548 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

The Christian Reason for Being Progressive
By John B. Cobb, Jr.

In the broader context of the North American scene today, "being progressive" is my central interest and commitment. But in other contexts, often more immediate, my argument is for being conservative. Surely the truth is that authentic Christianity today is both progressive and conservative.

Since I am a representative of "progressive Christianity" and since I am happy to be labeled in that way (among others), mainly I will argue that authentic faith expresses itself in progressive ways. First, however, I want to argue the importance of being conservative.

BEING CONSERVATIVE

Christian faith is not something new, something that has just appeared. It has been around for more than nineteen centuries. Many would argue, following Paul and Hebrews, that it is found also among the Jews and their ancestors much earlier. To be a Christian at all is to locate oneself in this ancient tradition.

To participate in this ancient tradition is to find what is normative for one's life within it and especially in the events to which it points as decisive. To submit oneself to the meanings and norms inherent in such ancient events is surely a conservative stance. To identify oneself as a Christian believer is also to commit oneself to the importance of that community that witnesses to these ancient events. This community is inherently conservative. It must and does shape its life so as to be faithful to norms derived from ancient events.

John B. Cobb, Jr. is Professor of Theology and the Philosophy of Religion at the Claremont School of Theology. He has published widely in the field of theology and culture, and his books include Death or Dialogue? From the Age of Monologue to the Age of Dialogue (1990), Can Christ Become Good News Again? (1991) and Becoming a Thinking Christian (1993). This essay was originally given as an address at Northwestern University.

549 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

My point here is that to be a Christian is necessarily to care deeply about the continuation of what is derived from the past. Now, when many seem to be shaped by the most recent fads, this is a truly conservative stance, one shared by progressive and conservative Christians. Any serious debate among Christians must be about what this basic conservatism means in the world of today.

Furthermore, both sides in such a debate are in favor of change. Neither is satisfied with the present state of affairs. And certainly none desires regress. In this sense, all are eager for progress. The issue is what constitutes progress.

 "...despite the fact that progress is a modern notion, to be concerned for progress today is to aim to overcome modernity.

Here we do differ, and differ markedly. There are Christians who see in some period of Christian history-the first century, the third, the thirteenth, or the sixteenth-a time when Christian faith was rightly formulated and expressed. For them, progress is measured by the degree to which the church can shape itself again in that way.

There are others who do not single out a particular epoch but who assert that beliefs and practices maintained with some consistency through the whole of our heritage are threatened today. For them, progress consists in recovering these.

There are others, and I am one, who believe that the full meaning of faith has not yet been expressed, that it lies in the future. Therefore, progress consists primarily not in recovering what has been lost but in moving forward toward a faithful future different from the past. Of course, such a future will contain many elements that have been realized in the past. Hence, on particular issues we agree with those who emphasize recovery of what has been lost, but the focus is on becoming what we have never before been.

THE AMBIGUITY OF PROGRESS

Christianity at its best has always been progressive. Primitive Christianity was progressive, radically so. Third century Christianity was progressive, as was that of the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. Or at least it is the progressive elements in all these epochs that are now remembered and celebrated.

On the other hand, most of the Christians I am calling progressive did not think of themselves in such terms. The church fathers, as they developed new doctrines, thought of themselves as merely reasserting what Christians had always and everywhere believed. The great theologians and church leaders of the high Middle Ages understood themselves to be ordering and implementing the work of earlier thinkers, not

550 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

bringing something new into being. Luther thought of himself as recovering from the past what had been obscured. It was the opponents of these movements who saw them, more accurately I believe, as introducing dangerous novelties.

All these forms of progress were ambiguous. Things of great value were lost in the process of developing new patterns. Primitive Christianity lost much of what was valuable in rabbinic Judaism. The Medieval synthesis obscured many biblical insights. Lutheranism lost much of what is valuable in Roman Catholicism. Resulting controversies have borne bitter fruit. History shows that all new ways of thinking and of organizing life are destructive, even when they are also constructive. The goal of a more truly faithful church ministering more effectively in the world is an elusive one.

The idea that progress is something desirable belongs to the modern period. Its effects, too, have been highly ambiguous. From my point of view, modernity did bring about genuine progress in some ways. Despite all their ambiguity, the development of modern democracy, human rights, science, technology, and historical consciousness and criticism are to be celebrated. I affirm also the religious tolerance that makes it possible for persons with different beliefs to live and work together as equals.

