Sunday, February 12, 2012

Chapter Four (of Jesus and Creativity)

Creativity Is Good News!

The early Christian message was a gospel, the good news that the creator of the heavens and the earth, the ruler of the universe, had sent his son to the earth in order to save humankind from all the sin, suffering, and other evils into which they had fallen. As the Gospel of John puts it "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." (3 16) That was good news for those people who first heard it, and it has remained good news for many down through the centuries. The creator and ruler of the universe loves us humans and has made the highest sacrifice to redeem human life from all evils and bring humankind into the perfect divine kingdom for which it was created. It is hardly surprising that once this gospel caught on, it spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond. In the early decades, as we have seen, it gave rise to new visions of what human life was all about and to a new conception of God Over the many following centuries, it spawned magnificent music and art, it stimulated profound philosophical, theological, and moral reflection, and it was a seedbed for the emergence and development of modern democratic politics and the modern sciences. All of this creativity was a product, at least in part, of Jesus-trajectory1; the appearance of that trajectory proved to be an enormously creative event. There were, of course, breakdowns and failures of many sorts over the years: betrayals of the faith confessed by the churches and their leaders; crusades and murderous wars, plagues and famines, the horrors of modern slavery; Western colonialism along with Christian triumphalism; and so on and so on. But through it all the loving God was believed to be ruling from on high, and all would ultimately be good for his children on earth, if not in this life then in the next.

This good news, originally preached by the disciples and reiterated down through the centuries, was, first, that there is an other world than the one in which we humans now find ourselves, the heavenly world where God's perfect rule assures happiness and peace for all; and second, that God sent his son to the earth to rescue us humans, no matter how broken our lives might be, thus giving us access through Jesus to that heavenly abode. But for those of us today for whom there is no "other world" than this one in which We find ourselves, this kind of 'good news"--though a lovely dream, plausible for many centuries--can no longer provide an adequate focus for the orientation and ordering of life. Though we all sing Christmas carols rejoicing in the birth of baby Jesus, most of us know in our hearts that this beautiful story--a magnificent creation of the human imagination--is too simple and too implausible to be much of a guide to living in the world in which we today find ourselves.

Many persons, therefore--including many who think of themselves as Christians--no longer take seriously the good news of the original Christian message. What then can take its place? There is a price to pay in comfort and the hope of wish»fulfillment when we give up the anthropomorphic/anthropocentric God that we have inherited. In exchange for that price, however, there is available to us an understanding of God as creativity, a creativity that is real, not just an imaginary dream. It is a creativity manifest on all sides around us and present in and with our own human creativity. We humans are deeply indebted to this creativity that--through a long, precarious passage--has brought our human trajectory (and us along with it) into being. This realization gives us a basis for the hope char our trajectory--despite all failures in past and present--might continue on toward a more humane and ecologically sustainable world, Moreover, though the supernatural aspects of the traditional Jesus-story are no longer plausible, another story of the significance of jesus still remains: the story recounted in Jesus-trajectory2 can be quite meaningful for contemporary Christian faith, In this book I have been sketching an understanding of today's world in which each of the two central Christian symbols--God (understood as serendipitous creativity) and Jesus (as set out in Jesus-trajectory2)--have an important place. It should be noted, however, that the "abundant life" (John 10:10) that this Jesus can bring to women and men today will be of a different sort than that expected by many earlier generations.

This understanding of Christian faith (like many earlier versions) requires a profound conversion to a way of living introduced to us by the image/ story of Jesus, and those who make a serious commitment to this jesus are still offered the "good news" of hope for a better human world. But instead of proffering a heavenly reward in an afterlife, this understanding offers the satisfaction of living out our years entirely within this world in which we find ourselves--with all its problems and pain, tragedy and suffering--a life to be lived within a community of love and forgiveness and hope, of reconciliation and healing--and joy. It is a life given over to building new communities of peace and justice and well being for all, a life devoted to protecting and enhancing the environment that sustains humans and many other species here on planet Earth--a this-worldly kind of "abundant life."

I

Let us review the story of jesus as recounted in Jesus-trajectory2. It begins with the ministry and message of Jesus of Nazareth, a remarkably gifted man. He was a healer, a preacher, an excellent storyteller--one who believed the end of the world (as he and his friends knew it) was coming soon, as the kingdom of God takes over from on high. Some began to believe he might be God's messiah who would overthrow the Romans and inaugurate God's kingdom on earth. Many of his stories--vivid parables recounting situations quite familiar to all his hearers but each making a distinctive point about the coming kingship of God--were long remembered and eventually recorded in the New Testament Gospels. His sermons were sprinkled with teachings about God's love for humankind, especially the poor, the sick, and the outcast; and he called for similar love and forgiveness among humans. Some of his teachings--as recorded in the Gospels--were very radical and quite puzzling, especially to those who thought he might be preparing to overthrow the Romans:
"You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a toothf But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well .... "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven" (Matt. 5:38-40, 43-45)
Jesus was obviously a very creative charismatic person, a great exorcist and healer, and he attracted considerable attention wherever he went in Palestine. When the Jewish and Roman authorities arrested him as a troublemaker who might be planning an insurrection, he--in keeping with his teachings--made no effort to resist. And when one of his disciples "put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear .... Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword' " (Matt. 26:51-52). After being questioned by the Jewish authorities and Pilate, he was crucified. And that should have been the end of the story and the end of his influence in human affairs; one more death of a creative innocent man.

But that event was, in fact, not the end of the story of Jesus but instead the beginning of a new and quite different sequence of events with, as it turned out, enormously creative consequences of a sort not expected by anyone. Had these strange events--quite difficult even to imagine--not occurred, we today would never have heard of Jesus, his ministry and his comportment in life, his death, his provocative teachings. After Jesus' death and burial some of his disciples began to speak of his continuing appearances to them, and they (and others) came to believe he was alive again: God had resurrected him from the dead and through him had begun inaugurating his kingdom on earth. A new story about Jesus was being created. It soon began to spread rapidly and the Jesus-movement grew incorporating many Gentiles as well as Jews. This alone might have been of significant historical importance, but the creativity in this movement was not limited simply to growth in size: over the next decades it also produced substantial rethinking of who or what God really is and what God requires of humans, how humans are to live. These significantly transformative changes were summed up compactly toward the end of the first century c.E. by the writer of 1 John:
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. God's love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him .... No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us. (4:7-9, 12; emphasis added)
Cliristology is the area of Christian thinking that deals with the understanding of Jesus--Jesus as a human being and Jesus' special relationship to God. In this book I am developing a Christology that is in keeping with the interpretation of God as creativity. After briefly sketching in chapter 1 a conception of Jesus as thoroughly human in all respects (a central emphasis of Jesus-trajectory2), l presented an outline, in chapter 2, of Jesus' normativity for today his normativity for our human existence and also for our understanding of God--that is, our understanding of creativity. Creativity is not to be thought of any longer as simply the bringing into being of just anything and everything. However true that vague and general definition might be, those groups and individuals who regard Jesus as providing normative meaning for human life have reason to take the image/ story of Jesus as bearing significantly on their understanding of creativity As the disciples sought to make sense of what they called the resurrection of Jesus, it gradually became clear to them that in and through Jesus, God--or in our terms, creativity--was doing something new and decisively different from what had been understood in the past: a new vision of what the human strand of life was all about, and what it might become, was being created. Moreover, this vision was so strikingly different from what had previously been taken for granted about human life and its possibilities that it implied God (creativity) also must be significantly different from what had previously been understood. During the first Christian century (as discussed in chapters 1 and 2) a great change took place in the conception of God held by at least some of Jesus' followers. They began preaching this gospel to all who would listen, and they themselves sought to live out the new pattern of life that the gospel called for. They believed they stood in a distinctive, indeed unique, relationship to God: they were the vehicle through which this “new creation" (as Paul put it) was coming into being. To put this in our twenty-first-century language: they believed that the creativity on planet Earth, the creativity (God)that had brought forth life in general and later on human life, had also brought forth Jesus of Nazareth and his ministry and message of love, forgiveness, and redemption. And it was to this further creativity (this act of God) that Jesus' disciples and other followers believed they were responding as they spread this gospel and lived out this new life of love wherever they went. Many Christians over the centuries have also heard this call by God and responded affirmatively to it. All of this (as we noted in chapter 2) tells us something about creativity (God) that we would otherwise not know. It tells us that creativity is not just a vague and general appearance of something new and transformative, anywhere and everywhere: it may also manifest itself in and through events as specific and distinctive as the image and story of Jesus.

We need to consider further now what can be said about Jesus and creativity. Three distinctly different points--can be made. There was Jesus' own creativity in his ministry healings, and teachings; then there was also the amazing creativity that occurred after his death: first the resurrection appearances of Jesus, and following on these the several decades of reconceiving--in decisively new ways--God, the kingship of God, and how humans were to live out their lives; finally there has been the striving by committed followers of Jesus over the centuries to live within this new creative pattern of human life, a mode of creativity continuing all the way clown into the present. We know very little about how all this creativity got under way. With respect to the creativity of Jesus before his death, there was of course the influence of John the Baptizer in the desert and Jesus' joining John's company of disciples, as well as the fertile consequences of Jesus' own strong hope and expectation that God was about to bring in (or was already bringing in) a New Age. With respect to the creativity immediately following upon jesus' death, we can say a few things, but it is all very murky Obviously the vivid memories of Jesus' ministry death, and teachings, and the disciples' great disappointment following his crucifixion, must have been important factors. But we can only speculate about how these were related to the resurrection appearances, which then led to the disciples' creative attempts to understand the meaning of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, and eventually to the strikingly new vision of God as love, as well as to the missions that spread abroad that remarkable message. The powerful ongoing historical momentum of the Jesus-movement, a momentum still under way was thus coming into being.

