For the Sake of Ten (Gen. 18:24)

Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? [Gen. 18:24].

In 1567 the Jesuit Luis de Almeida began preaching Christ in Nagasaki. On February 5, 1597, 26 Japanese Christians were martyred there. In 1859 an American Episcopal missionary, John Liggins, entered the city. In the year the Orthodox Bishop Nicolai died in Tokyo (1912) there were 49 Japanese Orthodox Christians in Nagasaki. This city, which had, in the perspective of Japanese history, a long experience with Christianity, was annihilated by a nuclear bomb on August 9, 1945. Seventy-thousand were killed. There must have been many "righteous" in the city. There must have been many "righteous" in the cities of Coventry and Dresden, too, when these cities were destroyed. Were the sins of Nagasaki, Coventry and Dresden graver than those of Sodom, Gomorrah, London, New York or Chicago?

Abraham intercedes with God in the destiny of Sodom, whose "sin is very grave" (Gen. 18:20) "Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? . . . Suppose ten are found there?" God said, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it." Abraham held his peace. Sodom must have at least ten righteous persons!

Sodom had a better chance than Nagasaki, Coventry and Dresden because it was God who expressed the intention of destroying Sodom. "Though he cause grief, he will have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love" (Lam. 3:32) In contrast, it was human beings who decided to destroy Nagasaki, Coventry and Dresden. This distinction is important because there is a difference, according to the Bible, between what we see and what God sees: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord" (Isa. 55:8; and see I Sam. 16:7)

In 1945 Henry L. Stimson, secretary of war, recommended to President Truman the use of nuclear weapons against Japan to hasten the end of the war and save the Allied forces an estimated 1 million casualties in an assault upon mainland Japan. The nuclear bombs were dropped for political and military reasons. God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah on moral grounds. But Abraham and Stimson spoke different languages. No one asked the theological question about the fate of Coventry, Dresden or Nagasaki -- "Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked?" Outright rejection of the truth about humanity contained in the theological question brought calamity to human history. Bombs rained from the bellies of superbombers.

Behind the biblical story is a strong sense of community. What is the saving effect of having righteous people in allegedly wicked cities? The basic African philosophy of community represents Abraham’s social anthropology: "I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am." The righteous and the wicked live intertwined in a community. Righteousness is not a private spiritual property. The good effect of the righteous, though they are a minority, must have healing power in the community where "I am because we are . . . ."

Christianity affirms the minority’s salvific effect on the greater community. "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous" (Rom. 5:19) The Gospel of John tells us of the mystery of salvation concretized in Christ’s dwelling among us: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (1 -14). In Life Together, Bonhoeffer writes:

On the Cross he was utterly alone, surrounded by evildoers and mockers. For this cause he had come, to bring peace to the enemies of God. So the Christian, too, belongs not in the seclusion of a cloistered life but in the thick of foes. There is his commission, his work.

When the righteous remain in a corrupt community they create the possibility of a new history. In the ancient Chinese tradition we read of the "three moves of Mencius’s mother." Seeing Mencius’s poor moral and educational environment, his mother moved three times in order to find an ideal place for his education. Churches also move to a more congenial location when the demography of the area changes. Sometimes there is a profound religious necessity to come out of (escape from) corrupt societies for one’s own salvation. Yet there is an even deeper sense of salvation when the righteous stay in Sodom and Gomorrah, trying to reform them from inside. The Indian theologian Stanley Samartha imagines the thoughts of Lot’s wife:

Why did I look back? Because my neighbours were out there. When, during the birth of my first child, I cried out in pain, the women were there. They held my hands, wiped my brow, gave me water to drink. And when the baby was born, they bathed it and put it to my breast.

One cannot reform and renew a community unless one is identified with the destiny of the community. Lot’s wife had more ground to engage in moral discourse than her husband, who ran away to save his own life. The intriguing story of Abraham interceding for Sodom is not really about a numbers game but about the salvific significance of the righteous in a corrupt community. In spite of all the excruciating ambiguities of history, it is fundamental to the Christian faith that humanity is saved by the life of one righteous person! The story of Abraham’s intercession thus points to the central theme of biblical faith: the steadfast love of God -- hesed, agape -- that refuses to be frustrated even in the context of a most immoral society.

In 1945 I stood in Tokyo, which was devastated by the U.S. ‘s incessant bombing. Were there not "ten righteous in that city? Tokyo was completely destroyed. By God or by the Americans? By the Americans. Did the Americans execute the will of God? I have no answer to this, but I would be very disturbed if Americans were to make that claim. In the destruction of all cities, including Sodom and Gomorrah, I hear the passionate words of the agape God: "My people are bent on turning away from me; . . . How can I give you up, O Ephraim!" (Hos. 11:7-8)

Christ’s Homelessness

I called him Shoki. One day in 1960 a group of church leaders from the U.S. headed by Shoki visited Bangkok. I was then studying the Thai language at Bangkok Union Language School. Despite his busy schedule Shoki visited me at Thailand Bible House where our family was living. Some two decades later he made a detour in order to visit me in Dunedin, New Zealand, where I was teaching at the University of Otago.

My last encounter with Shoki took place only a few months before his death. I visited him by the sea in the south of England. We spent all afternoon viewing the calm water from his apartment window. Our agitated conversation was on theology in Asia. When Shoki died I had the honor of speaking at his memorial service in New York. Shoki Coe (Chang Hui Hwang), 1914-1988, former principal of Tainan Theological College in Taiwan, was my mentor and spiritual pastor for three decades.

On various occasions, Shoki passionately and humorously talked about the "contextualization of theology" in terms of his own story. Due to the changing contexts of his life, he had to change the form of his name from Chinese to Japanese and then to European spellings. The metamorphosis of his name epitomized his idea of contextualization. Every time I heard him speak about it, I found something new and unexpected. He told me: "The gospel must be culturally contextualized, yet it must 'gospelize' the cultural context itself. The incarnation is the ultimate event of contextualization. This means that the gospel remains a stumbling block and no contextualization can domesticate it." These were key points in his understanding of "Christ and culture."

Over the years I felt that Shoki's contextualization reflected the words of Paul: "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." The time of the Holy Spirit is a time of contextualization. No time is outside the presence of the Holy Spirit. In the time of the Holy Spirit, contextualization may take the form of suffering martyrdom. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther King, Jr., Oscar Romero and Steve Biko contextualized the gospel with their lives. Contextualization, then, is a critical undertaking; it belongs to the essential dynamism of the gospel itself. "I am among you as one who serves" (Luke 22:27).

Shoki helped me to review and understand my life contexts: I was 15 years old when Hiroshima was bombed. I listened in a bomb-ravaged military factory in Tokyo as the emperor broadcast his decision to accept the Potsdam Declaration in order to "end the war." The emperor was careful not to say the plain truth: Japan was defeated. The experience of war, its demonic destructiveness and blatant self-righteousness, had a profoundly disturbing impact on my soul and mind. For a time I was physically and spiritually disoriented in the sense that I lost interest in everything. But it may be that in those days of hopeless confusion I was engaged, in my own way, in a theological reflection. I passionately shared my solidarity with the people of the Book of Lamentation. I have come to see this as my first experience of the contextualization of the gospel.

In 1951 49 nations signed the peace treaty with Japan. In 1952 I arrived at Drew Theological Seminary in New Jersey to continue my theological studies. I plunged into the American theological curriculum. Rejecting my Asian religious and cultural background as worthless, I thought that the theological knowledge discussed, formulated and presented in the West was the authentic Christian theology.

In 1959, on the occasion of a thanksgiving celebration for the centenary of the Protestant mission in Japan, the United Church of Christ in Japan (Kyodan) expressed its own dedication to overseas mission work. One steamy night in August 1960, my family was met by the general secretary of the Church of Christ in Thailand as we arrived at Don Muang International Airport in Bangkok. We were a Japanese missionary family to Thailand.

My first year in Bangkok was completely dedicated to the study of Thai. This language study denuded and humiliated me. Native teachers were always right and everything I had known failed to help me. In spite of all my Pentecostal enthusiasm and prayer, my tongue could not manage to pronounce certain key sounds crucial to the language.

Some two years later, now called Acham Ko by my students, I was lecturing on Reformation theology in a classroom at Thailand Theological Seminary in Chiengmai. I had considerable difficulty communicating Luther's idea of justification by faith. How could I explain it in language so steeped in Buddhist meaning? Suddenly I was confronted by the great reality of the religious culture of the Thai people. I felt lost and empty. "Why am I lecturing on Luther in Chiengmai, Thailand?" I asked myself. This question came to me like "the little cloud no bigger than a person's hand" in the story of Elijah.

Confused and panicky, I began to see that the theology I had acquired in New Jersey was deeply influenced by Greek and Latin ways of thinking. In spite of my severe linguistic limitation and emotional distance, I had tried to adapt myself to this alien tradition. I had thought that this Western way of thinking was what made theological knowledge reliable and authentic. No

professors and no assigned readings had suggested otherwise. In Thailand I realized that I confronted a confusing history of Jewish, Greek, Latin, American, Thai and Japanese ways of thinking. Anyone of them could threaten me with its awesome complexity. I saw I was a theological orphan. What had seemed to be my own basis for theology had crumbled. I was never again to feel so confident about any system of thought.

I had no choice but to lay my head on him who said "the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head." It is this homeless Christ who represents 8,990 cultural contexts in the world today (I use the figures of statistician David B. Barrett). Christ "speaks" Southeast Asian Thai as well as Polynesian Maori. He does so without becoming imperialistic because he affirms his centrality by going to the periphery. This must be the meaning of Christ's particularity and universality.

Responding to the challenge of the contextualization of theology, I have become homeless. Shoki too was homeless -- theologically and politically. The more I tried to find my theological home, the more homeless I became. The more I meditate over theology, the less settled and peaceful I become. If I try to control the complexity of relating to Christ and culture, the complexity relentlessly increases. Is there some connection between contextualization and homelessness? Is the Holy Spirit, which inspires our contextualization of theology, homeless?

I remember the mysterious sense of freedom I experienced when Japan surrendered unconditionally to the Allies in 1945. In that terrible moment of national abandonment all that cluttered my soul momentarily disappeared. I was taken to "the wilderness. in a land not sown" (Jer. 2:2). I associate this blessed moment of spiritual unclutteredness with Shoki's theology of contextualization.

Always a good listener, Shoki helped me to see the theological implications of my homelessness. His sharp comments and his ability to empathize with my struggle gave a focus to my thinking that I would have had difficulty finding alone. Shoki was a spiritual father.

Not Global Villagers, but Global Voyeurs

Thirty years ago, Marshall McLuhan struck the public fancy with pithy and perceptive theories on mass media. Several of his terms are still bandied about. "Global village," for example, crops up on magazine covers and in conversations among cocktail-party sociologists. Unfortunately, the "global village" does not exist.

