from asking (these questions). The church should not fear their answers. (p. xiii)

So we have set the scene for asking whether the historical Jesus has something to contribute to our consideration of whether progressive churches will live or die:

What are the Jesus scholars telling us? And what might these new insights mean for the churches?

I will build what I have to say around those two questions.

WHAT THE JESUS SCHOLARS ARE TELLING US

What are these new questions emerging in historical Jesus studies? One prior item concerns a re-appraisal of the relevance of historical Jesus to us now.

The Renewed Quest for the Historical Jesus

One way of approaching this question is to consider the alternatives. What would we have if we did not make the effort to recover the historical Jesus? Or, if the historical Jesus proved impossible to retrieve—as many NT scholars argued between 1920 and 1970—how would that affect us?

Our options would be fairly grim, I suggest—

1.The canonical Jesus could be taken, or rejected, at face value. That would probably require us to blend the four distinctive portraits of Jesus into some form that suited our needs. We would lose the particular emphasis of each Gospel in doing that. And we would end up with a supernatural figure who acted within a world that we know has never actually existed. We might even recognize that this was the stuff of legend, rather than history. In which case we would say, as Bultmann did, that it does not matter "what" (was) Jesus did, it is enough to know "that" (das) there was once such a person. 2.We could supplement the historical caricature of a harmonized canonical Jesus with the more satisfying Christ of faith. The doctrines and rituals of the church would certainly help us know what to think and believe about Jesus—both before and after Easter. And that might be sufficient for us to find meaning and purpose in life. But we would never have any prospect of validating those ecclesial portraits by comparing them with independent information about the historical Jesus. We would have to take the Church’s version of Jesus "on faith." And much as I love the church, that is not a practice to be recommended. 3.We could also spiritualize Jesus entirely. We could sever any connection with the historical figure, and engage only with the spiritual figure encountered in meditation and devotion. The Christ archetype is a psychological reality, and can be used to great effect in both therapeutic settings and spiritual direction. But we will then have moved a long way from the historical figure of ancient Palestine.

Let me draw your attention to the sub title of Stephen Patterson’s book. His study is called: The God of Jesus. And the sub title is: The historical Jesus and the quest for meaning. He argues the case that the search for the historical Jesus is always also a search for God, or a search for meaning. And he gives a particular slant to that observation when he writes:

… if one proclaims that God raised Jesus from the dead, that Jesus is the Son of God, then it makes a difference what he said and did, what people experienced of him that moved them to say such things. (p. 52)

New opportunities for historical Jesus studies

The renewed interest in the theological significance of the historical Jesus has coincided with some new opportunities to make progress in this field. We have new materials available, as well as some new approaches to old questions.

Gospel of Thomas

The recovery of the Gospel of Thomas has been a major breakthrough in historical Jesus studies. A copy of this long lost gospel was discovered as part of a large collection of ancient religious texts unearthed near the Egyptian city of Nag Hammadi in 1945. This was a Coptic translation of Thomas, but it allowed scholars to identify several Greek papyri found some 45 years earlier as also being fragments of three different copies of Thomas. Suddenly we had excerpts from four separate copies of Thomas!

The authorship of this ancient text is unknown, but it seems to have originated in Syrian Christian circles. While the version of Thomas recovered in Egypt is best dated to some time in the second century, there are good reasons for thinking that Thomas was composed before the canonical Gospels gained their ascendancy within the churches. Further, some of the sayings in Thomas appear to be very early and may even reflect a stage of the Jesus tradition older than that found in Mark.

In fact, the form of Thomas is at least as significant as its content. The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of sayings with virtually no narrative elements. This takes us back to the earliest form of the Jesus traditions, before the development of the narrative gospel by Mark. What we find in the earliest layers of the Jesus tradition appears to be a focus on the words of Jesus, not the deeds.

 

Sayings Gospel Q

The discovery of Thomas was paralleled by a new confidence that an early sayings source could be identified behind the synoptic Gospels. This ‘Q’ source had been proposed long before, but many scholars were sceptical of the very idea of a gospel that lacked a passion narrative. Thomas put those doubts to rest, and Q scholarship has developed impressively in the past couple of decades.

As the Q texts have been studied closely, scholars have been able to propose at least two and possibly three layers within even that early form of the Jesus tradition. That in turn has allowed a glimpse into the earliest phases of the Jesus movement, including its transition from a community gathered around the wisdom of Jesus to a sect that looked for his return as an apocalyptic messiah.

What we see is a movement that treasured the wisdom of Jesus, more than stories about his actions; even his death and resurrection. Again: word, not deeds!

 

Common Sayings Tradition

John Dominic Crossan is just one of many current Jesus scholars who have exploited the new data made available by these finds. In particular, the overlap of Thomas and Q—some 40 parallels—has allowed scholars to identify a common sayings tradition (CST) that predates any of the extant texts. This core of traditional Jesus materials holds the promise of new insights into the person and message of Jesus. Once more, the focus is on words, not deeds.

 

Begin with the Sayings

At the same time as archaeological and literary efforts offered new texts for consideration, scholars were also developing new ways to ask questions of the texts. It is fitting that these new questions tended to focus on the sayings of Jesus, rather than his deeds.

We now focus briefly on one of the most distinctive things about the work of the Jesus Seminar. Generally speaking, neither the methods nor the historical conclusions of the Seminar are especially remarkable in modern NT studies. In any case, we expect many—if not all—of our findings to be revised or overturned as time passes and new insights are brought to bear on the data.

But the Jesus Seminar made a significant choice early in its life, when it agreed to focus on the sayings of Jesus before considering the stories about his deeds.

Several factors influenced that choice:

The more than 1,500 sayings out numbered the reports of Jesus’ deeds (< 400) by a wide margin. There was clearly more work to be done with the sayings materials. Recent NT scholarship had also stressed the sayings over the actions. Bultmann, Bornkamm and Perrin—to name just three major scholars in the field—had all given priority to the sayings of Jesus. Many of the original members of the Jesus Seminar had been part of the Parables Seminar within the SBL in the decade or so beforehand.

For the scholars involved in such inquiries, a key concern was to test the coherence of Jesus’ words with the message of the church. That involved a focus on comparing messages, not actions.

That bias towards the sayings found among scholars, is reflected as well in popular interest. As Harper SanFrancisco learned (perhaps to their surprise and dismay), sales of The Acts of Jesus have not been anywhere near the levels reached by The Five Gospels. You guessed it: The Five Gospels deals with the Jesus Seminar’s work on the sayings of Jesus, while The Acts of Jesus is concerned with his deeds.

This informal and spontaneous indicator of interest suggests that people like us are more interested in the sayings of Jesus than in the things he is said to have done. We have probably long since given up any attachment to his miracles, discounted the virgin birth and begun to question to literal meaning of the resurrection. And the ascension …

But we still want to think that there is wisdom in the words of Jesus. We may consign the rest of the tradition to bath water, but we think that there is still a baby in there somewhere: most likely in the authentic sayings of Jesus.

In any event, we are not as likely to have any need to imitate his actions. But we are wondering whether he still has something to say that we really do need to hear!

The nature of the sayings, and their origins in an oral culture, put them in a different category from the stories about Jesus’ actions. As sayings, they will have been said more than once even by Jesus himself, and then performed by countless other speakers within the Jesus movement. Like a good joke in our modern world, we can still recognize the original voiceprint of the creative storyteller even after multiple performances by different people over an extended period of time.

The actions of Jesus are another matter. Particular events happen just once. The reports of them are always second hand. They are especially susceptible to legendary development, and they seem to be used in the tradition for theological purposes rather than as simple accounts of specific events. As Lane McGaughy notes:

The best one can hope to recover with respect to deeds are the earliest reports of bystanders about what they thought they saw, whereas the authentic sayings indicate what Jesus himself thought or intended … ("Why Start with the Sayings," p. 20)

He cites with approval the couplet coined by Julian Hills: "sayings are repeated, deeds are reported."

In addition, I think there is another point worth noting about the value of the sayings over against the deeds of Jesus. The sayings are especially relevant to our situation as we seek to reinvent Christianity so that it engages creatively and prophetically with an emerging global culture.

The deeds of Jesus—whatever they were—are events of ancient history. They were the ways that Jesus deemed it appropriate to act on his vision of God’s imperial rule in the particular historical circumstances where he found himself. We will, of course, have some interest in how Jesus acted and in what others did to him. If nothing else, we will want to know—if at all possible—whether or not his actions were coherent with his words. Did he act with integrity? Did he practice what he preached? Did he walk the talk?

But we live in another time and place, far removed—in all kinds of ways—from the circumstances and the experiences of Jesus. His particular actions may not speak directly to our situation. But the creative wit and wisdom of Jesus may offer us something more. Not a complete recipe for us to follow, but at least some of the key ingredients!

In pursuing the questions before us, I am not suggesting that our task as Christians is simply to imitate Jesus. We do not have the final and complete picture of the historical Jesus. And even if we did, that would not give Jesus the all-important say in what we must do now in our situation.

Our situation is complex and nuanced. It requires more than a simple revival of a golden past. We need to live into the future, informed by the past but not controlled by it.

 

Thumbnail Sketch of the Historical Jesus

Before considering the significance of these new sources and methods for the future of Christian communities, allow me to provide a thumbnail sketch of Jesus as he typically appears in the reconstructions offered by the Jesus Seminar. Not because the Jesus Seminar is in total agreement or entirely correct about Jesus, but because there is something in this glimpse of Jesus that is compelling.

What we are dealing with here is best summarised as the "Jesus of the parables and aphorisms:"

Jesus appears to have been an itinerant sage—a wandering wise man—who delivered his parables and aphorisms in public and private venues for both friends and opponents in return for food and drink.

He never claimed to be—nor allowed others to call him—the Messiah or a divine being.

Jesus taught a wisdom that emphasised a simple trust in God’s unstinting goodness and the generosity of others. Life was to be lived and celebrated without boundaries and without thought for the future. He rejected asceticism.

For Jesus, ritual ceremonies had no value. Purity taboos and social barriers were never allowed to come between the people who responded to God and one another in simple trust.

There were no religious "brokers" in Jesus’ vision of God’s domain. No priests, no prophets, no messiahs. Not even Jesus himself was to be inserted between a person and God.

To experience forgiveness one simply had to offer forgiveness to others.

No theological beliefs served as a test for participation in God’s domain.

Apocalyptic speculation with future punishments for the wicked and rewards for the virtuous played no part in Jesus’ teaching.

Jesus was killed because he refused to compromise this radical vision of life. He may even have taken direct action in the Jerusalem Temple to express his view of God’s imperial rule. Those defending the status quo with its elaborate brokerage system for religious favors had to destroy him or lose their hold over others.

If that glimpse of Jesus is valid to any extent, it poses a significant challenge for the Christian churches. After all, we claim his name and to be his exclusive representatives in our society. Yet, on virtually every point in that sketch, the churches’ views are in contrast to those which now seem to have been typical of Jesus!

The ordained sons of Adam, have numerous places to lay their heads, offer little by way of original wisdom, and have become settled householders rather than itinerant sages.

The churches insist that Jesus was both divine and the Jewish Messiah

We have often embraced asceticism, and we have certainly encouraged a negative attitude towards bodily life in this natural world. If it feels good it must be bad for (the real eternal spiritual) you.

Rather than teach a wisdom that supports simple trust, the churches have often cultivated a fear that feeds on guilt and anxiety.

Church experience is full of boundaries. Living dangerously in the freedom of God’s sons and daughters is rarely encouraged.

Ritual and sacrament have immense value, as seen by the steps to protect the privileges of those authorized to celebrate them.

Purity taboos and social barriers have too often crept back in; and especially those based around gender and sexuality.

Religious brokers have established and sustained immense power within the church.

Many a saint and a cleric have been inserted between Jesus and us, let alone us and God.

Forgiveness was meted out by the clerical brokers, and even sold for financial and other gain.

Theological beliefs have certainly served as tests for participation; indeed even for physical survival as heretics and schismatics have been hounded and slain.

Apocalyptic expectation has been used to sustain a hold over people, and to validate accommodation with the present empires of human society.

Dying for the integrity of one’s radical vision is hardly typical of church life.

It is not hard to sense that the institutional church would most often vote with the Sanhedrin. The churches have had many hundreds of years experience in handing Jesus over to the Governor. I believe that we gladly accept Barabbas in place of the disturbing Jesus of Galilee. Were Jesus to arrive at many of our congregations today he may find us no more inclined to embrace his vision of God’s domain in everyday life than his peers in ancient Galilee.

 

WHAT THE NEW INSIGHTS INTO JESUS MEAN FOR THE CHURCHES

We now take up the second part of Steve Patterson’s challenge:

The church must take seriously what scholars today are saying about the Jesus tradition. But for this to happen, scholars must also be willing to say what they think their work means

Reinventing Church as the Community of Jesus

Whatever our approach to Scripture and to faith, people of faith will always need to articulate our understanding of Jesus. For some of those people, and I am one of them, that will no longer be in the concepts and language of the ancient world.

For people such as myself, the processes and the findings of recent Jesus studies are part of a movement of God’s Spirit in the contemporary world. They free us from nonsensical affirmations that none of us take seriously, but few of us dare question.

Of course, we believers in exile find ourselves not just in an alien space far from the multi-layered worlds of antiquity—but also in a church that often seems far removed from the first disciples of Jesus. We are part of a church much compromised by our alliances with the rich and powerful over the centuries. It has been a rare and a brave Christian soul who has stood with the poor against the rich and powerful, and for truth against the magisterium of the Church.

If there is even a pinch of truth in the glimpses of Jesus that emerge from the research of the Jesus Seminar, then the historical churches of Christianity have much to answer for. There is, after all, an Evangelical impulse at the center of Seminar’s portrait of Jesus that our critics find so offensive.

A Church in Crisis

There is no need me for me rehearse in this forum the challenges facing the churches at this point in our history. It may suffice to note that Loren Mead of the Alban Institute considers that we are going through the most significant changes since the period of Constantine. That’s a once in 1,500 years type of transition. No wonder it hurts!

The rulers of our world no longer want or need the churches as they once did, but we act as if the old order remains intact:

most of the generation that now leads our churches grew up with [this old paradigm] as a way of thinking about church and society. And all the structures and institutions that make up the churches and the infrastructure of religious life, from missionary societies to seminaries, from congregtional life to denominational books of order and canons, are built on the presuppositions of the Christendom Paradigm—not the ancient, classical version of the paradigm as it was understood centuries ago, but the version that flourished with new life in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This paradigm in its later years flourished and shaped us with new vigor, just as a dying pine is supposed to produce seed more vigorously as it senses the approach of its own death. (p. 18)

As Mead sees it, the old paradigm has collapsed. We are in the "time between the paradigms" and we find ourselves: pulled by the new and constrained by the old. (p. 22) I find that a poignant description of my experiences as a Christian and as a parish priest. Pulled by the new and constrained by the old

Typical reactions include:

is there a future? is there time to find a future? will a new paradigm emerge?