The most important evidence of this new creative thinking of the disciples is found largely in the Pauline and Johannine documents in the New Testament. But the earliest of these, some of Paul's writings, were not written until about a generation after Jesus' death; and Paul must have had important creative predecessors about whom we know little. The Johannine texts were produced much later, probably toward the end of the first century C.E., or even after that. By the end of that century the story of Jesus was on its way to becoming a worldwide phenomenon. Jesus was going to be one of the most influential figures of history one whose story would continue to transform lives creatively one who would inspire religious and cultural creativity of many sorts. An enormous stream of human social, cultural, artistic, and intellectual creativity has followed upon his life, death, and resurrection. (Perhaps the only comparable examples have been the creativity that followed upon the lives of the Buddha and Mohammed.) Human existence around the world has obviously been greatly enriched by this Jesus-stream of creativity. It must be granted, however, that this creativity has also been the fountain of some very destructive historical movements and events: one thinks of the long history of Christian intolerance of other religions (as well as of other Christians, in all too many cases!), and especially of the anti-Semitisrn during much of Christian history culminating in the Holocaust of the twentieth century. One thinks also of the patriarchal oppression of women throughout Christian history; of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the slave trade, modern colonialism, and modern mass warfare carried on by each side in the names of Jesus and/ or God; and so on. Today we live in a historical period in which there is still a very wide Jesus-stream, but the ambiguity of that stream's creativity is obvious.

There are, of course, many churchgoers who are basically nominal Christians but who do not let their religion interfere with "the good life"--a frenetic pursuit of "American values," such as a "high standard of living" with plenty of money entertainment, and other pleasures. The creativity to be found in this stance would seem to have little connection with jesus. Then there are those far»right Christian fundamentalists (especially in the United States) who seem to be all too creative in their willingness to use almost any kind of instrumentalities (including mass media brouhaha, political "dirty tricks" of many different sorts, some forms of "brainwashing," even modern warfare) as they spread their version of "the Gospel" and combat those they regard as "Gods enemies" (atheists, secularists, jews, Muslims, and many others--including other Christians) in their effort to create a "Christian America." And there are faithful ordinary Christians for whom jesus presents the most compelling model of how We humans ought to live, but--finding it impossible to order their lives in terms of his extreme demands--who are simply good, decent people. Then there are those who seek to order their lives by creatively responding to jesus' most radical teachings about love, caring for the poor and needy and practicing forgiveness, reconciliation, and peacemaking. And there are those who think that although one ought to lead one's personal life in terms of the radical teachings about forgiveness and love, these teachings do not apply to the wider social and political order. There are those who are convinced that jesus' teachings require us to create a new social, political, and economic order in which all will be cared for in justice and peace. And so on and so on. The Jesus-stream has long since lost its creative cutting edge--or perhaps it would be more accurate to say it has spawned many quite different cutting edges, in confusing contradiction with each other--and it is hard to know just what we should make of this enormous ambiguity.

Some may think it is time to acknowledge that jesus can no longer help us much, either in identifying the problems with which we humans must today come to terms or through inspiring creative address to those problems. But where else should we turn for truly creative inspiration? lt is clear that the radicality of jesus' preaching and teaching (as we find it in the New Testament) simply cannot be lived out in any legalistic Creativity is Good News! 97 way--and this accounts for some of the diversity and ambiguity just noted in the many different responses to jesus in today's world. But it should also be clear that the radicality of jesus' demands may startle our minds into fresh thinking about how we humans need to reorder our lives and our world? Perhaps only a powerful dramatic vision of what human life can and should be--such as jesus' radical vision of life under God's kingship--is capable of inspiring us to break through today's barriers and create new forms of human existence.jesus' radicality, that is to say may still inspire us to strive toward creating a new and better world. And for just this reason, it seems to me, it is precisely this radicality of jesus to which Christians should be attending as they seek to move creatively into what will undoubtedly be a complex and difficult future. Other Christians, of course, may feel there are good reasons to opt for other features of the jesus-story And non-Christians would likely move in some entirely different directions as they seek creative ways to identify and address the major problems to which we humans today must direct our energies--though doubtless some who do not claim to be Christian at all might (as has often been the case) continue to turn toward the radical jesus for inspiration.

It is not obvious that the jesus-stream in the contemporary world still has the resources either to identify or to creatively address the major problems that we humans are increasingly facing as we become a single, highly interdependent--though still quite pluralistic--humanity. Can Christian churches find ways--other than the exercise of dominative power (which they have not hesitated to employ in the past)--to help bring a new creative peace and order into today's pluralism, with its many divisive socio»cultural dimensions? Can the Christian spirit find sufficient inspiration--in its notes of nonviolent and nonresistant love even of enemies--to put aside its idolatrous claims to be the sole truly redemptive force in human history? Can it learn to rejoice in the creativity manifest in other religious and secular movements and begin to work more cooperatively with them? Can Christians--moving beyond their traditional anthropomorphic/anthropocentric god, and standing in awe of the creativity (God!) manifest throughout the universe as well as in human affairs--begin to order their activities more fully in terms of what will be good for all of life on planet earth, not simply human life? All Christians who commit themselves to versions of the Jesus image/story that emphasize what I have called the radical character of his vision and message would, I hope, be able to say yes to all of these questions.

II

In chapter 3 we explored briefly the understanding of humans as fundamentally biohistorical beings, a conception that enables us to connect such valued features of human existence as agency creativity freedom, and love with our complex biological and historical grounding. Obviously we are biological beings, products of a long evolutionary development of life here on planet Earth, but we are not ordinary animals. We are "incomplete or unfinished animals" (Geertz), which, through a long, slow process of emergence from our biological origins, have become beings who cannot survive unless we are "completed" by the humanly created cultures into which we have been born. As beings created in part by the sociocultural setting in which we have grown up, we have acquired capacities to act self-consciously responsibly and creatively and we are thus able to participate actively in the transformation of our biohistorical world. Though we have been decisively shaped, and continue to be nourished, by the biological and sociohistorical pasts from which we and our forebears have come, it is the problems confronting us in the present with which we must come to terms, if human life is to continue and to flourish in the future ahead of us. Past, present, and future are bound together in our lives, each playing its own distinctive part in our biohistorical existence. Today our local sociocultural worlds are changing very rapidly as a global society is coming into being, and there are many enormous problems that need to be addressed.

The picture of our human situation that I have been presenting here is a naturalistic/ humanistic one. In this picture there is no creator-God on high ruling all of these developments, a God we can be confident is bringing humanity to a glorious final consummation. But it is not the case, either, that the predicaments we humans face will be overcome simply by our human decisions and actions. A mysterious creativity (God) has been manifest throughout the universe all the way back to the very beginning of things. And the human biohistorical trajectory was a Creativity Is Good News! 99 serendipitous product of this creativity; we humans did not create the world in which we find ourselves, nor did we create ourselves. Our forebears, however, gradually began to play a role in the creativity through which humanity emerged from ordinary animality as the mysterious creativity in the universe brought into being a human offshoot (so to speak). For many generations this specifically human role in these creative developments--though gradually increasing in significance--was very small. By several millennia ago, however, human creativity was playing an important part, and in the modern era it has had a significant role in the creative transformation of both human existence and the surface of the earth. The Wider creativity manifest throughout the universe--God--has, of course, always had the larger part in these matters: certainly the fundamentally biohistorical character of human existence, as well as its happening here on planet Earth, was not the result simply of human decisions and actions. What the future will bring is, very likely partly in our hands; but the final outcome (unless we destroy ourselves, which now seems possible) is not in our hands at all. Ultimately thus, we must put our trust in that wider creativity--deeply mysterious, but also surprisingly beneficent--as we humans play out our own creative role in addressing the problems we face.

This, of course, is how it has always been with God. Faith in God was born initially in ancient Israel, as the Israelites came to believe that what God (Yahweh) had done for them in the past--especially in the escape from Egypt and the invasion of Canaan--provided grounds for hope about what he would do in the future. Despite this hope, however, what God was believed to be actually doing always turned out to be in many respects quite unpredictable and incomprehensible--a profound mystery. The situation remains the same today. The human story and its context to date (as we now understand these) can provide grounds for hope respecting the future; from its very beginning this story is about a trajectory of serendipitous creativity and its effects--a creativity that was deeply beneficial to the gradually emerging human life. This creativity made possible both the emergence of humans and their distinctive development. As we look backward down our human trajectory we can see that the creativity working in and through these evolutionary and historical processes did not move forward every which way; rather, it built upon what was already in place, extending it and expanding it as it moved on into the future. That is, this creativity adapts itself so to speak, to the possibilities for growth and development in each new stage, and this enables the trajectory to move onward. (Without this adjustment, the trajectory might well die.) Even though this has been a long, slow evolutionary-historical development requiring hundreds of thousands of years and much tragedy and pain, it can still provide a basis for hope that the creativity here on planet Earth will continue opening up new possibilities for the human trajectory as it moves on into the future. We can and should place our confidence respecting that future in this ongoing creativity--this creativity that, as I have been arguing, we should understand to be God.

It is difficult for us to grasp all that is involved in this sort of judgment unless we bracket our ordinary human timescale--measured basically in days and years and generations--and think in much larger terms.6 The creation of the new in the world often comes quite slowly and it was only through very gradual changes that the emergence of humankind, as we know it, came about. It was, for example, a considerable achievement--taking many generations to accomplish--for emerging Homo sapiens to begin taking into account the most minimal of moral considerations, such as rules restricting vengeance. We find such a rule in Exodus, shortly after a summary of the Ten Commandments: "You shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot" (21:23b-24). This rule equalizing the punishment with the crime may seem rigid and harsh to us today; nevertheless, it represents a significant moral advance over the practice of Lamech, the father of Noah, who bragged to his wives: "I kill a man for wounding me, a young man for a blow. Cain may be avenged seven times, but Lamech seventy-seven” (Gen. 4:23b-24; 5:28-29 NEB). And it took many generations more, as can be seen from the record in the Hebrew Bible, to develop such values as mercy justice, and kindness--strongly emphasized by the eighth-century B.C.E. prophets--and to begin ordering human life by them. In other cultures, similar developments were also occurring--sometimes, of course, going in quite different directions. Even given the deep and rich moral consciousness being serendipitously created in Israel's culture, it took another eight centuries for a quite new vision to appear in the ministry and preaching of jesus--a vision of human life ordered and oriented by love and forgiveness.