McLuhan’s thinking on the subject began with the observation that societies are shaped more by the nature of the media through which they communicate than by the content of their communication. How we say things is more significant than what we say; hence "the medium is the message." McLuhan emphasized how the shift from spoken to written communication changed the structure of society. Early civilizations’ ability to capture words on stones and papyri allowed them to transcend the limitations of oral communication; with that transition, visual sense became more primary than the aural sense. Written words usurped the authority once reserved for the spoken command. Kings could rule their realms by decree, and specialists emerged to transmit and interpret the vast array of written information necessary for the functioning of governments and economies.

McLuhan viewed all media as extensions of basic human faculties: the wheel is an extension of the foot, the book is an extension of the eye. Modern electronics, he contended, is an extension of the central nervous system. McLuhan argued that the speed of electronic transmissions—be they telegraph, telephone or television—collapsed traditional understandings of space and time. Distances vanish as satellites allow us to speak to friends on different continents or transmit overseas film footage for the evening news. As our brains are aware of every part of our bodies at all times, so we are aware, via electronics, of the world

around us. Global transmission of President John F. Kennedy’s funeral joined much of the world in a simultaneous ritual; through telecommunications, that isolated event attracted international participation.

But being surrounded by images brought to one’s attention at the speed of electricity is not the same as being touched by them. In McLuhan’s day, television was new enough that it did seem to have a tactile quality. The images on the television screens drew us in and demanded our participation. Everyone could become involved with everyone else. McLuhan pondered this all-at-once, all-together-now quality of the modern electric world and believed he perceived a worldwide trend away from tribalization. The electronic abolition of space united separate societies into a "global village."

Much has occurred since McLuhan coined his phrase. Television has become less dominant. Often it provides merely background noise. We are also much more familiar with the nature of television. We are less surprised or shocked by its presentations. The bored viewer who’s seen it all before flips from one channel to the next. Its illusion of omniscience and truthfulness has also been exposed over the years. Quiz-show participants have been prompted with winning answers; news stories have been created or exaggerated for the benefit of the cameras and reporters. Manipulation is far too apparent in today’s commercial and profit-based programming. Though the smoke and fireworks of television’s wizardry may still be appealing, like Dorothy in Oz we have seen the human operator behind the curtain, and its effectiveness has been severely diminished.

Furthermore, developments within the electronic media have greatly altered the nature of their "message." Thanks to the expansion of cable stations and the availability of video cassettes, viewers have a myriad of electronic choices. Numbed and hardened by the barrage of media offerings before us, we now decide what we allow to touch us and with what versions of visual reality we will interact.

Unlike McLuhan’s world of the 1960s ours is verging on media saturation: we have seen it all before, and we measure newness in microseconds. Television still has the power to draw us into its world, to reveal to us what is happening to our "neighbors" in Asia, Africa and Europe. We can be moved by images of war, violence and famine. But soon we shudder and draw back from their grasp. The nearness of the images frightens and disturbs us. We turn away; we change the channel.

Though television has brought into our homes images from around the world, the shrinking globe has never become a village. In a true village, members act and react at the same time. The electronic media, however, allow us to look without being touched—to watch but not react. The mass media have made us not global villagers, but global voyeurs.

Voyeurism is linked with forbidden glances, boudoir keyholes and invasions of privacy for personal titillation. Even without its sexual overtones, voyeurism is morally and ethically questionable; it means looking without risking involvement—like the apartment dwellers who refused to respond to a rape outside their windows.

Vivid film footage and poignant interviews thrust upon us tragedies from around the globe. The bigger the event, the greater the media coverage. Famines in Africa, cyclones, war, squalid refugee camps: such global crises are turned into media dramas. In act one, the disaster is described; in act two, root causes are explored, punctuated with current updates; in act three, summaries, editorials and postmortems are delivered as the cameras recede and rush to the next scene of newsworthy turmoil. Actual crises are rarely resolved so swiftly, and urgent needs remain long after the camera crews have left the scene. But on the far side of the lens, the viewer has already switched the channel; the voyeurs have turned away.

Social service organizations and their donors complain about "compassion fatigue." The world’s disasters are not as tidy as the evening news’ format would suggest. Relief efforts take months or years. In the electronic age, those needs quickly become old news. In fact, persistent reminders of them border on bad taste. Not only have we seen the starving children and the bloated cattle on typhoon-wrecked beaches before, but we have also donated to relief efforts after such events before. So fatigue sets in. We discard the fund-raising pleas in the mail, skip the newspaper feature articles, and switch the television channels to something else.

Even if we could somehow construe today’s world as a "village," we would probably conclude that somebody else must be responsible for those disaster laden parts of town. Whenever our conscience is pricked enough to think someone ought to do something about the crisis, we are tempted to believe that someone already is doing something. Everyone else is aware of what we are aware of; therefore someone must be working on the problem. Thus the voyeur can safely watch the drama until it is no longer entertaining or titillating, and then switch off the TV set. But no one has done anything.

We would like to believe the global village theory, for the term is comforting. A village is self-sufficient and caring, an archetypal home. To reject McLuhan’s theory is to realize that we are not "at home" and not necessarily even heading that way.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wrote that "with every day it becomes a little more impossible for us to act or think otherwise than collectively," a view that coincides with McLuhan’s notion about the shrinking distances between people and nations. But even were this the case, "collectivization" is not necessarily positive or advantageous. The loss of individuality also entails a loss of privacy and identity. Computer strips and identification cards give officials access to a person’s name, address, income, religion and criminal record. Evoking Orwellian predictions is not out of place in discussing McLuhan’s theories; recall that in 1984, special TV sets gave Big Brother access to every home. Today it is not that the medium is the message, but rather that the use of the medium is the message. If an electronic global village were to emerge, someone would be mayor of that village—and who is to say this mayor would be benevolent?

Or let us look at this from another angle, a bit less Orwellian yet still disconcerting. Most of the wars today are civil wars, violence arrayed not against the demons without but those within a nation’s borders. In the Christian Science Monitor, David Newsom has commented that "conflict in the decades ahead is likely to center not so much on disputes among states as on efforts within states to find a balance between national cohesion and an honorable recognition of the separate characteristics of groups within the society." Every nation suffers from some form of civil unrest: ethnic groups, linguistic groups and economic groups battle one another. Media bring these civil wars into everyone’s home and suddenly they echo in our streets and neighborhoods. Rather than rejoicing with McLuhan over the diminution of space and distance between nations, people are fighting against collectivization by loudly asserting their own uniqueness.

Ralph David Abernathy told how even the squatter camp called Resurrection City, erected on the Washington, D.C., mall during the Poor People’s March of 1968, failed to achieve a peaceful plurality. African-Americans and Hispanics wanted separate neighborhoods in the village. The same holds true for McLuhan’s global village. Like children fighting in the back seat of the family car, we find that as the quarters (even global ones) grow more compact, the more we insist on drawing territorial lines and forbidding each other to cross them.

A third complication is the social stratification that modern technology has created. Who we are as individuals is often determined by what we do: doctor, lawyer, butcher, baker, candlestick maker. But thanks to computers, satellite connections and fax machines, the simplest small-town operation can have national or even international influence. Prophets of the "global village" describe how this electronic expansion has helped erase regional and national borders. Government monopolies over information and technology are being broken down as scientists, engineers and visionaries share their dreams and discoveries via the global network of modern communication.

Yet something fundamental may be lost in this process. These transnational groupings of people sharing common interests are not true "villages" but simply expanded versions of what Robert Bellah has termed "lifestyle enclaves"—the linking of people who are socially, economically or culturally similar, sharing patterns of leisure and consumption. Even worse, some of these community substitutes are interpersonal networks established purely for utilitarian reasons—an electronic version of making contacts for business or career advancement.

The concept of village evokes images of commonality, relatedness. The prophets of the media-created global village assert that the electronic age has returned us to a more integrated, primitive awareness. Yet the source of this awareness is not a rediscovered communal spirit but rather a reversion to our basest level of egocentrism. Unlike villagers, we can sit in isolation at the helm of our media devices, peering into other lands and other lives in a voyeuristic fantasy. Like security guards seated before consoles of 20 or more video display terminals, we see what is happening around us without interacting or getting involved, unless we feel personally threatened by what we see or think we can use it to our advantage.

The biblical perspective sounds a clear warning against the glib acceptance of the "global village." That modern technology has wrought revolutionary changes and mass-media omnipresence has shrunk the planet is undeniable. But sheer speed and close proximity are not the same as relatedness. And faith is, by definition, about relatedness. Love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.

Isaiah’s prophecy continues to be true. People hear but do not understand; see, but do not perceive (Isa. 6:9). In our world there is much that we see and hear and experience, but we simply do not dwell in a village of commonality and compassion. Inasmuch as we long for such a global village to emerge around us, we must refocus our eyes. For there is only One whose presence and grace and clarity of vision can help us see and perceive those around us as our neighbors in God’s global village.

The Church and the Family Crisis:

Are families declining or simply changing? This question continues to provoke heated debate in our society. Some say that while family forms are changing, families are not in trouble. These same people say that the problems of the family are temporary dislocations caused by evolutionary social change. Such a view implies that once church and society adapt to these developments, the health of families will improve. Our view is far more somber. We believe that the family is deteriorating

Families are changing, yes. For instance, the so-called traditional family—families in which the father works outside of the home while the mother does the domestic chores and raises the children—is being profoundly altered. Proportionately far fewer of these families exist today than at the turn of the century or even 30 years ago. It is more accurate, however, to call the traditional family the "modern family." Its rise paralleled the emergence of modern industrial societies. This form of the family is decreasing in number primarily because more wives and mothers are joining the labor force. The traditional or modern family in this specific sense is only some 250 years old. In spite of the claims of certain fundamentalist and conservative religious groups, this family form is not God’s ordained plan. Nor is it the family plan revealed in Scripture.

The idea of the nuclear family, on the other hand, refers to a bonded mother and father raising one or more children. Both mother and father may be employed, they might both work part time, they may both stay at home with the children, the mother might work while the father raises the children, or they may function together within an extended family or household. The so-called traditional or modern family was nuclear, but not all nuclear families are traditional.

Although the church need offer no special defense of the modern family, it has some strong theological reasons to defend and support the bonded mother-father team in its various forms. It is striking how the words of Genesis 2:24 that "a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh" recur throughout the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. They are found on the lips of Jesus in Matthew and Mark, in the letter of Paul to the Corinthians and in the pseudoPauline letter to the Ephesians.

Since the traditional family was for decades the dominant form of the nuclear family, the two concepts get confused in people’s minds. A speaker at one of the pre-sessions at the "Families 2000" conference, sponsored by the National Council of Churches, after elaborating the problems of the traditional family, exclaimed at three points: "The nuclear family is dead. Thank God the nuclear family is dead." Knowledgeable members of his audience assumed that he was confusing the nuclear mother-father team with the traditional or modern family. Some of his listeners, however, suspected an even deeper agenda. They suspected that the speaker was radically relativizing the nuclear mother-father team in order to replace it by some, vague model of the church as a new family surrogate. The distinction between the nuclear and traditional family was also blurred in the recent report on human sexuality by the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) titled Keeping Body and Soul Together: "Although many Christians in the post-World War II era have a special emotional attachment to the nuclear family, with its employed father, mother at home, and two or more school-aged children, that profile currently fits only 5 percent of North American households." This sentence seems to refer to all nuclear families; it really refers only to traditional families. Even then, this figure is the lowest we have seen quoted by any authority; it’s probably more like 7 or even 9 percent. Actually, nuclear mother-father teams raising children make up about 25 percent of all households. Even this figure is misleading since it excludes older couples who have already raised their children. It also overlooks the large number of dual-income families in which the mother or father stays home during some of the preschool years.