Taking the historical Jesus to Church

I want to consider now what might happen if the historical Jesus is brought into the picture. What if we set Jesus free from our Sunday School portraits and let him loose in our communities? Can we take the Jesus of the Red & Pink material into our churches?

Would he be welcome there? Would he fit in? Would it be an explosive combination? Would it renew and invigorate the churches?

I am also mindful of the Jesus sayings about new wine in old wineskins (or, new patches on old cloth)!

The Jesus Seminar suggests only 18% of the sayings attributed to Jesus are authentic. Might it be that a similar proportion of the church’s historical baggage must be jettisoned? Is there a sufficient core of tradition and practice left? Could Christians handle a less supernatural Jesus and a lesser role for dogma and ritual?

I think we must embrace such a reduction in our metaphors for the sake of credibility

So what are the implications of Jesus studies for the churches today? In very broad terms, they might be described as follows:

1.They include the assertion that the historical Jesus deserves to have a powerful say in the way people imagine their religion and express that faith in word and symbol. 2.They include the idea that people have a right to know that there is a difference between the Jesus of history and the various frames of faith in which he has so often been presented by the churches. 3.They include the insight that we can learn more about being people of faith in our own day by listening to both the original voice of Jesus and also to the voices of his first followers. [There is much wisdom in the Gray and Black materials! But we are best to not confuse this traditional material with the distinctive voice of Jesus.] 4.And I believe that they also include the realisation that the actual historical humanity of Jesus is the focus of his divine significance to us. It is in Jesus-as-human that Christians see God at work within and amongst us. Not as the Holy Stranger, but as the Familiar Sacred. The one who called us into being, who would call us out of our exile, and into that reality beyond personal death that we presently label "resurrection."

I believe that the findings of recent Jesus studies do have implications for church life. Critics and friends alike are correct in sensing that, but they are not just for church life. The implications run wider to include also the place of our Christian tradition within a wider (emerging, global) community. The implications touch the daily lives of both individuals and communities They will affect anyone who want to form and sustain lives that integrate faith and everyday life

So what are the implications of the Jesus Seminar for the churches today? How do we take this kind of Jesus into our churches? Dare we do so? That is our focus in the time ahead of us, as we consider the topics of Scripture, community, worship and discipleship.

Scripture as Text of Liberation

The Problem

I am aware that I am starting with the Bible. I am doing that because the problem of the Bible lies at heart of our dilemma as progressive churches.

In the popular mind, the Bible has become in many ways a substitute icon for God. Here is a tangible symbol for the transcendent reality. The battle over the Bible is a struggle for a lexicon to speak of the sacred.

It is not entirely inappropriate that this is so. The Bible lends itself to serve as a proxy for God/Religion in this struggle. It is the product of human creativity and effort (as is Religion and idea of God). If we can turn around people’s attitudes to the Bible, perhaps we change their ideas about faith.

The core problem in the area of Scripture is our failure to integrate critical Scripture scholarship into the life of the churches. We have left our people functionally illiterate in using the Bible. This not a new problem. It emerged slowly over several hundred years, but it has now become critical.

The responsibility for this lies with both the churches and the scholars. The churches did not want to know—and the scholars were happy not to say! But that conspiracy of silence will no longer serve us well; if it ever did.

Jesus and the biblical tradition

Jesus was not a biblical fundamentalist. Nor was he a liberal Scripture scholar! He belongs outside both those categories and the arguments that lie behind them. And that is a significant insight in itself. Our anxieties over the place and meaning of the Bible were unknown to Jesus, and played no part in his thought.

Jesus did not stand within the scribal traditions of his time. He is remembered as someone unlike the scholars. And yet he clearly valued the biblical traditions and was profoundly shaped by them. At the same time, Jesus seems to have enjoyed an authority sourced from something other than Scripture.

It seems reasonable to conclude Jesus would have developed the idea of Scripture differently had his experience been more like ours. I suspect that he would have integrated scholarship better than we have done up until now. In any case, we can see that his metaphors for God’s active presence enlarged upon and enriched the biblical tradition, rather than being simply derivative.

Opportunity

We may have some unique opportunities to liberate the Bible within the churches, and to release Scripture to act as a text of liberation within our communities and in our personal experience.

We can access biblical scholarship that is largely free of confessional constraints. Our general education levels are rising. The development of information technology offers opportunities to imagine and to experience the Scriptures in entirely new ways. If the printing press was a key technology for the Reformation, I wonder what the Internet will contribute to our journey of faith?

Agenda

If we have an historic opportunity, what might form the agenda of this project?

First, we must integrate scholarship into the fabric of church life. We need translations of sacred texts that are ecumenical, interfaith and truly inclusive. We need networks and programs to offer well informed education resources to raise functional literacy levels in religion. We need curriculum materials for children and adults. And we need to move beyond paper and into cyberspace.

We must also de-stabilize the canon. That sounds like a radical proposition. But why should decisions made under the constraints of long-vanished philosophical and political realities continue to shape the way we hear the diverse Christian tradition? We must draw on texts beyond the canon so as to broaden the range of those voices that we hear within our communities of faith.

Our lectionaries and liturgical resources will need a thorough overhaul. We must draw widely on texts within and outside the canon. We can use Scripture in different ways than those we have favored in the past. We need to move beyond text as content—information or correct ideas—and discover text as dialogue. We must rediscover myth and symbol in reading biblical texts, and help our people to escape the leaden touch of literalism.

Church as Inclusive Community

The Problem

The communities that comprise church have been tamed as instruments of the powerful. We are no longer communities with an alternative vision of life.

Churches rarely speak for real people (who are mostly absent in any case these days). We rarely serve as vehicles for their hopes and hurts. Our structures are collapsing under weight of their own baggage as our memberships age and decline.

Jesus and inclusive koinonia

The contrast with the historical Jesus is pretty clear: the sign of cross that decorates our churches spells it out! It is the price of integrity. There were neither national nor imperial flags in his meeting rooms. God’s domain belonged to those who did not fit in with others’ expectations. The communities formed by his followers could not be co-opted by any empire—at least, not for 300 years or so!!

Elizabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza has commented on one aspect of the community formed around the historical Jesus. He is remembered as calling this mixed bag of humanity "my brothers, my sisters, my mother" (cf. Mark 3:31-35 // Thom 99). No mention of a "father" in that list. No patriarchs in the community of God’s rule, since God alone has authority as "Abba." Instead, a community of equals gathered around the common table of life.

Opportunity

As the old ways of being church collapse we have an opportunity to develop new forms of being church: ways that set the people of God free. We can—and must— develop forms of community as people of faith that are free from co-option by ruling powers (including grants from foundations and government agencies). They will be communities free from clerical ownership (and thus require a fundamental rethink of the role of clergy). Most importantly, they must be communities of freedom: places where it is safe to be as a human person—somewhere to doubt as well as to believe, somewhere to make mistakes, as well as to grow in grace.

Agenda

One of the features of the future church that reflects the character of Jesus is clear: this will be a lay church. Can we imagine churches without brokers? Are we willing to work for lay ownership with new structures? Can we imagine a role for clergy that celebrates leadership and vision, but does not assume that power—and payrolls—should be limited to the ordained?

The dominant paradigm for a church that reflects the vision of Jesus will be mission centers, not franchises in a denominational corporation. Communities of faith will form around areas and aspects of mission, rather than serving the corporate strategies of religious institutions seeking to retain and expand their market share.

Typically, they will be coalitions for justice rather than preaching posts. The focus of churches will move from salvation for the next world to wholeness in this life. We will take creation and incarnation themes seriously, and reject Gnostic dualism that denigrates the material and terrestrial aspects of life. We will heed Micah 6:8: What does the Lord require … kindness, justice, humility!

Our faith communities will be places where we can be fully and wholly human. As reflections of God’s holy mountain in prophetic mythology, they will be places where no-one hurts or destroys. As therapeutic and wholesome communities there will be no psychological distortion. It will be safe to make mistakes and test life options within those kinds of communities. There will be freedom to come and go as people feel appropriate for their own spiritual journeys.

Worship as Celebration

The Problem

As many of us are painfully aware, worship is losing its character as community celebration. It reflects the churches’ loss of significance in the wider community. This is possibly not yet so profound in USA, but it is dramatic in the UK and Europe—and has always been so in Australia: even if now seen more (eg in the alienation from church life of those seeking Baptisms and Weddings).

Sadly worship is too often centered around the symbols and concerns of a long lost world.

Jesus and organized religion

Jesus lived within a religious tradition we’ve been taught to disdain. He was nurtured by a tradition still linked to the everyday concerns of his community. This is not to say that he was uncritical of organized and doctrinaire forms of religion , but it is to warn ourselves to put aside traditional Christian stereotypes of a legalistic and barren Judaism. We find it too easy—and self-serving—to project Paul’s critique of Torah back onto Jesus.

Unlike Paul and many of his later interpreters, Jesus does not seem to have had a jaundiced view of the Torah. Authentic sayings such as

Adam and Eve were not created for the Sabbath,

But the Sabbath was created for Adam and Eve

suggest that Jesus understood the law as a divine gift intended for the benefit and enjoyment of humanity. Observance of such a law can never be a burden. But neither can it intrude between a person in real need and some timely relief. Time and again, the early Jesus tradition portrays Jesus as invoking an interpretation of Torah observance that presupposes integrity rather than literal compliance.

This is also seen in an orphan saying only preserved in the version of Luke 6:5 found in Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (5 c./6 c.). In this saying, otherwise unattested in the tradition, we read:

That day [Jesus] saw someone working on the Sabbath and said to him, "Mister, if you know what you are doing you are to be congratulated; but if not, damn you for violating Torah!"

In commenting on this text, Patterson remarks:

the issue for Jesus was integrity. The purpose of piety is to give expression to one’s relationship with God. Pious practice should therefore be done in such a way that this relationship is expressed adequately, reflecting both the compassionate loving character of God on the one hand, and the transformative effect of knowing such a God on the other. (p. 102f)

Let’s apply that principle from the historical Jesus to our liturgies as the people of God.

Opportunity

After centuries of rigidity we have new opportunities to renew and reform our liturgies. We have access to new understandings of Scripture and Tradition. We also have a new appreciation of human nature, as well as of the power of symbol and myth. We enjoy fresh understandings of the universe and our place in the cosmos. And we have access to multi-cultural and multi-faith perspectives not available to earlier generations of liturgists.

Agenda

Worship that reflects the heritage of Jesus will be marked by celebration, not judgment. We will move away from guilt and anxiety. Instead, we shall celebrate and affirm. We will also acknowledge evil and failure, but do so within a positive frame as people who know forgiveness. We will embrace a broader range of life events/themes to be celebrated, and we will develop new symbols for use in our worship.

Our liturgy will be truly inclusive. After all, "liturgy is the price we pay for community." (R.W. Funk) We will pay attention to the question of who our liturgies are supposed to serve: the clergy, the faithful, the lapsed, the enquirer, casual attenders? Adults and children? Those who know how deeply they are broken, and those denying their brokenness? We will draw on music, art and architecture. Natural spaces and constructed spaces. We will move into cyberspace and form various virtual communities.

And we shall escape Sunday morning! There is a long tradition of weekday worship in Catholic and Anglican communities, but Sunday still exercises an hegemony over church life—and especially in the morning. Too often, worship competes with recreational options (not previously available to people), and clashes with work and family commitments. It is too easy to blame those who skip church for sporting and cultural events. We need to ask ourselves what is the point of religion: to deny life, or to embrace and enrich it?

Discipleship as Faith integrated with Life

The Problem

For too many people—within the churches and outside them—faith or discipleship (ie, "being a Christian") is seen as assent to doctrines and morals. Assenting to particular (and mostly incredible) beliefs, and behaving in certain (and mostly conservative) ways, have come to be seen as fundamental to Christian identity.

Worse, there has been a collapse of the essential link between values (or faith) and everyday life. William Diehl identifies four domains in which religious faith needs to be connected with praxis in everyday life: Family; Local Community; Employment (those paid or unpaid ways we spend our days); National and global concerns. Those who are most strident in their insistence that Christians must assent to particular doctrines or behave within specific constraints are often not alert to the need to get coherence between core values and everyday life, with its various domains. A faith that does not connect with the stuff of real life does not have much hope of transforming our world.

Jesus and discipleship

As a window into the perspective of the historical Jesus, let’s take the well known encounter with the "rich young ruler." This guy had it all, but he did not have what he needed. I conclude from this episode—along with many others in the authentic Jesus materials—that beliefs and behavior both matter, but they are not central to God’s domain.

What is needed is willingness to put oneself at risk. Those called to discipleship were not called to a formula, but to an open ended journey into the unknown.

At this point the Jesus Seminar’s conclusion that Jesus was not an apocalyptic preacher of doom is highly pertinent.

If there is one emphasis of the Seminar that appears to be unique within NT scholarship, it is perhaps our judgment that Jesus was not an apocalyptic firebrand, but more a teacher of sacred wisdom within the traditions of ancient Israel. This view arises not from a bias against apocalyptic, but from a close study of the parables and aphorisms that have the best case for being authentic.

What the Jesus Seminar has proposed is that the "voice print" of Jesus that emerges from a study of the parables and other sayings is one that seems to be in tension with the traditional representation of Jesus as an apocalyptic teacher. That conclusion is not accepted widely—as yet. But it is not found only among the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar. It is a significant minority report. It presents a distinctive alternative, and has shaped the recent debate in our field.

If we are correct, then the legacy of the historical Jesus is a glimpse of life as God’s domain that is essentially affirming and celebratory. Rather than being negative and antagonistic towards a world seen in terms of opposites, our churches should be embracing and celebrating life.

We should earn the dreadful reputation of being friends of gays and sex workers. We should be known as people ready to celebrate and party at the least excuse. We should be talked about as communities that do not pretend to have all the answers, but have identified a handful of really important questions.

Opportunity

While traditional church affiliation fades, religious faith persists. Indeed, there are new quests for meaning and coherence in lives and communities. This residual religious interest seen in "spirituality." If we stopped being so religious and became more authentically human, churches might indeed have a future rather than being leftovers from the past. We might even deserve a future!

Agenda

The first priority is surely to fashion communities of meaning and hope. These will require us to work at creating and sustaining communities that get beyond formulae. They will be places where both beliefs and actions will matter, but even more valued will be the willingness to act out of trust into the future. In that kind of community people find meaning and hope, not answers or control.

Such communities will be marked by a passionate spirituality. We desperately need genuine religious practitioners; not people who think religion is (or was) a good thing. We must form the kind of communities that encourage people to identify, name and share their own experiences of the sacred. This involves a melding of the intellect and the spirit that takes both seriously.

Of course, faith communities of this kind will integrate faith with life in its various dimensions. Such communities will draw on the real life skills of their members, and learn to reflect on their shared experience. These communities will look outside their own lives. They will engage deeply in the issues and concerns of everyday life: as a church, as individuals and as clergy. Social justice cells will be as common place as prayer chains.

CONCLUSION

So, will progressive churches live or die?