Nevertheless, we have become aware in recent decades of the enormous price that modernity has exacted. I have personally been particularly aware of what it has done to human community and to the nonhuman world, but I am also profoundly dissatisfied with modern science, the modern university, the effects of modernity on the interior life of the church, and, in general, its reductionistic tendency. In short, despite the fact that progress is a modern notion, to be concerned for progress today is to aim to overcome modernity.

Progress became an explicit Christian goal in nineteenth-century Protestantism. Whereas the global missionary movement thought of itself as continuing the missionary impetus inherent in Christian teaching, it also understood itself to be progressive. Its proponents saw Christian faith as bringing progress to many of those to whom it was proclaimed. And in alliance with the social gospel, they celebrated the progressive Christianization of society.

The profound ambiguity of all of this is now apparent. Some progressives are so troubled by the destruction of traditional societies to which this global mission contributed that they see it as an almost unmitigated evil. Others of us recognize the negative consequences but still see this globalization of Christianity as involving genuine progress. We are warned that what we today see as progress includes similar negative elements. But we will not for that reason give up our efforts to move forward.

PROGRESSIVE AND NEO-CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANTY

This response of progressives to the ambiguity of the modern idea of progress differs from another response that, although I recognize as authentic, I do not adopt. Christians may decide that questions of progress and regress in church and society are not important. They may

551 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

judge that these ideas are bound up with a view of history that is alien to the Bible and to most of tradition, specifically with the modern idea that human beings are responsible for history. They conclude that our calling is to recognize God as Lord of history. We can then turn away from world history to faithful living in our own concrete situation. The only significant form of "progress," then, would be the increase of personal and ecclesial faithfulness.

This view may be called neo-conservative, a term I have thus far avoided. It is shaped in reaction to modernity and progressivism, retrieving elements of past Christianity that have suffered in modernity. Whereas the term "conservative" usually implies a good deal of uncritical continuation of whatever has been transmitted, "neo-conservative" suggests a critical rejection of elements in the recent past, often using weapons that are supplied by the cutting-edge of contemporary thought. There is no doubt that much of the energy of creative thought at present goes into this form of criticism and retrieval, and in that sense this is a "neoconservative age."

If I respect this alternative to "progressive Christianity" as and authentic one, why do I not adopt it? I find myself called in a different direction. My imagination is shaped by the judgment that a continuation of the present world-historical direction will be catastrophic for the whole of the humanity loved by God and, indeed, for the wider creation as well. As a Christian and a product of the modern world, I feel a profound responsibility for having shared in precipitating this crisis and for continuing to contribute to it by my lifestyle and support of existing institutions. I believe that God is working to save the creation and especially the human species, but I do not believe that God is Lord of history in the sense that God will unilaterally intervene to save us from the consequences of our actions. Furthermore, I believe that the changes needed are systemic and that simply becoming more personally and ecclesially faithful, if that does not include commitment to systemic change, is insufficient. I am committed to progress that undoes much that modernity has produced but retains the sense that God works in the world in and through the creatures, not apart from us. It affirms also that, because of God, there are possibilities of a healed and whole creation quite different from any that has existed in the past and sharply opposed to dominant current trends.

ECONOMICS

My work as a progressive Christian has focused in recent years on economics. The contemporary world, at least in the more industrialized nations, has moved beyond nationalism to economism, that is, to shaping public policy and international relations with a view to the increase of production. The economic theory that undergirds this was shaped primarily in the eighteenth century. It is modern through and through. That means it is radically individualistic, and the policies it dictates are directly destructive to human community. Also, it is anthropocentric and does not

552 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

take into account the effects of human action on the rest of the world, treated in economics only under the heading of "land."

The resultant destruction of human community and of the rest of the world is profoundly opposed to God's purposes for creation. The assumptions about the nature of creation underlying this destruction are contrary to central Christian beliefs. I believe that as a Christian I am called to state my opposition and the Christian reasons for this opposition as clearly and as vigorously as I can. I believe I am also called to propose different theories and different policies that could lead to a relatively healthy world. That world would still be far from the realm of God, but it would provide a context within which Christian faithfulness could continue and other obstacles to the coming of God's realm could be overcome.