The idea that the family is declining refers to difficulties that families—traditional, nuclear or otherwise—are having in fulfilling their principal tasks, especially in raising children to become healthy and responsible adults. Most everyone knows that the marriage rate is down, while the divorce and abortion rates have increased greatly. Less well known is the extent of out-of-wedlock births, up from 5 percent in 1960 to over 25 percent of all births in 1988. Over half of these were to teens between 15 and 17 years of age. Nor is it widely known that the number of children living with a single parent has grown from 7 percent in 1960 to approximately 25 percent today.

New evidence suggests that divorce, single parenthood and out-of-wedlock births are strongly correlated with one of the greatest social problems of our time— the feminization of poverty. Single mothers and their children make up the new poor of our society. One of every four children under six in the United States lives at or below the poverty line. Half of these children live with single mothers who are themselves poor. Some of these poor single mothers are divorced and some never married. Poor children are less healthy, less involved in school, more likely to drop out of school, more likely to get in trouble with the law, and much more likely to die prematurely. Poverty is often a result of marriages that did not work or did not take place.

Family disintegration imposes other costs on the emotional welfare of children. Although many children adapt to both divorce and living with single parents, life for them is on the whole more difficult. A recent study by the National Center for Health Statistics shows that one in five children under age 18 has a learning, emotional, behavioral or developmental problem that can be traced to the dissolution of the two-parent family. By the time they are teenagers, one in four suffers from one or more of these problems, and among male teenagers the rate is nearly one in three (Chicago Tribune, December 9, 1990). According to researcher Judith Wallerstein, children of divorce display increased behavioral problems during the first two years after the marriage breaks up, and the effects of divorce on children can continue for many years. (See Judith Wallerstein and Sandra Blakeslee, Second Chances, 1989.)

We believe that these facts suggest a very grave state of affairs. They point to a situation that the mainstream Protestant churches have not wanted to face. For the past 30 years these churches have been timid and inarticulate about the growing family crisis. They have let the family issue fall into the hands of reactionary political and religious forces to the right or radical cultural forces to the left.

Some Protestant leaders are striving to broaden the church’s ministry to include the growing plurality of family forms—to include as coequals with the intact nuclear family all single-parent families, the divorced and remarried, blended families, childless couples, unmarried couples living together, and gay and lesbian couples with or without children. This effort often goes under the same banner of inclusiveness that justifies the church’s outreach to members of different races, classes and ethnic backgrounds. We do not wish to blunt this initiative. The church should do everything it can to minister to all people no matter what their family context, and it must do much to broaden its ministry to the new family forms. We believe, however, that these goals should not obscure the church’s central support for the intact mother-father team dedicated to the task of raising children to take their place in the kingdom of God.

We recommend a limited definition of the primary task of families: raising children. Research shows that none of the alternatives to the intact nuclear family (first marriages) performs this task as well. While families are certainly places of interpersonal intimacy, security, friendship and mutual assistance, many other forms of human association perform these tasks. Only families are responsible for providing the security, stability, financial resources, stimulation and commitment necessary to raise highly dependent human infants to adulthood. Furthermore, families are the primary carriers of the traditions, narratives, values and the initial education necessary to raise children to be conscientious citizens and members in the kingdom.

We’re not suggesting that all married couples should have children. We do recommend that the family concept not spread to include every living arrangement that provides friendship, security or mutual assistance. These arrangements doubtless perform an important function. Sometimes they even provide support—as does the church—for adults, single or married, raising children. But it is confusing to call them families except in a metaphorical sense.

For this reason, we also should be cautious about using the metaphor of family for the church. The church has familylike qualities, but it is not a family. It is as absurd to talk about the church functioning like a superfamily as it is to speak of the state as a family. The church is probably only slightly more successful in raising children than is the state. Both institutions raise children only in emergency situations and only when there is no better alternative. During its plenary sessions the recent conference "Families 2000" came dangerously close to suggesting that in response to family disintegration, individualism and loneliness the church should become the new family surrogate, a warm and accepting replacement for the puny, broken and disappearing nuclear families whose remains are strewn across the social landscape. However, "Families 2000" had little to say about how the church can support the postmodern, dual-income, mother-father team in its task of raising children.

Our point is that on the whole the nuclear mother-father team in intact first marriages does a better job of raising children than do single parents, stepparents or unmarried couples. There are exceptions, of course. We are talking about broad but meaningful averages. (See Mavis Hetherington and Josephine D. Arasteh’s Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting and Stepparenting on Children, 1988.) The intact mother-father team seems more invested in its children and has more success in raising children, measured by children’s mental and physical health and their capacity to handle school, make friends, relate to the opposite sex and have confidence about the future. If the church is interested in helping society raise strong, healthy and self-directed children, the church must help produce as many intact first marriages as possible.

One of us studied for ten months a rapidly growing black Pentecostal church with a powerful family ministry. On the basis of that study, we concluded that special emphasis on the intact family can be formulated in ways that are inclusive of other family forms. The uniting elements must be a genuine concern for families and commitment to do what is best for children.

We believe that the churches can do much to offset the family crisis. The churches and the Christian message can ease the transition from the traditional or modern family to the postmodern family and offer a vision of a new family ethic.

In the postmodern family, both mother and father will likely be employed outside of the home, either full or part time. Since both will earn salaries, wives will be far less dependent financially on their husbands than they were in the modern family. Mothers will spend less time parenting. If children are not to be neglected, fathers and other committed people will need to fill the gap. This is not happening now. Family, child and education experts generally think that our children at all social levels are being neglected. The postmodern family will be more dependent on two incomes. Gender roles will need to be more flexible lest either the husband or the wife (most likely the wife) do a disproportionate amount of the family labor.

Family sociologist William D’Antonio has called for a new love ethic for this postmodern family. A Christian love ethic would arise from a more honest interpretation of the Second Commandment: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." This principle of neighbor love is recognized by both Jesus and Paul as the summary and essence of the entire Jewish law. It is a vantage point from which to interpret other aspects of New Testament ethics, including its ethics for families.

The principle of neighbor love is difficult to interpret. Some understand it as a self-sacrificial love—a mandate to love the other at the cost of sacrificing the self. This extreme self-sacrificial interpretation of neighbor love has often been coupled with those passages in Ephesians, Colossians and I Peter that seem to advise women to submit to the spiritual authority of their husbands. This view of love is used to justify what sociologist Francesca Cancian calls the "duty family." Many fundamentalist Christian groups use this model of Christian love to legitimate male authority, the traditional family and the submission of women. Extreme self-sacrificial models of love also can be manipulated to persuade oppressed people to endure passively, in the name of bearing their crosses, their situation of oppression.

The other extreme in interpreting the principle of neighbor love is what we call the independence or self-actualization model of love. In this view, loving your neighbor as yourself means that if you love yourself first, love of neighbor or spouse follows automatically. This interpretation often holds that love relations should be measured by how they contribute to one’s self-fulfillment. This view of love is very popular both inside and outside of the church. It is the view of love held by what Cancian calls the "independence-type" family, where husband and wife view marriage as a means toward individual fulfillment. Both the sacrificial model and the self-fulfillment model contribute to the decline of families in our society.

We propose a third model of Christian love, one that we believe is consistent with the core of the Christian tradition and can provide a love ethic for the postmodern working family. This model builds on the work of Louis Janssens, Gene Outka, Christine Gudorf and others. It interprets neighbor love through the idea of equal regard. Loving your neighbor or spouse as yourself means loving him or her exactly as much as you love yourself. It means you must take the needs and claims of the spouse as seriously as your own. But this love ethic also means that you are obligated to take your own needs and claims seriously. It includes values from both the independence and the self-sacrificial model of love but avoids their excesses. The equal-regard interpretation of neighbor love fits the needs of the postmodern family faced with a new range of issues around shared authority, more equal financial power, and more nearly equal roles in raising children and meeting each other’s needs in the midst of the 80-hour work week.

Self-sacrifice and the demands of the cross are still required in this love ethic. Sometimes we must love even when circumstances do not permit us to be loved fully in return. But in this love ethic, sacrifice is not an end in itself. Its task is to unleash the energy required to return a marital or human relation to mutuality and equal regard. Sacrifice in this ethic cannot be manipulated to justify perpetual oppression, submission, vulnerability or inequality on the part of either the husband or wife, father or mother. Appeals to self-sacrifice cannot be used to justify physical or mental abuse. In fact, it is precisely the ethic of equal regard which gives a marital partner the right and responsibility to resist abuse. Love as equal regard should also leave the marital couple with an ethic of commitment sufficient to live together, raise children, meet hard times, confront misunderstandings and remain integrated in the relationship.

There are many concrete ways that the churches could teach such a love ethic. The most important focus is youth. Youth ministries, which have declined in the mainline churches, should be revived to help initiate youths into the love ethic of equal regard required for the postmodern family. Many families of church youth are still significantly traditional or modern. It will take explicit work, education, even rites of passage, to prepare the young for mutuality in the postmodern family. Outside of offering this new love ethic in a commanding way, initiating youth—especially boys—into this ethic is the single most important thing that churches can do to address the decline of families. Poet Robert Bly and psychoanalyst Robert Moore have called for new rites of initiation for young males. They have a point. We offer this love ethic to guide that initiation process.

The church should also discuss proposed legislation supporting the postmodern family. Government support for more and better day care will help the two-career family with children. Some experts, however, propose increasing tax exemptions for young children or offering a system of tax credits to help the many families who elect to have one parent stay home with the children during the preschool years. A new political coalition appears to be in the making between conservatives Phyllis Schafly and Gary Bauer and liberal Democratic Representative Pat Schroeder which is designed to advance these very proposals. The recent report from the National Commission on Children achieved unusual bipartisan support for a $1,000-per-child tax credit proposal. The influential Progressive Policy Institute’s report Putting Children First has made a similar proposal but primarily for the poor. Such tax proposals would make a single income more nearly a family income. Although 57 percent of all wives are employed outside the home, it is also true that 33 percent of all mothers stay home full time for a few years with their preschool children before returning to outside employment. Another 13 percent work outside the home only part time during these early childrearing years. Nearly half of postmodern families are traditional for at least a few years during their children’s preschool years. These tax proposals are ways the government can help families without taking over their child-care functions. The church needs to be part of the debate about the relative investments that society should make to day care and tax relief as means of supporting the postmodern family.

