On this day before the American Thanksgiving Day, I am thankful that I am in the last stage of publishing the updated and slightly revised edition of my book The Limits of Liberalism. This post is based on the concluding chapter of that book.
What
is the Radiant Center?
In
The Limits of Liberalism, I repeatedly call for a position between the “extremes”
of the liberal Christian left as well as the “extremes” of the conservative
evangelical Christian right. I struggled, though, with what to call the
envisioned theological position between the polar opposites.
One
term I seriously considered was “radical center,” a term used by Adam Hamilton,
the Methodist megachurch pastor in greater Kansas City. Hamilton wrote about that
in his book Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White (2008).
Hamilton
used the words “radical center” as a term that is “able to hold together the
best of the right and the left” (p. 232). It is the position that “seeks to
build bridges rather than walls, and refuses to be the wedge in anyone’s
theological or culture wars” (p. 235).
But
because of the baggage born by the term “radical” and the general
unattractiveness of the color gray, I decided to call the position Hamilton was
promoting, and which I badly want, the radiant center.
The
center between the extremes of black and white doesn’t have to be gray. Rather,
it can be a brilliant blue, a gorgeous green, or a rousing red. Yes, a radiant
center.
Who
Is Included in the Radiant Center?
As
I envision it, the radiant center is composed of both progressive evangelicals
and conservative liberals as well as all those in between. Moreover, it has ever-widening
boundaries, becoming more and more inclusive.
Not
everyone, however, is included, or wants to be included, in the center. So, I
am not advocating a radical center that includes everyone. I still want,
though, to be open to dialogue with those who are not a part of the envisioned
center, and I don’t want to exclude anyone from friendship.
While
I certainly want to have “malice toward none and charity for all,” not everyone
is included in the radiant center because, frankly, some don’t want to be grouped
with people with whom they have serious theological disagreements.
The
radiant center can’t include those who are not willing to accept and affirm
those with quite different beliefs; that is, the radiant center can’t accept
“fundamentalists” of the right or the left, that is, those who think that they,
and only they, are right.
Advocating
the Radiant Center
I
close my book by strongly advocating the radiant center as I envision it.
The
radiant center radiates the heat (passion and compassion) and light of the
teachings of Jesus Christ and the gospel about Jesus.
The
radiant center is generous, for it spreads out to warm and enlighten everyone
within its reach. Its effects radiate out to all alike, to the right and the
left and to those not even on the spectrum.
The
radiant center is progressive. While it may not go to the extremes of some
contemporary liberal Christianity, neither will it be constrained to the
confines of much Christian conservative evangelicalism.
Here, then, is how I close Limits of
Liberalism:
I pray that other Christians who are fed up with fundamentalism but who are also aware of the limits of liberalism will join me in searching for, affirming, and then helping to build a radiant center for contemporary Christian faith.
Will
you join me in this endeavor?
I'm sure you anticipated my response because we've gone back and forth a bit over these issues for years, and so here it is. :-) I cannot fully join you in this endeavor because I'm theologically liberal. I have several problems with your promotion of the "radiant center." One is that I don't see how it's any different than what has been known as neo-orthodox or neo-reformed theology. Insofar as it's no different than that perspective, I don't think you address the problems with neo-orthodoxy/radiant center, which has been widely well critiqued. You seem to think that only fundamentalism and liberalism have shortcomings without acknowledging or treating those of the "radiant center." You seem to assume that your version of the "radiant center" is full proof, but it appears to me that you don't actually justify that assumption. And that brings up what I think is the most problematic aspect of your perspective, and that is that your argument for the radiant center seems to be based all but entirely on the fact that fundamentalism and liberalism have limitations and shortcomings. I'm not sure that's a strong enough foundation for your perspective of the "radiant center." There is certainly no logical reason to accept that a central position is more virtuous or more intellectually honest or humble than the right and the left. Indeed, it is true, as you imply in this blog, that there are fundamentalists (almost all of them) and liberals (not all of them, but some) “who are not willing to accept and affirm those with quite different beliefs." Also, it seems to me that lumping all liberals into an "extreme left" is problematic, but that's another issue I'll take up some other time.
