It becomes clear: what we have are ”Christianities” (with ...



Theses for the panel on the CDC

Heikki Räisänen (Helsinki)

One article in the Dictionary refers to some who “see little alternative to liberalism for the survival of a culturally relevant Christianity” [that is, I take it, in the West]. I am one of them. This position has not been my starting-point; it is the outcome of a personal struggle in a secular Scandinavian academic context. We are products of our contexts and there are limits to our changeability, and yet there is space for development and widening of perspective.

Scholars argue whether it’s fitting to speak of ancient Judaism in the singular or whether one should rather speak of Judaisms in the plural. Even a quick perusal of the CDC convinces me that there are much weightier reasons for using the plural in the case of Christianity. The issue is, of course, one of definition, but (and this is thesis 1) it might be helpful to conceive of world Christianity as a set of “Christianities”. They might even be able to relate to each other in more constructive ways, if they were not forced to rub shoulders under one “umbrella”. Social groups tend to be less negative toward outsiders than they are toward “heretics” in their own circle.

This leads to the second thesis: It is helpful to define “Christian” in very broad terms, as the CDC does: a Christian is anyone “claiming an association with Jesus Christ, however he or she might conceive of this association”. A consequence is the decision to “minimize the qualifier ‘heretic’” (though I think that even “minimizing” is too little; we should get rid of the term altogether). The CDC sticks admirably to its principle. For instance, it is stated that gnostic myths constituted “some of the earliest attempts at a systematic articulation of Christian doctrine in relation to Jewish tradition and Greco-Roman philosophy” – a perfect case of inculturation, it would seem. This insight – that Gnostic Christians are serious Christians – is not yet sufficiently recognised in biblical studies, where “Gnosticism” is still largely seen as a dangerous “Other”. Some tensions remain even in the CDC: Marcionites and Gnostics are still called heretics in one article; another claims that Platonism held within itself certain threats to faith, which led to heresies. North European “Culture Christianity” is viewed with some suspicion in the article on that topic (but more benignly in another, which refers to “many who describe themselves as ‘Christian in their own way’”). Couldn’t this be understood as a case of inculturation (in the context of a secular culture) that is to be taken just as seriously as any other case?

One of the key terms in CDC is indeed inculturation, “a dialogue between two cultures”. A good instance is ancestor veneration that deservedly gets ample space, the point being made that its dismissal as idolatry was a mistake and that its integration is a must for Christianity in Africa. The notion of Jesus as the proto-ancestor is a splendid example of inculturation. But I submit that for instance the notion of Jesus as the Logos is a comparable early case of intercultural dialogue, and this brings me to thesis 3: inculturation was there from the beginning. Almost everything in the Bible can be viewed as re-interpretation of traditions in light of new experiences in new contexts. “Christianity and Christian religious experience have always been inculturated”, as the preface of the CDC very clearly states. However, I find problematic the claim by “some”, quoted in the same paragraph, that “Christianity is necessarily deeply inculturated, because it is, by definition, ‘an incarnate faith’”. Early Jewish Christians did quite well without the notion of incarnation. Arguably, there is no permanent “essence” of Christianity that could be applied in different contexts; Christianities consist of endless processes.

Thus, neither Incarnation nor Trinity should be taken as a fixed starting point for Christian theology (though something like that seems to be suggested in some articles). Even they should be seen as instances of inculturation; they may have worked in one context but may not do so in another. They have never been shared by all Christians, not even by all those whose voices are heard in the New Testament. The same is true of atonement. The CDC has a good article on the topic, presenting three different views that are, “as contextual interpretations ... equally legitimate”, so that “Christian theologians have a choice”. So far so good. Yet nothing is said of the early witnesses that pay scarce or no attention to the notion of atonement. An alternative does crop up in the article on the Gospel of Mary, which is explicitly acknowledged as Christian, belonging “to those writings that regard not Jesus’ death and resurrection but his teachings as a means of gaining salvation”. Similar points could have been made, say, in connection with Q, and even in the canonical gospels the death of Jesus is hardly presented as the crucial salvific act. From here one could draw a trajectory that leads to liberal modern versions of Christianity.

What I have just said about incarnation, trinity and atonement illustrates the well-known fact that biblical interpretation in Western academia tends to produce readings that are often different from those produced in religious communities. This leads to thesis 4: [[ONE SHOULD PRESERVE A PLACE FOR critical approaches developed in the West since the 17th century, often misleadingly lumped together as the “historical-critical method”, [[should preserve a place]] in the agenda of biblical studies (though not necessarily in the center). I note with satisfaction that this is fully acknowledged in CDC; historical criticism is not caricatured, as sometimes happens when contextuality is emphasized.

Indeed, classic historical approaches and modern contextual approaches often converge in their net results. For instance, queer biblical interpretation shares certain emphases with historical-critical approaches in that the gap between then and now is emphatically recognised. Some “queer readings highlight the historical gap ... to suggest that biblical norms of sex, gender, and kinship cannot be imposed simplistically on the modern world”. This insight could be generalized: I wonder if any biblical norms can be simply imposed (surely not “simplistically”!). Thus, the article on Pastoral Epistles (by Elsa Tamez) is rather critical of its topic, as the Epistles “reflect a move toward a rigid authoritarian church structure”. Their solutions to the problems of their time “must be carefully assessed before being applied to other times and contexts”. Certainly – and so must any solutions proposed in any texts! It is a fully justified claim that interpreters must assume responsibility for their choices, not trying to hide behind what “the Bible says”.

No doubt some creative tension may arise between classic historical criticism and advocacy readings. This is only a problem, however, if “advocacy” is taken to mean that one tries to the utmost to gain from biblical texts support to one’s cause. I would prefer an approach that dialogues with the texts from the perspective of the cause, the outcome often being that some texts are more helpful than others and some have to be criticized or rejected.

Thesis 5: Reception history and “effective history” of the Bible, combined with ideological and ethical criticism, should have a prominent place in the work of biblical scholars. When we ask about the contribution of the CDC to biblical studies, we are discussing only one segment of this work, which after all says more about the contexts than about the Bible. But there’s enough to underline the importance of the afterlife of biblical texts and ideas. The diverse biblical roots of a concept are highlighted in a helpful way, for instance as regards “Christology” or “Salvation”. The article on Types of Ecclesiastical Structures singles out five such types and indicates the New Testament starting-point for each, adding that none actually replicate the apostolic church. This is a fruitful way of relating cultural contexts to biblical origins.

Asking about the fruits of texts and traditions is most important. What the Preface states does find expression in many articles: the CDC “does not hide ... that Christians have been responsible for much historical and contemporary evil”. Once more the responsibility of the interpreter is highlighted: do we cultivate health or destruction through our treatment of the Bible?

Finally, a footnote with a wish: among the over three thousand articles I missed a reference to bibliodrama – an international movement that invests in group work that aims at a dialogue between a text and a person’s life experience through imaginative role-playing, a promising version of contextual hermeneutics inspired by psychodrama and sociodrama. Bibliodrama is “often experienced as ‘path of liberation’”; it provides one context where people can try to cope with their diverse Christian traditions and try to come to terms with them or get from them help in their life situations. Please consider including it in the next edition!

In summary: I think we need a healthy sense of relativity that can promote an “ethics of disagreement” so that we may respectfully agree to disagree. The CDC is a great aid toward that goal.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download