Theologically speaking, my commitment here is quite conservative. Most Christians have affirmed a view of human beings as persons-incommunity. They have also believed that an economic system should be judged by what happens to the poor. To challenge economic theory from this perspective can win support from many who would not consider themselves progressive. Also, the recognition that the biblical view is not anthropocentric in the way that modern teaching has been, that God cares for all creatures for their own sake and not only as resources for human use is a recovery of the biblical view, not a transformation of it.

Indeed, some critics, both Christian and others, have viewed my proposals as reactionary. For them, progress is measured by advance along the lines already laid down toward ever increasing human utilization of the environment and an ever growing gross national product. To reject this vision of progress and propose a quite different one appears to them as regress. It is just this renewed emphasis on classical economic principles, over against socialist and welfare economics, that is often called "neo-conservative." I am far less sympathetic with neo-conservatism in this economic garb than with its Christian form.

Despite its dependence on retrieval of traditional Christian teaching and its rejection of modern economic theory, my work is progressive. The economy for which I call is not a return to any past form of economic life. It assumes the achievements of modernity and utilizes them. it would require radical changes in society. It would dethrone the reigning economism in favor of a theocentric order or, at least, earthism.

GENDER

Today issues of gender and sexuality are in the forefront of Christian debate. Here, we progressives raise questions about traditional teachings rather than taking them as normative and applying them.

Feminists have forced us to consider gender issues. They have pointed out that Christian tradition is almost unrelievedly patriarchal, not simply the reflection of its cultural context.

How are Christians to respond when they become conscious of this fact? One response, unquestionably conservative, is to reaffirm patriarchy

553 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

as an essential feature of Christianity. If the Bible and the tradition call for patriarchy, the obvious response is to affirm patriarchy as Christian for us now and for the future as well. Indeed, for many Christians, any other answer seems to be at best a compromise, at worst a betrayal.

How is any other position possible? It depends on distinguishing diverse themes in the tradition and evaluating them in terms of their relative normative force for us now. In this case, the theme of patriarchy can be juxtaposed to the theme of justice. It may be that the tension between these themes was little noticed in past epochs. But today it forces itself on our attention. While patriarchy calls for the continued subordination of women, justice calls for a society and church in which women share power equally with men.

On what grounds can a Christian choose between these two themes? There is no one norm by which all such decisions can be made, but one appropriate step is to look at the central event of our total heritage, the Christ-event. Does that give more support to patriarchy or to justice for women?

Jesus as depicted in the gospels gives remarkably little support to a patriarchal depreciation of women and remarkably large support to a more just relation between men and women. Also, in many of the earliest

"Progressive Christians cannot simply replace the authority of tradition with that of contemporary feminist teaching. That would not be Christian. "

Christian communities, women played leadership roles not allowed them in most other contexts. In short, the Christ-event cuts in the direction of justice for women,

Progressive Christians find Christ calling us to work for justice for women, not for the maintenance of patriarchy. But this is only the beginning. Feminist consciousness does not call only for giving women a just place in an otherwise unchanged society and church. It challenges the hierarchical structure of that organization and much of its teaching and liturgy as well.

Progressive Christians cannot simply replace the authority of tradition with that of contemporary feminist teaching. That would not be Christian. On the other hand, we cannot reject particular feminist ideas simply because they are in conflict with most of the tradition. More careful examination of a progressive Christian response on some of these points will help to clarify what is involved.

Consider first the critique of the hierarchical structure of the church. Here the response for a progressive is fairly simple. Hierarchical structures have been opposed before. These protests have often been rooted in the message of Jesus himself. Their renewal with particular sensitivity by women can prod us to take more seriously an element in our heritage

554 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

we have too often neglected. That feminists have not only criticized hierarchy but also modeled some nonhierarchical patterns of leadership is a special bonus.

Consider second the critique of patriarchal language in the rhetoric of the church. This is new. The use of masculine pronouns to refer to both genders has been taken for granted in English-speaking churches for a long time. Feminists have made us realize that the use of the masculine pronoun has been accompanied by masculine images even when, in intention, women are included. Many Christians, even quite conservative ones, are willing to work toward inclusive language in this respect.

LANGUAGE ABOUT GOD

The critique of hierarchy has roots in the tradition and a change from sexist language about human beings raises few theological problems, but matters are different with regard to masculine language about God. The Hebrews conceived their God as male overagainst the goddesses. They did not speak of God's sexuality, but they did insist on God's gender, and Christians did not challenge this imagery. Partly for this reason, Christian theology ascribed to God stereotypically male attributes, and Christians have thought of God's way of dealing with human beings on the analogy of a king or father rather than a queen or mother.