ReplyDeleteYes, Anton, I anticipated this sort of a response from you--and I much appreciate you taking the time to articulate that response here. Let me respond, in part, to your comments in order.
DeleteAnd yes, perhaps it is not much different from neo-orthodox theology, for to a large extent that has broadly been my theological position since I first learned about it in seminary. I don't remember hearing of it referred to as a center, much less a radiant center, but it was clearly a position between the fundamentalists on the right and the liberals on the left.
As you know, Karl Barth was the main proponent of what came to be called new-orthodox theology--although I always liked Emil Brunner more than Barth. And as you also know, he developed his theology because of what he considered to be serious flaws in the liberal theology in his day. But then as Barth became more widely known in the U.S., he was attacked by the fundamentalist and conservative Protestants. for being too liberal. That is always a "problem" for those in the center: they get criticized and denigrated from both sides. I have experienced that in various ways throughout my lifetime--and even now as you would "criticize" me for being too conservative, I have conservative friends (and family members) who criticize me for being too liberal. But, so be it. I am still committed to advocating a radiant center.
I don't know how to respond to the long middle part of your comments, so let me jump to your concluding remarks. I certainly do not lump all liberals into an extreme left or all conservatives into an extreme right. I think there are both liberals and conservatives who hold "extreme" positions which makes it hard for them to be seen as a part of the radiant center. But there are also many liberals and many conservatives who I want to include, and do include, in the radiant center. I agree with Adam Hamilton, whom I quoted in the article, and I re-assert this statement in the post: ". . . the radiant center is composed of both progressive evangelicals and conservative liberals as well as all those in between. Moreover, it has ever-widening boundaries, becoming more and more inclusive."
To give just one example of a multitude that could be mentioned if there were time, there is an op-ed piece in the Kansas City Star this morning by Randall Balmer, who is an Episcopal priest as well as a professor of religion at Dartmouth College. He is also the author of Chapter 10 in "The Spiritual Danger of Donald Trump: 30 Evangelical Christians on Justice, Truth, and Moral Integrity." Here is a man willing to be identified as an evangelical, but he is certainly the type of Christian thinker I want to include in the radiant center.
Well, there is much more I could write, but perhaps this is enough for now.
Actually, I would never use the phrase for you or even think that you are "too conservative." In seminary, I cut my teeth on neo-reformed, too, but abandoned it as I encountered process theology. When I say I'm liberal, it's true, of course, but I'm simply using your terminology. Actually, I view the continuum quite differently, as something between fundamentalism and everybody else (from left evangelicals to process theologians). The thing about everything from evangelical to process, we get so many difference among different thinkers that the categories become quite meaningless, or so it seems to me.
DeleteImagery is important and we need new imagery since much of what we have in the Christian church is worn-out and confusing. For me, the idea of a "radiant center" is helpful. It suggests there is a continuum and that the center can be a pivot point from which most of us would move on any subject especially when it comes to a theological perspective. If the church is to have a relevancy in the future (highly doubtful right now), then we best find a radiant center. For me this means that I who feels that much of scripture is allegory can find a place at the table along with those who feel it is literal history. I appreciate the fact that you mention that not everyone can or will desire to be in a radiant center. Truthfully, I can far more easily welcome the radical left than I can be open to the fascist right so there I have my own challenges.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Lonnie, for your thoughtful comments. I am pleased that you like the idea of a radiant center, and I think you largely grasped what I was trying to convey by the use of that term.
DeleteI guess I do have a bit of trouble, though, with your last sentence. I think there is probably not room in the radiant center for either the radical left or the fascist right. It is probably easier to be in meaningful conversation with--and in at least partial agreement with--those on the left than with those on the right. But the extremists on either side probably shouldn't be accepted as part of the radiant center because of their unwillingness to be in meaningful conversations with others there with whom they strongly disagree.
Here is the entirety of an email comment received from Thinking Friend Greg Hadley in Japan:
ReplyDelete"Sign me up. Yes."