There are other radical proposals the churches need to debate. Should society try to cope with the growing epidemic of teenage pregnancies and single parents and with the feminization of poverty by requiring states to list the name of the father on the birth certificate of a child born out of wedlock? And should this father be forced by federal law, possibly through deductions from his paycheck, to support his child until it reaches maturity, regardless of whether or not he ever marries the mother? Should the church support stricter divorce laws or at least a more equitable treatment of women with regard to property settlements and child-care payments?

We cannot fully evaluate such proposals here, but a church supporting families, both modern and postmodern, must at least enter the public debate. The church’s greatest contribution, however, will be in formulating its own vision of love as equal regard in the intimate affairs of the postmodern family.

Asian Theology Today: Searching for Definitions

An avowed dedication to developing unique, non-Western theological concepts, and a marked emphasis on liberation, are the two dominant factors in Asian theology -- currently in a stage of self-definition. As in African theology, Latin American liberation theology and theologies of the oppressed in North America, the search for an Asian theology has its origin in the recognition that Euro-American theology is totally inadequate to provide universal concepts of religious understanding. The shapes of a future Asian theology were seen in creative emergence at a recent conference held in Wennapura, Sri Lanka, the theme of which was “Asia’s Struggle for a Full Humanity: Toward a Relevant Theology.” I attended this conference as one of the “fraternal” or non-Asian delegates who were invited to help ensure that the Asian reality would not be divorced from the global reality.

I

During the conference, several guidelines emerged concerning the character of Asian theology. Eliciting general consensus was an emphasis on liberation as the chief motif. And while the liberation theme connects Asian theology with other Third World theologies, the specific meaning of liberation in the Asian context must be derived from the struggles of people who today live on that continent.

Because Asian theology focuses on liberation, it must also be a servant theology -- one arising out of a commitment to serve the poor and the oppressed. No theology is seen to be neutral; each must take sides in the struggle for freedom. As expressed in a national group report prepared by the Philippine delegation to the conference, “The basic question here is: for whom are we theologizing?”

In order to serve the poor in their liberation struggle, it is necessary for theology to have included in its methodology the critical component of social analysis. How can theology serve the poor if its spokespersons do not understand the reasons for poverty? It is not enough for theology to proclaim freedom; it must also participate in the struggle for freedom.

Yet the liberation of the poor is real only when the poor themselves participate in their own struggle for relief from poverty and oppression. This participation occurs authentically when the concept used to analyze the situation of the oppressed is derived from their own history and culture. Hence Asian theology cannot ignore the culture of its people as it is expressed in the living faiths of the area. To quote the national group report of the Philippines again: “[The] trust of the people and [the] belief that they can theologize and are the real theologians is central to our position.”

II

Emphasis on liberation, service, social analysis and culture leads to a focus on the Bible and Jesus Christ. To be sure, the presence in Asia of various faith groups means that the biblical Christ does not dominate the emerging shape of Asian theology as might be the case in other Third World theologies. However, it would be incorrect to suggest that Christ has been excluded, On the contrary, he occupies a central place in Asian Christianity; the emerging theologies are simply reinterpreting Christology in relation to all of the living faiths of Asia. A study group has expressed it this way:

As we do theology in Asia, we move in a context of other faiths as a small, diaspora community. This littleness of the Asian Christian flock is providential and formative of our own theology. One of the places of God’s action in and through Christ is the living faiths. In the history and present teaching and praxis of these faiths, we must learn to discern the presence of God and his message to us.

The concern with Christ and Scripture also prompts a concern with the church -- identified both with ecclesiastical institutions and with emerging communities committed to the struggle for freedom. The emphasis here is that theology should be done for and within the context of a particular community.

The minority status of Christianity distinguishes Asia not only from Europe and North America but also from Latin America and Africa. This fact is obvious in Sri Lanka. as I learned from a brief “live-in” stay with some industrial workers in Ratmalana. Nearly all of my hosts were Buddhists; they were also Marxists, or at least were influenced by that ideology. It was fascinating to encounter people who combine their devotion to the Buddha with their commitment to Marx and do not experience any apparent contradictions.

After the live-in experience which began the Sri Lanka meeting, the conference proper was convened in Wennapura. Exciting oral and written reports -- some in dramatic form -- were presented by various live-in groups. The most controversial of these dealt with race relations in Sri Lanka between the minority Tamils and the majority Sinhalese. At the end of a debate on the race problem, someone took the microphone and appropriately announced: “The conference has now begun!” (Before this debate there had been a tendency to treat human problems in a detached manner as if the Marxist ideology would provide all the answers.)

While Marxism as a science can indeed help us to understand the world, it will not necessarily inspire people to join the struggle for freedom. It is not until persons experience a sense of indignation (which arises when they realize that their suffering is unnecessary) that they are aroused not only to take Marxism seriously, but also to join together in a common effort against the enemies of freedom.

To ask people to regard their suffering as secondary, as some Marxists ask the victims of racism to do, only serves to alienate them from the truth of the Marxist analysis. No oppressed minority group is going to join with the majority in a common fight for justice while the latter insists on ignoring racism in its own group, or in exhorting the minority to regard the race problem as secondary to class analysis.

III

Despite the general consensus on priorities reached by the conference delegates, some interesting disagreements preceded a final compromise. For example, Aloysius Pieris contended that “the common denominator between Asia and the rest of the Third World is its overwhelming poverty,” and that “the specific character which defines Asia [in comparison with] . . . other poor [regions] is its multifaceted religiosity. These two inseparable realities in their interpenetration constitute what might be designated as the Asian context, . . . which is the matrix of any theology that is truly Asian.”

Some delegates (especially those from the Philippines and Hong Kong) felt that Pieris placed too much emphasis on religiocultural factors and not enough on the social, political and economic aspects of life in Asia. In order to challenge his emphasis, the delegates from the Philippines issued their national group report, in which they agreed with him on the two essential characteristics of Asian theology: its “third-worldness” (sociopolitical liberation of the poor) and its “Asianness” (the religiocultural dimensions). But they separated themselves from him with the assertion that “the main and principal characteristic of a truly Asian theology . . . is its ‘third-worldness’: this is the substantive, while the ‘Asian’ is the adjective.” Therefore “the primary thrust and concern . . . of Asian third world theology is liberation (which to be authentic must be indigenized or inculturated); inculturation, though an essential and unavoidable task, takes second place.” The concern of the Philippines delegates was to emphasize the class character of theology in contrast to Pieris’s emphasis on the religiocultural: “Every theology is conditioned by the class position and class consciousness of the theologian. Are we aware, in this consultation, of the petty bourgeois character of our theologizing?”

IV

My own view is to treat each emphasis with the same weight; it is not necessary to decide which is more important -- the religiocultural or the sociopolitical. If a decision were to be made, it ought to be formed in the context of struggle and with an openness to learn from both emphases. On the one hand, to ignore the religion and culture of a people only serves to alienate them from the liberation struggle being waged on their behalf; how can they participate if they do not understand the language in which the struggle is being articulated? But on the other hand, to ignore the sociopolitical factors in order to accent religion and culture only serves to make the latter the opiate of the people.

Just as conference delegates were able to compromise on such disagreements as these, they also displayed a remarkable ecumenical spirit. Delegates represented 11 Asian countries: Bangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, Taiwan, the Fiji Islands and Sri Lanka. They included Catholic and Protestant bishops, church officials and seminary professors, nuns and priests, Muslims and Buddhists, young workers and persons engaged in alternative ministries. The several contexts from which these persons came reinforced the multifaceted nature of the Asian reality -- and of the theology which is developing from it. Forming their own interfaith dialogue groups, and creating their own foundational concepts, Asian theologians are indeed struggling for a full humanity in their construction of a relevant theology.

The Gospel and the Liberation of the Poor

What has the gospel of God to do with the weak and helpless and their struggle for freedom in human society? This question, the most critical issue that has shaped my theological consciousness, first achieved its importance in the particularity of the black religious experience during my early childhood in Bearden, Arkansas. Although the formulation of the question was not always precise, the everyday experience of black suffering, arising from black people’s encounter with the sociopolitical structures controlled by whites, created in my consciousness a radical conflict between the claims of faith on the one hand and the reality of the world on the other.

Being Christian in a Racist Society

I remember discussing with my brother Cecil this conflict between the Christian faith and black suffering, and no rational explanation seemed to satisfy either of us. "If God is good," we asked, "and also capable of accomplishing his will, why then do black people suffer so much at the hands of white people? What was the reason for black slavery and our subsequent oppression? What does God plan to do about righting the wrongs inflicted upon our people?" These and similar questions occupied much of our intellectual reflection as we attempted to reconcile the reality of our everyday experience with our faith in Jesus Christ,

The conflict between faith and suffering was exacerbated by the fact that most of the brutality inflicted upon black people was done by white persons who also called themselves Christians. Whites who humiliated blacks during the week went to church on Sunday and prayed to the God of Moses and of Jesus. Although blacks and whites expressed their faith in their separate worship services in quite different ways, the verbal content of their faith seemed similar. That was why many blacks asked: How could whites be Christian and yet do such horrible things to black people? And why does God permit white people to do evil things in the name of Jesus Christ? During my childhood in Bearden, the exclusion of black people from white churches was the most obscene contradiction that I could imagine.

Viewed from the experience of black people, life in Bearden during the 1940s and early ‘50s was not easy. In this small town of 800 whites and 400 blacks, I encountered the white American reality that would prove decisive for my theological development. It was not that whites in Bearden were worse than whites in similar towns in Arkansas or other southern states. The opposite is more likely the case. Bearden is important because it happened to be the geographical context in which the ugliness of racism was clearly revealed to me, and I knew that I had to struggle against it. Since the church was so much a part of the whole of black life, I had to ask: What has the gospel of God to do with the extreme limits placed on the black community? Explicitly or implicitly every black Christian had to ask that question. There was no way to avoid it, because the contradiction to which the question pointed was inherent in the attempt to be Christian in a racist society.

The Problem of Evil

My preoccupation with the conflict between faith and suffering deepened when I began my philosophical studies at Shorter and Philander Smith colleges. Professors James and Alice Boyack of Philander Smith made philosophical issues concrete, and I wrote several papers on the problem of evil and suffering. At Shorter and Philander Smith, I developed the self-confidence that I could think -- a discovery not encouraged among blacks by most intellectual structures controlled by whites.

Although my studies at these two schools introduced me to the scope and depth of Western thought on the issue of evil, the way in which the problem was defined was quite different from its definition in the black church. The weight of the problem of evil in the black church was not located primarily in terms of God’s need to justify himself in view of the presence of suffering in the world. That God is both good and powerful is taken for granted in the black church, and if any inexplicable contradiction emerges, black Christians always appeal to God’s mystery, quoting the often repeated lines, "God moves in a mysterious way." They really believe Paul’s saying that "all things work together for good to them that love God" (Rom. 8:28, KJV).

What then is the heart of the contradiction between faith and suffering in the context of black life? The contradiction is found not in God but in white people who claim to be Christian and yet oppose the sociopolitical equality of black people. This contradiction was blatant in the south, but it was found also in other parts of the U.S.