Is a shift away from exclusively masculine language about God possible for Christians? Many conservatives think not. Progressives believe a change is possible and needed. How do we justify this shift in language as an expression of faith? Answering this requires becoming more explicit about distinctive elements in the progressive understanding of faith.

Conservatives understand faith to mean holding steadfast to received Christian teaching and practice. This is often desirable when the alternative is to be swept up in currents of nationalism, superstition, self-indulgence, and idolatry. But for a progressive, holding steadfast is not an expression of faith when we are confronted with new insights that have some element of truth and righteousness. Holding steadfast when this means the outright rejection of insights and wisdom is not faith but clinging. It is a protective and defensive response that does not express trust in the Spirit of Truth. Faith is expressed instead through letting go and by openness to truth however it comes to us.

This faith is not abandonment of tradition. It is the tradition, and especially Christ, that calls for trust and openness, a humble attitude, the willingness to learn. The task in each new situation is both to bring the wisdom of our tradition to bear and also to rethink elements in the tradition in light of what we can learn from others. The result is not the diminishment of the tradition but its repeated transformation.

In the matter of language about God, the tendency of the tradition to imply that God really is male has many challenges within the tradition itself. Most theologians have denied that God is really characterized by gender. The challenge of feminism calls this traditional teaching to the fore overagainst the attribution of only male characteristics to God.

555 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

Feminism also pushes us to consider more fully both the limitations of all images in capturing the reality of God and their power in shaping our lives. The relevance of feminine images and their ability to call forth aspects of our experience of God that are obscured by masculine ones should be acknowledged.

One can even argue that, in order to balance the long domination of the masculine, a period in which feminine images are given primacy may be desirable. But the real conclusion is that both sets of images are needed. We discover that some feminine images are available to us from the Bible and from tradition. But it is not sufficient simply to give these a place in our language. We need far more such images, and we need to give them far greater prominence than they have ever had before.

"I believe that a feminized Christianity will be more Christian than what we have inherited. "

A shift of dominant images expresses and causes a profound change in religious feeling and theological concepts. It is not to be engaged in casually. Shifting images cannot be merely a matter of whether they are masculine or feminine or neuter. It must also be in terms of their appropriateness to the tradition and to the current needs of Christians, both male and female. For example, as we learn how much parents have abused their children, we see that exclusively parental images may not communicate the gospel to all.

Such changes involve a profound transformation of the tradition, analogous to earlier ones connected with the Hellenization of Christianity and with the Reformation. Perhaps it is more fundamental than either. But this does not mean that it involves compromise or dillution of the tradition. A feminized Christianity is just as Christian as what preceded.

Indeed, as a progressive Christian, I believe that a feminized Christianity will be more Christian than what we have inherited. The patriarchal form of Christianity was not as faithful to Christ as a postpatriarchal form of Christianity can become. This does not mean that nothing of value will be lost in the transition. There are, for example, profound fissures introduced into the ecumenical movement, a movement that is also strongly affirmed by progressive Christians. But the call to be open to the truths with which feminists confront us is stronger than the call to avoid controversy with other Christians.

FAITHFUL CHANGE

The ability to be transformed in encounter with new insight and alien wisdom is the mark of life. Even as individuals, not to be open to transformation in encounter with other people is a mark of death, not life. It is also true of great historical movements. A healthy tradition is always

556 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

undergoing creative transformation. A sick tradition tries to maintain itself unchanged, protecting itself from all critical examination. It changes anyway, but, in this case, the change is atrophy.

The importance of faithful change may not be limited to Christians, but it has especially deep rootedness in our tradition. Some traditions teach that the fullness of truth and righteousness is found in the past. Conservative Christians sometimes try to maintain this, but they do so against many elements in the very past that they try to restore. It is an easier position for Muslims to adopt because of their view of the place of the Koran and the earliest Muslim community. For Christians, the past events we celebrate point us forward to those we anticipate.

Jesus' message of the coming realm of God provides a normative image of that hope. We hope for the embodiment of God's purposes in the world. The Christ-event is proleptic, but it does not embody the fullness of what is expected. To move forward in light of that hope is to learn much that we do not know and can never learn simply from studying the Bible. That learning, with all its effects upon the learner, is the way the tradition lives and grows. To grow in this way is not a betrayal of Christ but a mark of faithful conformation to Christ. Indeed, we find the living Christ or the Holy Spirit present wherever life and growth occur.