I cannot give an answer that question. But I do suggest that we have a better claim to life if we reshape our churches to reflect the new insights arising from historical Jesus studies.

 

 

READING LIST

Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. The historical Jesus and the heart of contemporary faith. HarperCollins, 1995.

William E. Diehl, Ministry in Daily Life. A practical guide for congregations. Alban Institute.

Robert W. Funk, Honest to Jesus. Jesus for a new Millennium. HarperSanFrancisco, 1996.

Robert W. Funk, The Gospel of Jesus according to the Jesus Seminar. Polebridge, 1999.

Robert W. Funk, The Once and Future Jesus. Polebridge, 2000.

Lloyd Geering, The World To Come. From Christian past to global future. Polebridge, 1999.

William Chris Hopgood, The Once and Future Pastor. The changing role of religious leaders. Alban Institute, 1998.

Lane C. McGaughy, "Why Start with the Sayings?" The Fourth R 9,5 (1996) 17-26

Loren B. Mead, The Once and Future Church. Reinventing the congregation for a new mission frontier. Alban Institute, 1991.

Loren B. Mead, Five Challenges for the Once and Future Church. Alban Institute, 1996.

Michael Morwood, Tomorrow’s Catholic. Understanding God and Jesus in a new millennium. Twenty Third Publications, 1998.

Stephen J. Patterson, The God of Jesus. The historical Jesus and the quest for meaning. (Trinity Press International, 1998)

John Shelby Spong, Why Christianity Must Change or Die. A bishop speaks to believers in exile. HarperSanFrancisco, 1998.

Hal Taussig, Jesus Before God. The prayer life of the historical Jesus. Polebridge, 1999.

 

 

A Letter to a Friend

I think you know where I stand on the church front. I have been a strong advocate of such things for a long time. Since you bring the topic up, let me sketch out what I see as the dimensions of the issue for someone who hasn’t experienced a persuasive altar call or revelatory "Road to Damascus" experience. From the perspective that there is no "magic" in the world:

1. Becoming part of a church community gives you a group of people to hang out with who don’t have a vested interest at cross purposes to your own, such as career, inheritance, love of some third party.

2. If you want to have a discussion about the deeper things in life — love, death, aging, loneliness, joy — you are more likely to find someone game for the topic in church than elsewhere.

3. There is a profound and deepening entertainment value to be discovered in the cycle of the church year (Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, etc.) which in and of itself is resonant with human experience, kind of like the value of Verdi to the non-Italian speaker.

4. People (I found this out when I was in college) tend to associate mostly with people of their general demographic description — age, income, career field, etc. It is healthy, however, to have meaningful relationships with children not your own, old people who don’t share any of your genome, and people of different ethnic backgrounds and income brackets. Churches are convenient gathering places for such people.

I don’t discount the possibility that there is "magic" in the world, but you haven’t told me that you just witnessed the healing of a leper and want to know if I think the messiah might have shown up in town. I personally have had aspects of my own spiritual brokenness that have been healed in a way every bit as miraculous as the leper thing, but you have to specifically ask for that prior to me scaring you with my own bizarre experiences.

Now, in terms of "which" church I am pretty strongly opinionated. Judaism doesn’t seem fair to me. Islam isn’t a good choice for people like me who prefer to "talk back" to God. I am not deep enough for Hinduism. I am not quiet enough for Buddhism. I think Mormonism is a bunch of hooey (though I appreciate their genealogical help). Scientology is one of the better jokes of the last half of the twentieth century. Bahai seems a little too boundary-less for me. I don’t trust the New Age types. So I am pretty much grounded in the Christian tradition. Among the Christians, the Roman Catholics have entire regions of their theology, liturgy, and practice that are extremely attractive to me, but considering the whole set of their theological ideas, I just can’t stomach the xy-chromosomed hierarchy and the works over faith stuff (I’m with Luther on the point). The fundamentalist-literalists (Baptists, Church of Christ, certain Methodists) have marvelously deep traditions of piety and sincerity, but my study of theology and science has inoculated me from the simplicity of their belief system. The evangelicals, who run through every denomination, are fun to hang out with on occasion, but they anticipate a level of enthusiasm out of me that I just can’t muster up every day — I am a person who is chipper some times and acerbic others; I can’t handle being happy clappy all the time as some sort of faith statement. So I find that the Anglican tradition, which came into existence for political rather than theological reasons, works for me. It strikes a happy compromise of heterogeneous theology, profound liturgy, and no dogma.

Be warned, though, that the Anglican tradition and its Episcopal Church tradition in the U.S. have vast wastelands of conservatism and what can best be characterized as milk-toast, unchallenging practice. The Episcopal church had too much money and power early in the twentieth century and, like the House of Hapsburg manifested in the person of Prince Charles of England (or I could make a bitter allusion to the Bush clan but will refrain), became dull-witted and boring without an infusion of mongrel ideas. So attendance waned as the number of people garish enough to wear furs to church declined through natural selection. But in that decline, the Episcopal church in places has done some interesting things. In DC, St. Mark’s on Capitol Hill is one of those interesting places. When it was about to die in the late 50s, they decided to start doing things differently — lay leadership, challenging theology, real adult education centered on life issues — rather than eliciting statements of faith, etc. By the time I got there in the late 80s, it was humming with a mission of really helping people to get in touch with their presence on the planet.

I don’t know if this thing that I point to as my appropriate place in the broad scheme of religious belief is only in the Anglican tradition. Probably there are Lutheran, Methodist, United Church of Christ, Unitarian, and Presbyterian churches that do the same thing. Somewhere there might be a Catholic church that hits the mark, too. Also, I have probably mischaracterized the theology of churches that I never fully experienced. There is a term for the churches I would recommend, "Progressive Christian", that has lately come about, and there seems to be a growing number of them. --Bill

 

 

In Defense of “Lord” in Liturgy

As an occasional celebrant and preacher in parish churches and in the Episcopal Divinity School chapel, I am aware that the word "Lord" offends some people whenever they encounter the term in a service of worship. For them, using "Lord" can make either the deity or Jesus of Nazareth seem terribly remote, excessively masculine, and probably oppressive. In an attempt to emphasize the inclusive quality of divine love, some planners of worship have decided that "Lord" must be deleted from all prayers, hymns, and salutations. I think I understand the reasoning, but I feel that discarding "Lord" is a mistake. For me, substituting "God" for "Lord", as some liturgists are doing, compounds the error.

In my upbringing, I learned that the first Christian statement of faith was probably "Jesus is Lord." The context in which St. Paul used the affirmation sounds as if he were quoting something that his readers would immediately recognize: "No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit" (I Corinthians 12:3). To call Jesus "Lord" is to say that I have a relationship with Jesus. I am declaring my loyalty and acknowledging his authority in my life. That is very different from saying that "Jesus is God", a statement that does not appear in the Bible.

I find the substitution of "God" for "Lord" particularly inappropriate in the salutation "God be with you." Being greeted with an abstraction alienates me from the act of worship. The purpose of the greeting is the acknowledgment of the loyalty that binds us together as we pray. That particular salutation can be traced to the Hebrew scriptures, the original reference being to the particular god of the Hebrew-speaking people. When the name of their tribal god became so sacred that they refrained from saying it aloud, they substituted the equivalent of our word "Lord". In the story of Ruth, her future husband Boaz greeted his reapers with the words, "The Lord be with you," and they responded in kind. In this brief exchange of greetings they were acknowledging that they were bound together by a common loyalty and trust (Ruth 2:4). When Saul used the same words to send David out to meet Goliath, he was not referring to a generic deity but to the one they both had sworn to serve (I Samuel 17:37). Using "God be with you" in similar circumstances is simply being polite. Even atheists can use the short form of "God be with you", goodbye, and think nothing of it.

The English word "Lord" seems to be particularly appropriate as a translation for both the Hebrew and Greek titles found in the Bible. In old English the word was hlaford, a contraction of loaf and warden. A lord is the keeper of the bread. In the early English social structure, the lord provided protection to the farmers so that they could raise their crops in peace. At the time of the harvest, they brought the grain to the lord’s mill for the grinding of the flour that would become their bread. They gave their loyalty to the lord and trusted the lord to protect them and to see that they were fed. From the perspective the twenty-first century, we might find fault with the early English social system, but we can understand why "Lord" made sense to them as a way of addressing Jesus and the God to whom Jesus had led them.

I find it somehow curious that people are willing to give up the emphasis on the trust and loyalty essential to the formation of community in order to avoid what they perceive to be a masculine word. In the United States, we do not have lords as part of our social system so for our understanding of the word in modern usage we have to look across the sea to the United Kingdom where they still have parliament that includes a House of Lords. As anyone who follows the news realizes, the House of Lords is not an exclusively male domain. Women, such as Margaret Thatcher, can be and are lords.

I find it equally curious that people who are sensitive to gender issues prefer to use the word "god", which is clearly a masculine form. Many masculine words in the English language have completely absorbed their feminine forms to the extent that using the feminine is thought to be rude or insulting. We no longer say: waitress, stewardess, poetess, authoress, patroness, tailoress, murderess, quakeress, priestess, deaconess, or entertainess. But the feminine form "goddess" is very much in vogue. Interest in the goddess cults and imagery has heightened the masculine connotations of "god" to the point that I wonder why it is the preferred name for the deity.

To me, an appreciation of both logic and language suggests that we retain the use of "Lord" in liturgy until we can find a better word than "God" as a substitute.

Creating Open and Welcoming Communities

Jim Kelley and I asked the participants in the two workshops to tell stories from their own experience about what has worked in creating open and welcoming churches. In the course of the workshops, we became clear that what works may differ depending on people's stage of involvement with the church.

Stage 1 -- People who want something

What people want most from the church may be food. A congregation that now averages over 100 people at a 7:00 a.m. Sunday service of Holy Communion began in earnest when the church offered a free breakfast to homeless people. This particular mission is supported by several parishes, and now members of those parishes often join the street people for worship and breakfast.

People may be longing for an experience of intimacy. If they have moved frequently, and if they have become disillusioned by institutions, they may be lonely and wanting to be a part of a community. Or they may want a safe place to discuss their most vexing problems, such as money, sexual orientation, family obligations, or trouble with religious dogma. These issues cut across lines of class and race. For example, a panhandler and a physician may discover that they have much in common when they talk together about money.

Some people may want boundaries and discipline to order their lives. They may feel as though they are drifting and want a place where they can be of service and be accountable for their behavior.

In being open to people in Stage 1, the church leadership must first discover what the people in the neighborhood around the church most want. That means getting to know the demographics of the area and getting to know some of the people who do not go to church. If the investigation shows that what people most want is dependable day care, then that is what the church offers. Giving people what they want may sound like crass marketing, but it may in truth be the only way that the established church can show that it cares about people who are not already members.

Advertising can sometimes be of help in letting people know the church may have what they want. One congregation decided to put an ad in a publication that is aimed primarily at gays and lesbians. They are they only church, except the predominately gay Metropolitan Community Church, that does so. Many new people have showed up as a result. The kind of publicity a new church uses to get started will have an impact on the way the congregation develops. Typically, contacting 3,000 people in a newly developing area will produce 300 people to organize as a congregation, but what if the appeal from the beginning was to those who had doubts and questions?

Stage 2 -- Permanent Guests

In finding something of what they want, people may decide to become regular participants in some aspect of the church's life, but they may be unwilling to make a formal or financial commitment. Some of these people may feel that their lives are too fragile to risk breaking their ties with the religious traditions of their childhoods. Others may have been emotionally burned by their involvement with churches or clergy and are leery about setting themselves up for further hurt. One person told us about a congregation that makes everyone feel welcome. Only 20% of the regular worshipers in this welcoming church make pledges of financial support. The money in the plate offering often equals the pledged money on a given Sunday, but the situation creates difficult problems at budget time.

One congregation has dealt with the budget problems that come with accepting permanent guests, by having two offerings each Sunday. The first is for the support of the church. The second is for people who need assistance. The second offering provides an opportunity for permanent guests who have received help from the church to provide help for others.

What often works with permanent guests, however, is to provide them with experiences in which commitment to a group or to a process can be life giving. In reaching out to people beyond the church walls, one congregation offers classes on a wide range of subjects, but each class carries the same fourfold demand: regular attendance, homework, class participation, and a fifteen minute period of quiet reflection or prayer every day. The study groups all meet on the same night so that they can eat together before gathering in small groups, no more than ten each. Some of these people never, or rarely, come to Sunday worship, but they have a place in the life of the church.

The mission to the homeless people also discovered that the people who attended regularly wanted some demand placed on them, even if they had no intention of joining the church. Some street people said that they felt demeaned when at first no opportunity was made for an offering at their 7:00 a.m. service. They may give only a bus token, but they want to give something. Many have responded to the daily opportunity for Bible study, and have accepted the discipline that such study requires. So valuable has this discipline been, that people with full-time employment have joined them.

Stage 3 -- Members

Early in our discussion, some participants felt a contradiction between welcoming all people to the Lord's table and requiring a rigorous catechumenate for potential members. In many congregations, new members have found substantial rewards in taking lengthy and demanding courses prior to their joining the church. For some, the apparent conflict in the two values -- welcoming all without question and demanding discipline for membership -- was resolved in part by recognizing the validity of each stage. A congregation can welcome everybody to the celebration of communion and can celebrate the welcome of those make a commitment to the community.

At the third stage, an appropriate commitment will include responsible financial support for the church and a willingness to volunteer time as well.

What is Required to Make an Open and Welcoming Community Work?

1. Honesty The most important ingredient for an open congregation is honesty. For a church to be genuinely open, people must be able to say what they think and not feel required to be a certain way. The congregation must be up front with faith issues. For an atmosphere of honesty to prevail, the pastor must clearly give permission for people to say what is on their minds.

2. Humility The obligation falls on the stage 3 people to accept people in the other two stages as their equals. They cannot look at themselves as more spiritually advanced, or righteous, or in any other way superior to people in stages 1 and 2. Stage 3 people have made choices that are different from the choices made by the other people, but their choices do not mean that they are better people. They do not speak contemptuously of "cheap grace" when they see the uncommitted receiving communion. The community includes people in all three stages.

3. Acceptance One of the hardest tasks facing progressive Christians is accepting people who are bigoted, racist, sexist, or homophobic. We can open our doors to gays and skeptics, but we have trouble welcoming members if the National Rifle Association or the local militia. A truly open church would make room for everyone.

4. Discretion Sometimes it may be necessary to push the limits of what the denomination allows, or even to break the rules. Open congregations risk open conflict with the authorities, but most often they quietly go about doing what they need to do in order to be faithful.

5. Diversity Even some of the most conservative congregations may tolerate small groups of questioning, agnostic, and skeptical people. As the progressive cells within a church develop, if they can accept the established members, the established members may grow to accept them.

What Gets in the Way?

1. Pastors Clergy have a way of squelching attempts at diversity, muzzling creative people, stifling questions, and inhibiting thinking along experimental lines. A change in staff can undercut lay initiatives. Congregations have a hard time transcending the limitations of their pastors.