The image/story of jesus brought forth possibilities for human existence heretofore unimagined: a vision and hope that Christians (and some others) have believed could guide humans creatively into a new future. Of course, the jesus-story can also lead us into despair: to what extent, after all, has it really changed the human condition in the last two thousand years? I have claimed above that it has been very creative in many ways, but one cannot help but wonder whether its creativity may now be largely spent. Other historical forces clearly dominate human life today and the manor churches and movements that claim to be Christian seem to be thoroughly compromised in many respects: very little is heard these days about what I have been calling the radical character of the image and story of Jesus. Perhaps its time is over?

A judgment of that sort takes for granted our ordinary human timescale, and (as we have just been noting) this may be quite misleading when considering the kind of issues with which we are here concerned. If it took thousands of years for Homo sapiens to move beyond bare animality and begin to acquire--to create--an elemental moral consciousness; and even with that new sensitivity in place, it took hundreds of years more for such basic moral ideals as justice, kindness, and mercy to become widely affirmed in cultures and religions, we should not be so surprised and disappointed that these norms are so often still violated around the world (think of recent and ongoing outbreaks of massive genocide, brutal dictatorships, wars, to say nothing of the all-too-frequent incidents of everyday ordinary meanness). We need to remember that our basic human physiology after all--including our limbic system, nervous system, and brain--was formed in times when humans had to fight for their lives against ferocious predators (see, e.g., Ehrenreich 1997 and Ashbrook and Albright 1997). That underlying equipment is still with us, along with--in nearly every culture--practices, traditions, and institutions that encourage violent aggression against, and violent responses to, enemies believed to be threatening. Human morality has to temper, tame, and discipline all of this in each new generation so it should not be surprising that progress toward cultures of reconciliation, peace, and goodwill has been painfully slow--and with many reversals. It is difficult for us humans to sustain even such obviously wise ordinary moral standards as the ones just mentioned. Why would anyone expect, then, that the radical vision of Jesus ought to be taken seriously? It is clearly an impossible dream.

But perhaps the time for that impossible dream has come. We humans are today in a different situation than we have ever been before. This new situation was ushered in at the end of World War II with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Theologian Henry Nelson Wieman realized almost immediately that for the first time in history humans had available a kind of power that could bring the human story to an end, and this meant that the human situation on Earth had changed decisively:
The bomb that fell on Hiroshima cut history in two like a knife. Before and after are two different worlds. That cut is more abrupt, decisive, and revolutionary than the cut made by the star over Bethlehem . . . more swiftly transformative of human existence than anything else that has ever happened. The economic and political order fitted to the age before that parachute fell becomes suicidal in the age coming after. The same breach extends into education and religion. (Wieman 1946:37)
For the next few decades--with stores of atomic implements of war building up on both sides of the Iron Curtain--there were worldwide fears that we humans might be about to destroy ourselves. But what we were actually doing during that period was learning a precarious way to live with our newfound weapons. Now; sixty years after Hiroshima and with the 'cold war" decades behind us, we continue to worry about atomic weapons. Moreover, though we have learned to take the bomb for granted, another new situation--much more difficult to manage--is increasingly coming to our attention (though many in high positions in the United States are unwilling to acknowledge it): we are in the midst of an ecological crisis. Like the danger of nuclear war, it is a crisis very likely brought on largely by our own behavior: our population growth on planet Earth, our wasteful use of energy and other resources to power our "high" standard of living in North America and Europe, our unthinking destruction of the habitat of many species of life that are as a result becoming extinct, our contribution to the global warming that is rapidly changing our moderate climate, and so on. Above all in this list, we must note our own unwillingness to discipline ourselves sufficiently to address these and many other ecological problems in an effective way.

The dangers of environmental breakdown to ongoing human life are not new. They have been a factor throughout human history and failure to adjust human activities intelligently to environmental changes has often been a major factor in the collapse of civilizations in the past (see Diamond 2005). But heretofore these were always local failures, and the human project was able to continue because it was carried on elsewhere. Today we are facing worldwide environmental changes, at least partially caused by human failures to care properly for the environment; and there no longer are other places to which our population of six billion humans can go to continue the human story Either we today learn how to accommodate our living to the ecological requirements around the globe, or the human story is likely to come to an end.

None of the great world religions anticipated this state of affairs; that we humans would at some time have the power to destroy the entire human project, and that we might exercise that power. So Wieman was correct that in the middle of the last century we humans moved into a completely unprecedented (and unexpected) historical situation. In these circumstances what is needed above all is truly imaginative creativity. Actually this is the kind of creativity that we humans possess. There is no reason to expect that the wider creativity manifest throughout the universe (God) will intervene here in our behalf (as may be hoped by some devotees of the traditional anthropocentric God); as far as we know this is not the way in which that creativity happens. Our human creativity however--alone in the universe in this respect?--can be guided to some degree by our human imaginings, our human desires, our human intentions. The dilemma with which we are here concerned is one that we humans have (unexpectedly) produced as we enthusiastically exercised our own increasingly developing creativity and power--and we are the ones who must address it.

So what is now required of us humans most of all is (1) creativity imaginative creativity deliberately directed toward addressing this very dangerous situation; and (2) the moral and political will to hasten disarmament (nuclear and otherwise) and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse our growing environmental destruction. This is a large and difficult agenda, an agenda politically quite unpopular, at least here in the United States--the worst offender in the world on these matters. In this country today we do not seem to have in our culture and political leadership--or in our religious consciousness--either the moral resources or the imagination to grasp the enormity of this problem. We are myopic lemmings running toward the sea as we spread the gospel of corporate capitalism around the globe and (mis)manage affairs at home with a politics of fear. And instead of seeking to understand and appreciate cultures and religions and languages different from our own, we put our hope in a Fortress America that will keep out poverty-driven people led by "evil terrorists."

There may however, be an ironic feature in this picture. We are living in the midst of a new globalism that is breaking down isolationist boundaries of many sorts around the world. From the time Homo sapiens left Africa and began to travel around the globe, humans took up abode in many different, often quite isolated, locations; and further development of the human biohistorical line occurred in each of these separate settings. Since each society and culture developed its own way to live--as it adapted itself to its geographical setting--diverse human societies, cultures, languages, religions, practices, and values were created in these different places. The human story thus became many quite distinct and separate stories. Some of these groups evolved into manor civilizations; others became quite isolated and remained small. Although there have been--all the way down to the twenty-first century--many political and military attempts to bring some order into this thoroughly pluralistic situation, no empire has succeeded in bringing all these diverse groups together and ruling the world. Modern technology, however, has made possible increasing interchange among civilizations around the globe during the past several centuries; and during the last decades of the twentieth century something truly new has begun to happen.

With the creation of the worldwide electronic Web, instantaneous moving of information of all sorts everywhere around the globe is now in place; and we are rapidly becoming one world economically industrially and scientifically. There is also much social interchange and cultural mixing. So the many distinct human stories in our pluralized history are becoming one overall story; it will likely remain very pluralistic and complex well into the future, but there is going to be a unified human story once again. Unfortunately however, we remain politically divided into so-called sovereign nation-states (though the European Union is taking important steps to overcome that); and with a weak United Nations, it is still much too easy for powerful arrogant nations to make highly destructive warfare against weaker powers. A third world war, if it should occur, would be among nations with weapons of mass destruction, and therefore might be virtually the end of the human story. If we manage to avoid such a war, we will, of course, still have the ecological crisis to deal with, so either way the human future at present looks dark.

Our most important human task today therefore, is to see that we avoid both of these disasters. We must continue to move as rapidly as we can into one, largely democratic, political world; and we must make major progress on our environmental problems. Is there any chance for both of these to happen? It surely will not be easy since there is not even agreement in the major civilizations that we should put these objectives high on our agendas. To make the necessary sharp turn in the roads we are presently following will require a great deal of quite imaginative creativity and that right soon.

III

In short, what is needed is a worldwide conversion--a religious-like conversion!--to a new and quite different way of ordering our societies, our institutions, our cultures, our religions, our families, our individual lives. Throughout the Whole long history of humankind, in all its many different sociocultural and religious strands, it has been taken for granted that we humans should largely live out of the authoritative traditions and practices of the past. We are, of course, biohistorical beings, shaped by the past--indeed, we have been given our very humanness by the past--and in all cultures we have been taught and have learned that we must respect, honor, cherish, and pass on this past to the future. But as historical beings we are not only created and nourished by our past: We actually live in the present, and we must, therefore, come to terms with the major problems we now face if the human race is to survive into the future and flourish in that future. As we have noted, we have inherited powerful biohistorical momentums from our human pasts, momentums that are today driving us toward self-destruction; these must be changed. Those basic patterns of orientation in life--which divide us from each other and into groups suspicious of each other and often fighting, enemies seeking to destroy each other instead of living peacefully together in communities and societies ordered justly; and which lead us to neglect care of our environment, continuing to exploit it for our own short-term pleasures and gain--must be drastically transformed. We no longer dare to live out our lives and carry on our activities in our politics and economics, our cultures and religions, our sciences and technologies, our personal relations and friendships, in the terms largely specified by these historical momentums, however effective and valuable they may have been in the past. For we are living in a new present, qualitatively different from any of our human pasts, a present in which these patterns of orientation and ordering that enabled us to live and flourish throughout our long human history are now threatening to destroy us and the entire human future. Unless we change these inherited ways of living and acting, believing and hoping, we may commit species suicide. We have no alternative, therefore, (1) to learning how to live together in some kind of lasting peace and justice, in which (2) we cooperatively find ways to deal effectively with the ecological crisis. A massive religious-like conversion is needed.