The word "repentance" is central to our Christian vocabulary. It is often used today as if it meant remorse for actions contrary to a divine law. We have ritualized the confession of sins in such a way as to imply that we are essentially unchanged, always sinning and always claiming God's forgiveness.

This is not wrong. We are always missing the mark, and we are always accepted despite our failures. But this has little to do with the meaning of repentance on the lips of Jesus. "Metanoia" means turning or turning around, redirecting our lives. Jesus preached repentance in connection with the coming of God's realm. Life had been oriented in one direction, perhaps toward the past. It should be redirected to God's future. This was not a rejection of Judaism, but it did involve a creative transformation of that tradition opening it much more fully to Gentiles. Christians individually and collectively continued to miss the mark, but the mark at which they aimed was different. It is this chance of vision and goal, rather than regret because of a general failing short of perfection, that is repentance in the New Testament sense.

We are continually called individually and collectively to repent. The very familiarity of the call dulls us to its meaning. It takes on greater power when it comes to us with new revelatory force as from feminists. The call to repent of patriarchy must be repeated over and over, but it is not simply a matter of returning to the same place. As a church, we have actually changed collectively in some respects, and there is promise of more. As individuals, we at least know some of what is entailed. This call to repentance, to be creatively transformed, stands in a long tradition of such calls. As a progressive Christian, I see in this call an opportunity to transform and enliven the tradition and the community it informs.

557 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

SEXUALITY

Issues about sexuality may draw forth even more sharply divided responses from conservatives and progressives than those about gender. But it is significant that the church as a whole has gone through a creative transformation on this topic in the past century. Previously, the church viewed sexuality negatively. Today, few Christians continue this antisexual teaching explicitly. We have discovered that it is neither biblical nor healthy, and we have repented.

Of course, this change has been more thorough on the part of some than on the part of others. To progressives, some conservative teachings today seem unintelligible except for the lingering power of the generally negative view of sexuality. Conservatives maintain patterns, such as priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church, even while disclaiming the major assumptions that have long supported them.

If we ask what caused this transformation, we must point to Sigmund Freud and the sexual revolution. This movement arose chiefly outside the church and in hostility to it. But Christians increasingly listened to what was said with sufficient openness to recognize that there were some sound insights and wisdom there. This led to reexamination of Biblical teaching, and this, in turn, to repentance.

The creative transformation of the church in its encounter with the sexual revolution does not entail its adoption of all the ideas and teachings of that revolution. That would not be creative transformation. It would be abandonment of our tradition and conversion to another. But changes have been made and are being made that do not affect only peripheral aspects of the church's teaching and practice. Sex is far too important for that. Simply dealing openly with what has so long gone on in secret has changed the self-understanding of the church in profound ways. There has been a widespread shift from judging sexual activity by its conformity to rules to judging it in terms of what it does to human beings. Our horror at the sexual abuse of children by their fathers, a topic almost wholly ignored until recently, is far greater than any antipathy we may feel toward sexual relations between consenting unmarried adults.

Today the most divisive sexual issue is homosexuality. The issue is not primarily one of biblical scholarship. Progressives agree with conservatives that such biblical comments as there are on homosexuality are negative. Furthermore, if we take the tradition as a whole, the negativity is reenforced and accentuated. In short, most Christians through most of history have regarded all homosexual activity as sinful. If the question is to be settled on this basis, the answer is clear.

Progressive Christians, however, do not accept the proof text approach. The negative attitudes expressed in the Bible are closely related to its patriarchal character. Despite the fact that biblical authors share in the general patriarchal hostility, the topic is peripheral in comparison with the emphasis on justice and mercy. Teachings about economics are far more central to the Bible, but these are consistently ignored.

558 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

In the mainstream of the tradition, the rejection of homosexuality has been bound up with the now rejected negative attitude to sexuality in general. The major arguments against it have been based on natural law theory rather than on the scattered comments in the Bible. The natural law argument is that the purpose of sexuality is procreation only and that any sexual activity that is disconnected from that as a possible outcome is wrong. For this reason, masturbation has also been condemned through the centuries as well as most forms of birth control. Today we recognize that sexual activity also functions as an important form of bonding between two people and that the pleasure derived from it is good. The older form of natural law theory is not convincing.