2. Anxiety Congregations anxious about their own survival have a hard time being open. They are so fearful of alienating the few remaining members that they cannot welcome new people and give them a voice in the affairs of the church.

3. Theology Ways of talking about Jesus and the cross that were useful in a previous age may not be useful in our time. The purpose of the church today may be to offer holy community, with the message of the cross as a means to this end. We may have to talk of Trinity, not as a description of God, but as a reminder that the essence of community is diversity.

4. Impatience We may try to move people more quickly than they are able to move. We must be patient with newcomers letting them be among us until they are ready to ask questions, such as, "What is giving me the sense of wholeness, peace, and community?" We must be patient with a congregation dominated by narrow, prejudiced people, letting them die off and replacing them gradually with more open leaders.

Questions

At the end of one discussion, we were left with questions for progressive Christians to ponder:

1. What is the medium and/or the message for young people?

2. What is really important? What must we preserve from our tradition? Where must we innovate?

3. To what extent are we responding to pain in the world around us?

4. What is the source of our support?

5. Does the church really exist for those who do not belong?

6. If we get them to the table, what will be the menu?

7. What will be the cost of the meal?

 

 

Confessions of a Conservative

Being new and just getting started, we always seem to be late in whatever we are doing. We hope that this year we will learn from our experiences and that we will get you the details about the 1998 Forum a little faster than we did this time. We didn't even decide to come to Houston until last September, and then it was an accident. We were talking about future places to hold a forum, and Helen Havens said, "Maybe someday you would like to come to Houston?" Five or six people turned and said, "Yes! How about next Spring?" I think we took her a little by surprise. She gulped, but then she said, "Okay." She immediately got on the phone to look for an open date. Helen, I can't tell you often enough how much we appreciate your willingness to jump in and get this wonderful group of yours together, to make us welcome, and to make it happen -- to feed us and to house us.

Now that we are here, I think that paying attention to what we stand for is important. We had a terrible time trying to choose a name that would give people at least a hint about who we are and what we are about. Human beings all need names and so do gatherings of human beings. You can't be just "that group". After much discussion, we settled on "progressive". Progressive--adapting to change and looking to the future--is fine, but I have never been happy with it. I wish we could have called ourselves The Center for Conservative Christianity, but the word "conservative" has been co-opted by some people that I don't think are the true conservatives. I think I am a conservative. You may have noticed that your speakers, all elderly gentlemen, wear coats and ties to address you. We are Conservatives! By conservative, I mean that everyone who has addressed you has some sense of conserving what we learned as children, what we want to continue into our old age, and what we want to pass on to the next generation.

What I Learned in Sunday School

I won't try to speak for Bill Lawson, Wes Seeliger, Bill Martin, and Dick Wheatcroft. I will say, as a child I learned to put Jesus at the center of my life. I grew up in a little town, in a little church that was a federation of Presbyterians and Congregationalists. I learned, from the time I could stand up, to sing a song that must have penetrated the deepest regions of my soul. Maybe all of you older people had to learn it, too. The song is, "Jesus Loves Me." Does anybody know it? Let's sing it. I'd like to hear you sing.

Jesus loves me this I know. For the Bible tells me so Little ones to him belong. We are weak, but he is strong. Yes, Jesus loves me. Yes, Jesus loves me. Yes, Jesus loves me. The Bible tells me so.*

You do know it. I think we believed it, and I think we still do. That is conservative. Jesus loves us.

The rhythm of weekly worship reinforced that understanding of the love of God through Jesus. In those ancient days, our parents took us by the hand. We went to Sunday School, and we went to church. We heard week in and week out that Jesus loves us, and it became important to keep up the rhythm the rest of our lives. That's conservative. We went to Sunday School, and we learned our lessons.

Not all of the lessons we learned were what the Sunday School teachers had in mind for us to learn, but we did learn. A Sunday School teacher told us that if we asked God for anything in faith, God would do it. I thought that this was wonderful news. My grandmother had given me the pocketknife that had belonged to my father when he was a child. It was a big pocketknife. We called it "the toad stabber". I was very proud of that knife, but I lost it. From what the teacher had said I thought if I prayed, God would give it back to me. That week, every night before I went to sleep, I prayed, "God let me find the toad stabber." But God didn't do what I asked. When Sunday morning came, I reported that the prayer didn't work. The Sunday School teacher informed me that I was impatient. I decided that I had been a little too demanding of God; I would give God a whole year to find that knife. I did. I prayed every night for a whole year, but God did not find the knife for me. As a consequence of this experiment with prayer, I learned in Sunday School class: First, don't trust Sunday School teachers. They lie. And second, don't trust God too much. That experience made me a thoroughgoing skeptic, which I have been ever since. That's not what the church intended for me to learn, but it was an important learning. It has shaped my life and my concern for other people who think that maybe Jesus loves them, but that maybe God won't do what they want.

Other times I think that I learned the lessons that the teachers wanted me to learn, but I didn't understand fully the implications of what they were teaching me. In that little church, the person who most influenced my life was not the minister, an English-born Congregationalist, but his equally English wife, Mrs. Tudor. I am sure she must have had a Christian name, but I never heard anyone use it. Mrs. Tudor was a fascinating person to all of us younger people because she didn't wear glasses with temples on them like mine. She had glasses that had a long chain attached to a button on her lapel. The chain inside the button was on a spring. To get her glasses on, she would pull down the chain like a window shade. She would place them on her nose and read to us out of the Bible. Then when she took her glasses off, she would pull down the chain and let it go, and zap, the chain would rewind. You had to pay attention to this woman. Mrs. Tudor once told me that with a voice as loud as mine I had to be either a lawyer or a preacher. I am sure her observation influenced the course of my life, but the most important thing she said to me was not so affirming. I was embarrassed, if not humiliated, by her response to something I said. It happened when we were in Vacation Bible School. It happened on the Flag Day that followed D-day. D-day was June 6, 1944, and Flag Day was June 14. We were having a Flag Day lesson, and Mrs. Tudor asked us to tell her about the American flag. I couldn't wait to speak. Call on me. "What can you tell us about the flag, Jimmy?" I proudly announced that our flag would soon be flying over Germany. Instead of applauding me, she looked sad. She said, "No. The Germans have to have their own flag. They have to be a free people." You see, God loved the Germans, too. A shocking idea. God loves Germans. Not long after that, Mrs. Tudor spoke up when the high school invited a group of black musicians to come and sing. In our little town, we had only one black person. Everybody loved John, but he was "different". The musicians came to our town, and nobody would let them sit in our restaurants or stay in a hotel. Nobody spoke up and said that this rejection was wrong, except Mrs. Tudor.

When I think about Mrs. Tudor, I think about a great big picture that hung in our Sunday School room. It was a picture of Jesus surrounded by children. They represented all the possible shades of skin color. They were wearing clothing that was once associated with the different continents before all kids in the world wore Reebok's and Levi's. Jesus loves everybody. God loves me, and God loves everybody. That's what I learned as a child. That's conservative.

Acting on Our Convictions

So how do we act out our conservative convictions? We act them out in the world, and we act them out in church. God loves everybody, but does that mean that everybody is welcome? Do we want everyone coming to the table, sharing the ritual meal? Most of my professional life, I have heard people trying to be open and welcoming. We are acting out the vision of Isaiah: God is creating a feast for all people. Is there anyone God left out? Some clergy think they are being inclusive when they say that they welcome all baptized Christians at the meal. That invitation leaves out an awful lot of the world's people. One Sunday at a church I attended in Pennsylvania, the celebrant appeared to think that he was being extremely inclusive when he said, "I welcome all baptized people and Quakers." In one of my E-mail conversations, an ordained minister in New York wrote that she tried to be inclusive. She invited to Communion "all who come in faith." I E-mailed back that she better check First Corinthians, Chapter Twelve. You know the message about the gifts of Spirit: to one is given the utterance of wisdom, to another the utterance of knowledge, to another faith, to another the gifts of healing. You might as well say, "I welcome everyone to the table who has the gift of knowledge." Would you say that? Or how about saying that only the people who have the gift of healing are welcome? What about the people who don't have any faith? Why is faith a necessity for coming to the table? Faith wasn't a necessary condition for Paul, and it wasn't for Isaiah, so why should it be for us?

Early in my adult life, I learned that Jesus loves everybody, not just believers, but also skeptical folks like me. Still I didn't learn all the implications of God's love for a long time. It was hard learning. I learned from my oldest daughter. You know what these oldest daughters are like. They are headstrong; they don't always do what their daddies tell them to do; and they argue. My oldest daughter went off to Smith College and came back saying she had lesbians in her residence hall. I was shocked; I was horrified. I tried to explain to Lesley that this was evil and wrong. She disagreed. I don't remember the whole conversation, except I do remember that she left the table in tears saying she had a hard time talking to her father about important subjects. Time passed. I finally got it. My daughter was living out the implications of what I had tried to teach her. If God loves everybody, God must love gays and lesbians. That's conservative, isn't it?

Listening to Our Critics

I am trying to figure out how we can carry on with what we think matters, which we bring with us from our childhoods, how we can be true conservatives. The best way to figure out what matters is to listen to our critics. Did you know that we have been around enough now to have critics? I am not talking about just the people who call us "renegade Episcopalians". Somebody wrote to me: "You Progressives don't care anything about people's behavior. You are going to let everybody in without any requirements." I wonder where they get that notion. We have it right in our eight points that we care about how people treat each other, but you know that our critics are using a code word. When they say we don't care about people's behavior, you know what they mean. They mean that we don't care about how an adult expresses affection for another adult in the privacy of their bedroom. That's what they mean, and it's true. We don't care. At least I don't. We care about other kinds of behavior. All real conservatives care about how people treat each other.

Last spring, I was back at the little church of my childhood, helping to celebrate the 125th anniversary of its founding. I told the story about how Mrs. Tudor had influenced my life. I told about the great big picture of Jesus and the children that I had remembered, and I reported my disappointment at not being able to find it in the Sunday school room. When someone assured me that the picture was still there, I found it right where it had always been. I had overlooked it because the picture wasn't nearly as large as I had remembered it. The next day, the congregation was reviewing the history of the church. The pastor, Maurine Hale, brought the little picture of Jesus and the children up into the pulpit with her and said, "Sometimes we forget what matters to us." She told a story that brought tears to my eyes, and I think I wasn't the only person there who wept. She said that we had one pastor who had left very quickly, and she couldn't find out why. "So I called him up," she said, "and he told me the story." He and his family had been entertaining at dinner a social worker from the neighboring town. The social worker had been trying to place two brothers of mixed racial parentage. The children's skin color was quite dark. In the conversation, the pastor and his wife admitted that they had been thinking about adopting. They thought they might like more children although they already had two little blond-haired girls. That was a Saturday night. Sunday morning the little six-year-old told her Sunday School class, "Guess what. I am going to have two black little brothers!" By 11:00 church time, people were not speaking to him. Shortly after this, the pastor and his family went on vacation. When they returned, they found a little note taped on the television set that said the personnel committee wanted to talk with him. At the meeting, members of the committee said, "If you bring a black child into this town, you are finished, and if you ever mention race in the pulpit, you are through." So rather than compromise his integrity, the pastor resigned. By the end of the month, he and his family were gone, and most of the people never knew why. After she told the story, Pastor Hale raised the question, "How did we forget what matters? Somehow we forgot that Jesus loves everybody." She said that the congregation's behavior toward the former pastor was a tragedy and must never happen again.

We care about behavior. I think everybody in this room cares a lot about behavior. We don't want behavior that is cruel or oppressive or exclusive. That's what it means to be conservative. How we treat each other matters. We can talk all we want about God and Jesus, but unless we can treat each other with love and compassion, all the talk will not matter.

We have other critics who call us other names. I had someone almost spit in my face saying, "Well, if we take what you say seriously, we might as well be Unitarians." What a terrible thought! I am glad to say we have a Unitarian with us at this forum. I am not really sure how God works. The day before I came here, I was picking up the printing. The printer insisted on introducing me to another customer -- a Harvard Divinity School student, one of Shelly Webb's classmates. He said that he is a Unitarian Universalist. He told me that they have a Christian fellowship of Unitarian Universalists at Harvard Divinity School. The printer was right to make the introduction. These are people we should get to know. I don't fully understand what mainline church people have against Unitarian Universalists. I think perhaps they are a little jealous. The UU church is growing rapidly, and the mainline churches aren't growing at all. Even the Baptists haven't been growing as fast as the Unitarian Universalists for the last two years. They are good folks! I want to make an alliance with them. If other people want to call us Unitarians, fine.

I didn't know that the other half of the Unitarian Universalist name was also a swear word until it was thrown at me. I was in the Carolinas leading an all-day workshop on evangelism. All through the workshop we had endured the muttering of a retired Episcopal clergyman who was obviously filled with anger. The next morning, after the worship service at which I preached, he said, "I've got you figured out. You! You are a Universalist!" I wish I had had the presence of mind to say what I had learned as a child. "Do you mean, do I believe that God loves everybody? Yes, that is what I learned as a little child in Sunday School. I believe that God loves everybody. I suppose that makes me a Universalist."

Another epithet critics have thrown at us was reported by an old friend of mine who was at our last forum, held in Columbia, South Carolina. He is active in community work. During the convention of his diocese, he was sitting at a table with some bishops, who were guests of the diocese. One of them said, "Did you hear about the awful group that met at the Cathedral in Columbia last spring?" My friend's ears perked up, and he said, "I was there, why?" One bishop responded, "They're a bunch of pagans, terrible people." My friend said, "I thought they were all right." Just then, as the bishops were blustering, their faces turning purple as they tried to explain to my friend what a dreadful group we are, he was called up and given an award as an exemplary Christian in the diocese. Apparently, God blesses pagans. Why not? If people want to call us pagans, I will accept the term because I believe that God loves pagans as much as God loves anybody.

Wanting to be Special

I have seen that many of us who call ourselves Christians really don't believe God loves everybody. We want to think God loves us specially. Jesus loves me and my kind, and not anybody else. My identity depends upon being special, being different, being better, being more loved than all those other people out there. The notion that God loves me better is the source of most, if not all, of the world's ills. If I think that God loves me more, if I think that I have better access to God than you, then I have the right to be in charge. I have the right to tell you what to think and what to do.

Just let your mind roam around this country and around the world -- right now. Think about the school system in Texas. Think about Northern Ireland. Think about what we used to call Yugoslavia. Think about Palestine and Israel. Think about India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Think about Rwanda. Then let your mind go back in history: inquisitions and crusades. True believers are the source of the world's misery. Is it possible to believe that God loves us all the same and that nobody is special? I think that is what I learned as a child. The trouble is that some people worry about how they can feel like they matter if they are not better than everybody else. How can you feel like you matter if you can't say, "God loves me more than God loves you?" Maybe that's too hard, but I think that is the message of the gospel. Some of those people who want to be special don't really think we can honestly say that we follow Jesus. We do follow Jesus, but we don't think that makes us better than other people. We follow Jesus because we learned through Jesus about God's love for us all. We don't have to say ours is the only way. We can say that Jesus is our way. That's why I tell you to read Wes Seeliger's book, Western Theology. In Wes's book, Jesus is a scout for pioneers who are on the trail. Why do we have a scout? We are going to lose our way if we don't have somebody to go ahead of us. So we have decided to follow Jesus. That's fine. Other people have other scouts. That's fine, too.