Does this mean that we must become members of some new religion that displaces and wipes out the cherished values and meanings and standards by which our lives have heretofore been ordered? That is a self-contradictory idea, not even imaginable, for it would involve destroying what makes us human in order to make us more human. Nevertheless, it is a religious-like conversion that is needed, for what is called for here are changes in very deep-lying patterns that at present orient and order most of human life worldwide. They are patterns partially grounded in the biological side of our human nature, grounded in features inherited from the prehuman and early human stages of the evolutionary developments through which humanity emerged; and they are also grounded in long-standing historico-cultural patterns. From early on, of course, developments in the historical side of our humanness often involved (or led to) significant transformation of some aspects of our strictly biological inheritance;8 and, as Sigmund Freud saw this gave rise to major enduring tensions in human selfhood between what he called the "superego" and the "id." As we noted above, it took many centuries for moral (and other) constraints on the id to become sufficiently effective to enable large-scale societies to emerge. And in today's world, of course, there continue to be breakdowns of many different sorts in this order. I am not suggesting here that it is necessary for the constraints of the superego to be tightened still further today--even if that could be accomplished, the consequences might be explosive. Rather, I suggest that, as is often the case in religious conversions, these constraints be creatively transformed into new configurations more appropriate to the situation in which humanity now finds itself.

What might these new configurations be? And how could they be brought about? I cannot give a general answer to either of these questions. That would require massive knowledge of the religio-moral and secular-humanist patterns that presently orient and order human existence around the globe, as well as proposals for transforming each of these patterns in an appropriate new direction. This important religio-cultural task--a task of worldwide proportions--needs to be undertaken from within each of the manor civilizations and religio-cultural groupings that presently order humanity around the globe; it cannot be imposed from without.

Actually however, changes of the sort we are considering here may already be getting under way serendipitously: many persons and groups in countries around the globe seem to have become aware of our ecological problems, and the problems rooted in situations of extreme poverty; and they are becoming more and more insistent that governments and other agencies take appropriate action. Worldwide conferences have been held for a number of decades, and such achievements as the Kyoto Protocol represent a beginning cooperative step forward with regard to the environmental situation--the outstanding exception to making this step being the United States. Establishment of the International Court of justice is also a major cooperative step toward necessary legal standards for ordering world affairs. The United Nations is, of course, the major international institution--however weak it may be--that must move us forward on these matters; but other institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are also beginning to wake up to the need for manor changes in the way international economic and ecological problems are handled. Moreover, some large worldwide corporations have obviously seen the handwriting on the wall and are attempting to mend their ways accordingly. We may hope, thus, that some beginnings of important transformations in the ways we humans have been ordering and orienting human life for hundreds of generations are already under way. There is, of course, resistance in many quarters to the decisive changes now required in our familiar patterns of ordering our affairs--defenders of "national sovereignty" being an obvious example, with advocates of international corporate capitalism a close second, and religious institutions and traditions unwilling to respect each other and work together cooperatively an important third; and we may not make the changes as rapidly as is necessary. But the worldwide religious like conversion in our thinking and our feelings, about the way we humans have heretofore ordered our affairs, does appear to be under way to some extent. The creativity that brought our human trajectory into being and enabled it to go forward over many millennia is, perhaps, opening up some new possibilities as we move into the future. And it can be hoped that, as we slowly learn how to make some of these moves cooperatively we may begin to move forward more confidently and thus more rapidly.

I am not qualified to suggest the ways in which our many religious and humanist traditions need to reorient themselves, nor can I speak for all Christians. I can, however, suggest what I think is appropriate for the version of Christian faith that I have been presenting in these pages. We are concerned here about a human world that is beginning to be forced by economic, industrial, ecological, and humanitarian forces to come together again, after being separated into distinct cultures, religions, languages, and civilizations for thousands of years. It is a world in which these disparate traditions have usually been quite suspicious of each other; have fought wars with--and often sought to completely destroy--each other; have seldom lived in any kind of deep respect for each other. A11 of this must now change as we become a single world-wide society--a society doubtless remaining pluralistic in many respects but in which the major groupings are increasingly interconnected and thus interdependent. If this new world is actually to be created, many of the long-standing practices, prejudices, beliefs, values, attitudes, ways of living and interacting of our nations, our cultures, our civilizations, our religions, our political institutions, our large corporations, and other social groupings must be transformed into much more cooperative and trusting patterns. For if we do not succeed in moving forward into a new global society char can effectively address the problems we humans now face, utterly destructive breakdowns may bring the whole human story to an end.

IV

I would like to suggest now what a Christian perspective and faith, of the sort to which I have been alluding, have to offer in this crucial historical moment. The kind of transformative changes needed--in our cultures, our practices, our attitudes, our institutions, our ways of living--will undoubtedly require very considerable human creativity. At present we do not know how to bring about these changes; we do not even know what the necessary first steps should be. New insights into the problems we face, new proposals on how to address these problems, fresh thinking and imagining of ways to proceed--in short, a new willingness to acknowledge the seriousness of our enormous problems and a new willingness to be open to radical changes in the orientation and the ordering of our inherited ways of living must all be created.

In the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim traditions, creativity has always been a central mark--indeed the dining mark--of God. In the theology with which we are working in this book, creativity is God, God is creativity--the creativity that has brought all that exists into being, the creativity that continues to be active throughout the universe, the creativity that has brought us humans into being and is manifest world-wide in and through our own human creativity. God-as-creativity is not to be thought of as in any respect a sectarian god, largely connected with, say only the Abrahamic religions. The God of which I am speaking here is the creativity manifest throughout the cosmos, the creativity evident in all human practices and traditions, the ongoing coming into being of the new to be seen everywhere in the universe. When I say then, that creativity will be required if we are to address effectively the worldwide problems we humans today face, it is not some parochial Western or Christian kind of creativity to which I am referring and appealing. It is the universal creativity--the coming into being of the novel and transformative wherever and whenever that happens--the creativity known of and manifest in the lives and cultures of all peoples.

It is on this creativity that our hopes for the human future should be placed. The creative changes that are needed around the world must come about in ways appropriate to each tradition and culture, not just changes that we in the Abrahamic religions or we in the West might desire and hope for. The new world that we hope to help create must be one to which peoples of all cultures, religions, and languages contribute, and in which they can all feel at home.

The creativity required to bring about this new order may well go beyond the creative inspiration we humans are able to provide: we must hope and expect and believe that the wider creativity (God) will continue to engender a context in the world roundabout that will enable us, indeed encourage us, to move forward. In view of all that this wider creativity has done for us humans--bringing us forth in the world over countless generations--it is fitting that we continue to have faith in it as we move forward into an unknown future. Doubtless as we attempt to address the large problems we humans now face, there will be many differences in our judgments about which insights we should regard as truly creative and therefore pursue; so we will need to learn how to search together for creative ways to move beyond these differences, and that will often be difficult. However, it is worth noting that throughout the Whole of humanity today there appear to be serendipitous pressures that, after all those past centuries of divisions and separateness, are beginning to pull us humans together again in spite of ourselves. Is God--the creativity manifest in the wider context in which we humans live--now nudging us forward? It is important that we accede to these pressures and do everything we can to facilitate this transformation.

As We have been observing throughout these pages, the Christian message is not only about God, the wider creativity. It is also about Jesus, a very creative figure of two thousand years ago. As might be expected, those of us who are Christians will turn to the mission and message of jesus for help in addressing the massive problems that we humans today confront, problems about which there is much disagreement. Jesus' creativity--in his ministry his comportment, his healings, his teachings, and especially in the manner in which he went to his crucifixion--inspired those around him. And following upon his alleged resurrection from the dead, his mission and message were carried around the Roman world and beyond, and it inspired many others to become his disciples and followers--a movement that continues to grow. We Christians need to ask ourselves, Do the life and death of this Jesus in any way significantly bear on the complex of problems with which we humans must now come to terms? Does this Jesus have anything to say that might illuminate these problems in some significant way?

Jesus believed that the kingdom of God was beginning to break into human history; and he regarded his own healings of sickness and suffering, and his forgiveness of sins, as signs that this kingdom was coming soon. He believed that humans should love not only both God and their neighbors but their enemies as well, "so that you may be children of your Father in heaven" (Matt. 5:44-45). And this love was understood in a very radical sense. It required, for instance, repeatedly forgiving the offenses of others against us (according to Matt.18:22, Jesus told Peter that those who had offended him should be forgiven "seventy times seven"); going out of our way to help other human beings who are suffering (as the story of "the good Samaritan" suggests, Luke 10:29-37); going "the second mile" and turning "the other cheek" (Matt. 5:43-47). I am not suggesting that followers of Jesus are duty-bound to obey literally these prescriptions. I am suggesting that the life to which Jesus called his followers involves a reversal of ordinary social and political, cultural and--all too often--religious standards, according to which power over others signifies one's importance, and serving others is regarded as demeaning (Mark 10:43-44). All this was brought into sharp and unforgettable focus by the final events of Jesus' life: he refused to defend or protect himself from his enemies, and he accepted meekly the whips and curses and finally the suffering of a violent death at their hands.”

Jesus was obviously a very creative figure: he imagined a world decisively different from the one he lived in--this present world governed by relations of power and violence, this world of injustice, disease, and ugliness; and he announced that this new world of reconciliation, love, and peace was soon coming here on Earth. And so, in keeping with that expectation, he called for new and quite different human behaviors--even in this present world--behaviors driven by a love that sacrifices itself without reservation to the needs of others; that ministers to the sick, the weak, the poor; that refuses to fight back against those who have done harm but instead forgives.