The rejection of homosexuality as immoral also presupposed in most of the tradition that the preference for same sex partners is voluntary. It seems to have been assumed that many people are bisexual, capable of bonding with members of either sex, and that the choice of a partner of the same sex is free and perverse, somehow contrary to the real nature of the one who chooses. Today we still debate whether sexual orientation is genetic or acquired, but most agree that, if acquired, it is acquired early, long before we become sexually active.

"Today, few Christians continue … anti-sexual teaching explicitly. We have discovered that it is neither biblical nor healthy, and we have repented. "

We now know that church teaching against homosexuality drives many people into heterosexual marriages that are condemned to be unfulfilling to both partners. When the church acknowledges the undesirability of such marriages, it is reduced to telling all those whose primary orientation is homosexual that the only moral course for them is lifelong celibacy.

The actual effect in many instances is to encourage promiscuity. A single homosexual male may be fully accepted in the church as long as his sexual activity is invisible. This means that he is discouraged from bonding with another male in a long term commitment, since this is likely to be publicly visible. He can, however, participate secretly in multiple liaisons without disturbing his place in the church,

Such promiscuity may be acceptable in terms of the sexual revolution, but most progressive Christians view it as undesirable. We believe we have learned from our Christian tradition that there are values in covenantal relationships with others, that marriage is such a relationship, desirable for those who are heterosexually inclined, and that the best expression of sexuality for homosexuals is also in such covenantal relations. From this point of view, the now dominant teaching of most churches is conserving nothing of value from the tradition and is in fact discouraging the application of what is best in the tradition to a significant segment of the population.

559 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

This is not said in order to oppose celibacy. No doubt some homosexuals and some heterosexuals are called to celibacy. That is for individuals to decide in their relation to God. But it is very clear that most homosexuals and most heterosexuals do not find themselves called to celibacy. For the church to teach that all homosexuals are so called is arbitrary and legalistic in the highest degree. True, there is much else that is arbitrary and legalistic in the tradition, but of all this we are called to repent.

CHRISTOLOGY

I have tried to communicate in this discussion that progressive Christians claim the center. This is important to say because of some unfortunate imagery. Paul Tillich, certainly a progressive Christian, located himself on the boundary, emphasizing that he was open to learning from culture and philosophy. But the image suggests that conservative Christians occupy the center.

Unfortunately, too many progressives have internalized this picture, thinking that an unqualified Christianity is represented by those who stress their conservatism. They see much that these Christians say and do as cruel and unjust, but, instead of affirming their own commitment to mercy and justice as fundamental expressions of their Christian faith, they sometimes accept the picture of themselves as lukewarm Christians compromising their Christianity with ideals and beliefs they have derived elsewhere. What is crucial for progressive Christians and for the health of Christianity as a whole is that we claim the center.

To claim the center is to understand the particular form of progress to which we are committed as that to which Christ calls us as a church. We do not call for changes in the economic order, equality for women and their wisdom, and acceptance of homosexual covenants as a concession to current fads outside the church. We call for them because we are called to repentance for our acquiesence in an unchristian economic order, in a patriarchy that we now see as radically opposed to Christ, and for centuries old teaching against sexuality expressed now, especially, in homophobia.

I have formulated my case for progressive Christianity in a way that progressives with diverse theological perspectives may find acceptable. Valuing diversity is part of the progressive agenda, and we ourselves embody that diversity. But progressives are also interested in more precise and fundamental theological commitments; therefore, I want to make more explicit the christology expressed in what I have been saying.

My central thesis is that Christ is creative transformation, that faithfulness to Christ expresses itself in opening ourselves to that transformation, that the process of creative transformation is our hope. By Christ, I understand God's incarnation in the world. God is that factor in the world that introduces freedom, novelty, spontaneity, life, creativity, responsibility, hope, and love. Some Christians limit the use of "incarnation" to the person of Jesus. If this is insisted upon, then I could make my point by speaking of the presence of the Holy Spirit, but it is my conviction that, in

560 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

Paul's words, "The Lord is the Spirit." The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and where the Spirit of Christ is, there is Christ. Where the Holy Spirit is present, there God is embodied, and there is Christ. We meet God in one another, and, indeed, in all living things.

It is because of the one unique and unrepeatable Christ event that I see Christ in all things. I also see that all things come together finally in Christ. That adds to the importance of every detail of what happens in the world. All is finally creatively transformed in God. Nothing is utterly lost.