Some people worry about how we can be passionate about our religion if we don't think it is better than everybody else's. Do we have to be passionate about our religion? Julie Wortman told me we have to be, so I have been working on that ever since the September meeting of our Advisory Committee. Yet I wonder, how can you be passionate about ambiguity? How can you be passionate about perplexity? How can you be passionate about diversity?

Perhaps we can't all be passionate, but I think we can be compassionate. In our declarations about the Jesus whom we follow, we can insist that we conserve the best of what we know and what we have always known: God loves everybody, and it is up to us to demonstrate that love within our congregations and with our lives in the world. That to me is a conservative position, but I don't know what to call it except "Progressive Christianity".

 

* At the conclusion of my remarks, Sandy Havens -- The Director of the Rice University Players and the husband of Rector Helen Havens -- stood to report the words of a song once popular in Texas bars: "Jesus loves me, but he can't stand you."

Among the Ruins – Dr. Kaj Baago’s Theological Challenge Revisited

The Rev. Dr. Kaj Baago (1926-1987) joined the faculty of the United Theological College (UTC), Bangalore in June 1960, to which he was sent by the Danish Missionary Society. The decision to accept to work for the Danish Missionary Society had, for theological reasons, been hard to make for Baago although he had felt the vocation to become a missionary for a long time. Baago’s decision was encouraged by leaders in the Danish Missionary Society as well as by the faculty at the United Theological College. by the first in spite of and by the second because of his radical theology, according to an interview with Dr. Chandran (Chandran 2000). Baago was appointed Professor in Church History and lectured for nearly ten years at the UTC before he in 1968 finally resigned from the college faculty as well as from the established church. This decision was gradually formed and formulated during his stay in India, and he himself holds the years at the UTC to be crucial for his "new" theological understanding or insight (Baago 1967a: 113).

In this article I want to point out and systematically identify some of Baago’s theological insights, reflections and reasons, which caused him to resign from teaching as well as from the church. By examining the relevant material from Baago himself and that from some of his contemporary critics and sympathizers. I hope to increase the understanding of Baago’s decision as well as to restate the challenge, which his break with the established church puts forth for contemporary theological reflection in India and abroad. Baago himself points out in several places that the reason for him to give up professional theology is to be found solely in the theology and the ecclesiastical praxis of the Christian church and hence his decision is not caused by other external factors (Baago 1967a). The focus will therefore be on his theological writings published in the period from his arrival in India in 1959 until the beginning of the 1970’s after his decision to leave the church had been made.

Baago was as a theologian foremost a scholar of church-history, and presenting his thoughts in a systematized form can be unsatisfactory. Despite this I think it is possible to give a certain systematic outline of his thinking and his critique on central theological themes such as indigenization. baptism, and Christian missionary work. In doing this some of the consequences in ecclesiology and indigenization of his theological thought can be seen and evaluated, and this is the outline which will be followed here.

1.0 Short Biographical Sketch

Baago started his theological studies at the Theological Faculty in Aarhus, Denmark, after the end of the Second World War, and went after seven years of training for studies abroad. He completed his Master of Theology in 1953 at the Union Theological Seminary, New York. His thesis dealt with Paul Tillich’s criticism of the concept of truth in neo-orthodoxy and liberal theology (see Baago 1954). Tillich’s continued influence on Baago’s theological thinking, especially the forming of Baago’s concept of indigenization. should not be underestimated and in several places he refers directly to him (Baago 1967f; 1967g; 1971; see also Mundadan 1989:95). After completing his M.Th. at Union Theological Seminary he went to Cambridge for research work, after which he finally returned to Denmark. Here he was appointed an assistant professor at the Theological Faculty in Aarhus, Denmark. He submitted his doctoral dissertation in 1958, choosing religious revival movements and social changes in 19th century Denmark as his subject. In 1959 the Danish Missionary Society offered him a chance to go to India, and it was decided that he should teach at the United Theological College (UTC), Bangalore. Baago and his wife, Kirsten, and their children arrived early in 1959, and did their Tamil studies in the Language School, after which Baago joined the faculty at the United Theological College in June 1960, as mentioned above (see Chandran 1959:3). There had been other Danish scholars at UTC (among them one of the first Principals L.P. Larsen) and when he joined the faculty Baago became the colleague of such well-known Indian scholars as Dr. J.R. Chandran and Dr. S.J. Samartha.

A brief look at Baago’s scholarly achievements in his time at the UTC reveals his interest in his subject, namely Church and Mission history. He was among the founders of the southern branch of Church History Association of India in 1963, founder of the valuable archives at the UTC, editor of several bulletins and a pioneer of the new historiography of the Indian Church (see Baago 1963,1965, 1966c, 1967d, 1967g, 1968, 1969, 1971). Among his best known books are Pioneers of Indigenous Christianity (Baago 1969) and his A History of the National Christian Council of India (Baago 1965). But his more controversial theological thoughts are found mainly in the form of articles, sermons and letters, with an outburst in the years 1966-1967 (see Baago 1966a, 1966b, 1966d. 1967a. 1967b, 1967e. 1967f. 1967h).

After he resigned from professional theology Baago remained in India 2 and took up a ‘secular’ job in the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA). In 1985 he became the Danish Ambassador in India, and held this office until his untimely death on the 21st of November 1987 (Mundadan 1989:96). After having resigned from professional theology he practically stopped his theological writing. His later writings deal primarily with political and social matters (see bibliography in Mundadan 1989). which is outside the scope of this article, and will therefore not be considered. His later social engagement can in a certain sense be seen as the ‘logical’ extension of his theological view.

2.0 Baago’s Critique of His Present Day Indian Church

As Baago came to know the context for the Christian theology in India, he grew more and more critical against the mission, baptism, and the ecclesiastical structures. The church and its goal and mission is closely related (Baago 1965:17) and they mutually effect and impinge on each other (Baago 1966c:30). The true meaning of baptism, mission and the ideal for church-structure must, according to Baago, be the teaching of Jesus in the New Testament3 and it is from this ideal that Baago criticizes his contemporary church.

2.1 Baago’s Critique of Baptism in the Indian Context

Baago criticizes the praxis of baptism in the Indian context, as mentioned above. This issue addressed most clearly in his article "Must Hindus be Baptized to become Christians?" (Baago 1966a) and in the article "The Place of Baptism in the Christian Mission in India" (Baago 1967h; see also 1966e:438; 1967e: 148). The nucleus of the problem is that baptism, according to Baago, has come to mean something different in the Indian context than what was intended in the New Testament. As the Christians got recognized in India as a political body the claim for political rights followed (Baago 1967h:49), as seen for e.g. in the so-called ‘politics of numbers’ under the British rule. Baptism thus became a baptism to the Church and not to Christ, it became a political act rather than a sacrament.4 Baptism came together with conversion to signify the transition from one religious community to another (Baago 1967b:99) rather than signifying repentance and forgiving. Baago holds that the separation of the believer from his community which baptism involves in the Indian context, has never been intended in the Christian understanding of baptism, and he gives in "The Place of Baptism in the Christian Mission in India" a theological critique of the Indian understanding of baptism. According to Baago the baptism in India is not the baptism spoken of in the New Testament (i.e. forgiveness, a dying-with-Christ, and a becoming-one-with-Him) but rather it has become a socio-political rite. Should it be compared with a biblical concept then it would be more precise to understand baptism in India as ‘circumcision’: a community mark, a social rite admitting persons to a specific community (Baago 1967h:50). Paul’s well-known critique of circumcision seems to be appropriate for this understanding of baptism.5

The question of baptism is closely linked with the understanding of the relationship between Christianity and other religions and the Christian attitude towards the other religions. According to Baago there is no longer an easy, confirming answer to the question whether God intends all people to be included in the Christian church (Baago 1967h:48). But seen together with the question of baptism, Baago extends Paul’s critique of the necessity of the Jewish communal mark, the circumcision, for the (pagan) Christian believers. Just as the early Christians according to Paul did not have to become circumcised, i.e. to become Jews, to belong to Christ, so also with the followers of other religions (Gal. 5:7-12). The followers of other religions do not need to receive the Christian communal mark, baptism, to belong to Christ, and to be Christians.6 Furthermore, Baago finds himself in agreement with several Indian Christians’ critique of the baptism (Baago 1967e: 149; 1968:27). According to Baago identifying the baptism primarily as an entrance rite to the institutional church will cause a confusion, as it has happened, between the kingdom of God and the church as an institution (Baago 1967f:219). This leads to Baago’s critique of the existing ecclesiastical structures, to which I will now turn.

2.2 Baago’s Critique of the Ecclesiastical Structures

Baago makes it clear that the church as an organization cannot be directly identified with the Body of Christ (Baago 1966a:18) as the Spirit of Christ is working outside the church (Baago 1966d: 14). Baago does not find anything essentially better or worse in the Christian church than in the Hindu society, but there can, according to Baago, be no doubt that Christ is working inside as well as outside the Christian Church, and the Christians can therefore not claim to have a monopoly on Christ (Baago 1966d: 14; 1967e: 149). Baago highlights in "Honestly Speaking Again!!" the distinction between Kingdom of God and the church, and speaking of the spread of the church he says that "it might very well be that these two have nothing to do with each other" (Baago 1967f:219). To be a true disciple and follower of Christ overrules all former distinctions 7 and frees from the compulsion that one must be religious, i.e. to hold "the true religion", to save oneself (Baago 1967f:221), i.e. what P. Tillich called the "yoke of religion".

The critique of his present day ecclesiastical structures is sharpened in the two articles "Honestly Speaking!!" and "Honestly Speaking Again!!". In "Honestly Speaking!!" Baago writes that he does not see any justification for the present ecclesiastical structures in the New Testament and he finds it ‘thoroughly incredible’ that Jesus should have intended the present church.8 Further, Baago cannot agree with the aim of the church and its mission which, according to him, is to "get people into our westernized churches and to persuade them to accept our ideas and manners" (Baago 1967e: 148). Baago writes on the first page in his booklet The Movement around Subba Rao (Baago 1968) that there are "Hindu devotees of Christ, who in spite of (or because of?) their faith in Christ, stayed outside the Church" (Baago 1968:1). Starting his investigation in this way, Baago proceeds to describe the man Subba Rao, with whom he finds himself in fundamental agreement in questions on ecclesiology and discipleship, and who in different ways have affected Baago’s own understanding.9

At this point Baago expresses one of his rather rare visions of the present meaning of Christ and contextual meaning of the gospels -- a just society.10 When Baago later joined the secular humanitarian work, it can therefore be seen as a consequence of his new theological understanding. At another place Baago describes his vision of the future church as an ‘informal group’ where people can gather and share their experiences and thoughts. Baago seems here to be drawing on the ecclesiological understanding of Charles Davis11 as well as the Indian theologian P. Chenchiah, which I will return to later.

2.3 Baago’s Critique or the Christian Mission in India

Baago’s critique of the understanding of mission, and of his past and present day missionary praxis, is his best known and probably hardest critique. Baago himself holds that his view expresses the emerging realization of Christianity as one among other religions, but at the same time a religion with a built-in claim to universal relevance. Already in one of his first articles from India, written in 1962, he writes that the task of the missionaries is today ‘. . . not to introduce a new God in India, the Jewish God, but to proclaim to Hindus and Muslims that the God whom they know, and yet not know, has revealed Himself in Christ" (Baago 1962a:2). In his article "The Post-Colonial Crises of Mission" Baago is addressing the problem of present day mission directly and he describes the situation as uncertain in the sense that the old goal of mission as the victory of Christianity in the world is now breaking up (Baago 1966b:322). Baago identifies three reasons for the crises: (a) the resurgence and renaissance of Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam; (b) the revival of these religions and the connected claim for national independence; and finally (c) ". . .it is obvious that the traditional western missionary outlook . . . was filled to the brim with western colonialism and imperialism" (Baago 1966b:324). The embarrassing close connection between economic, military, and missionary forces made the Christian mission a matter of a religious conquest, driven by what Baago calls the ‘crusade spirit’. In the article "Jesus and the Heathen" (Baago 1966d) Baago is describing the missionary enterprise of the past, liberal as well as dialectical theological approaches, as driven by a feeling of superiority and western imperialism.12

In the two articles "Honestly Speaking!!" (Baago 1967e) and "Honestly Speaking Again!!" (Baago 1967f) Baago explains the reason for his resignation from the missionary society as well as from teaching (see Baago’s letter to the Danish Missionary Society, Baago 1967a). These two articles sum up his earlier critique of the lack of indigenization and the now former missionary Baago concludes, as mentioned above, that: ". . .the Western missionary work in India is a misunderstanding" (Baago 1967e: 147). The present Christian approach towards other religions and cultures as well as the present ‘medieval’ understanding of mission is an offence to other people -- not because of the gospel but because of the Church’s misunderstanding of mission, context, and the gospel (Baago 1967e:148). The offence stems from the missing understanding of the need for indigenization without which mission all too easily becomes cultural imperialism and not evangelization.

2.4 Baago’s Comment on ‘Indigenous Doctrinal Formulations’

Baago was also critical towards the different attempts to formulate the Christian faith. In his 1962 article, Baago criticizes a doctrinal statement from the C.S.I.-Lutheran Inter-Church Commission and ironically comments that it "may be too dangerous for the Indian Church to repeat the experiment of the Early Church taking the religious language of the country and using terms like Karma, Avatar; Bhakti, Moksha, [and] Dharma in a ‘confession’ like this . . . ." (Baago 1962a:2). But, according to Baago, to omit the use of an indigenous language is to essentially miss the whole point in any confessional statement, i.e. to formulate the faith in a given context. The very formulation and conceptualization of the significance of Jesus in indigenous concepts is the starting-point for a contextual and relevant theology as the Indian theologian V. Chakkarai argued already at the beginning of the 20th century (see Boyd 1998:185). Baago is at the same time critical towards the classical (western) concepts used in christology and soteriology. which "gives no sense any longer" (Baago 1967e: 149), and he is also at this point in agreement with Chakkarai (see Boyd 1998:171). These concepts are filled with Greek philosophy and based on an impossible metaphysical worldview 13, and also this critique can be seen as a critique of the lack of indigenization of the church and its teaching, as indigenization and formulation of the faith must take the living cultural expression into account. This insight led Baago to a study of the Indian Christian theologians of the past.