This vision of the possibilities of human beings--of the potentiality of humankind--is certainly one of the most radical ever set forth. Jesus' belief; and his enactment of that belief in his own life and death--that human existence should (and could!) at all points radiate agape love--captivated his followers and powerfully motivated them to change their lives. Virtually every writer in the New Testament affirms the importance of love in one way or another. Paul and John, the two great theologians of the New Testament, both emphasized love's centrality and its glory: Paul, especially in his great hymn to love in 1 Corinthians 13, in which he very straightforwardly affirms that of the three basic Christian virtues--faith, hope, and love-- "the greatest of these is love" (13:13) a Johannine writer, especially in his daring pronouncement that “God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them" (1 John 4:16). This radical vision of the human potential may help us see more clearly what will be required if we are to move past the hatreds and aggressiveness,`the misplaced loyalties, the defensive ideas of duty and honor and patriotism, and the like, to an openness that welcomes other peoples, cultures, and religions; and a willingness to forgive and forget past injuries and crimes. The radical love and forgiveness advocated by Jesus can transform destructive human practices and lives, thus helping to break down long-standing barriers of hatred and fear that make it impossible for peoples and nations, ethnic and religious groups, to live together and work together cooperatively for a better human world, The apostle Paul had something like this in mind when he laid out his vision of the meaning and power of love: "Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it . . . rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends" (1 Cor. 13:4-8). Christians were being transformed by this gospel of love, and they had been given the commission to spread it around the world. It was because of the transformative power of this love that Paul was able to declare that "if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything . . . has become new! A11 this is from God" (2 Cor. 5:17-18).

In the New Testament, of course, this vision of humankind's potential presupposed a supernaturalistic world»picture: God was doing all these things in connection with bringing human history to its climax and goal, the perfect kingdom of God in and over the human world. Perhaps only in a context of this sort could such an implausible vision of the human potential ever have been created--human existence being what, for the most part, it has been. However that may be, as new generations of Christians came and went, and it became increasingly apparent that the apocalyptic expectations of Jesus, Paul, and the others simply were not happening as anticipated, the new vision of the possibilities of human existence as a life of "love, joy peace, patience, kindness, generosity faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control" (as Paul described it in his letter to the Galatians, 5:22-23) did not die away. Instead, it became the hoped for quality of ongoing human existence, a quality much desired in Christian communal life. And so it has remained through the centuries of Christian history. It is to be emphasized that this was not just a vision of what Christian communities should be: it was a vision of what humanity could become. We need to ask ourselves now have we come to that moment in history when this vision of what human existence could be is in fact most needed?

If we are now at the point at which humankind must find some way of growing together into a unified though still thoroughly pluralistic humanity; might this vision provide us with some insight into what we humans must do and become if our more unified peaceful world is ever to come about? At this portentous moment in history; more than ever before, we need visions of the human and understandings of history that will facilitate our movement toward an ordering of life char is at once humane and universal, an ordering in which the integrity and significance of each tradition and each community are acknowledged, and the welfare of every individual is respected. It is important that We lift up into full view every insight and every vision--no matter from what tradition or culture it comes--that might throw light on how to move forward from the ugly inhumanities in which we seem to be trapped toward reconciliation of contending peoples, nations, cultures, religions. New cultural patterns of association and cooperation must be developed, new institutions must be invented, new ideologies that are at once universalistic and truly pluralistic must be created. For these sorts of things to come about, a spirit of self-sacrifice for the well-being of the whole of humanity--and indeed the well-being of the rest of life on planet Earth--will be widely needed, a spirit that can subdue the instincts for self-preservation and self»defense (perhaps among the strongest that we possess) that so dominate our communal and national, as well as our personal, lives. It is images and stories of communities of reconciliation--in which all recognize that they are "members one of another" (Rom. l2:5) and that they "are all one" (Gal. 3:28), with no discrimination among groups, classes, or sexes--that can focus our attention and our lives on the sorts of commitments We must make and loyalties we must keep if We are to align ourselves with those cosmic and historical forces (whichever ones they may be) that move us creatively (God!) toward a more humane World. Within this context of hopes and dreams, the image of the self-sacrificial Jesus, who gives himself completely so that all may have "abundant life" (John 10:10), stands out in its full pertinence to today's human world. We have here a vivid emblem of the radical transvaluation of our present values that is required if our world of violence and aggressive self-assertion is to become more truly humane and thus more human.”

I make no claim that the image/ story of Jesus and his early followers is the only one that can inspire the creativity that is needed if we humans are to address effectively the large problems We face today." However, I do want to remind the reader that the history of the many sorts of creativity evoked by this story and image over the last two thousand years is quite remarkable. Some of that history I admit, has been enormously destructive; creativity can go in many different directions, some of them quite unfortunate, as we have seen. It is with this in mind that I am suggesting that, above all, it is the radical themes in the image/story of Jesus, demanding the transvaluation of our generally accepted values, that are most likely to inspire new models for the creativity that we humans must now cultivate. Some, of course, continue to invoke the names of Jesus and God to authorize terrible wars and further exploitation of the environment--behaviors clearly opposite to those that can bring peace and reconciliation, love and hope, into our human world. Creativity inspired by the radical jesus should be healing, redemptive, reconciling in our suffering world. The self»giving agape»love that Jesus advocated and exemplified during his life will inspire us, we can hope, to find ways that will help create a more truly humane world for the future. The creativity of jesus continues ....

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Chapter 3 (of Jesus and Creativity)

-- Humans as Biohistorical Beings: Historicity, Creativity, Freedom

In chapters 1 and 2 of this book we have explored some of the implications for christology of my suggestion that we understand God as creativity creativity as God. The symbol of God and the symbol of Jesus are both of course, human imaginative constructs. They were created as men and women-through drawing on traditions going back especially to ancient Israel, on the one hand, and Greece and Rome, on the other sought to orient themselves and order their lives in face of the many problems they needed to address in the worlds in which they found themselves. Why have humans-as they sought to work their way through the problems and difficulties of ordinary daily life-created such elaborate, widely comprehensive symbols as these? What is there about human existence that leads men and women into such speculative activities? To understand these matters adequately and thus to be in a position to assess the continuing importance of these two central Christian symbols, We need to examine certain distinctive features of our humanness. In Chapter 2 I suggested that it is useful to think of humans as biohistorical beings. We are a unique species with capabilities of acting thinking, and creating unmatched by any other form of life; and it IS because of these capabilities--and the problems char arise in connection with them--that symbols such as Jesus and God have been created (over many generations) and continue to be cherished. They provide a way of orienting and ordering human life at the most fundamental and comprehensive levels. In this chapter we will explore these necessities and thereby put ourselves in a position to examine more fully in Chapter 4, the significance of the symbol Jesus-in its interconnectedness with the symbol God--that we have been working out in this book.

I

The word "biohistorical" holds together in one both the biological grounding of our human existence and the historico-cultural dimensions of human life, thus highlighting what is most distinctive in our humanness? It immediately suggests that We are qualitatively different from any other form of life in important respects. We humans emerged-out of less complex or (as some would say) "lower" forms of life-in the course of evolutionary developments on planet Earth over many millennia; and We cannot exist apart from this living web that continues to nourish and sustain us. It is important to note that this biological point by itself tells us nothing about the unique role, within this evolutionary setting, played by the emerging historical features (that is, the sociocultural features) of human existence. The order of nature is, of course, the wider context within which human history has appeared, but it has been especially through our historical sociocultural development over many millennia-not our biological evolution alone-that we humans have acquired many of our most distinctive characteristics. Our increasingly comprehensive knowledge, for example, about the natural world in which we live and about our human constitution and possibilities has provided us with significant powers over our immediate environment and over the physical and biological, as well as sociocultural and psychological, conditions of our existence-powers that go far beyond those of any other animal. We humans, thus, have gained, in and through our various knowledges, a measure of transcendence over the nature of which we are part; and with our developing practices and skills-growing in modernity into enormously powerful technologies-we have utterly transformed the face of the earth and are beginning to push on into outer space. Clearly we human beings, and the further course of human history, are no longer completely at the disposal of the natural order and natural powers that brought us into being, in the way we were, say ten millennia ago.

How should we understand--in connection with the evolutionary account--these features of our humanity that have emerged largely in human history? Anthropologist Clifford Geertz has pointed out that our present biological organisms, if left simply to themselves, would be so seriously deficient that they could not function. "We are .. . incomplete or unfinished animals who complete or finish ourselves through culture-and not through culture in general but through highly particular forms of it: Dobuan and Javanese, Hopi and Italian, upper-class, academic and commercial" (Geertz 1973:49). The organism that has finally appeared as human is, thus, "both a cultural and a biological product”; and the various sorts of human culture that have appeared around the world must each be understood as an indispensable dimension-in its particular location-of the niche on planet Earth within which human-kind is sustained. Our niche, without which we humans could never have come into being or continued in being, has increasingly acquired important historicol-cultural features: that is, the human niche is itself a developing biohistorical reality This cultural dimension of human existence, including especially the growth and increasing complexity of human symbolic behaviors, has affected significantly the actual biological development of the predecessors of today's Homo sapiens. It has had particularly strong effects on the evolution of the human brain, as brain-scientist Terrence Deacon has shown, Deacon argues that the emergence of symbolic behaviors-such as language, a central feature in the historical unfolding of human cultural life-helped bring about the evolution of our unusually large brains (Deacon 1997:44-46, 251f, 339-59, 407-10). Thus, all the way down to the deepest roots of our distinctly human existence, we are not simply biological beings, animals; we are biohistorical beings. And in significant respects, our growing historicalness-our Historicity--is the most distinctive mark of our humanness.

Because of our historicity--because we are beings shaped decisively by histories char have in turn given us the power to shape future history in significant ways--we humans have great creative and destructive powers in the natural order on planet Earth. And in the last century we have become aware that unless we live and act within the constraints that life's ecological order on Earth places on us--unless we arrange our activities in ways appropriate to the environmental context that supports and sustains us--we will not survive much longer. No other form of life-trees, dogs, other primates-needs this kind of information or would be able to make any use of it. We humans alone have knowledges and technologies that give us the power to destroy ourselves as well as many other complex forms of life; and, in fact, we are already engaged in such highly destructive activity. We humans alone are able to envision the enormity of these matters--to understand what all of this means (not only for ourselves but for other species as well); and we alone are able deliberately to amend our ways in respects that may bring us into better harmony with the overall ecology of planet Earth. For us humans, thus, these concerns have become a matter of life and death-not only for ourselves but for much other life as well. Humans are historical beings-beings with historicity, agents with powers to shape their own future: if we are to survive in this world, not to mention flourish, we need to develop an understanding of ourselves and the World in which we live that makes clear how we must comport ourselves in life, how we must live and act; our understanding of ourselves, that is, must include moral and ethical features.