The Christ event is not identical with Jesus. It involves those with whom Jesus interacted. The divine presence is not in one individual apart from relationship to others but in and through those relationships. Nevertheless, it is Jesus himself in whom God dwelt in a peculiarly intimate way so as to co-constitute with Jesus' personal past his very selfhood. I do not believe that this distinctive structure of Jesus' existence was given to him at birth or remained steadily with him throughout his ministry. Scripture witnesses to temptations, struggles, and abandonment that reflect a different relation to God. But I believe that, through many of his authentic sayings, we see reflected a unity with God that is quite different from what we find in the prophets, or Paul, or Socrates, or Gautama, or Saint Francis, or Meister Eckhart, much as these, in turn, differ from one another. Jesus was creatively transformed by this relationship to God and opened by it to being creatively transformed by his companions. In the relationships this made possible, others were also creatively transformed. Jesus' words and deeds, recorded in the Gospels can also creatively transform us. Hence, I believe that Jesus uniquely enacted Christ.

Looking at Christ in this way, I am convinced that clinging to any specific results of creative transformation as if they were Christ, is idolatrous. We celebrate all that Christ has accomplished in the past, finding much of that preserved in the Christian tradition. But to be faithful to Christ is to open ourselves for God's presence in our lives and communities now, a presence that always challenges the best of what we have been as well as condemning the worst. Clinging to past embodiments of Christ blocks the present working of Christ.

CHRIST AS THE CENTER

Some progressive Christians fear that this strongly christocentric argument for progressive Christianity threatens our progressive relations to other religious communities, especially our new dialogues with them. They believe that we need to find common ground with them and to subordinate our differences to our agreements with representatives of other traditions. This is an important argument among progressives.

Nevertheless, I remain convinced that Christ is the grounds for Christian respect for and openness toward other religious communities. I do not see the need to establish common ground for dialogue. Buddhists or Muslims may have quite different grounds for dialogue with us than we

561 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

have for dialogue with them. Readiness to speak and listen is the only prerequisite for dialogue. Within our dialogue we can discuss our diversity on this point as well as on others.

The richest dialogue does not ensue when we put our distinctive beliefs into the background. It ensues when we hear the very heart of one another's convictions, even when they are offensive to the listener. For me, as a progressive Christian, Christ is the center, and it is Christ I want to share in dialogue.

The problem for dialogue arises only if I so formulate the centrality of Christ for me as to preclude the significance and value of living from other centers. I have not done that. Creative transformation is not the only possible and attractive center for human existence. Indeed, many Christians resist it, favoring religious experience of a more static variety.

"What is crucial for progressive Christians and for the health of Christianity as a whole is that we claim the center. "

Perhaps the clearest alternative to creative transformation encountered in dialogue is Buddhist Nirvana, enlightenment, or emptiness. This is viewed and realized as a mode of personal being that is equally relevant in all historical circumstances, not envisioning historical change. Creative transformation is a biographical and historical process; nirvana is a final condition. Creative transformation is full immersion in the world. The one who has attained Nirvana reenters the world out of compassion for those who have not become empty.

Stated formally, these differences may not seem great. Furthermore, progressive Buddhists may take similar positions on economic, gender, and sexual issues with progressive Christians. But the relation of these positions to Nirvana is quite different from their relation to creative transformation. Creative transformation is the transformation of one concrete personal or historical situation into another. Nirvana is a state of being attained by an individual. The new situation attained by creative transformation is itself subject to further transformation. Nirvana is final.

Christians see that creative transformation has played a large role in Buddhist history and is remarkably evident in the lives of those who move toward enlightenment. Buddhists detect elements of enlightenment in great Christians. Christ as creative transformation and Nirvana define circles that overlap extensively. But they remain different, and in their difference Buddhism and Christianity can stimulate, enrich, and transform one another. That is the Christian reason for dialogue.

Indeed, dialogue with people of other religious traditions is a natural and normative expression of Christianity as progressive Christians understand it. In that context, we can offer the wisdom we have in Christ

562 - The Christian Reason for Being Progressive

without the appearance of authoritarian proselytizing. In that context, we can also encounter the wisdom of others and be transformed by it. Christ is peculiarly manifest to us precisely here.

The patterns that have been developed in interfaith dialogue have application in other areas as well. Dialogue with scientists, for example, has analogous possibilities. Perhaps the most important, still little realized potential is for dialogue with fellow Christians. A dialogical relation between progressive and neo-conservative Christians could be particularly fruitful and, dare I say it, transformative for both.