I believe in one, holy, catholic Church. But God will have to be the Judge on that. Christ prayed for the unity of His Church - that they would be one, and gave His final command that they should "Love one another". Would that it could be. Be schism and hatred have been around since the beginning.
ReplyDeleteFor me, I just look for people of goodwill. I would far rather associate with a heretic, or a Muslim (and I do) than with the militant left and right wings of the Church who self-righteously think themselves righteous. (I'm sure that you would draw the center ring far differently than I.) In fact, I don't know if there is a center, let alone a common radiance, but there are people of goodwill out there - including many "Christians" across the board with whom I feel comfortable. But I'll not be the judge of their beliefs and practices in the end.
Best rule of thumb - avoid mean people. But be aware of religious (including denominational), political, ethnic, and cultural, and tribal differences. And be knowledgeable of the rationale for one's own beliefs.
I don't usually respond to anonymous comments, but there are a couple of things I want to say about these.
DeleteFirst, the sub-title of my book is "A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Liberalism." Muslims and people of other religions, and those of no religious faith, are not the issue here. Of course, people can choose to associate with anyone they wish to. My concern in the book, though, is about those who profess Christian beliefs.
Then, while it may not be all that radiant, there are probably far more people who are between the extremes of liberalism and fundamentalism/conservatism than who are in either extreme. From left to right, I am guessing (and it would be hard to know whether or not this is correct) that perhaps, from left to right, the percentages are perhaps 20% -- 50% -- 30%. There are, no doubt, some "mean" people on both sides, but it's hard to be mean if you are in the center -- especially if it's a radiant center!
Good point. I look at more than theology. Within theology, the central circle can be significantly wider. The line of heretical theology (traditional creeds) are probably the best limits. Several, including people of goodwill, do fall outside those parameters. Dialogue can continue, but one should be aware of the line. Various catechisms also lay out some good parameters - those have existed since early in the first century. Or, as a friend of mine says, most if not all of use live with some theological aberration in our beliefs - a definite limit on our theological radiance.
DeleteAnother gratifying response: this one is from local Thinking Friend Jerry Cain:
ReplyDelete"Count me in! I want to join the Radiant Center!!"
Here are comments/questions from Thinking Friend John Tim Carr in California:
ReplyDelete"I'm wondering if JESUS met for us to be so divided on many of the Basic issues in The Bible? In my limited theological knowledge of The Bible, shouldn't we All be in total agreement on at least All of the most important tenants of Bible Scripture? Could it be that we are allowing our Adversary to deceive us and put us into a situation of confusion?
"I was of the understanding that The Holy Spirit would help us All with the proper interpretation of Bible Scripture? Hope you don't think I'm too naïve, but it depresses me that the most learned minds in Christendom cannot agree on GOD's Word."
John Tim, thanks for reading the blog post I made this morning and for sending your comments/questions.
DeleteWhen Jesus lived, there was no New Testament, of course. He called for unity among his disciples, but it was a unity of faith in him, not a unity based on a common understanding of the Bible. Thus, I think Christian unity is based on a common acknowledgment of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, not on all believers having the same interpretation of the Bible. Similarly, I think "the Adversary" keeps Christian believers divided by causing dissenting interpretations of the Bible whereas we should be focusing on our common confession of Jesus as Lord--and on how we in practice live out proper allegiance to Jesus Christ.
And then this from local Thinking Friend Will Adams:
ReplyDelete"Count me in!
"Being tolerant of views with which one disagrees is a learned behavior. One must be able to hold strong views which one is willing to defend vigorously and, at the same time, remember that 'I might be wrong.' This need not reduce the commitment one has to one's own ideas, but it also prevents one from being judgmental of opposing views. Rather than, 'No, that's wrong,' it proposes 'Let's examine that.'
"I admire your efforts, but I fear that the center is less attractive to many people than the certainty that one's views are obviously right, and other views are obviously wrong. I strongly support your efforts to promote the center!"
Thanks, Dr. Adams! I fully agree with what you wrote in your first paragraph and appreciate your support expressed in the second.