What Baago discovered in the writings of the Indian theologians like V. Chakkarai, P. Chenchiah, K.M. Banerjea, P. Andi, and A.S. Appasamy Pillai who were concerned about indigenous Christianity, was that they were critical of the western church and that they often advocated an inclusive understanding of the relationship between Hinduism and Christianity. Far from being a foreign insert in Hinduism, Christianity was the fulfillment or ‘logical conclusion’ of the original Hinduism (Baago 1969:13, 17, 19; 1971:33-35). Together with Panikkar’s understanding (see Baago 1966e) this was in harmony with Baago’s own view of the relationship between Christianity and other religions, which can be rightly termed as inclusive (see Baago 1967b:l00; 1967e:148). Baago expresses his understanding of the relationship between Christianity and Judaism as paradigmatic for the understanding of the relationship between Christianity and other religions (Baago 1962a:2; 1966b:332; 1966e:437; 1967b:100) which is typical for an inclusive understanding. At the same time Baago’s Christo-centrism leads him to an understanding of Jesus as the unifying point between Christianity and other religions (Baago 1962a:2). According to Baago the unifying point is not to be sought in ‘religion’ or sacrificial systems but in the truth itself, personified in Christ.14 Baago does not take the argument further, and hence does not discuss how Christ is present in other religions, nor how to recognize his Spirit in the world. Talking about the dialectical tension and distinction between all religions and the truth, Baago comes in several places close to using arguments and rhetoric which resembles Hendrik Kraemer’s understanding of Jesus as ‘the only, personalized truth-criteria’ (e.g. Baago 1966d: 14). What Baago intends though, could be a form of ‘religion-less’ faith as it is known from Bonhoeffer.15 where all the rites and outward expressions of the nucleus, the faith, can be altered or left out.

Baago’s critique of baptism in the Indian context, his critique of the existing ecclesiastical structures, of mission, and of the formulation of indigenous doctrinal statements can all be seen as expressions of a deeper concern. In various ways all these points of critique are generated by Baago’s understanding of the concept of ‘indigenization’, and his understanding of the relation between faith, religion, and culture. Accordingly I will concentrate upon this understanding in the next paragraph as this understanding forms the basis for the rest of Baago’s critique, and an evaluation of his critique of baptism, existing ecclesiastical structures, and mission is only possible with Baago’s understanding of the concept of indigenization in mind.

3.0 The Concept of ‘Indigenization’ in Baago’s Theological Thinking

The basis for Baago’s critique of the Christian missionary work and of the ecclesiastical structures is his understanding of the concept ‘indigenization’. It is therefore essential to understand what Baago means by this concept before one proceeds to evaluate his critique of missionary-work and the church-praxis of the Indian Church. Being a Church- and Missionary-historian by profession Baago was aware of the situation and the history of the Christian Church in India. Despite the economic, military, and ecclesiastical power of the west and the presence of a large number of missionaries for more than a century, Christianity hardly seemed to have scratched the surface of Hinduism. This fact gave reason for doubts among Christians and according to Baago this doubt came "in high time and with good reason" (Baago 1967h:48). For anyone to be able to think and speak about this problem, it should have been an existential and not merely a speculative problem for him or her, and Baago, being sent as a missionary to India, was more aware of this than many of his contemporary Christians. As it is already mentioned, Baago’s own conclusion of his new theological awareness was to resign from his missionary work as well as from teaching, but was this the solution of a disappointed man? Or is his decision rather to be seen as an attempt at indigenization of the Christian gospel in the present context of India? In order to answer this question Baago’s understanding of indigenization must be explored.

The complex question of what "indigenization" means is treated directly or indirectly in a number of places in Baago’s writings. Despite this it is difficult to say what Baago expected to meet in the Indian church; already at the time of his arrival in India in 1959 he noticed what can be termed as ‘the lack of indigenous Christian worship’16 He criticizes in 1962 for the same reason the C.S.I.-Lutheran Inter-Church commission’s attempt to formulate a doctrinal statement for the constitution of the United Church.17 Baago was sensitive to the changes which the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) brought in terms of an understanding of Christianity as a truly universal religion, i.e. not limited to the Western European patterns of theological formulation of the faith. This new understanding of Christianity will "force us to reformulate" the teachings of the church, says Baago,18 but what this change in formulation consists of, he does not yet formulate. In his 1963 article "On the Teaching of Church History in India" Baago gives a reason for the importance of Church History in the indigenization of the Church in India. According to Baago an emphasis upon the history of the Eastern churches is "the only way we can root out the myth that Christianity is a western religion" (Baago 1963:27). Christianity must be more than a western religion if it is to have any relevance for India, and Christianity is neither historically nor ‘spiritually’ (in the deepest sense) foreign to India.

In 1966 a more radical tone entered Baago’s writings and some of the not fully expressed earlier critiques are now spelt out. In the quite polemic article "Must Hindus be Baptized to become Christians" (Baago 1966a) the question of indigenization is the underlying question. But first in "The Post-Colonial Crises of Mission" (Baago 1967b) he is directly addressing the problem, when he carefully distinguishes between Christianity as a ‘religion’ and the Christian "message", Christ.19 This distinction allows, according to Baago, the possibility, and even necessity, of a "Hindu Christianity" or "Buddhist Christianity", just as one can talk about "Western Christianity".20 This new ‘Hindu Christianity’ or ‘Buddhist Christianity’ is, in Baago’s point of view, the task of the Christian missionaries in the post-colonial period, as it will eventually arise from a successful indigenization of the gospel.21 The successful indigenization is here seen and understood in incarnational terms, referring to the incarnation of the gospel in the culture.

Later Baago refers to the successful indigenization as ‘syncretistic’ in its relationship between religion and culture22. It is not clear why Baago uses a term as "syncretistic", which, for the Christian theologian, has got rather bad connotations. Further it is unclear what he means by "syncretistic": does Baago claim that Christianity is, or ideally has to be, a new construction out of parts of existing religions and philosophies? Stated positively though, it seems that Baago intends to underscore the close relationship between culture and religion with the usage of the term ‘syncretistic’. According to Baago, the ability of Christianity to undertake a ‘successful syncretism’, i.e. to apply itself to other cultures and religions, was gradually lost during the middle-ages (Baago 1967d:21), and hence Christianity was unable to include other cultures, religions and people in the providential rule of God.23 Baago gives in the article "Indigenization and Church History" the theological reason for his ‘syncretistic’ understanding when he says the following:

". . .because Christ is not a foreign insert in history, but both as the historical Jesus and as a living Christ, a part of history, Church History cannot be limited to a history of the Christian religion or the Christian community. He belongs to the history of all cultures and religions that he has touched" (Baago 1 967d:26).

Baago unfortunately does not develop this idea further, but the cited passage clearly indicates a theological interpretation of the human history, inside and outside the established church, in what could be called "an attempt to see profane- and salvation-history as related in the closest possible way" (Rahner). Anyway, it seems that it is in this interpretation of the relationship between the eternal and the temporal that Baago finds his theological basis for his understanding of indigenization. According to Baago, Christ is not "a foreign insert in history", and this legitimizes an understanding of the intimate relationship between culture and religion -- the "truth is one" (Baago 1954:98, my translation). It is along the same line of thought that he uses the term ‘incarnate’ for indigenization, as noted above (Baago 1966b:332; 1967b:100), which again shows his theological valuation of the indigenization as the closest possible relationship between religion and culture.

Baago discusses in several places the attitude of Jesus towards religions (Baago 1966b:327; 1966d) and though the question can seem to be stated wrongly insofar that the modem concept of religion is not presupposed in the New Testament, Baago makes some interesting points on the "missiology of Jesus". According to Baago, Jesus was not the founder of a new religion as he remained inside Judaism.24

He accepted Judaism as his religion but at the same time he reformed the faith of the people, constantly attacking the self-assurance and self-righteousness, taking non-Jews as examples of faith (e.g. the Roman centurion) and compassion (e.g. the Samaritan). As Christ related himself to the Jewish religion the Christian must relate to Christ, and not the Christian religion, and to the other religions. Practically this means, according to Baago, that the Christian must accept Hinduism, Buddhism or Islam as his or her own religion, letting "the Gospel which we have been given and must in turn give, purify them from within" (Baago 1966b:332.). In the article "Jesus and the Heathen" (Baago 1966d) Baago is describing the Roman centurion (Matt. 8) as a man who saw Jesus as the disclosure of what the centurion recognized as the "innermost truth", rather than seeing Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. But this did not in the least alter Jesus’ response to him, as he described the centurion as a man of faith (Matt. 8:10). In the same way Christ is doing his work among the so-called non-Christians, unexpectedly and transcending the patterns put forth by the so-called Christians, i.e. the Christian religion and teaching (Baago 1966d:15). The true mission does not point at the Christian religion but at Christ himself, the personalized Truth.25 This thought is deeply rooted in Baago’s writings and is found in various places (Baago 1966d:14, 1967c:39). The failure of the Christian missionaries to convert any major number of Hindus in the past might exactly depend upon the fact that the missionaries tried to convert the Hindus to the western Christian religion, while they at the same time were like Don Quixote fighting windmills, unaware of the fact that the Hindu at one and the same time awaits Christ but is unwilling to accept the Christian religion.

Baago’s remarks indicate that he holds what seems to be a christological, incarnational ground for his understanding of the necessity of indigenization but the actual statement is not spelled out. This understanding resembles what has been termed as an inclusive understanding of the relationship between Christianity and other religions and to which Baago had a strong inclination as mentioned above. This presupposition is further confirmed when Baago writes on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism as paradigmatic for the relationship between Christianity and other religions (Baago 1962a:2; 1966b:332), and when Baago writes about the task of planting the gospel inside other religions, "transforming these from within" (Baago 1967e:148; 1966e:437).

From the above it could be supposed that Baago, beside the influence from the contemporary Indian theologians, had been deeply influenced by Paul Tillich’s well-known understanding of the possibility and necessity to mediate between contemporary, living culture and historical Christianity. A closer inspection confirms this: Baago’s understanding of the concept ‘indigenous’ seems to draw upon the understanding of religion and culture as a whole, religion being the content or substance of the culture, which in turn gives and must give form to the religion (see Baago 1954:118; 1963:27, 1966b:332, 1967b:100-101, 1967e:148, 1967f:220, 1967g:71).26 At the same time there must be, what Baago calls "a dialectical tension between the truth and its religious expressions in symbols and rites" (Baago 1967f:221). 27 The Christian message must not be considered as something ‘foreign’ but it is at the same time ‘something more’ or new.28 This ‘surplus’ in the Christian message is not the church, neither its western liturgy or formulation of creeds, but -- Christ. Exactly is this the core of Baago’s critique, as anything else than Christ will pervert the Christian mission into cultural imperialism? Baago states this on the closing page of Pioneers of Indigenous Christianity where he writes:

"Real indigenization means the crossing of the borderline. It means leaving, if not bodily at least spiritually,29 Western Christianity and the westernized Christian Church in India, and moving into another religion, another culture, taking only Christ with oneself. Indigenization is evangelization. It is the planting of the gospel inside another culture, another philosophy and another religion. The crossing of the borderline has only just begun in India" (Baago 1969:85; see also 1971:43).

What caused this new, more radical tone and usage of terms such as ‘leaving Western Christianity’. ‘syncretistic’, ‘Hindu Christianity’, and ‘Buddhist Christianity’ in the articles after 1966 is difficult to say.30 Baago himself does mention the influence of several Indian theologians and from what has been called the ‘Rethinking Group’, namely Brahmbandhav, Manilal Parekh, V. Chakkarai, and P. Chenchiah (Baago 1967e: 148). A large part of Baago’s new theological understanding seems in fact to draw upon the writings of Chenchiah and Parekh (see Boyd 1998:271; Thomas/Thomas 1998:172) and especially Baago’s critique of the established Church and of baptism follows the lines which were laid Out by Chenchiah, as mentioned above. It is well-known that Chenchiab felt that the institutional Church was trying to usurp the place of the Kingdom of God. Chenchiah believed that the Spirit-filled fellowship of ‘new creatures’ would be more in accordance with the will of Christ than his present day visible Church with its ecclesiastical structures (Boyd 1998:159). As a consequence of this he felt that the western idea of the Church totally failed to appeal to Hindus and so the Church became "one of the greatest hindrances to evangelism in India" (Boyd 1998:160). Chenchiah did not regard the Church as equated with the Body of Christ, but as a purely historic and human institution. This allowed him to hold an ecclesiastical ideal of a ‘religion-less’ Christianity, without sacraments, doctrines, and organized life,31 which was noted in Baago’s writing as well. Only a living, Spirit-filled fellowship which helped people to live the life of the Kingdom of God, i.e. ‘to preach Christ through living Christ’, would be acceptable (Thomas/Thomas 1998:175).

All this seems to have been very influential on Baago’s theological reflection, and together with Chakkarai’s attempted indigenization through the use of Sanskrit terms, and Parekh’s critique of the baptism as a social rite, it forms the nucleus of Baago’s own new theological understanding. Baago did also show sympathy towards Subba Rao’s theological understanding although he does not seem to draw upon Rao’s understanding to the same degree as on Chenchiah and Chakkarai (Baago 1968).

Another stimulating factor could have been Baago’s reading of the first edition of Raymond Panikkar’s highly influential book The Unknown Christ of Hinduism (originally published in 1965). Baago reviewed this book in Student World (see Baago 1966e), and wrote enthusiastically that . . . . "there are few books, which I, as a missionary in India, have found as stimulating as this one" (Baago 1966e:438). Hugo finds himself in basic agreement with what he understands as Panikkar’s (at this time) inclusive understanding of the relationship between Christianity and Hinduism, even if ‘many points are far from clear’, and Baago refers later to The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, for instance in "The Post-Colonial Crises of Mission" (Baago 1966b:328). Together with Hugo’s own experiences as a missionary and theologian in a foreign culture this can have formed his critique of the ecclesiastical structures and the understanding of church’s mission. Eventually, this critique caused Hugo, for the sake of his personal integrity, to resign from his missionary vocation as well as from teaching. But, as mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph, the question is, whether this was the solution of a disappointed, disillusioned man or whether his decision is to be seen and interpreted theologically as an attempt at indigenization of the Christian gospel in the present context of India.

In India there has been a tradition of conversion and experience of the atonement and redemption in Christ, which is significantly different from the western Christian theological reflection, and thus can provide some patterns for an indigenized response to the Christ. There have been responses to Christ without commitment to him e.g. S. Radhakrishnan, M. Gandhi; responses to Christ and commitment to him alone, but with indifference or rejection of the established church e.g. M.C. Parekh, Subba Rao; and finally response and commitment to Christ and an open entry into the Church through baptism, but with criticism of the church e.g. Chenchiah, Chakkarai (for this division see Aleaz 1998:349). If one were to place Baago in one of these categories, it seems that he started in the third category but moved from the third to the second category, as he became increasingly critical towards the established Church.32 It was mentioned above that Baago understood the successful indigenization in incarnational terms, referring to the incarnation of the gospel in the culture, and that only Christ was to cross the border to the other culture. This insight made Baago move from the third to the second category, as he became aware that the existing ecclesiastical structures did not provide a sound basis for the transformation from western to Indian Christianity.