Institutional Racism in the North

When I graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Philander Smith and was accepted at Garrett Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois (now Garrett-Evangelical), I was a little naïve, for I was sure that things would be different. I had internalized the myth that blacks were treated equally "up north," but that myth was demolished for me in less than one day in Evanston and at Garrett. Although racism at Garrett and in Evanston was not as obvious as in Arkansas, I believe that it was much more vicious, especially in terms of the structural brutality inflicted upon black dignity and self-confidence. I almost did not survive past my first quarter at Garrett, making all C’s from professors who told me that I deserved less. This was a common experience for the few blacks allowed to matriculate at Garrett during the late 1950s and early ‘60s.

Had it not been, for the confidence in my self-worth I had received from my mother and father, I am sure that the challenge of Garrett would have defeated me, as so many white institutions continue to defeat black people today. But when I remembered the extreme odds against which my father struggled in Bearden (and he had only a sixth-grade education!), that memory gave me the emotional and intellectual strength to overcome the difficulties at Garrett.

My father was self-employed, cutting logs and billets, because he refused to work at the sawmills in and around Bearden. I once asked him why he chose the uncertainty of self-employment when he could easily get a regular job at a sawmill or some other company. He quickly replied, "My son, a black man cannot be a man and also work for white people." Watching my father meet the challenge of southern racism prepared me for the challenge of northern institutional racism that I encountered at Garrett and later at Northwestern.

Despite Garrett’s racism, however, I had some very good teachers there. Without the constant encouragement of William Hordern, Philip Watson and Ed Perry, I am sure that I would not have even applied for the Ph.D. program in systematic theology. They and other professors gave me the intellectual structure in which to relate Christianity and racism, even though the latter was almost never mentioned as a theological problem.

In one class I made the connection between racism and theology in a highly provocative manner, by saying to one of my professors that he was a racist, since he could easily talk about the injustice that Roman Catholics inflicted on Protestants in the 16th century, but failed to say a word against white Christians (Protestants and Catholics) who openly support black suffering in the U.S. today. There was complete silence in the classroom, followed by a sudden outburst of anger from the professor: "That’s simply not true! Class dismissed!"

After that event, I realized that Garrett would not be the best context for expressing my deepest feelings about racism, if I expected to receive a Ph.D. degree from that institution. That was why I did not raise the racism issue as a theological problem, and also why I decided to write a dissertation on Karl Barth’s anthropology rather than on some issue in the black community. It was not until I left Garrett and Northwestern and returned to Philander Smith to teach religion and philosophy that I began to ask more formally about the relation between faith and suffering as that contradiction is defined in the black community. What did Friedrich Schleiermacher, Adolf Harnack and Karl Barth have to do with young black students who came from the cotton fields of the south, looking to create a new future for their lives? That question was not easy to answer.

Black Power and the Gospel

Philander Smith College and the civil rights movement of the 1960s made a significant impact upon my theological development. Both made me realize that I could not avoid inquiring about the relation between the Christian faith and black people’s struggle for freedom. Unfortunately, my formal training in theology did not prepare me for the investigation of this issue. Therefore, I began a disciplined reading program in the history, literature and religion of black people. When I left Philander Smith to teach at Adrian College in Michigan, I even considered returning to graduate school for a Ph.D. in literature at the University of Chicago. It seemed that such writers as Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Richard Wright and James Baldwin could speak much more creatively than theologians about life and suffering. I discussed the possibility of my return to graduate school with Nathan Scott, Jr., who was then teaching theology and literature at the University of Chicago. It was then the summer of 1967, and before I could make the necessary arrangements for my return, 43 blacks were killed in the Detroit riot. Similar events occurred that summer in many other American cities. There was no time for me to return to graduate school. I had to say something now about God and black people’s struggle for freedom. But what could I say?

The challenge to say something about God and the black liberation struggle was enhanced when Ronald Goetz (a classmate during my student years at Garrett) invited me in February 1968 to lecture at Elmhurst College, where he was teaching. I accepted his invitation and decided to lecture on the theme of "Christianity and Black Power." I attempted to demonstrate that, contrary to popular opinion, black power is not alien to the gospel. It is the gospel of Jesus Christ. I knew that this extreme way of expressing my point would not be accepted by white theologians and preachers who were contending that black power means reverse racism and black violence. The anticipated white rejection of my equation of Christianity and black power encouraged me to write an extended argument in its defense.

By the summer of 1968, I could no longer contain my rage. I was extremely angry with white churches and their theologians who were contending that black power was the sin of black pride and thus the opposite of the gospel. Since white theologians and preachers wrote most of the books in religion and theology, they had a great deal of power in controlling the public meaning of the gospel. During my six years of graduate work at Garrett and Northwestern, not one book written by a black person was used as required reading. Does this not suggest that only whites know what theology and the gospel are? The implication of that question consumed my whole being. I had to write Black Theology and Black Power in order to set myself free from the bondage of white theology.

The writing of Black Theology and Black Power (during the summer of 1968) was a deep emotional experience for me. It was a cleansing experience, because I endeavored to purge myself of any direct dependence upon my white theological mentors. I am not sure how much I succeeded, but I delighted in exposing the blindness created by their own racism. For me, it was a choice between satisfying the theological values of white people’s racism and saying a word of encouragement for the black freedom struggle. I was very much aware of the possible ideological distortion of the gospel in identifying it with black power, for no one can read Barth seriously and not be cognizant of that danger. But I felt that the urgency of the black situation demanded that the risk be taken.

The publication of Black Theology and Black Power (1969) put me in contact with an ecumenical group in the National Conference of Black Churchmen (NCBC). Through the influence of C. Eric Lincoln, I also received an invitation to teach theology at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Union and NCBC became the theological and political contexts for reflecting upon the relation between Christian theology and the black liberation struggle.

Captive of White Concepts?

My first attempt to write a systematic theology, using black liberation as the central motif, was published as A Black Theology of Liberation (1970). This second book was even less satisfying to many white theologians than the first one. But during this period, I did not care what whites thought about my work. I was concerned only with speaking the truth of the gospel as disclosed in the black experience of freedom. Since the writing of my first essay on "Christianity and Black Power," it had become very clear to me that the gospel was identical with the liberation of the poor from oppression. That was why I identified the gospel with black power and the white church with the Antichrist. Although I would express each identification a little differently today, I still stand by the theological truth that gave rise to that conviction.

However, I neglected to reflect this conviction in the theological sources I used to define black theology. It appeared that I was more enslaved to white theological concepts than I realized. Charles Long, Gayraud Wilmore and other black colleagues were quick to point to this weakness. How can theology be black if the sources used for its explication are derived primarily from the white Western theological tradition? What is the relation, between my definition of black theology and Karl Barth, Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, all of whom were highly visible in my analysis of black theology? Is there any relation between black liberation and the cultural and theological resources used to analyze its meaning?

My black colleagues in NCBC and the Society for the Study of Black Religion (SSBR) helped me to realize more clearly that theology is not black merely because of its identification with a general concept of freedom. It is necessary for the language of theology to be derived from the history and culture of black people. The issue is whether black history and culture have anything unique to contribute to the meaning of theology. Must we assume that the meaning of theology as a discipline is limited to the definitions found in white people’s reflections? In an attempt to take seriously the criticisms of my black colleagues, I wrote The Spirituals and the Blues (1972) and God of the Oppressed (1975).

Women’s Experience

During the mid-1970s, two realities began to affect my theological consciousness -- the women’s movement and the Third World. It was impossible to teach at Union Seminary and not be deeply moved by the theological importance of women’s experience in theology. The presence of the feminist consciousness among black women at Union and in the black church made it difficult to dismiss feminism as a concern of white women alone. It became very clear to me that black theology could not continue to ignore sexism and still claim to be concerned about the freedom of the oppressed. Women of all cultures have much to teach black men about theology and the human struggle to be free.

As is always the case, it is difficult for people to recognize the significance of a particular form of experience when it does not arise from their own lives. My attempt to recognize the importance of women’s experience in theology is found in the classes I teach at Union, and also in a section on "Black Theology and Black Women" in Black Theology: A Documentary History, 1966-1979, by Gayraud S. Wilmore and James H. Cone. My earlier books ignored the issue of sexism; I believe now that such an exclusion was and is a gross distortion of the theological meaning of the Christian faith. Like racism, sexism is deeply embedded in the fabric of human cultures, and we must struggle against it if we expect to make this world a more humane place in which to live. Third World and black women have begun to make this point with increasing power and clarity, and we black men had better listen to them or we will be devoured by the revolutions that they are making.

The Impact of the Third World

In addition to the women’s movement, the theological and political happenings in Africa, Asia and Latin America have had an enormous impact upon my theological perspective. When I first began to write about black theology, the particularity of black suffering in the United States was so dominant in my consciousness that I could not easily see beyond it to oppression in other parts of the world. It was not that I was completely unaware of the suffering of Third World peoples. Rather, the existential pain of black people’s suffering was so much a part of my reality that I had to explore first its significance before moving to a larger dimension.

The impact of the Third World on my thinking is found in the theological resources used in my classes at Union and also in the Wilmore-Cone book, Black Theology: A Documentary History (see Part VI, "Black Theology and Third World Theologies"). From my reading and personal experiences in Africa, Asia and Latin America, I now know that the complexity of human oppression is much greater than I had realized, and it cannot be reduced to North American expressions of white racism.

Under the auspices of NCBC, the World Council of Churches, the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians (EATWOT), and the Korean Christian Church in Japan, I have visited many countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It is one thing to read about poverty in the Third World and quite another to see it. I had to ask: What is the relation between the struggles of black people in the U.S. and the struggles of people in the Third World? In my attempt to answer that question, I realized that racism, sexism, classism and imperialism are interrelated and thus cannot be separated.

My dialogues with Third World theologians in EATWOT and my contacts with Koreans in Japan and South Korea have been particularly important in extending my theological perspective to a global context. Since 1976 EATWOT has been sponsoring dialogues among theologians in Asia, Africa and Latin America and oppressed racial minorities in the U.S. Major conferences have been held in Tanzania (August 1976), Ghana (December 1977), Sri Lanka (January 1979) and Brazil (February 1980). Accounts of the first three conferences have been published by Orbis Books under the titles The Emergent Gospel, African Theology en Route and Asia’s Struggle for Full Humanity. I have written essays from a black American perspective on Asian, African and Latin- American theologies. These dialogues helped me to see more clearly the importance of class oppression and the role of U.S. imperialism in oppressing poor countries.

The Socialist Alternative

While my perspective has been enlarged through dialogues with feminist, Third World and other theologians of the poor, I would not say that it has changed radically. I still contend that the gospel is identical with the liberation of poor people from sociopolitical oppression. I have never suggested that blacks were the only poor. Instead I said that if any person attempted to do theology in North America in the 1960s and ‘70s but failed to speak of God’s identity with the black struggle for freedom, he or she was not doing Christian theology. I still stand by that claim, but now specifically include men and women in the Third World.

