What Does a Progressive Christian Believe?

by Delwin Brown

  Theological diversity is evident throughout the Bible. Views of human relationships that are authoritarian and liberationist, hierarchical and egalitarian, are all found there. In the New Testament the Jewish Torah is said to be abrogated by Christ at some points and fulfilled by Christ at others. The equality of women is supported in the Bible, as is their subordination to men. Salvation is by faith in Jesus in some portions of the New 'T'estament but in others it is independent of any such faith.

  We may disagree somewhat about the understandings of the gospel presented in the varied New Testament writings. But if we are willing to let these texts speak for themselves, we will agree that they, the documents at the foundation of Christianity, do present varying theologies. 'Ihey offer different understandings of Christianity-often complementary, sometimes competing, but different. To deny this diversity is unbiblical.

  "Well," one hears the reaction, "so much for biblical authority!"

  'Ihis is an understandable reaction. How can a Scripture containing such diverse views be authoritative for Christian faith? Let's think about that question, which means at the same time thinking again about "authority."

  Thinking about Biblical Authority

  It is often assumed that if the Bible is "authoritative" for Christians, then throughout the ages Christians must conform to its message.

  But why give place of privilege to such a book? A writing from so long ago and from such a different cultural history might be interesting to us today, even, perhaps, instructive in many respects. After all, we do learn from other times and places. But why should it be authoritative? Add to this the morally despicable views expressed in the Bible-rebellious sons are to be stoned (Deuteronomy 13), virgins are to be taken in war and the other women killed (Numbers 31), slaves are to work extra hard if the owner is a Christian (1 Timothy 6), and wives are to be silent in church (1 Corinthians 14)-and the question of biblical authority is forcefully underscored.

  Even these considerations, however, are less decisive than the conundrum that arises when we take seriously the obvious theological diversity of the Bible. The Bible is full of different theological (and ethical) views. It simply cannot be conformed to! The authority of the Bible, if it means anything at all, cannot require conforming to this complex of different, sometimes contradictory, points of view.

  Some years ago I read a short essay on "authority" by Hannah Arendt.' It offers a historical account of what I would call the "normative" view of authority, the view that an authority is a singular standard or norm to which everyone should conform. Arendt found the origins of this concept in the development of centralized political rule among the ancient Greeks. What could be the foundation of such a rule? The Greeks debated this matter and resolved it in different ways, but the Romans, who came later, gave it a definitive answer. What can be the foundation of Roman rule? Well, of course, the foundation of Rome itself.

  "At the heart of Roman politics," Arendt says, "stands the conviction of the sacredness of foundation, in the sense that once something has been founded it remains binding for all future generations" In Rome "religion meant religare: to be tied back, obligated ... to the legendary effort to lay the foundations, to build the cornerstone, to found for eternity. To be religious meant to be tied to the past." Arendt adds: "The word auctoritas derives from the verb `Ito] augment;" and what is augmented is "the foundation." With the Romans, this legendary foundation gradually was transmuted into a canon, a standard of measurements and rules applicable to all behaviors and beliefs, including those of religion.

  Early institutional Christianity understandably appropriated this Roman view of authority: An authority is a uniform standard to which all under it most conform. The Apostles, witnesses to Jesus, became the "founding fathers" of the Church. The Church derived its authority from the apostolic witness so long as it conformed to that witness. The dispute among Christians at the time of the Reformation was among Romanized Christians. Although they came to different conclusions, Protestants and Catholics alike worked with a Roman or normative interpretation of Christianity's founding event, now transmuted into a biblical canon. At the level of doctrine, the Bible was said to be, or to provide, an objective measure to be conformed to, and acknowledging its authority meant accepting the obligation to conform to it.

  "This Roman view of authority is very different from the view at work in the world that gave rise to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament). In this world each generation treated its authoritative past with respect, and with creativity! The prophets, for example, lived from their histories, but they did so innovatively-adapting and sometimes even reversing past interpretations of the exodus or the wilderness experience in order to meet the needs of new times. James Sanders, a biblical scholar, has argued that after the Exile, Hebraic "theologians" removed the story of the conquest of Canaan from what came to be known as the Pentateuch, their fundamental authoritative source." Ihey decided to end the Torah with the book of I)euteronomy, not Joshua, because the centrality of the "promised land" no longer worked for them far away in Babylonian captivity.

  In the Hebraic traditions, creativity rather than conformity was at work. Tradition was authoritative, but not as a fixed and singular past that must be replicated. Authority did not mean that which "authorizes" by virtue of being conformed to. It meant something else. What?

  The concept of "authority" is complex in the New Testament, but one meaning is particularly interesting for addressing the question at hand. Jesus, for example, is said to have spoken to the crowds as one having "authority," exousia (Mark 1:22, Luke 4:32, and Matthew 7:29). Basic to the uses of exousia in these passages is the notion of a right and power to act or respond creatively.' This power is first of all God's, then Jesus, and finally it is extended to the believing community. The focus is on the creativity, power, and freedom of the authoritative source. That is, authority has to do with the creativity appropriate to an action, not the conformity appropriate to a reaction. In fact, authority extends authority-extends the rightful freedom and power to respond creatively. Authority does not command conformity; it commends freedom.