4.0 A Critique of Baago’s Understanding of the Concept ‘Indigenous’

Baago was not the first theologian to be critical towards the mission or the church in India. Many Indian theologians have been highly critical towards the organized Church in India, chiefly on account of its ‘foreign-ness’, both in terms of order of worship and order of thought. There have been a number of cures recommended for this by different theologians, but not all attempts are welcomed by Baago. An indigenization in terms of a nationalistic "Indianisation" is of course not the answer, and Baago never supports such an understanding. Probably his own experience during the Second World War of the mixing between nationalism and Christianity in Germany prevented him from any such thinking. Baago’s understanding of indigenization in terms of Tillich’s concept does not conflict with the openness toward the universality of Christ. The very understanding of indigenization presupposes that there is something universally relevant, that truth ultimately is one (Baago 1954), and that this can and must be indigenized. If indigenization is lacking then the message will be distorted, lost or not understood, because culture is not taken into account when exposing and explaining the meaning of the Christ-event. All this is now familiar thought-pattern and does not cause any big theological fuss.

On a superficial level, therefore, the arguments of indigenization presented by Baago against the church in India can be very convincing indeed and in several places is his critique of the ‘westernized Indian church’ affirmed by Indian theologians (e.g. Moses 1968; D.A.T. Thomas 1968:65). But there might be more to his argument that meets the eye; a critique from the point of ‘indigenization’ involves first of all a tremendous task in the necessity of spelling out the context for the indigenization, e.g. Hindu-ness. If this is omitted it could weaken the critique to a question of holding the same unmentioned convictions as Hugo when it comes to understanding the context. Secondly, on a deeper and even more important methodological level the question of the whole concept of ‘culture’ must be asked in so far as the concept of ‘indigenous’ and ‘context’ is tangled up with the understanding of ‘culture’. And it could very well be that the concept of ‘culture’ in itself is nothing but a new ‘colonial’ concept in the ongoing (western) explanation of ‘other-ness’(33). This question would unmask the perspective of Baago’s critique - is it really an Indian, theological critique? Or is Baago’s critique itself, to use Bango’s own words, just another (missionary) attempt "filled to the brim with western colonialism and imperialism" (Baago 1967b:324) because of its structuring concepts such as ‘culture’ and ‘religion’? An uncritical or unconscious use of the concepts ‘indigenous’ and ‘culture’ could lead to the latter, and one must therefore be cautious to define the meaning and use of these concepts. Finally, living in a postmodern age one must confront the question of the ultimate unity of truth. This, of course, is an ongoing task and discussion but it can be felt that Baago on this point, is in deeper conformity with the Biblical message than many contemporary theologians.

4.1 Critique of Baago’s Understanding of the Church and Baptism

As noted Baago seems to draw upon Chenchiah’s critique of the church, and just as Chenchiab, Baago’s own critique seems to be almost entirely negative. Baago felt that the true discipleship of Christ could only be possible in small, informal groups where people could share their spiritual experiences. A more positive and constructive critique of the church in the modern Indian society can be found among other Indian theologians, as for instance, Devanandan’s idea of the transforming community34. This demands both renewal and healing of the existing church but can we, like Baago, really say that this is not possible for the church, which owes its very existence to the Holy Spirit? The more correct question could be whether is it possible for the church to become an instrument for God’s transformation of the society. It is, I think, possible only for a truly Indian church to be an instrument for God’s purpose in the Indian society. On the other side, it is highly doubtful whether the western church could fill the same role in the Indian society. Therefore, the question of indigenization is still a burning question; and it is not impossible that the western Christian patterns of thought, tradition, and rite will have to fall into the ground and die, before the Indian church can grow and bring forth grain, increase and yield the fruits of the Kingdom. The western church has shown to be very slow in this process, and from time to time even resistant, and this became increasingly clear to Baago during his stay in India. Baago’s own decision on giving up his missionary-and teaching-vocation, may thus be interpreted theologically as his own attempt of the ‘mortification’ of the western church for the sake of the Kingdom -- but not necessarily the only possible and theologically consistent solution.

Considering Baago’s understanding of the ecclesiastical structures we must ask: did Baago really think that it was possible to be a true follower of Christ without any outward expression of this faith, i.e. a possible ecclesiastical structure? Baago admits that no religion can exist without outward means of expression (Baago 1967f:221), but sees the choice between ‘something new’ and not yet defined or even thought of, and the old symbols and, doctrines. Baago does not explain this further, but limits himself to say that "only he who has the courage to face that necessary question will find the truth" (Baago 1967f:221). But is this a satisfying solution to the question of the ecclesiological structure after his severe critique? This author would have appreciated a more clear-cut expression of the ideal church, as well as a deeper investigation into the compatibility of a ‘religion-less’ Christianity and an ecclesiological structure. Of course, it might be that these two concepts are so far from each other that any compatibility is impossible, but if that is the case this must be stated.

The objections against the Indian praxis concerning baptism need to be faced and addressed. As Baago points out, there are people in India who are devout followers of Christ, but who refrain from baptism because of its social implications (see also Aleaz 1998:345). At this point solid exegetical and bible-theological work is needed,35 but I will limit myself to a few comments for the Indian context.

P.K. Aleaz points out in his book Theology of Religions (Aleaz 1998) that there are distorted contemporary meanings of baptism in the Indian context, which must be corrected through the dominant motifs of baptism in the New Testament.36 If baptism works against the love and unity in Christ, it is no longer the Christian baptism in the New Testament understanding:

"Separation [the separation which is implied in baptism] can only be from sin and not from one’s community and so baptism brings unity and not division. By baptism one belongs not to a narrow inward looking community, but to the whole humanity" (Aleaz 1998:346).

What is important to consider in the Indian context is therefore, that there must not be a cultural rejection implied in the Christian baptism towards Hindus or Muslims. This would subsequently imply a break with the believer’s traditional community and a contradiction to the vocation to "be in the world". This does not mean, however, that the Christian baptism does not break some former boundaries and social structures. As all the believers are united in Christ the old caste and color boundaries are necessarily overruled by the new, loving, and inclusive Christian community. Therefore, in the Indian context, baptism must not mean breaking away from the believer’s traditional, cultural and religious home, as this would only lead to personal rootless-ness and rejection of Christian witness to the indigenous culture, but must at the same time mean something genuinely new, the ‘New Creation’.

5. Conclusion

It was mentioned in the presentation of Baago’s understanding of the concept of indigenization, that his stay in India, and the confrontation with the Indian context and theological reflection, made him change from response and commitment to Christ through the Church, to a position where he restricted his commitment to Christ from commitment or membership of the established church. But there is no indication of Baago moving away from the commitment to Christ, i.e. moving himself to the first of the three above mentioned categories, leaving his commitment to Christ as well as the western culture behind. Therefore Baago’s decision must be seen, as he himself insists, as a theological and existential decision and as one possible answer to the question of the present significance of Christ, Christus Praesens, in the Indian context. It might be to overstate the case to say that Baago reached the only possible solution, but it seems that his decision has got relevance for the present day situation, in so far that he stated the problems of indigenization and Church praxis in a lucid and provocative way. And foremost, he did not stick to the lingering structures but had the courage to act according to his theological considerations. What seems to be needed for the present day theological reflection in India is to review Baago’s historical and exegetical work in order to continue the struggle for indigenization of the church as well as the ‘mortification’ of the western church, which would result in an attempt to state Christus Praesens in the present day society. This would hopefully also make the role of baptism clear and state whether baptism in the present day Indian context works against the formation of a united and loving life, or if the Christian baptism breaks the secular and social boundaries and natural structures of caste and color, and thus is the true Christian baptism.

It does not seem, then, that one should understand Baago’s decision in terms of disappointment or disillusion, agnosticism or mere anthropology, but in relation to Baago’s understanding of Christ. The kind of humanity which Baago wants to see established on earth is in the pattern of real life established by the one whom Chenchiah called the "New Creation". The mission of the Church and humanization are integrally related to each other, maybe even to an extent where they can be considered more or less identical in the ‘New Creation’, and thus the mission of the Church cannot be limited to Church-growth. Rather, Baago’s ideal ‘religion-less’ Christianity seems to be made possible through his decision to work by the most practical means in bringing about this change, and for Baago, that was the humanitarian and diplomatic work. What for Baago could be said to have begun with Tillich’s critique of the ‘double understanding of truth’ and Baago’s understanding of the unity of truth, ended in India with his humanitarian work. The theological challenge from Baago originates in his radical attempt to contextualize the Gospel, which made his resignation from academic theology a necessary sacrifice for the discipleship of Christ. And in this lies the real challenge to contemporary theology -- to be not merely an intellectual exercise but to be an existential undertaking in living the truth.37

 

Bibliography and Sources

ALEAZ, K.P.

1998 Theology of Religions: Birmingham Papers and Other Essays, Moumita Publishers and Distributors, Calcutta.

BAAGO, K.

1954 "Paul Tillich’s kritik af det dobbelte sandhedsbegreb i neo-ortodoksi og eksistensteologi", DTT 17.årg, hæfte 4, Gad, Copenhagen, pp. 98-121.

1962a "C.S.I.-Lutheran Inter-Church Commission (a Comment)", South Indian Churchman September1962, ed. Muliyil, (C.S.I), Bangalore, p. 2. 1962b "The Vatican Council and Christian Unity". National Christian Council Review vol. LXXXII no.11/ November 1962. ed. Bhatty, Christian Council. Lodge, Nagpur, p. 418-426. 1963 "On the Teaching of Church History in India", The United Theological College Magazine vol. XXXI December 1963, ed. Patterson, UTC, Bangalore, p.25-31. 1965 A History of the National Christian Council of India, Christian Council Lodge, Nagpur. 1966a "Must Hindus be Baptized to become Christians?". The United Theological College Magazine vol. XXXIII March 1966. ed. Can, UTC, Bangalore, p.10-18. 1966b ‘The Post-Colonial Crises of Mission", International Review of Missions vol. LVno.219, ed. Brash, WCC-publications, Geneva, p. 322-332 [also published in The United Church Review, vol.37 no.12/1966 [?] and vol.38 no.1/I 967, p.5-8].

1966c "‘Sheepstealing’ in the 19th Century", Bulletin of the Church History Association of India November 1966/number 10, ed. Christadoss, [Masha?l Printing Press, Kharar], p.17-38.

1966d "Jesus and the Heathen", The United Theological College Magazine vol. XXXIII! December1966, ed. Thomas, UTC, Bangalore, p. 12-16.

1966e "The Unknown Christ of Hinduism [review]", Student World vol. LIX no. 4/ 1966, ed. Galland. World Student Christian Federation, Geneva, p.436-438.

1967a Letter of resignation, written to the Danish Missionary Society, dated 23rd January 1967, printed as appendix in Mundadan 1989:110-114

1967b "The Post-Colonial Crises of Mission - A Reply", International Review of Missions vol. LVI no. 221/January 1967, ed. Brash, WCC-publications, Geneva, p. 99-103.

1967c "Ram Mohan Roy’s Christology - An Early Attempt at Demythologization?", Bangalore Theological Forum 1967/1. ed. Baago, UTC, Bangalore, p.30-42.

1967d "Indigenization and Church History", Bulletin of the Church History Association of India, Special Number; February 1967, ed. Christadoss, Serampore, p.16-27.

1967e "Honestly Speaking!!", The United Church Review vol.38 no.7, ed. Sojwal, United Church of North India, Punjab, p. 147-150.

1967f "Honestly Speaking Again!!", The United Church Review vol. 38 no.10. ed. Sojwal. United Church of North India, Punjab, p. 218-222.

1967g "Recent Studies of Christianity in India", Religion and Society, December 1967, ed. Devananandan/Thomas, C.I.S.R.S. Bangalore, p.63-74.

1967h "The Place of Baptism in the Christian Mission in India", Dialog, vol.6. winter 1967, ed. Knutson, Dialog Inc., Minnesota, p. 48-50.

1967j "The First Independence Movement Among Indian Christians", Indian Church History Review vol.1, number 1, June 1967. ed. Christadoss, Serampore, p.65-78.

1968 The Movement Around Subba Rac, CLS. Madras.

1969 Pioneers of Indigenous Christianity, C.I.S.R.S, Bangalore/ CLS, Madras.

1972 "Jesustotkninger i moderue hinduisme", Nordisk Missionstidssknft, 83. drg. 2. hft. (1972), Dansk Missionsrâd, p. 91-96.

1974 "The Discovery of India’s Past and Its Effect on the Christian Church in India", History and Contemporary India, ed. Webster, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, p. 26-45.

BEASLEY-MURRAY, G.R.

1963 Baptism in the New Testament, Macmillan. London.

BIEDER, W.

1967 "Right and Wrong Mission", The United Theological College Magazine, vol. XXXlV December 1967, ed. Kulathakal, UTC, Bangalore, p. 22-25.

BOYD, R.

1998 An Introduction to Indian Christian Theology, (org. 1975), ISPCK, Delhi.

CHANDRAN, J.R.

1959 "The Principal’s Letter to the Old Students", The United Theological College Magazine vol. XXVI June 1959, ed. Thomas, UTC, Bangalore, p.3-4.

2000 Interview by author with Dr. J.R.Chandran, Saturday 2nd of April 2000.

CULLMANN, O.

1950 Baptism in the New Testament, trans. Reid, SCM Press. London.

DOUGLAS, I./ CARMAN, J.B.

1966 "The Post-Colonial Crises of Missions -- Comments", International Review of Missions vol. LV, no. 220, ed, Brash. WCC-publications, Geneva. p. 483-489.

MCGRANE, B.

1989 Beyond Anthropology, New York, Guildford, Surrey, Columbia University Press.

MOSES, D.

1968 "The Baago Controversy", The United Church Review vol.39 no.6, ed. Sojwal, United Church of North India, Punjab, p.121-123.

MUNDADAN, A.M.

"Dr. Kaj Baago (1926-1987) Pioneer of the New Era of Indian Christian Historiography", Indian Church History Review vol. XXIII, no.2, ed. Downs, CHAT, Delhi, p.93-114.

THOMAS, D.A.T.

1968 "Mission, Baptism and the Church". Religion and Society, vol. XE no.4, December 1968, ed. Thomas, C.I.S.R.S, Bangalore, p.61-74.

THOMAS, M.M.

1971 "The Post-Colonial Crises in Mission - A Comment", Religion and Society vol. XVIII, no.1, March 1971, ed. Thomas, C.I.S.R.S, Bangalore, p. 64-70.

THOMAS, M.M./ THOMAS, P.T.

Towards an Indian Christian Theology (org. 1992), Christava Sahitya Samithi, Tiruvalla.

SCHNACKENBURG, R.

1964 Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul, trans. Beasley-Murray, Blackwell, Oxford.

 

End Notes

1. The title ‘Among the Ruins’ refers to Baago’s own choice of words from an article where he describes his theological situation: "One has to live among the ruins of the former system for a longtime, before the new building may rise on the old site. But at the same time: the feeling of liberation is so great, and the task of building a new theology is so challenging. that one does not long back for the ‘safety’ of the lingering structures" (Baago 1967f:222).