It has also been my contact with the Third World, especially Africa, that has led me to consider socialism as an alternative to monopoly capitalism. So long as the maximization of profit and growth is the chief regulating ideal, the gap between the rich and poor will continue to increase. We must therefore form a social arrangement that is democratic, both economically and politically. No one should control for profit those goods and services needed for human survival.

Unfortunately, most political and economic arrangements that use the terms socialism and democracy as a description of their identity do the opposite of what they claim to do. The absence of a historical model that embodies fully my political and theological imagination makes it difficult to speak meaningfully and concretely about the socialist alternative. What I do believe, to use the Words of. Gustavo Gutiérrez, is "the non-necessity of the present order." What is, is not supposed to be, and we are required by that conviction to project a future social order wherein all can develop to their fullest potential.

The absence of a historical model is no reason to deny the dream. Through dreams we can see what is supposed to be when what is blinds us to what ought to be. In my dialogues with Third World Christians, I have sought to use the creative aspects of the black Christian eschatology in order to help us to see beyond what is present to the future that is coming. I believe that my theological development will always be related to the historical projects of poor people as they struggle to build a new future not recognizable in the present world order.

The Impact of a Cultural Revolutionary

No one had a greater impact on the cultural consciousness of African-Americans during the second half of the 20th century than Malcolm X. More than anyone else he revolutionized the black mind, transforming docile Negroes and self-effacing colored people into proud blacks and self-confident African-Americans. Civil rights activists became Black Power militants and declared, "It's nation time." Preachers and religious scholars created a black theology and proclaimed God as liberator and Jesus Christ as black. College and university students demanded and won black studies. Poets, playwrights, musicians, painters and other artists created a new black aesthetics and ardently proclaimed that "black is beautiful."

No area of the African-American community escaped Malcolm's influence. The mainstream black leaders who dismissed him as a rabble-rouser today embrace his cultural philosophy and urge blacks to love themselves first before they even think about loving others. No one loved blacks more than Malcolm nor taught us more about ourselves. Before Malcolm most blacks wanted nothing to do with Africa. But he taught us that "you can't hate the roots of the tree and not hate the tree; you can't hate your origin and not end up hating yourself; you can't hate Africa and not hate yourself." A simple, profound truth; one that blacks needed (and still need) to hear. And no one said it as effectively as Malcolm X.

Who was Malcolm X? He was born Malcolm Little in Omaha, Nebraska, on May 19, 1925. His father, J. Early Little, was a Baptist preacher and a dedicated organizer for Marcus Garvey's Universal Negro Improvement Association. His mother, M. Louise Norton, also a Garveyite, was a West Indian from Grenada.

The Little family was driven out of Omaha by the Ku Klux Klan before Malcolm reached his first birthday. Another white hate group, called the Black Legion, burned down the Little's house in Lansing, Michigan, during Malcolm's childhood. Malcolm described the experience as "the nightmare in 1929." Soon after, his father was killed, thrown under a street car by the Black Legionnaires, Malcolm reported in his Autobiography.

With no husband, without the proceeds of his life insurance policy (the company refused to pay) and faced with constant harassment by the state welfare officials, Louis Little, a very proud woman, broke down under the emotional and economic strain of caring for eight children during the Depression. The Little children became wards of the state. Six of them, including Malcolm, were placed in foster homes. Malcolm’s delinquent behavior eventually landed him in a detention home in Mason, Michigan, where be was allowed to attend junior high. He was the only black in his class. Although Malcolm was an outstanding student and extremely popular among his peers, he dropped out of school when his white eighth grade English teacher discouraged him from becoming a lawyer and suggested carpentry as a more "realistic goal for a nigger."

From Michigan, Malcolm journeyed to Boston and then to New York where he became known as "Detroit Red." He was involved in a life of crime—numbers, dope, con games of many kinds and thievery of all sorts, including armed robbery. Malcolm described himself as "one of the most depraved parasitical hustlers" in New York—"nervy and cunning enough to live by my wits, exploiting any prey that presented itself." A few months before he reached his 21st birthday, Malcolm was convicted and sentenced to eight to ten years in a Massachusetts prison for burglary.

In prison Malcolm's life was transformed when he discovered (through the influence of an inmate) the liberating value of education and (through his family) the empowering message of Elijah Muhammad's Nation of Islam. Both gave him what he did not have: self-respect as a black person. For the first time since attending the Garvey meetings with his father, Malcolm was proud to be black and to learn about Africans who "built great empires and civilizations and cultures."

Discovering knowledge through reading raised Malcolm's consciousness. He found out that history had been "whitened" and blacks bad been left out. "It's a crime," Malcolm said, expressing his anger, "the lie that has been told to generations of blacks and whites. Little innocent black children born of parents who believed that their race had no history. Little black children seeing, before they could talk, that their parents considered themselves inferior. Innocent little black children growing up, living out their lives, dying of old age and all their lives ashamed of being black."

Malcolm pledged while in prison to use his intellectual resources to destroy black self-hate and to replace it with black self-esteem. He transformed his prison cell into a hall of learning where he educated himself about "the brainwashed condition of blacks" and the crimes which "the devil white man" had committed against them. He was so engrossed in his studies that he even forgot he was in prison. "In every free moment I had," Malcolm reflected, "if I was not reading in the library, I was reading on my bunk. You couldn't have gotten me out of books with a wedge."

It was also in prison that Malcolm developed his debating skills. Debating, he said, was "like being on a battlefield —with intellectual and philosophical bullets." He became so effective in public speaking that even his opponents had to acknowledge his talent. Martin Luther King, Jr., and other mainstream civil rights leaders refused to appear on the same platform with him. People who did debate him often regretted it. For Malcolm there was no place for moderation or disinterested objectivity when one's freedom is at stake. "You can't negotiate upon freedom," he said. "You either fight for it or shut up."

After his release from prison in 1952 Malcolm became a minister in the Nation of Islam and its most effective recruiter and apologist. In June 1954 Elijah Muhammad appointed Malcolm the head minister of the influential Temple Number 7 in Harlem. Speaking regularly in the Temple and at many street-corner rallies, Malcolm told Harlemites that "we are black first and everything else second." "We are not Americans," he said. "We are Africans who happen to be in America. We didn't land on Plymouth Rock. That rock landed on us."

Malcolm's primary audience was the "little black people in the street," the ones at the "bottom of the social heap." His message was harsh and bitter, a "sharp truth" that "cuts" and "causes great pain." "But if you can take the truth," he assured Harlem blacks, "it will cure you and save you from an otherwise certain death." Malcolm told them that they were "zombies , walking dead people," who had been cut off from any knowledge of their past history. "We have been robbed deaf, dumb and blind to the true knowledge of ourselves." We do not even know our names or our original language. We carry the slavemasters' names and speak their language. We even accepted the slavemasters' religion of Christianity, which teaches us that "black is a curse." How can a people make others treat and respect them as human beings if they are culturally and spiritually dead?

After describing their zombie-like state, Malcolm commanded blacks to "wake up" to "their humanity, to their own worth, and to their cultural heritage." He also told them to "clean up" themselves of drunkenness, profanity, drugs, crime and other moral failings. A resurrected, morally upright black people will be able to "stand up" and "do something for themselves instead of sitting around and waiting for white people to solve our problems and tell us we are free."

Initially, Malcolm's black nationalist message was very unpopular in the African-American community. The media (both white and black) portrayed him as a teacher of hate and a promoter of violence. It wasthe age of integration, and love and nonviolence were advocated as the only way to achieve it. Most blacks shared Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream that they would soon enter the mainstream of American society. They really believed that the majority of whites were genuinely sorry for what America had done to blacks and were now ready to right the wrongs and to treat blacks as human beings.

Malcolm did not share the optimism of the civil rights movement and thus found himself speaking to many unsympathetic audiences. He did not mind speaking against the dominant mood of the time as long as he knew that he was speaking the truth. He defined the Nation of Islam as "the religion of naked, undressed truth." "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" was his favorite biblical passage. "If you are afraid to tell truth," he railed at his audience, "you don't deserve freedom." With truth on his side, Malcolm relished the odds that were against him. His task was to wake up "dead Negroes" by revealing to them the truth about America and about themselves.

The enormity of this challenge motivated Malcolm to attack head on the philosophy of Martin King and the civil rights movement. He dismissed the charge that he was teaching hate: "It is the man who has made a slave out of you who is teaching hate." He rejected integration: "An integrated cup of coffee is insufficient pay for 400 years of slave labor." He denounced nonviolence as "the philosophy of a fool": "There is no philosophy more befitting to the white man's tactics for keeping his foot on the black man's neck." He ridiculed King's 1963 "I have a dream" speech: "While King was having a dream, the rest of us Negroes are having a nightmare." He also rejected as inhuman King's command to love the enemy: "It is not possible to love a man whose chief purpose in life is to humiliate you and still be considered a normal human being."

As long as Malcolm stayed in the Black Muslim movement he was not entirely free to speak his own mind. He had to represent Elijah Muhammad, the sole and absolute authority in the Nation of Islam. But in December 1963 Malcolm disobeyed Muhammad and described President Kennedy's assassination as an instance of the "chickens coming home to roost." Muhammad rebuked him and used the incident as an opportunity to silence his star pupil—first for 90 days and then indefinitely. Malcolm

soon realized that much more was involved in his silence than what he had said about the Kennedy assassination. Jealousy and envy in Muhammad's family circle were the primary motives behind his silencing, and this meant the ban would never be lifted.

For the sake of black people who needed to hear the message of black selfworth he was so adept in proclaiming, Malcolm reluctantly declared his independence in March 1964. His break with the Black Muslim movement was an important turning point. He was now free to develop his own philosophy of the black freedom struggle.

Malcolm, however, had already begun to show independent thinking in his great "Message to the Grass Roots" speech, given in Detroit three weeks before his silencing. In that speech he endorsed black nationalism as his political philosophy, thereby separating himself not only from the civil rights movement but, more important, from Muhammad, who had defined the Nation as strictly religious and apolitical. Malcolm contrasted "the black revolution" with "the Negro revolution." The black revolution, he said, is "worldwide," and it is "bloody," "hostile" and "knows no compromise." But the so called Negro revolution is not even a revolution. Malcolm mocked it: "The only revolution in which the goal is loving your enemy is the Negro revolution. It's the only revolution in which the goal is a desegregated lunch counter, a desegregated theater, a desegregated public park, a desegregated public toilet; you can sit down next to white folks on the toilet." He smiled as the audience broke into hearty laughter at this.

After his break with Muhammad, Malcolm developed more fully his cultural and political black nationalist philosophy in a speech titled, "The Ballot or the Bullet." In urging blacks to exercise their constitutional right to vote, he made a move toward King and the civil rights movement. Later he became more explicit: "Dr. King wants the same thing I want—freedom." Malcolm wanted to join the civil rights movement in order to expand it into a human rights movement, thereby internationalizing the black freedom struggle, making it more radical and more militant.