In every age and every society and culture about which we have some knowledge, we find what we today call "religious" and "moral" dimensions. Women and men everywhere have created (have imagined) pictures and conceptions of the world in which they were living-conceptions of what human beings are; of rules and standards, values and norms, governing how life should be lived; and of institutions assuring that these important matters would be passed on to future generations, In acquiring language and culture every normal infant begins to order its behavior in terms of what, in due course, will become exceedingly detailed and complex socially created and socially imposed rules and norms-behavioral patterns within which it will live and act and think throughout the rest of its life. Language, many other behavioral practices and normative standards, and world-pictures-not this or that specific linguistic or moral rule, or cultural value, or conception of the context of human life, but the necessity to have such values and rules and conceptions-belong to our humanity as such, to our self-consciousness and our capacity to take responsibility for ourselves in some measure. These are central features of the historical dimensions of our human existence. I want now to sketch briefly some of the characteristics of this normativity that is apparently inherent in our humanness. I shall make five points in this connection.

1. That which most sharply differentiates human beings from other forms of life (as we have just been noting) is our historicity: on the one hand, we humans have been shaped by our histories; but on the other hand, increasingly we have-especially during recent millennia-gained significant control over some of the processes of historical change and development through which we are moving, and in that respect some degree of control over our own historicity Our growing human powers and creativity however, have obviously become quite dangerous, and we must strive to manage them better or we may destroy ourselves. We need, therefore, to think through carefully how we humans-as a species-should proceed at this point.

2. Human beings; human institutions, cultures, and societies; and human historical processes-all of these marked by historicity--could not have come into existence or remained in existence without delicate balances between creativity and continuity freedom and order, in the cultures within which they were emerging. The maintenance of such balances in communal institutions and practices, and in individual agents and their actions, is what can be called "responsible" ordering and acting. An optimal realization of human historicity in any particular concrete situation can occur only to the extent that the pertinent communities and selves are able and willing to take significant responsibility for their institutions, practices, and actions; this responsibility of course, is understood in quite different ways in the many diverse sociocultural and historical contexts in which it emerges. (The concepts of "responsible" and "responsibility" will be examined in some detail later in this chapter. Here I use these words in their conventional meanings.)

3. As we look back over the history of the past century--with its horrible paroxysms of violence and war, but also its enormous growth in human knowledges and powers--we can see how important it is that we exercise our historicity in much more responsible ordering and action than we have achieved in the past, We must shape and reshape our human communities and selves in ways that-as we hope-will facilitate the development of better-ordered freedom and creativity in both the individuals and the societies of future humankind. The enormous growth of our technological power in recent centuries, culminating in the power to destroy humanity along with many other species of life, means that only as we humans learn to take greater responsibility for the effects of our actions-on both the environment and the ongoing movement and direction of history and culture-can there be much likelihood that we will survive.

4. Our capacity to take responsibility for ourselves and for the direction history is going depends on a relatively high degree of self-consciousness and knowledge of what we are actually doing and its effects, and a proper orienting of that consciousness and knowledge in action. The effectiveness of our historicity will depend significantly on our awareness of ourselves and our powers and of what our real possibilities in life may be, as well as on the existence of practices and institutions that facilitate the historical dimensions of our lives. If humanity is to survive and flourish, we will have to work toward patterns of societal organization, practices, and institutions that will expand and deepen awareness of our historicity and its significance; these must include social and cultural patterns that will sustain and perhaps enhance our historicity. Obviously the many forms these issues and concerns take in various sociocultural contexts and for different persons cannot be specified in this bare outline: those matters will depend on the specific, very diverse situations involved.

5. In all these matters, of course, we must keep in mind that our historicity cannot function optimally unless it is working harmoniously with its biological base--our bodies and the ecological networks that sustain and support them--and only if that biological base is itself functioning well. Taking responsibility for ourselves and our societies as biohistorical beings must always include, therefore, taking significant responsibility for the organic and physical networks of which we are part.

These normative considerations, grounded in and emergent from the historicity of our humanness, are quite abstract and formal as here sketched; and in that respect they violate the very concern for historicity that I am trying to express. To hold, for example (in point 1, above), that the overarching consideration that we must take into account is the imperative "to think through carefully how we humans--as a species--should proceed at this point" leaves this central concern in much too abstract a form. The whole point of calling attention to our "historicity" is to emphasize that our understanding of what is required of us in any particular situation is always shaped largely by the historico-natural situation itself not by some abstract universal norm. What is required by one sociohistorical situation or natural setting will likely be significantly different from what is required in other contexts. In this book, for example, we are concerned with the question of what significance Jesus may have in today's world. But obviously there cannot be any single answer to such a vague and general question as that. What that question may signify for Chinese peasants would likely be of little interest to modern European university students, and vice versa; what may be important in that question for some African politicians would hardly be of pertinence to American soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, and vice versa. The conception of us humans as fundamentally historical beings has itself developed in a particular historical context--largely among intellectuals in the modern West. Like all other conceptions, it has its meaning, significance, and truth principally within that context, and the extent to which it will be taken seriously into account in other situations will depend very much on those situations themselves. It should not be surprising, therefore, if some of the abstract concepts found in this discussion may at first make little sense to some readers. It is my hope that reading this chapter will clarify these matters.

The fourth point above, that taking "responsibility for ourselves and for the direction history is going" presupposes knowledge that we are historical beings, and this requires a "relatively high degree of self-consciousness," is also extremely abstract and thus potentially misleading. The level of our self-consciousness, as well as the kind of self-consciousness that we have, depends largely on the particular historico-cultural situation within which we live and think. It is not the case that everyone in the World at this moment can understand, or needs to understand, himself or herself as a "historical being", modes and degrees of consciousness of this fact differ greatly in the countless varied local situations around the world-a point directly implied in the claim that we are shaped by and relative to our basic historical contexts. This consideration, moreover, will be pertinent rather differently for those with the power to affect and take responsibility for large populations than for those, for instance, with a newly emerging consciousness of their own oppression-a point often emphasized by liberation theologians. Observations similar to these could easily be made about the other points being considered here.

As historical, self-conscious, culture-creating, and in some respects self-determining beings, women and men inevitably must decide what they are to do and be--given the life-situations in which they find themselves: How should they shape and order and orient their lives? Toward what sort of future should they work? It is not the case, of course, that all men and women have thought of themselves as free and creative, as able to shape and determine their own futures and their children's futures. In some cultures ideas of this sort have not appeared, or have been downplayed; and in most cultures they have been deemphasized for women. Thus, the forms in which experience has come to many individuals and groups have often inhibited these notes from coming into View However, the modern intellectual standpoints that enable us to observe the great variety of cultures, societies, and religions-all of which have been produced by the human spirit-put us into a position from which we can hardly avoid thinking of that spirit as possessing great freedom and creative power. It is important that both societies and individuals learn to take significant responsibility for themselves and their worlds: what men and women decide today especially and most frighteningly in the realms of international politics, economics, and ecological concerns, will significantly affect the life of future generations-indeed, it may determine whether there will be many more generations in the future.

Our international political arrangements have put the gradually cumulating growth of human power during our long history into the hands of nations competing with each other (though economic developments in the last century have somewhat qualified this point); and our moral and religious commitments and values and suspicions-especially in the fundamentalistic versions now appearing many places around the globe--focus the energies and interests of each of us on the political, economic, cultural, and religious fragment of humanity to which We belong, rather than on the wellbeing of humanity as a whole and the welfare of the rest of life on Earth. So our moralities and our religions and our other value-loyalties, instead of enlarging and protecting our well-being, actually increase the possibilities of disastrous wars. Instead of acceding to the demands of our present social, political, and religious commitments and arrangements, we men and Women today must take up our full responsibilities and act in behalf of humanity as a Whole-and in behalf of our environment, which makes all life on Earth possible.

II

Humans are socioculturally shaped and socioculturally creative beings, as we have been noting; and as a result of our creativity we have gradually acquired the power to shape significantly--that is, to participate in the creation of--our human future, As far as we know creativity of this self-conscious sort is found only in the human world, and it did not come about in any simple Way Human deliberative creativity could hardly have begun before the development of fully articulate speech, possibly one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand years ago (Deacon l997:364). Let us imagine, for a moment, how our creativity may have come into being (been created). The initial stages must have been largely social developments, possibly brought about by the growing intensity of the more or less primitive linguistic interchanges, a serendipitous outcome of the wider creativity in the universe (God); these beginnings certainly could not have been the result of any deliberate human intentions and actions (for no one could have had any idea of creativity at that point), However, as humans increasingly gained facility with language, they discovered a deeper solidarity with each other, new possibilities of collective action and enjoyment, and new kinds of experience. The more they interacted linguistically the more complex became their interconnectedness, This in turn encouraged still more linguistic interaction, which led to increasingly intricate linguistic patterns, and so on: language as an enormously complex symbolic system was beginning to come on the scene. So what began simply as ordinary natural interactions between different members of the species Homo sapiens evolved serendipitously (over many generations) into modes of sociocultural interaction that were more complex and experientially rewarding, and thus preferred over other modes. In this way the possibility of choice--deliberate decision--was beginning to appear (be created), and with it came the possibility of creating this rather than that. In all of this the human brain was itself being constrained to grow and develop.