2. Baago continued to live in India from 1959 to 1987, with three short breaks in 1964-65, 1968-69, 1972, and a longer break between 1973-84, when he worked as deputy head and head for the Danish International Development Agency’s Asia Division and head for the Danish International Development Agency (Mundadan 1989).

3. "I am convinced that. . . Jesus never anticipated a missionary activity like the one which we have established, and never imagined a church-institution like the one which we have setup" (Baago 1967f:220).

4. ". . .Baptism became a rite whereby a person not only changed religion and community, but even political affiliation" (Baago 1966a:16). ". . .In India, due to the peculiar social structure of the country, it [baptism] has become more of a community mark...a rite that seems to make mission a matter of drawing people into the "Christian party". And when this has happened, the Hindu followers of Christ have rightly maintained that such a baptism Jesus would never demand" (Baago 1966a:18).

5. ". . . I am personally more and more convinced that in missionary work in India, baptism, at least in its present form will have to be given up for the sake of the gospel. It is that rite which makes ‘being a Christian’ a matter of membership in an organization’ . . .[a] rite which in Indian situation becomes a denial of the universality of Christ’ (Baago 1967h:50).

6. "Must Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims become Christians in order to belong to Christ? . . .The answer is obviously, "No". The Christian religion, to a large extent a product of the West, cannot and shall not become the religion of all nations and races" (Baago 1966b:331; see also 1966b:328).

7. Baago offers a contextual interpretation of Rom. 10:12, writing: "For there is no distinction between Christians and Hindus, Muslims and Jews. white and coloured, caste-people and outcasts -- for the same Lord is Lord of all" (Baago 1967f:220).

8. ‘To me it seems thoroughly incredible, however, that Jesus should ever have intended any such organization with paid clergy and pastoral committees, with synods and elections, with subscription and membership lists. I simply do not believe anymore that Jesus had anything to do with all this. lam sure his power of love is at work in the world, inside and outside the church among those who try to follow his word in all weakness and humility; but he is not at work in the church organization" (Baago l967e: 149). Baago therefore finds it". . . inconsistent to continue as a minister of the church, when many of its doctrines, its liturgy and its sacraments in their present form give no sense any longer for me" (Baago l967e: 147).

9. "1 agree with most of what Subba Rao has said or written about the Church, and I have long maintained that baptism in its present form is a contradiction of the gospel itself. I am convinced that he is essentially right in his understanding of Christ, namely that Christ is a living ‘guru’ who never wanted worshippers of himself or believers in his divinity, but followers who serve God by serving others" (Baago 1968:27). As it might be recalled, Subba Rao originated from Andhra Pradesh, and became well-known for his devotional meetings and his work as a divine healer. At the same time he was most critical towards the established, institutional church and made the most sarcastic comments upon the institutional church. A brief example from his pamphlet Retreat Padri, quoted in Baago’s booklet, will suffice to show his style: ‘Dear Padri, we are at our wits’ end to understand the curious lives of your tribe. You have made religion a fashionable thing. Change of names, taking oaths, daily prayers, Sunday gatherings, putting on attractive garb, observing festivals and several such things you do, except what the Lord preached and practised...don’t you realize that all of them [the rites] are quite useless and even harmful?" (Baago 1968:9).

10. ". . .[P]recisely this emphasis upon Christ’s teaching about living for others convinces me that he also wanted a society where the uncared-for are taken care of, where the downtrodden are raised up, where the hungry are fed. He who lived for others did care for all those who were despised, rejected, pushed away, kept down; and therefore lam to do the same, not just by living for others in my personal life, but also by creating a society which, at least to some extent, fulfils this task of service" (Baago 1968:27).

11. "I think Davis [the Roman Catholic theologian Charles Davis] is right that the future ‘church’ will come to consist in such informal groups, as little organized as possible, not bound to a particular confession or liturgy, with no paid clergy and hierarchy. It will simply provide an opportunity for people to gather around the gospel of Christ and share with each other their thoughts and experiences" (Baago l967e:150).

12. ". . .[The missionary enterprises] have their root in Western imperialism and feeling of superiority: "We have the truth" or "Our truth is the highest truth" or "God works among us and through our religion" (Baago 1966d:13).

13. Baago gives his personal account on the classical concepts saying: "I simply cannot understand the value of that, and lam finished with these forced and feverish attempts to give the traditional Christian doctrines and symbols a temporary artificial respiration" (Baago l967e: 149).

14. According to Baago "Christ is not the founder of Christianity; He did not wish to set up a new religion different from that of his people . . . but He rejected all attempts by men to come to terms with God by the way of the law" (Baago 1966b:327), and there is a difference between the church’s teaching about the truth in Christ and Christ himself: "neither the Bible nor the teaching of the Church are the truth. The truth is a person, Jesus Christ himself...The Christian religion is not the truth; He is the truth" (Baago 1966d: 14). "Here we have to remind ourselves that none of the religions, Christianity included, is the truth. The truth is never a system which we can learn by heart and bind in books and put on shelves. It is a living power that liberates us from slavery under false ideas, and in particular frees us from the compulsion that we must be religious to save ourselves..." (Baago 1967f:220). Writing on Subba Rao Baago comments that: "The ‘God’ of Religion, whatever religion it be, is a creation of man" (Baago 1968:14). 15. Bonhoeffer’s understanding of ‘religion-less-ness’ does not mean ‘non-Christian’ but should be understood on the background of the dialectical theology, ‘religion’ being the human’s attempt to justify itself.

16. "One of the things that strikes a new missionary coming to India is the foreignness of the Indian Church service. I remember my surprise when on the first Sunday after my arrival in India I attended a Tamil service of the Arcot Lutheran Church in Madras and found that almost the whole order of service, including the lessons, was exactly the same as in Denmark. It was like coming ‘home’ (Baago 1963:25), and again: "It is somewhat of a shock for a missionary to come to India and discover how westernized the Indian Church is in its organizational forms, its liturgy and theology. . ." (Baago 1967e:148).

17. "It seems to me, however, that the Commission in its eagerness to be ecumenical has forgotten to be Indian. In its form and terminology the statement is so utterly un-Indian that it might just as well be a product of an American or European theological committee. . .our task is not to introduce a new God in India, the Jewish God, but to proclaim to Hindus and Muslims that the God whom they know, and yet not know, has revealed Himself in Christ" (Baago 1962a:2). Bango criticizes the National Christian Council for the same reasons in A History of the National Christian Council (Baago 1965), writing that: ". . .one wonders why the N.C.C. in the past fifty years contributed so little to the indigenization of the Church in India" (Baago 1965:85). In "Recent Studies of Christianity in India" (Baago 1967g), Baago writes: "The Christian Church in India is definitely surrounded by a certain aura of foreignness and it has been extremely slow, or even resistant, to any indigenization of its worship and theology" (Baago l967g:63).

18. In his article "The Vatican Council and Christian Unity" Baago writes: "Christianity is no longer primarily a religion within the Western world, it is a world religion...This will force us to reformulate our doctrines" (Baago 1962b:422). It must be mentioned the Baago at the same time was in agreement with the more critical catholic voices, such as Hans Kung, when it came to the actual merits of the Second Vatican Council.

19. "We have met other religions with the Christian religion, and when this happens there will never be a meeting between Christ and those religions but only a clash between cultures" (Baago 1966b:329) and again "The Christian religion, to a large extent a product of the West, cannot and shall not become the religion of all nations and races" (Baago 1966b:331).

20. "The missionary task of today cannot. . .be to draw men out of their religions into another religion, but rather to leave Christianity (the organized religion) and go inside Hinduism and Buddhism, accepting these religions as one’s own, in so far as they do not conflict with Christ, and regarding them as the presupposition, the background and the framework of the Christian gospel in Asia. Such a mission will not lead to the progress of Christianity or the organized Church, but it might lead to the creation of Hindu Christianity or Buddhist Christianity" (Baago 1966b:332). In the article "Honestly Speaking Again!!" Baago returns to this point, explaining the necessity of these forms of Christianity to develop, if the Christian gospel is to become relevant for Hindus and Muslims (Baago 1967f:220).

21. "He [Christ] is to be born, so to speak, in all the religions and cultures and only as this takes place is the incarnation fulfilled. . . If we want to work with Him, therefore, we are to accept these religions as our religions, letting the Gospel which we have been given and must in turn give, purify them from within" (Baago 1966b:332).

22. Because the early church held that salvation was a universal, cultural history, it allowed them, according to Baago, to absorb elements from the surrounding religions and philosophies, creating "the gigantic and wonderful syncretistic religion which came to be called Christianity. . . the greatness of the Early Church consisted most of all in its ability to be syncretistic without betraying the Gospel" (Baago 1967b: 101). Baago writes in another place: "In order to express itself, religion has to make use of cultural forms, and every religious act is formed by the particular culture of the country . . .Western Christianity must therefore be classified as a syncretism of Greek and Hebrew thought" (Baago 1971:26).

23. Baago treats this subject in his article "Indigenization and Church History" (Baago 1967d), and discusses here the possibility of a new form of writing Church History, a very interesting ‘theology of Church History’. Being inspired by the early Christian theologians, such as Augustin, Eusebius, and Orosius, Baago argues for the possibility and necessity of relating the history of the Church to the universal history (Baago 1967d:17-21). One of the reasons for doing this is to unmask the ‘colonial philosophy’ which is underlying the writing of church-history: "The Western political dominance of Asia and Africa which began five hundred years ago, is now gone. And with it is gone also the philosophy which dominated most of the Church History writings since the Middle Ages. In its place we have to find a new philosophy which may serve as a new basis for our Church History writing today, and it is at this point that the question of indigenization comes in" (Baago 1967d:25).

24. "Christ is not the founder of Christianity; He did not wish to set up a new religion different from that of his people; He remained within Judaism. This does not mean, of course, that the Jewish religion was to Him the only true one. He did not absolutize it. . . Neither did he abolish religious law, but He rejected all attempts by men to come to terms with God by way of the law" (Baago 1966b:327). "Christ did not denounce religion, in His case the Jewish religion, but He denounced all attempts by men to use religion to save themselves" (Baago 1966b:328).

25. ". . . neither the Bible nor the teaching of the Church are the truth. The truth is a person, Jesus Christ himself. . . You only become a Christian if Christ makes himself known to you and creates faith in you. The Christian religion is not the truth; He is the truth" (Baago 1966d: 14).

26. That Baago was influenced by Tillich stems from early studies, and already in his article from 1954 (Baago 1954) he is using Tillich’s critique of the "double concept of truth" in neo-orthodoxy and existential theology, to criticize his contemporary Danish colleague Regin Prenter: "The sacrifice of rationality on the altar of the Church is the intellectually good deed which is to secure salvation" (Baago 1954:103, my translation). In opposition to neo-orthodoxy and existential theology and in accordance with Tillich, Baago insists that". . . truth is one" (Baago 1954:98, my translation), Furthermore, says Baago, a consequence of the neo-orthodox theology is that "[t]he difference between human and divine has become the dichotomy between human and Christian" (Baago 1954:105, my translation). Finally in the article Baago cites Tillich where he writes: "There is no approach to religion at all without what we call theological ontology, the understanding of the Unconditioned or Transcendent as that which gives being to the being, as the transcendent power of being" (Baago 1954:121). In my opinion one should not underestimate the continued influence of ‘Tillich on Baago’s own thinking. This is of course not the same as saying that Baago did not evolve his theological understanding but only to point out the systematic underpinning and base of Baago’s further reflections.

27. The dialectical tension between truth and its symbols is explained in Baago’s article from 1954 (Baago 1954) where he writes that "In the essence (i.e. where the sinful character of the existence is solved) is the rationality united with its own hidden ground, the rational knowledge united with the idea of the myth and the myth outbalanced. Essentially truth is one" (Baago 1954:115, my translation). The meaning is a bit obscure but one possible meaning is that if truth is one (as reality is one) there can be no dichotomy between a true myth and reality.

28. Baago writes for instance that "If Christianity had nothing to offer but a new avatar and a new sacrificial system, it had nothing to bring India" (Baago 1967c:41, see also 1967f:221).

29. The intended dichotomy seems to be between the conceptual or mental/spiritual and the physical, as one is not to give up Christ in order to adopt this new spirituality. The meaning would then be that it is clear that one cannot leave one’s own body but an almost equally difficult transformation has to take place, namely the one into another culture and tradition.

30. According to D.A.T. Thomas it is "possible to trace a logical development in his [Bango] thought" (D.A.T. Thomas 1968:61) from the articles "The Post-Colonial Crises of Mission" (Baago 1966b) to "Honestly Speaking Again!!" (Baago 1967f). As it is shown in the text, the same ideas are present from the time Baago arrived in India and thus it is doubtful whether it is appropriate to talk of a ‘logical development’ in Baago’s thinking. But there is certainly a new and sharper tone in Baago’s writings from 1966 onward.

31. "There will be no baptisms, no confessions of faith, no credal profession. . . [The Hindu] will slowly and in different degrees come under the influence of the Spirit of Christ, without change of labels or nomenclature" (cit. in Boyd 1998:161).

32. A final statement on this issue is found in Baago’s article of 1972 where he writes: "One still feels that the life of Jesus and the words of Jesus are relevant whereas the Christian creed and the traditions and customs of the Christian Church are alien to the Indian worldview" (Baago 1972:94, my translation).

33. The explanation of ‘other-ness’ as a ‘difference in culture’ is, as the reader will probably know, a fairly recent attempt to understand and explain the basic human experience that people in another place are eating, behaving and speaking differently. Older and less satisfying explanations of the experience of other-ness are explanations as ‘barbaric’, ‘demonic’, ‘superstitious’, ‘primitive’, or ‘less developed’. The understanding of other-ness as ‘difference in culture’ prevails largely from the beginning of the last century when the discipline ‘(cultural) anthropology’ grew stronger. For a thrilling monography on this subject, B. McGrane’s book Beyond Anthropology (McGrane 1989) is highly recommended.

34. According to Devanandan the task of the Christian community is to witness, work in and for the modern society. But only those who are themselves reconciled to God and have become new creatures in Christ, bound together in the relationship of love and truth, are empowered to carry out this ministry, bringing about the renewal of society and the world in accordance with God’s purpose (Boyd 1998:198-202).

35. A vast number of books are published on this subject and among the classical treatments one finds O. Cullmann’s book Baptism in the New Testament (Cullmann 1950) and Beasley-Murray’s Baptism in the New Testament (Beasley-Murray 1963). A classical monographyon baptism in the Pauline theology is R. Schnackenburg’s Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul (Schnackenburg 1964) which contains a good bibliography as well.

36. According to Aleaz, "Baptism was primarily the sacrament of identification in its direction towards humans and a sacrament of commitment to Christ, the pioneer of new creation, and with him to the total community. Baptism was primarily the sacrament of identification in its direction towards humans and a sacrament of commitment to God’s kingdom in its direction towards God. In brief, the corporate baptism with Christ in his death and resurrection is the ground of a united, loving and peaceful life together in His community" (Aleaz 1998:345).

37. This article has also been published in Swedish Missiological Themes, Vol. 89, No. 1(2001).