During his period of independence from the Nation of Islam nothing influenced Malcolm more than his travels abroad. He visited countries in the Middle East, Africa and Europe, where he explained the black struggle for justice in the U.S. and linked it with liberation struggles throughout the world. "You can't understand what is going on in Mississippi if you don't know what is going on in the Congo," he told Harlem blacks. "They are both the same. The same interests are at stake."

On February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was shot down by assassins as he started to speak to a crowd of 400 blacks at the Audubon Ballroom in Harlem. He was only 39.

Although dead for nearly 27 years, Malcolm's influence in the African-American community is much greater today than during his lifetime. His most far-reaching impact was among the masses of African-Americans in the ghettos of American cities. He told them, as James Baldwin observed, that "they should be proud of being black and God knows they should be. This is a very important thing to hear in a country that assures you that you should be ashamed of it." Saying what Malcolm meant to her, a Harlemite said: "He taught me that I was more than a Little Black Sambo or kinky hair or nigger."

There is a resurgence of interest in Malcolm in every segment of the African-American community, especially among those who were not yet born when he died. His name, words and face adorn T-shirts, buttons and the cover of rap records. His writings, books about him and tapes of his speeches are sold by street vendors, at cultural festivals and in bookstores. Wherever black people gather to talk about their struggle for justice, the ghost of Malcolm's presence is there, reminding us of the strengths and weaknesses of our past and present efforts. The more we reflect on the meaning of Malcolm's life and message the more we realize the greatness of his legacy.

Malcolm was a cultural revolutionary, an artist of the spoken word. Maya Angelou aptly called him "a charismatic speaker who could play an audience as great musicians play instruments. " Peter Bailey said he was a "Master Teacher." Alfred Duckett called him "our sage and our saint." In his eulogy Ossie Davis bestowed upon Malcolm the title: "Our Shining Black Prince." For me, Malcolm was a cultural prophet of blackness. African-Americans who are proud to be black should thank Malcolm for creating the cultural space that lets us claim our African heritage.

All Americans owe Malcolm a great debt. He was not a racist, as many misguided observers have claimed. He was an uncompromising truth-teller whose love for his people empowered him to respect all human beings. "I am for truth," he said, "no matter who tells it. I am for justice no matter who is for or against it. I am a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."

 

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Pulpit

During most of my professional life I have exercised my ordination through classroom teaching. The preaching I've done could be said to follow the "in and out" approach: a quick entrance to the local pulpit and a quicker exit, leaving the host pastor to pick up the pieces. But then my pastor asked if I would take on about half the preaching assignments while our congregation was searching for a new associate pastor. We were thinking of six to eight months, but by the time a new minister was secured, three and a half years had passed. Thus did the Lord try the endurance of the congregation of First Presbyterian Church in Palo Alto, California.

When I decided to take on this task of "short" duration, I decided that I should go all the way from podium to pulpit. I imposed two basic conditions on myself: there would be no warmed-over sermons, dragged from my files, and I would take my text and topic each week from the lectionary. It was surprisingly easy to fulfill the first promise, for no sooner did those old sermons emerge from the file drawer than their manifest shortcomings eloquently demonstrated to me that if publicly exhumed they would embarrass me much more than they would enlighten anyone else.

As for the promise to abide by the lectionary, a funny thing happened on the way to the pulpit. I found the use of the lectionary not only not constricting, but liberating.

At the start I did a little informal canvassing, asking our parishioners if I should use the lectionary. About 6 percent responded that I should, 19 percent responded that I could but should not be bound by it, while 75 percent responded, "What's the lectionary?" We rehearsed again that the lectionary is a group of readings—four biblical selections for each Sunday of the church year. The readings are ecumenically determined, providing the consoling thought that on a given Sunday ministers all over the world are grappling with the same material. Each Sunday the lectionary offers readings from both the Hebrew scriptures as a whole and the Psalter in particular, as well as readings from both the Gospels and the Epistles.

To be sure, this arrangement still provides a great deal of latitude in choosing a text, since every Sunday offers four sets of possibilities for a sermon. So the arrangement hardly boxes one in. It does ensure, however, that from time to time one will be forced to consider passages that don't seem to lend themselves to the creation of a sermon. My experience was that in ways little short of amazing, a theme or text would emerge from the lectionary readings and speak to the human condition at the moment. I can recall only one time when the lectionary failed me, although perhaps what happened was that I failed it. This was the Sunday after the Rodney King verdict in Los Angeles. Nothing seemed to "fit" that event, so we had to repair to Amos and be reminded that justice must roll down like waters, and righteousness must flow like a mighty stream. That was the exception that proved the rule.

My three and a half years with the lectionary taught me a number of things about the faith and its proclamation. First, I was always reminded that my task in the pulpit was not to give a little talk that might be called "Bob Brown looks at life," and might be characterized by an opening phrase like, "Here are some things I've been thinking about this week." No, I was called to wrestle with two apparently unlikely realities, the world of the Bible and the world of the here and now. No matter where one started, the sermon was not a sermon until those two worlds finally came together, each illuminating the other until they could not be separated. Karl Barth's famous aphorism vindicated itself dozens of times: "The Christian must always read with the Bible in one hand and the morning paper in the other." I discovered that our human story, no matter how immediate and apparently brand new, is made out of the stuff of the centuries, and that everything in our experience rings a bell with biblical experience—adultery, doubt, testing in a refiner's fire, suffering or death; and grace offered beyond any calculation.

One has to be very skillful to keep the two stories from overlapping. One also has to take in the whole sweep of a passage, not just the "nice" parts. I was impressed during Advent each year with how easily we let the words of the last portion of the Magnificat (Luke 1:51-54) wash over us, so that we don't have to take it seriously: that the monarchs will be cast down, the poor lifted up, the hungry fed and the rich denied everything. That doesn't fly very well with our middle-class congregations; we have wonderful ways of deflecting its sting. But the words are still there, and will come back year after year until sometime, somewhere, somebody insists that we confront them.

Using the lectionary means that we can't confine our preaching to the "canon within the canon" that each of us erects with his or her favorite texts. (This is a great temptation to those of us who preach only sporadically.) My own penchant in this regard has been to tilt toward social-justice issues. But if I take the lectionary seriously, I can't get away with concentrating only on those themes, for the same people come back Sunday after Sunday, and they will yearn for and finally demand more. By looking into people's faces I discovered that I'm not faithful to the gospel if I preach only judgment and social concern week after week. Not only do members of any congregation need to be roused out of complacency; most of them are hurting and need support and comfort, not an unwavering diet of chastisement. Time in the pulpit sensitized me to the lives of those who are not in the pulpit. A rousing denunciation of the gulf war isn't necessarily what a couple needs when they've just learned that their daughter has cancer. Every week some worshipers are hurting and some are exultant; some have just lost their jobs and some are aflame with the need for justice in the workplace.

I also discovered that it is a personal enrichment for the preacher to live closer to scripture through the discipline the lectionary provides. The lectionary pushed me to parts of the Bible I hadn't looked at for 40 years: words of power from Malachi, of all places, and episodes of deep meaning in Samuel and Kings. My own greatest personal enrichment came from confronting a psalm every week. At a guess, I preached more out of the Psalms than out of any other book. What I liked about the psalm writers was their unremitting honesty. They knew all about anger and doubt and fear, and they shouted it out. They also knew about joy and compassion and trust, and they shouted that out too. Some of us can do one or the other of those things, but usually not simultaneously. We have to have time to shift gears. The psalmists, on the other hand, could do it within the confines of a single verse. They do not trust God, but they will again trust God. They are in pain? Joy will appear.

This is one reason the Psalms are so powerful for us. They do not simply "match our moods"; they challenge them. If we are downcast, the psalmist can lift us up. If we are too secure in a sheltered joy, the psalmist can quickly cut us down to size.

This led to a new recognition of the psalmists' authority, and through them to the authority of scripture itself. The authority does not lie in the preacher. Members of the congregation who were upset by something I said could not, at the end of the day, hold me solely responsible for upsetting them, unless I had grossly misrepresented the passage under scrutiny. Their quarrel was not finally with me, but with the Bible. I could gradually absent myself and leave the battle with the proper adversaries.

If someone was grasped by a word of healing and forgiveness, that was not my doing either, but the work of the One to whom the Bible witnesses. The healing power was not lodged in the preacher's frail frame, but in the stout and trustworthy authority of a script that had stood the test of time for 2,000 years. It could be relied upon long after the preacher had disappeared from the scene.

Stepping into the pulpit regularly did involve a funny thing, a sense of hilarity and mirth at the notion that God will entrust a human being with the opportunity to share something not of his or her creation, not something he or she had earned the right to share, but something that is pure gift, easily sullied except for grace, and sometimes, for a moment, shining clear and beautiful and beyond compare.

 

Easter: The Demand and the Promise

It’s a few days after your leader has been captured, roughed up by the jail keepers, tried in a kangaroo court, and then (to employ the currently favorite CIA euphemism) "neutralized."

You had been captivated by him that day when he appeared over the hill and caught you working on your fish nets. He shared a compelling vision of a new world. So compelling, in fact, that almost on the spur of the moment you turned your back on the fishing business, left your wife and kids who were perplexed if not put out at your departure, and went off with the wandering teacher.

In the beginning, as you glimpsed what the teacher not only talked about but lived, as the crowds responded enthusiastically, your rash decision to follow him seemed almost reasonable. But then the crowds had tailed off, and the new world didn’t seem to be coming quite on schedule. So you and the other disciples had followed him down to Jerusalem, at the height of the holy season and the tourist trade, in an effort to force the issue.

You had forced the issue, all right. By the time you got there, the opposition was well orchestrated and finely tuned, and in less than a week your leader was strung up, and you were smart enough to head for the hills. You made it back to the lakeside up north, and had taken a few days getting things squared away with the family, which had remained unenchanted during your impulsive leave of absence.

You had been particularly careful not to tell friends and neighbors what you had actually been about during your absence, not only because you felt you’d been taken in and made to look three parts the fool, but because you knew the authorities had an all-points warning out on you. You felt distinctly uncomfortable at the thought of being fitted for a cross of your own, nailed there on a "guilt by association" charge. So you had nursed privately your embarrassment and fear, vowing that the next time a wandering prophet came down the pike you would be smart enough to he looking the other way.

And then -- just when the fishing business was picking up again and your family beginning to let you hack into its good graces -- Bartholomew had come over the hill and found you down by the lake shore mending the fishing nets. The following conversation had ensued:

Bartholomew: "Hey! He’s risen!

YOU (out loud): "Oh, no!"

YOU (continuing to yourself): "Oh, no! If he’s risen that means he was right all along. It wasn’t just a dream. And that means back on the road, back into the midst of trouble. Why couldn’t he have stayed dead? Just when I’m beginning to get my life together again, this has to happen."

It probably didn’t take place that way. And then, again, it might have. But even if it didn’t, the episode reminds us that the resurrection story is not just a happy ending tacked onto an otherwise gloomy tale. "If Jesus’ death is the end of the story," we are usually informed on Easter Sunday morning, "then we’re in big trouble. All our hopes have been defeated."