DeleteTruett Baker, another Thinking Friend who is older than I, send the following comments from Arizona:
ReplyDelete"I like the 'Radiant Center,' and find myself easily fitting into that group, but probably lean somewhat toward moderate liberal. I am reading a book titled, 'Stuff that Needs to be Said,' by John Pavlovitz. He writes a blistering indictment on President Trump which best captures the persona and poor leadership of this president. The title of chapter 16 is 'I'm Not the Radical Left; I'm the Humane Middle.' Your 'Radiant Center' reminded me of his comments but in an attempt to be egalitarian, he lists as one of his beliefs, 'I believe that all religions are equally valid.' He lost me on that one, but it did remind me of you newly revised book, "Limits of Liberalism." Otherwise, he had some good things to say.
"Thanks for your latest blog and I look forward to getting the revised edition of 'Limits . . . .'"
Thanks for these comments, Truett--and I think that most moderate liberals can be included in the left side of the radiant center.
DeleteI haven't read Pavlovitz's book, but I am on his email list, so I read most of his articles as they are written--and I read, and resonated with, the one that you refer to in chapter 16. And, like the issue you mentioned as being questionable, I don't agree with some of the things he writes--but that is all right. We don't have to be in complete agreement to still be together in the radiant center.
Thanks, Leroy, for being a strong advocate for the “Radiant Center.”
ReplyDeleteYour article and the [early] comments prompted me to share these thoughts.
I have found that commitment to the “Way of Jesus” does not require that Jesus be acknowledged as God’s “only anointed” nor that in order to point trustworthily toward God, Jesus be God.
I sometimes think that Paul was “transported” out of his [limited] understanding of his Jewish heritage by “seeing” [experiencing] the “right-relationship” [righteousness] being exhibited by Gentiles [without Torah] and was “handed over” to a wider awe of God’s activity in the world.
Similarly, I think that I have been transported out of my [limited] understanding of my Christian heritage by experiencing the true relationship being practiced by “other-than-Christian” persons [without Christ?] and have been handed over to a wider awe of God’s activity in the world.
Sometimes that “handing over” is seen as a “betrayal” or that I am a “betrayer,” but to me it is a “passing on” of God’s love for all creation and God’s will for the well-being of all creation.
With Meister Eckhart: “For the sake of [the inviting into worthy service] God, I take leave of [the demanding of worship] God.”
“Draw the circle wide, draw it wider still.”
Shalom, Dick
Thanks, Dick, for once again sharing your erudite comments.
DeleteAlthough I spent a lot of my time through the years teaching in the field of systematic theology, I more and more shifted toward an emphasis on social ethics as I came to understand more and more that how we live and what we do is more important than what we say we believe.
Tolstoy, about whom I wrote in my previous blog post, emphasized deeds more than beliefs. In fact, he said something to the effect that one couldn't simultaneously believe in the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed.
And Mother Jones, about whom I will make a blog post on Nov. 30, was not a churchwoman (although she was a lifelong Catholic), but she, as I say in that article, is an example of the kind of people Jesus talked about in Matthew 25:31~40.
And, yes, I agree with you that the circle of the radiant center needs to be drawn wide in order to include those who are living the kind of life taught by Jesus--whether they acknowledge Jesus or not.
Here are comments from Thinking Friend Wade Paris, who long lived in the Kansas City metro area but now lives in Bolivar, Mo.:
ReplyDelete"The term radiant center is excellent. The problem I have is any terminology seems to put one in a position that you don’t always want to be.
"Labels have serious shortcomings and are often determined by the other party. While pastor in Sikeston I worked hard to get a swimming pool at our Associational camp. When I admitted I was not opposed to mixed “bathing” word quickly circulated that I was a great liberal.
"I was once asked, “are you a liberal or a conservative?” When I replied that it depended on the issue, I was told, “You are a liberal!”
"I admire and commend your courage and stamina in trying to find adequate terminology. Keep up the good work."
When agape is at the center, it can radiate far indeed. The exercise of God’s redemptive love can unite all who would work together to welcome the stranger, visit the imprisoned, visit and heal the sick, feed and clothe the poor, and lift up the lowly. So yes, I’ll join you, Leroy!