It is worth noting that the serendipitous creativity (God) to which I have been calling attention here is similarly involved in the development of every new human infant: over many months an infant gradually pulls together and organizes the vast swarm of feelings and images and noises; muscular throbbing and bodily struggling; the regularity of appearances and actions of caretakers together with the special comfort and relief felt when fed, when diapers have been changed, when being warmly held and gently rocked and otherwise responded to; and so on and so on. As the infant gradually brings all this "blooming buzzing confusion" (William James) into increasingly familiar patterns--largely shaped by the language it is beginning to acquire--a sense of its own self and a sense of being in relatively organized surroundings slowly develop. None of the earliest steps into this emerging linguistic facility growing self-consciousness, and incipient ability to make choices can be directly intended or chosen by the infant, for each of these capacities is only in the process of being created--serendipitously created--in connection with the infant's continuous interaction with its caregivers. Similarly with the historical emergence of our species into self-consciousness and the abilities to speak and act: the early stages were largely a serendipitous product of complex processes of interaction over many generations. Along with the gradual emergence of language, self-consciousness, and deliberate choice-in the early history of the human race, as well as in the development of each human infant-a wide range of skills and capacities began to emerge and come into play In both cases creative processes that originally begin serendipitously (God) gradually become a complex intermix of this serendipitous creativity with some degree of deliberate human choice and action.

This mix of human self-conscious creativity with the serendipitous creativity roundabout has continued all the way down to the present, with the proportion of deliberate human creative action steadily growing. As the creation of increasingly complex languages and cultures continued, and human self-consciousness emerged more fully and began to direct human activities more effectively women and men gradually learned how to make plans and develop long-term projects. Thus, the creation--in part humanly intended, in part serendipitous (God)--of increasingly intricate cultures continued to move onward; and in connection with that movement, more complex modes of action as well as new ways of thinking emerged. We still experience, in the projects with which we humans are engaged today this intricate mix of deliberate human intention and action with the serendipitous contextual creativity that brings about quite unexpected developments-some desirable (from a human point of view) and some exceedingly undesirable. This occurrence of "unexpected consequences" of our human actions is often remarked upon. Another well-known example of this contextual creativity is sometimes experienced in ordinary conversation:


A conversation . . . is not simply an interchange of discrete "acts," in which each agent is attempting to realize a particular goal. Though in each remark the speaker is attempting to say something that is fitting at that moment, what happens in a conversation cannot be understood simply as the summing up of all these individual actions. Often the interchange comes to have "a life of its own" (as we say), and it may well go in directions no one had anticipated and lead to new insights and ideas which none of the participants had thought of before .... Thus . . . the conversation proceeds down pathways not expected by the original speaker or any of the others. An intervention by speaker B moves the conversation in a way that A had not intended; and a succeeding intervention by C moves down a slightly different path, not anticipated by either A or B, so that when A responds again, it will be with a comment not directly continuous with his or her earlier remark, one which takes into account what B and C have unexpectedly said. And thus the path of the conversation as a whole, though definitely continuous, is not a direct working out of the original intention which A (or anyone else) was attempting to express .... Sometimes, in an exciting conversation of this sort where new ideas seem continuously to be bursting forth, the participants are 'tarried away" by the flow of the conversation itself which has come to have a seeming intention of its own ....This social experience does not mean that the individuals cease to act as free agents in their own right: they each contribute to the conversation out of their own freedom, not under some external compulsion . . . ; it is a moment of [serendipitous] creativity which the group process itself makes possible. (Kaufman l993:275f.)


Our human ability to act, I am suggesting, is bound up closely with our creativity-as well as with the wider serendipitous creativity (God) char seemingly appears almost everywhere. Conversely our human creativity is bound up closely with our ability to act-our ability to make decisions about what we want to do, to plan the course of action that will enable us to accomplish what we have decided upon, and then to work on char program until our intentions have been realized (or changed). All human actions and procedures can quite properly be regarded as instances of creativity-a low grade of creativity perhaps, but creativity nonetheless-for they are intended to bring into being something that did not exist before, something new.

These sorts of daily activities are all quite familiar and frequent and are usually not thought of as particularly important or creative. We generally reserve the words 'creative' and "creativity" for quite unusual events in which something extraordinary very important, and previously non-existent has been brought into being; the thought of creating something truly new has a ring of special significance, rarity novelty I have no desire to change this note of special significance than is suggested when the notion of creativity is invoked. But it is important--especially as we consider our human historicity in connection with the theological position being developed here--that we understand the close link of human creativity with ordinary human agency and that we do not assume that only geniuses or gods can engage in this supposedly miraculous activity. None of these three--human historicity agency creativity--can be conceived apart from the others; these features of our humanness must have gradually evolved and developed, over many millennia, in interconnection with each other. Though our creativity could not exist apart from our historicity and agency in some respects it may be regarded as the most important of the three. Without this creativity-in part the emerging creativity of humans themselves, in part the surrounding serendipitous creativity (God)-humans would never have been able to transform the context of their activities and lives from the strictly natural order within which they originally emerged into a gradually evolving system of dynamic transgenerational bioloistorical momentums. This new slowly emerging biohistorical order began to provide a context within which (at least in some settings) further human creativity would be encouraged and could become effective. As humans faced the problems that arose in their ordinary everyday living, human creativity was occurring with increasing potency and frequency Obviously we cannot take up here the many examples of creativity in everyday life, but we need to note that none of this human creativity would have emerged had human' life not been gradually acquiring a biohistorical form: humans were animals that, for many thousands of years, lived out their lives in the context of increasingly complex sociocultural worlds. These sociocultural worlds-slowly and quite unintentionally created by our many generations of forebears as they addressed the problems they had to face-provide the basic settings of our lives today contexts handed down to each of us as we were socialized and enculturated from infancy.

We have been examining here the structural features that had to emerge if human agency was going to appear and develop. An agent is a semiconscious subject, an "I," a being not only aware of the various features and dimensions of the world in which it is acting but also implicitly aware of itself and its feelings, desires, wishes, moods, attitudes, abilities and skills, hopes and dreams, loves and hates, successes and failures. Of course, some persons, perhaps because of unusual circumstances of class or role or education, may be much more conscious of their agency than others. Agency and responsibility-and our sense of agency and responsibility-vary greatly in strength and significance from moment to moment, person to person, group to group, culture to culture; and no individual person or social group, no culture or class or gender or race or historical period, is entirely devoid of all possibilities for responsible action (barring, of course, a manor disastrous breakdown).

Our brief examination here of the complex interconnectedness of human historicity agency and creativity-each of them dependent upon the emerging human linguistic capabilities-should give us some sense of the complicated and lengthy biohistorical development apart from which this triad central to our humanness could not have emerged (been created). As we have noted, this development is reenacted in Jesus and Creativity its own distinctive way as each new human being moves from birth through infancy childhood, and adolescence into full maturity.

III

With this developmental picture of our humanness in mind, we are in a position to turn to the question of responsible agency and creativity; and that will bring us closer to an understanding of what such comprehensive symbols as God and Jesus are all about. We rarely if ever, talk about animals (or computers) "taking responsibility" for a given situation or action, though we are well aware char animals are able to "care for" their young, can be taught to behave in ways required by humans (as a result of housebreaking of pets, for example), and can learn to "obey" many different sorts of human commands. Though we may say that we hold our dog "responsible" for having made a mess in the kitchen, it would seem a little odd to say the dog ought to "take responsibility" for this sort of problem. Taking responsibility is an extraordinarily complicated sort of action that perhaps only the human brain can manage. One must have acquired a number of complex skills and abilities (with their respective feedback mechanisms) and have learned how to manage all of these in concert when contemplating a future course of action for which one is Willing to hold oneself responsible. Many animals have the capacity to seek necessary or desirable goals (for example, to search for food, engage in mating, make nests, travel great distances without getting lost), and that suggests their possession of something like rudimentary forms of what in humans develop into self-conscious attention and intention. But to "take responsibility" for what we are doing or are attempting to do, we need a good deal more than the capacity to seek desirable goals.

We must, for example, be able to imagine the future-that is, imagine what is not now the case and thus not present in our experience. Indeed, we must be able to imagine more or less simultaneously a number of diverse possible futures among which we might choose as we contemplate alternative actions that could be undertaken. For such imagining to be possible, we must have acquired a complex but manageable symbol/ image system in terms of which we can represent to ourselves these diverse alternatives. This is ordinarily made available to humans as we acquire a complex language in the early years of life, a language that, above all, has first-person words such as "I," "me," "mine," "we," "us" First-person terms all have self-reflexiveness built into them. In saying "I" or "me" a speaker is paying attention and calling attention to himself or herself (along with whatever else it is that he or she is saying). In learning to say "I" (at about the age of two years) we were beginning to distinguish ourselves clearly from things other than ourselves-from all those things with which the "I" enables us to contrast ourselves. Thus, we began to bring about (create) what is called "self-consciousness" (Similarly with "we" and "us" and “our”--words which enable us to be aware of ourselves as participating members of specific groups.) The language that we learn in early childhood, together with the facility that this enormously complex symbol--system provides us, makes possible our acquisition of a number of important skills and capacities: our ability to symbolize, intend, attend, decide, and so on; our self-awareness and self-consciousness; an enormous extension of our capacity to imagine; and much else. Without these instrumentalities, human agency (acting deliberately) and human taking responsibility for our actions, our selves, and our human creativity would not be possible.

When we hold ourselves responsible for something we have done, or understand that we must take responsibility for what we are about to do, we are making reflexive moves in our minds that go an important step further than first-person language alone could carry us. To take responsibility is to make a move that binds agent/ decision/ intention/ attention/ act/ creativity all together in a larger unity a newly created unity in which the act and creativity performed are directly attributed to the agent. The agent is now regarded, and regards herself or himself as the dynamic origin or source of the act, as well as of the creativity that comes about through the act. Neither of these would have occurred without this agency and for this reason the agent is held accountable for both of them. Here the peculiar character of human self-consciousness-that it relates itself to itself that it is self-reflexive in unique and important ways-again appears, but in a more complex mode than simply saying "I," And the act is itself a novel creation, a creation that brings about the further creation of something that did not exist before.