  Authority viewed in this way is not an "authorizer;" something that specifies unyielding standards to which one must conform. Authority is formative, not normative. Authority is empowerment.

  Interestingly, this alternative view of authority is preserved for us in the English word "author" An authority in this alternative is that which authors-that which gives being to, forms, empowers, calls to creativity. Even literal authors testify to the fact that their creations, their characters, take on a vitality of their own. 'Ihe author gives life to the characters, but these creations are not mere puppets; they take on a life of their own so that in a secondary sense at least they begin to author themselves. 'They acquire a measure of autonomy, of self-creation. 'I hey even contend against the author who continues to "write" them, taking the plot in directions unanticipated by the one who gave and continues to give them life.

  'Ihe author, giving life, bestows freedom; the creatures, given life, become creative. And the creativity of the character continues . . . so long as it remains rooted in the undergirding power of the writer. Indeed, the being and identity of the character is dependent on its interaction with the being and identity of the author. The character cannot be who it is without remaining grounded in the author, but for the character to be authored or created at all is for it also to be creative.

  Using the Bible Biblically

  The Bible is authoritative for progressive Christians because it empowers, not because it confines. The Bible is heeded because it forms us, not because it norms us. We read its stories, we listen to its parables, we hear its admonitions, we follow its reasoning, we are taught by its conclusions. In our personal lives and in our corporate worship, the Bible is the source out of which we live self-consciously as Christians, as we live into new times, confront new challenges, and address new issues. It authors our Christian identity.

  'Ihe diversity of
viewpoints within the Bible, even on important theological matters, does not undermine its authority. On the contrary, it is essential to biblical authority. It is a means through which the Bible teaches us to think for ourselves, to work out our own identity as Christians in new cultures. Biblical diversity is one of the means through which, we believe, the Spirit of God provokes and inspires us, nourishes and forms us. The very diversity of voices in Scripture empowers us. 'Therefore, we live continuously in relation to the biblical text because we experience it, with all its richness, as our formative foundation, the continuing source of our dynamic Christian self-understanding.

  Like the writers within the text, we are always taught by our sacred past, and like them we are often chastened and corrected by it. As we shall see in later chapters, among the diverse voices of Scripture are those that critique our individualistic notions of salvation, condemn our indifference to the rest of creation, challenge our imprisoning "free" market assumptions, unmask our shallow views of responsibility, dismantle our notions of rank and power, denounce our religious and national exceptional ism, and reject the contrived categories by which we divide humankind ... among other unsettling things. We are empowered by the diverse voices of Scripture to decide for ourselves how we shall respond to these sharp challenges, to be sure, but as Christians we cannot avoid wrestling with them.

  And sometimes, like the biblical writers themselves, we dare to take views that differ from voices in the Bible. We do so reverently and thoughtfully, continuing to listen to the critical dialogue inside and outside our religious communities. But in fact we do disagree with biblical teachings. We permit divorce, although the Bible rejects it. We pay and charge interest, although the Bible condemns it. We reject slavery even when the master is kind and monarchy even when the ruler is benevolent, although the Bible endorses both. And we condemn patriarchy, despite the fact that patriarchal perspectives are much stronger in the Bible than egalitarian ones. We are hold to take these positions, however, not despite the Bible but because we believe that its rich dialogue-its continuing negotiation with the tradition that it inherited-has empowered us to do so. We live in relation to our sacred Scripture-listening, learning, and sometimes "talking back."

  Our distinctive identity as Christians emerges and is sustained and transformed as we engage this text. We read its stories and are empowered to write new ones, stories drawn from our own time and place. We listen to its parables and explore new endings, sometimes with startling insights. We attend to its dominant voices but then listen attentively, trying to catch the silent words of those whom the recorders left out. We follow the reasoning of the dominant voices-Paul and the theologians behind the Gospels. We listen to them and we agree, or modify, or sometimes sharply disagree. "They are good teachers, the kind who help us think for ourselves in our times and cultures.

  'I he Bible is not our authority in the sense of legalistically mandating conformity to its every teaching. 'Ihe Bible is the progressive Christian's authority because in our engagement with it we are authored as Christians. In its rich, dynamic, provocative, and empowering diversity, it is the continuing source of our Christian identity. Reflecting the exousia of Jesus, it grants us freedom, grounds our creativity, guides our thinking, challenges our conclusions, inspires our hearts, and thus it empowers us-in conversation with our contemporary communities-to act responsibly as citizens of the world.

  POINTS FOR REFLECTION

  • The claim that tradition can be protected from error is false and dangerous. The belief that the Bible is free from error is no less so. Both lead to arrogance and bigotry, and both contradict the facts.