The message really ought to go, "If Jesus’ resurrection is the end of the story, then we’re in really big trouble. All our hopes could be realized, and we’re being enlisted to make them come to pass. The bottom line is no longer Business As Usual, but Everything Is Up for Grabs. The lid is off: Neighbors are to be loved rather than mistrusted. Enemies are to be loved even when we oppose them. How inconvenient."

That’s about where our lakeside conversation ended, the Easter message seen in the form of a demand. And if that’s not the full message, at least it is the only condition within which the full message can be heard. The full message is one of promise. But only those who have heard the demand can rightly hear the promise.

How would the conversation continue? Then or now? It might become a monologue that would go something like this:

If he has beaten death, then everything changes. If he calls us to spread the word around -- in Jerusalem, or right here by the lakeside, or off in Thessalonica, in Washington or Chicago, or off in San Salvador -- we won’t have to do it alone. We’ll not only have each other; we’ll have him too. It doesn’t mean we are safe -- any more than he was. But he’ll somehow be with us, lending his strength and help. We won’t be alone. And -- my God! -- if he has somehow even beaten death, that’s his promise that nothing can really separate us from him.

You know, I think it’s worth another try.

The Need to Remember

Elie Wiesel says that the hardest part of writing a novel is getting the first sentence right. Once that is accomplished, the rest falls into place. Here’s the first sentence of The Forgotten: "The shock was so violent that he lost his balance and almost fell to the damp soil; the name on the tombstone, tilted as if under the weight of its weariness, was his own." The book is almost an extended midrash on this line. It revolves around matters of mystery, death, disorientation, incongruity, and the importance of a name.

Wiesel has painted on successively larger canvases. In his earliest tales he wrote almost exclusively about Jews and the immediate consequences of the Holocaust. Though he still writes chiefly of Jews, the worlds of his later novels (Twilight and especially The Testament ) have expanded geographically as well as humanly. This novel includes episodes in Transylvania, New York City, Israel, Cambodia and Germany, and its cast of characters includes increasing numbers of goyim. Notable also is the increasingly important place given to women—women who are newspaper reporters, spies, commandos, or recruiters for settlement in Palestine.

Despite the variety of settings and characters, the issues Wiesel treats are ones that perennially test Jewish sensibilities and therefore (here is Wiesel’s magic) test others’ sensibilities as well. "The more I write about Jews," he has commented, "the more I am writing for everybody." His concern for all people is rooted in the particularities of Jewish existence. Elhanan Rosenbaum’s "farewell" to his son at the end of the book makes the point: "A man like you, Malkiel, can love his people without hating others. I’ll even say that it is because I love the Jewish people that I can summon the strength and the faith to love those who follow other traditions and invoke other beliefs."

This novel defies condensation or summary. When I tried explaining the plot to a friend I was immediately entangled, confusing fathers with sons, one century with another, the living with the dead; and hints with assurances. This does not mean that Wiesel is a poor story-teller; he is a superb one. If one were to ask him what the story means, I am confident that after several hours of trying to answer he would have succeeded only in retelling the entire book.

The book revolves primarily around Rosenbaum, a Jewish partisan fighter who survived European combat in World War II but became a prisoner of war as a result of later combat in Palestine. He has re-established himself as a teacher in New York City when his doctor gives him the news that he is losing his memory and that there is no cure. Wiesel, for whom memory seems to be the closest thing to the image of God in human beings, and who views memory as the central transmitter of ethical and moral insights, depicts the tragedy of Elhanan’s increasing disability with enormous understanding and sympathy.

As a result of this news Elhanan’s son, Malkiel (the one who saw his own name on the tombstone), must become the repository of his father’s memories as well as his own. The contents of his mind must expand in inverse proportion to the decrease in his father’s ability to recollect. The critical moment in this life-and-death transfer comes when Malkiel is sent at his father’s command to the tiny town in Transylvania where Elhanan grew up. There is something "essential" that Malkiel is to recover there that will bring together the various strands of their lives. But whatever it is it tenaciously refuses to reveal itself, it remains elusive to the end, though we get some important hints. As in Twilight , Wiesel refuses to tidy up all the ambiguities in the lives of his characters, for the good reason that life is never tidy.

Earlier in the story, when Malkiel is about to leave on his quest, he and his fiancée, Tamar, have a serious falling out, an incident elliptically referred to as the story unfolds. Both Jewish writers, Malkiel and Tamar are agonizing over their responsibility to the state of Israel: Is it their task to safeguard and protect an ever-threatened nation, at any cost, even if it means suppressing news unfavorable to Israel’s image? Or is it their task to safeguard and protect the truth? The discussion is heated, and it is important for non-Jews to realize the depth of anguish that protagonists on both sides of this argument feel. The fallout from the argument figures closely in the book’s denouement.

A virtue of all Wiesel’s writing is that despite good reason he does not finally succumb to despair. A simple, three-sentence report on what Elhanan finds when he returns to his hometown after the occupation seems to make a case for the ultimate victory of the power of evil: "The synagogue: transformed into a stable by the Germans. The Hasidic house of study: a military brothel. The yeshiva [school]: a museum of anti-Semitism." But within 20 pages Elhanan gives us a beautiful tribute to the quality of his marriage: "We loved each other with a perfect and all-consuming love that haloed our daily existence with a fragile mist of eternity."

Out of the horror of the war and the death camps comes a faith tested by circumstances. Elhanan sees a German officer slaughter a father in front of his children and reflects, "That day I lost my faith." Later he sees three strangers jeopardize their health to save a sick prisoner and says, "That day my faith was restored." Out of these experiences, Elhanan, even while realizing that he cannot really help the people around him, resolves at least to listen to them. When his son asks, "Do they feel better?" Elhanan says No. "Then why listen?"—to which Elhanan replies in a phrase that could be the hallmark of all of Wiesel’s writing: "No one has the right not to listen."

Deeds must be done, even if they have no apparent "result" other than to hold back the darkness. After Malkiel goes to Cambodia on a newspaper assignment and falls ill from overwork and exhaustion while helping some of the sick, Elhanan says to him, "You did well to go there . . . Do you want to know why? Because no one bothered to help us when we needed it." This parallels an incident in Wiesel’s own life. When he went to Cambodia in 1980 with food and medical supplies, his group was stopped at the border and forbidden to enter. Wiesel reflected, "One thing that is worse for the victim than hunger, fear, torture, humiliation, is the feeling of abandonment, the feeling that nobody cares, the feeling that you don’t count." What, then, was the point of the trip? "I came here," WieseI said over a loudspeaker that could penetrate the border, "because nobody came when I was there."

The focal point of the novel occurs when Elhanan, as a member of the partisan forces, returns to the town of his birth. He has become a close friend of Itzik the Long, who after many commando-guerrilla raids has been renamed Itzik the Avenger. Itzik is determined to repay in kind all the atrocities he has seen committed against the Jews. Vengeance is his reason for existing, and he wants converts to his cause. At one point he gives a machine gun to a group of Jewish children, offering them a chance to kill six imprisoned German soldiers. The children are unwilling and Elhanan thinks, "God of Israel ... watch these your children and be proud." At one point Elhanan himself fires point-blank at wounded Germans, but this is atypical. Vengeance does not become his norm for action.

Itzik’s rage is focused particularly against Zoltan, head of a Hungarian anti-Jewish force, who is finally captured in the taking of the town and killed. As Elhanan moves through the liberated area he hears a woman’s cry, enters the house from which it comes and finds Itzik about to rape Zoltan’s widow, a woman innocent of her husband’s crimes. Elhanan is shocked: Is justice served by outrages against the innocent? He tries to intervene but cannot deter Itzik. Nauseated and disillusioned, he leaves. Later in the day he goes back to find the terrified woman and try to comfort her: "I want to help you ... I won’t hurt you ... I’m sorry for what happened to you."

 

When he finds Itzik later that night, Ethanan is unforgiving: the rape was evil and bestial --and their friendship is over. (Later they meet in Palestine, but Elhanan has sworn "not to forget," and their relationship remains irretrievably severed.) Not only Itzik but Elhanan himself is permanently scarred; years later he is full of guilt for not having intervened more on behalf of the woman. He remains sure that his son will judge him for his indecisiveness and even interprets his increasing loss of memory as divine retribution.

When Malkiel visits the town a generation later he senses that whatever he is supposed to find will be related to the woman. With the help of an interpreter (whom the secret police have assigned to monitor Malkiel’s activities) he finds the woman Itzik had raped and seeks to discover what she remembers.

The woman has no conscious recollection of the rape, but Malkiel, with a relentless probing that shocks Lidia the interpreter, persists in asking his questions. As the memory returns to lacerate her once again, the old woman is furious at Malkiel for engaging in such psychic surgery. "I prayed God to let me forget, and God heard me. I finally buried my memories ... I finally forgot the ugly leers, the hands, the sounds that tied me to that man. Why must you undo what God has done?"

Malkiel, though abashed, must ask one last question: "The man who tried to help you. Do you think of him from time to time?" This time the woman answers positively: "Thanks to him I believe from time to time that not all men are evil. I believe that he was honest and a man of charity."

"My father," Malkiel replies, "was the man who tried to save you. Not the other one." The woman, after shuddering, reaches out to him: "Then will you allow an old woman to thank you? And to kiss you?" After kissing his forehead, she says, "And thank your father." Even the hardened Lidia has been moved. Once they are outside, she says, "Will you allow an interpreter, not so young any more, to kiss you too?"

 Even after his return home, neither Elhanan nor Malkiel is clear that the "essential" they needed has been discovered. But there has surely been an important breakthrough. Malkiel and Tamar will tell the story of Elhanan to their children, and the story will remain alive. They will put their trust in what exalts them—Elhanan’s sufferings—and in what thwarts them—"the ambiguities of Jewish life, most of all life in the diaspora," symbolized by their difficulty in harmonizing fidelity to Israel and fidelity to truth. They will trust as Jews who affirm rather than deny their Jewishness and who can now see this as a way for them to affirm all living creatures, as Elhanan had done earlier. All of this, Elhanan can recognize, "is part of the essential thing but not all of it." But it is enough for now; in the living of life, he writes to Malkiel, "you will discover in your own way, what my lips cannot say."

Wiesel has named Elhanan well; his name means "God of Mercy." Something of extraordinary magnitude has transpired: the ugliness of Itzik’s unilateral act of vengeance has been replaced by reciprocated acts of love and caring. Returning evil for evil has given way to the transforming power of good. Vengeance does not belong to us; if to anyone it belongs to God. I hear this as a trumpet call from Wiesel to all readers, Jews, Christians and others. This theme—that vengeance is a one-way street to the increase rather than the decrease of evil—is the conviction most needed today in the Middle East, as well as in South Africa, Europe, Latin America, Asia and (especially) Washington, D.C. In crafting the encounter between Malkiel and Zoltan’s widow, Wiesel has touched universal chords. What happened for evil and then for good in that village reminds us of long-neglected priorities. What Elhanan said would be true for his son can be true for us all: in repudiating vengeance, what is "essential" will increasingly be granted us.