Does the Epicenter Hold?

Initially published on the Theotalk listserv in 2002 or 2003. My understanding of Christianity has gone through many changes since then, but the position described below s a real place where more than a few of those grappling with the meaning of Christianity in their lives confront "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

This discussion on what we do and can believe is one of the most important ones that I've ever witnessed on this list or anywhere else for that matter. I raise a few questions.

 ·           Is Christ is the way, the truth, and the life like no other, or is Christ a way, a truth, and a viable path to follow in opening doors to the holy, transcendence, or the more authentic life, however that may be defined?  This is a provocative question which I believe needs to be addressed in a range of forums, yet in a manner that cogently grapples with the historical impact of the traditional view that still shapes much of current Christian thinking.

 ·           Is the Christ story a myth or is it rooted in literal historical experience linked to the Jewish prophetic heritage and a belief in the physical Resurrection of Christ as a historical reality?  In a recent book, Garry Dorrien refers to Christ as "true myth."  If one were to push this, one might say, "Christ as a true myth.”

 The question of how do we know or to come to know is a major issue that requires resolution if 21st century people who live their daily lives in the secular arena are to make sense of the Christ experience.  A person shares the following:

  It makes us insecure, I guess, to have a truly living God, one whose many aspects we are ceaselessly discovering, one who turns up in the unlikeliest of places, one who constantly challenges us, one who consistently pushes and prods us into relationship with God and with each other and with all of creation, one who cannot be reduced to a cosmic machine (put in the right formula, and the right result will follow).  Personally, I fell in love with that living God a long time ago, and I don't understand any more now that I did then -- nor am I richer, more successful, or even necessarily happier, in fact just the opposite.  But I know I am in a living relationship with a living Being on whom I can depend.  How do I know that (what's the epistemology here)?  From a lame, hard-to-describe mixture of experience, reflection, praxis, more reflection, personal revelation (including Scripture and worship), collective experience, more reflection...

 That is profound in every respect, though it still depends on where one is coming from.  If I am already basing my life on the central tenets of the Christian revelation, where it matters not whether one’s beliefs are based on "true myth" or historical revelation, then praxis, reflection, dialogue, Scripture, and worship are very much in order as the primary means of strengthening one's faith even in the midst of faith seeking understanding.  From this epicenter many of the questions that others and I have raised do not matter very much, as it is more than a little true, in any event, that belief itself is a form of understanding.  By believing, I come to understand certain things that would not otherwise be available to me through a studied stance of doubt or skepticism in a quest for knowledge alone.  From this base, it is Christ and Christ alone that I seek to know and to strengthen as the center of my identity, regardless as to how open I may be to other insights and other faith and secular traditions.  Whether it is true in fact, based on the epicenter of faith, for me, Christ is "the truth, the way and the life," like no other.  In the final analysis, that is all I need to know as long as faith remains the primary narrative of my life. Based on this line of thinking, I would also agree that one of the main purposes of congregational life and theology is to strengthen this faith walk stemming from the epicenter, even in the liberal denominations.  In whatever manifestations The Way may be ultimately interpreted, even the outer boundary of liberal congregationalism needs to somehow make sense of the mystery and accept the revelation, regardless as to how it enters into the lives of individuals or is interpreted.  Even liberal congregationalism needs to believe based on faith even, nay, especially, while striving to understand, lest the very prize be lost in the process of seeking surer knowledge.

However, for many, the epicenter no longer holds as the foundational source for believing.  For many, identity and consciousness are experienced pluralistically.  For many, this results in a rejection of the epicenter and an embrace of a life lived without the Christian revelation as a dominant source of identity.  The question for the liberal Christian community is (that is for those who do not reject the path of Christ at least as A Way), whether they have a God-shaped vacuum that can only be filled by the revelation of Christ?  Or, rather, whether they are able to live their lives equally well based on other myths or worldviews they may deem appropriate, without at the same time, rejecting the Christian narrative that plays some, not totally clear bearing on their lives?  If one holds that the vacuum is the core reality of human existence, then that requires some coming to terms with the exclusivity of Christ, however liberally adhered.  If one believes, rather, that there are various paths through which one can live their lives with authenticity, meaning, and love, then that would necessitate some coming to terms with the more radical implications of a more relativistic Christ.  That, in turn, would also require some rejection or modification of the claim that Christ is the truth, the way and the life, except for its existential value for the unique individual who may adhere to such doctrine.   Even then, if it is The Way that is subject to intensive immanent critique among the liberal household of faith, even that existentialist belief still requires some cogent articulation of the reasons for such adherence.

Taking this a step further, what do these issues have to do with liberal congregationalism in a post-Christian and postmodern culture and society?  In an earlier era, where many within the congregations and even in the broader society believed in, or at least did not directly challenge the epicenter, the church could afford to focus predominantly on The Story, regardless as to how literal or how figurative one took it. The issue at this time is that it is The Way as a singular, dominant narrative that is under profound scrutiny, even within the Christian community itself.  Outside the camp, there are wide sectors of people who do not believe or think about religious faith at all, who would view it to the extent they may think of it, as quaint, irrelevant, ludicrous, and in some cases, dangerous.  Not that much of this is fair or represents careful thought.  Nonetheless, this secular reality, including its legitimacy as a worldview needs to be addressed by the liberal Christian community in an unequivocally direct manner.

One of the needs of a 21st Christian liberal theology is to identify non-exclusive, but substantial ways of entering into public dialogue in a variety of settings in such arenas as business, law, politics, and academia.  At least in theory, this quest has been one of the compelling engagements of Hartford Seminary, as reflected in their simultaneous commitment to lay ministry and in the sustained dialogue the school promotes between Islamic and Christian scholars.  This effort needs to be more public and permeate more of the routine activities of congregational life.  While being open, tolerant, and inclusive, it also requires (I believe), ways to articulate Christian understandings and teachings as they may relate to these different sectors, so that a religious epistemology can enter into public discourse as an equal opportunity partner.  This requires subtle, complex work, but if Christianity is going to flourish in the 21st century outside of evangelical and fundamental sectors, it is going to have to find its voice in the public sector.  Such work will involve much more than praxis and reflection (though will require that!).  It will also require a publicly coming to terms and grappling with some of the most difficult issues facing postmodern liberal Christianity residing in the midst of the secular city in the articulation of its own voice amidst the complex pluralism of modern western existence.  This, it will need to do while experiencing the counter-pressure of the multitude of voices of fundamentalism and evangelicalism clamoring for security, certainty, and domination.

The question, then, for many of us who have been informed by a Christian sensibility, but do not necessarily embrace the epicenter as foundational, is the meaning of Christian identity within the context in which we live.  Many things at this time are wide open about faith, including sources of revelation, how we know or even how we can believe, particularly if the desire to believe is not uniform or central; or if there is little compelling reason to believe, particularly on the more exclusive tenets of Christ as the way, the truth, and the life?   What does it mean to embrace Christ as a way, a truth, and as a life even in the midst of embracing other identities?  What does it mean if the center does not hold?