ReplyDeleteMy reaction to the first edition of "Limits of Liberalism" was resistance to the straight line division from right to left, with the radiant center in the middle, somehow magically splitting the difference. I responded with a maze of triangles working out dimensions of viewpoints between literally true and literally false, between good and bad, and between important and irrelevant. I still have the map somewhere, but suspect it was too complicated to really communicate as much as it should.
ReplyDeleteSo let me start over with Chapter 1 of Brian McLaren's "a Generous Orthodoxy." That chapter is titled "The Seven Jesuses I Have Known." After discussing them, and the religious views behind them, he wraps up the chapter with a chart putting everyone in a box. The types of Christians associated with the Jesuses are Conservative Protestant, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Liberal Protestant, Anabaptist, and Liberation Theology. By the time he gets to Part Two, he has branched out into 16 chapters with topics from Chapter 5's "Why I am Missional" to Chapter 20's "Why I am Unfinished." Which brings me to my central question, What if God is the Radiant Center, and we are all unfinished Christians spread out around that center? How close can any of us get to His Holy Mountain?
My perspective on that Radiant Center is from the somewhat lonely outpost of religious humanism. For me, the Bible is very important, but frequently not literally true, and too complex to be naively considered simply good. The good can come when we wrestle with the Bible, like Jacob in the night (Genesis 32:22-32); but it is not "good" the way a favorite cookbook might be full of "good" recipes. If we assume the Bible has nothing but good recipes, then we could easily fall into the error of following Jonah in running away from God's command. Or, we might think we would never fall for Jonah's error, only to slip into a less obvious one. We have to read the whole Bible, and apply critical thinking throughout, to safely cross its valleys. As a Baptist I have learned to accept Jesus as the criterion by which to read the rest of the Bible. However, that still leaves challenges, because I am pretty sure Jesus is sometimes playing "Devil's Advocate" with some of his stories and questions. Think of that woman being cross-examined by Jesus on whether He was only come to the Jews (Matthew 15:21-28). We all know what it sounds like when a teacher is drilling a student to see if they understood the lesson. That is, unless we are assuming the gospels were written by uneducated peasants who would never think of such a thing. If we read the Bible as if it were written by Shakespeare, perhaps it would speak to us more like Shakespeare.
Let me end with a brief look at what I learned years ago from my computer's scanner. A typical scanner has three ways to scan. One is black and white. A lot of Christians like that. However, there is a great ambiguity even in this kind of scan. You have to set the break between black and white. Set it too far one way, and it scans pure black. The other way pure white. Assuming I am scanning text, or a line drawing, I may have to scan several times to get the scan I want. I think black-and-white morality is a lot like that. Now the second kind of scan is gray scale. This is like that kind of morality that sees shades of gray. This terrifies those black-and-white people, but the rest of it appreciate it. Then there is the good news, the third way to scan, in color. Think what a full color morality would be like. Or a full color reading of the Bible. I wonder if God was trying to give us a hint with the gifting of humanity with so many colors of skin and eyes. Let's not just fill the Radiant Center with bright hues of color, let's put those hues to work!
Thanks so much, Craig, for your thoughtful, and thought-provoking comments!
DeleteI remember the colorful, and complicated, diagram of the radiant center you constructed ten years ago--and I had a copy of that in the notebook I regularly carried for five or so years after that. But, alas, I can't locate that now--but I wish it were possible to make it available for others to see, in color.
These lengthy comments are very good and important--and deserving of a fuller response that I have time to write at this point.
I think there was wisdom in the World Council of Churches slogan several decades ago: "Doctrine divides and service unites." There will always be theological differences, since we are all sinners and hence our interpretations of God's presence, revelation, activity, and the Bible will be imperfect at best. Therefore there is wisdom in the old Jewish view that in each text there are at least 70 different interpretations.
ReplyDeleteAs far as theology is concerned, I like Wolfhart Pannenberg's thesis that all theology is provisional, and, I believe it was Fred Buechner who suggested that all theology is autobiography.
I do share your concern for those who want to "write off" Christianity because of negative experiences and theologies without considering other theological and practical versions of the faith.