  • There are not only conflicting factual accounts in the Bible, there are also different and sometimes conflicting theologies, even with respect to Jesus and salvation.

  • How can a Scripture containing diverse theological views be authoritative? Add to this the morally despicable views in the Bible and the question is forcefully underscored. What does biblical "authority" mean?

  • The dominant concept of "authority" in the New Testament has to do with the right and power to act creativity. Biblical authority does not command conformity, it commends freedom. It is formative, not normative-it is empowerment.

  • 'Ihe diversity of viewpoints in the Bible does not undermine its authority. It is a means through which the Bible teaches us to think for ourselves as Christians in new circumstances.

  • Among the voices of Scripture are those that critique our individualistic notions of salvation, condemn our indifference to the rest of creation, challenge our "free" market assumptions, and denounce our religious and national exceptional ism.

  • We are empowered by the diverse voices of Scripture to decide for ourselves how we shall respond to their sharp challenges, but as Christians we cannot avoid wrestling with them.

  • "Ihe Bible is our authority because in our engagement with it we are authored as Christians. It grants us freedom, guides our thinking, challenges our conclusions, and empowers us to act responsibly as citizens of the world.

  Chapter;

  Christ:

  Overturning the Categories

  rogressive Christian reflection begins with Jesus Christ for one quite understandable reason: it seeks to take history seriously.

  Human beings are historical beings. We all stand in traditions of inheritance. Indeed, we stand in more than one such tradition. We are people of particular nations, particular regions of those nations, particular racial/ethnic heritages, particular family traditions, and so on. In each of these streams of inheritance we imbibe distinctive constellations of feelings, values, practices, and concepts flowing from the past. 'That is no less true of Christians. Our specifically Christian identity is derived from the long, complex, and dynamic Jesus tradition. Who we are as Christians arises from our personal and historical connection with Jesus Christ.

  What does that mean?

  Beginning with Jesus

  Beginning with Jesus Christ means that we start, not with history, but with the witness of his first followers to the significance of Jesus. The New Testament is not a history, although it contains significant elements of history. It is an interpretation of a historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth, provided by those whose lives he had transformed. Their encounter with Jesus had turned upside down the categories through which they understood themselves and their world. They were transformed. The New Testament is an interpretation of Jesus-or, more precisely, a collection of interpretations-that seeks to explain and proclaim the significance of Jesus.

  The earliest explanations spoke primarily about what had happened in and through Jesus. "What has been accomplished because of Jesus?" The answers given were varied because Jesus was experienced differently by different followers. As time passed, however, his followers began to ask another, more speculative, question; one about the nature of Jesus. "What must Jesus have been like-or what must Jesus be like-in order for this change to have happened?" Again, different experiences and, increasingly, the varying cultural and social resources of his followers gave rise to varied answers. Jewish and Hellenistic, poor and middle class, persecuted and secure, urban and rural-people responded to and interpreted Jesus of Nazareth through the lenses of their own cultural experiences. The variety is apparent already in the New Testament. And now that other ancient gospels are coming to light we realize that the early interpretations of Jesus were even more varied than those presented in the New Testament.

  'I his diversity is not a problem. It is, first, a great reservoir of resources to enrich, provoke, and challenge our own interpretations of Jesus. We should maintain that reservoir with its manifold understandings; we should not hastily drain it. We should not say, for example, that the earliest witnesses are, simply for that reason, to be preferred. Why should they be? Of course, if we are seeking clues to the history behind the first interpretations of Jesus of Nazareth, then the earliest layers of New Testament literature may be the more useful resources. But getting a
t the history, even if that can be done, is not the same as getting at its meaning for us. In any case, the earliest meanings given to a historical event are never exhaustive, nor usually are they to be preferred. For example, were the first interpretations of September 11 the only or best interpretations of what happened that day? Insights can grow and deepen with time, just as they can also distract or diminish. The whole range of New Testament testimonies to Jesus' significance should be retained as a reminder of the multiple ways that Jesus can be understood and, perhaps, even as a guide to the possibilities for us today.

  Secondly, however, the varied interpretations of Jesus call us to take a stand. Each of the interpretations is just that, one interpretation. It is a particular standpoint, one hold witness to the significance of Jesus. Each is a specific answer to the question, what does Jesus mean for us in our time?

  It will not do for progressive Christians to be any less specific today about the meaning of Jesus, even if we differ among ourselves as did those first Christians. What does Jesus mean for us today? In the answer to that question lies the foundation of our Christian identity and the core of our individual witness in the world. Our answers should be accepting of alternatives, but also critical of them as well as self-critical, and open to change. 'The progressive Christian's witness, however, must be clear and compelling if progressive Christianity is again to have a powerful healing voice in the Church and in the world.

  The Meaning of Jesus

  What does Jesus mean for progressive Christians today? In order to answer this question, I suggest that we take as our guide the Christian councils of the fourth and fifth centuries, those gatherings of bishops and theologians at Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon called to clarify and define the nature and content of Christian faith over and against all rival interpretations.