We are now in a better position to see how and why being responsible, taking responsibility for our selves and our actions, is so important. Complex forms of human existence are constituted by biohistorical structures and processes of the sort just mentioned, and the complexity of these forms could neither come into being nor continue without them. The triad of human historicity/action/creativity is a fragile living structure. I say "living" because, as a biohistorical process, its continuing existence depends on the ongoing activities of living human beings. If and when all humans engaged in a specific instance of this process die, the process itself-and the many diverse living strands of which it is constituted-will die with them, They may leave behind Wonderful artifacts-think of Easter Island, for instance--but many of those artifacts will no longer have use or meaning. Unless we humans in all our diverse cultural settings--Africans and Chinese, Indonesians and Americans, farmers and CEOs, teachers and politicians, mothers and fathers, and so on--continue to take responsibility for the particular strands of our common biohistorical heritages, those strands will die away (though some of their features may survive in other cultures they have influenced). Recently we humans have learned that in our ongoing activities-creative and destructive-we are undermining the very conditions that make human biohistorical life, and much other life as well, possible. The time has thus come for us humans as a whole to take responsibility for the human project as a whole; that is, to take more direct responsibility than we have in the past for the ongoing living triad of human historicity/ action/ creativity. If we do not, the human Project itself may not survive much longer. In chapter 4 we will consider whether and in what respects the central Christian symbols with which we are working, jesus" and "God" (creativity), bear significantly on this urgent matter.

To take responsibility for some act or project or person or community is, in the first place, to respond to it, to become concerned about it; and in the second place, to make ourselves accountable for it-to keep ourselves informed about its well-being, and if there are problems to seek ways to address them effectively.” Something like taking responsibility is to be found in all human cultures. All activities directed toward keeping the complex living interactive networks of human affairs properly oiled and Working, so that the day»by-day exigencies of life can be effectively addressed, come under this heading. A good physician is someone Who takes responsibility for patients who need special care because of illness or accident. A good teacher is one who takes responsibility to educate students--that is, to introduce them to various features of the culture in which they are growing up and within which they expect to live so they come to enjoy and to participate effectively happily and creatively in those aspects of their ongoing lives. Good parents are those who take responsibility for their children so that they remain healthy become enabled to Ht well in the sociocultural context in which they will likely be living, get a good education, and-above all-are able to grow into, and will seek to become, responsible adults, Many of our specifically moral terms ("trustworthy" "good," "loyal," "liar," "honest," "cheat," "courageous," and so on) direct our attention to various distinct features of responsible (and irresponsible) acting and living (Kaufman 1993x189-9l); and we ordinarily employ these and other similar terms when we want to encourage ourselves and others to act responsibly in particular situations. The words "responsible" and "responsibility" (and, of course, "irresponsible") are important flags with which we call attention to potential major breakdowns of the complex historicity/ action/ creativity triad, breakdowns that threaten the human biohistorical project.

Taking responsibility is a capacity of a higher, more complex order than the skills and activities earlier mentioned (that is, speaking, imagining, symbolizing, deciding, intending, attending), and it presupposes them all,” To be an agent, as we can now see, is not merely to be one who can do something: it is to be one who is held accountable for what he or she does and who holds herself or himself accountable. The agent knows that it is not enough to think of oneself as simply choosing between envisaged alternatives; one must also recognize that one is accountable for the choice that is made and accountable for the Way in which the act is carried out. This accountability is in due course factored back into the process of decision»making; and choices then begin to be made, intentions advanced, and actions performed with the issue of accountability also considered. Accountability thus constitutes another feedback loop in the self-reflexiveness of the agent, and this sense of responsibility or accountability becomes a feature of the self»awareness of the agent as further acts are envisaged. So a new and more complex level of symbolization and self-consciousness begins to pervade the whole process of acting, a level that deepens significantly the sense of one's agency and all that is involved in one's decisions and actions. What is emerging (being created) here is moral agency. With it comes the necessity to find ways of assessing the sorts of acts for which one is willing to be held accountable, distinguishing them from those for which one does not wish to take responsibility And this gives rise to an entirely new consideration: the question about standards and norms that define responsible conduct and can thus provide guidance in our deciding and acting-what we call moral standards and values, moral rules and norms. The possibility--and the necessity--of making distinctions between moral and immoral, good and bad, right and wrong action has thus emerged (been created).

The emergence of moral standards and rules-of some form of moral language and with it morality-is no accident: it has been essential for survival in every society. Without some distinctions of this sort, and without their importance being emphasized by penalties for violations, the complex networks that make increasingly complicated action and creativity possible would probably never have developed or been sustained. These sorts of activity become possible and effective only when, on the one hand, there are in the society quite complex social networks of differentiated roles and statuses, clear behavioral patterns, well»developed linguistic and ideological traditions, and the like. In individuals, on the other hand, there must be complex feedback networks of body control, significant behavioral patterns and skills, good linguistic facility mental training, and discipline.” Every new act performed will have its effect upon and will make its contribution to this complex interconnected web that is indispensable for ongoing deliberate action and creativity Agents-whether individuals or communities-are, of course, just as responsible for these wider consequences of their acts as_ for their more immediate objectives. It has been through the growth of complicated networks over many generations that these sorts of complex action have become possible, and it is only through the responsible exercise of human agency that they can be sustained and further developed. When we ask the distinctively moral questions--Is it right to do that? Is it good to do that? Is it wrong or evil to do that?--we are asking whether this particular act is a piece of responsible doing. That is, we are asking whether this act fits effectively and appropriately into the surrounding action»network into which it is being introduced, asking thus about its quality as a responsible act--in the full, rich sense of the word "act."

This is something significantly different from asking whether the act is, say ‘expedient" or whether it "fits" well within its immediate context.” In our moral questioning we ask about such things as these: Is the intention expressed in the act a responsible one? That is, does it take into account all that should be taken into account in connection with this act? l-las the act been carried through in a responsible way? Is the agent (whether a person, a community a church, a corporation, a nation) acting responsibly in performing this act? However important may be concerns about expediency or aesthetic matters, questions like these that involve moral reflection and criticism raise the most fundamental and far»reaching issues, for here we are inquiring about and assessing action in its distinctive character as free and responsible doing by selves and communities. Every action is a new link in the complex sociocultural web apart from which no acts would be possible: will this act strengthen that web or weaken it? Of course, in many of the trivial decisions we make, these wider effects and more general characteristics of our actions remain largely unnoticed and are relatively unimportant. But with our weightier choices we feel impelled to take into account this more far»reaching significance of what we are about to do. This question about the ramifications of our actions on the action-networks in both our society and ourselves is the deep root of what we call morality.

One more consideration bearing on human responsibility must be mentioned here. We cannot act responsibly unless we have awareness of and fairly accurate knowledge about, the context within which we are about to act: Are there bears in the woods into which we propose to go? poisonous plants to be avoided? possible resources of food and shelter if needed? safe places to spend the night? and so on. It is of course possible, and sometimes necessary to move into a situation about which one knows very little, but such moves may be quite dangerous and foolhardy So when risky moves are about to be undertaken, an agent-whether group or individual-concerned about acting responsibly will attempt to acquire as much valid information as possible. We could not act at all if we had no awareness of at least the basic outlines of the situation into which we were moving; without that we would have no way of deciding what to do, what act would be appropriate.

In every society of course, an important Part of the enculturation with which children are provided is awareness and knowledge of the surroundings in which they are living. Such knowledge is ordinarily not taught in explicit verbal lessons in which we would say for example, "This is walking, and that is sitting, and this is a chair, and that is a table, and this is how we walk to the chair and sit at the table." Rather, the child is simply helped to engage in the activities of walking and sitting and eating at the table; and the pertinent language is picked up as he or she acquires these important skills and practices. The child gradually becomes aware of being in the house, and aware of the yard outside the house, and aware of the dangers on the street. Quite unconsciously the child builds up (creates) a picture of his or her immediate environment; and in the subsequent years of growth the picture becomes augmented by the child's accumulating experience, on the one hand, and augmented very substantially on the other hand, by the child's growing awareness of the larger picture of the wider surrounding world. By adolescence and later maturity the child will have acquired major features of the world-picture dominant in the society within which he or she is growing up." That is, the child will have become aware of the many features of the basic context within which his or her activities are carried out-a world-picture that will be largely taken for granted in all future acting, thinking, planning, exploring, meditating, and ongoing living. Most children will live out their lives, of course, in the context supplied by the dominant world»picture(s) of the culture(s) in which they have been socialized; and Women and men, who in their maturity seek to act responsibly ordinarily envision, understand, and work out their actions in the terms supplied by these cultural world-pictures that, in their local and cosmic dimensions, order and orient their lives. Without these "pictures" of the wider contexts in which we take ourselves to be living-pictures of which we may barely be consciously aware-there could not be any responsible action; and without responsible action to sustain them, complex societies and cultures such as ours could never have come into being (been created).

Many quite different world-pictures have been created in the diverse social settings of humanity's long history. At first these pictures must have been quite simple, confined largely to the local environment. But as more complex civilizations emerged, more comprehensive pictures appeared, with speculative images and thoughts about the heavens above, the earth underfoot, and the powers that rule the world-those destructive powers that must be avoided as well as those creative and healing powers that can bring peace and health and joy. In most societies such world-pictures have been quite comprehensive: they not only displayed how things are in the world; they also set out the deep values and meanings that enable humans to orient themselves in life-enable them to find their way through moments of failure and despair as well as times of fulfillment and joy These important features bearing on the meaning of life-what we might call the "religious dimensions" of traditional world»pictures-have, however, become desiccated and weakened in today's highly secularized pluralistic societies. This is partly because the inherited religious institutions, which have always put their emphasis on the importance of tradition, have found it difficult to adjust themselves to the increasingly rapid pace of change in today's world.

Recently what can be called a"scientific world-picture"-beginning with the Big Bang and including a universe fourteen billion light-years across-has been imaginatively created and widely accepted (in educated circles in the West and elsewhere) as the overall context within which human life has come into being. It was in connection with this new world»picture-largely based on findings and speculations of modern astrophysics, cosmology biology and evolutionary theory and increasingly becoming transcultural-that I worked out the theological position elaborated in my recent book on God as creativity (Kaufman 2004). This world»picture is often presented in the popular press as offering little explicit guidance on how humans should order their lives; and it may be touted as a picture that thoroughly refutes and undermines traditional religious views about life and the world-the alleged "warfare of science with theology" (White 1993). In my book on God as creativity and in this book on Jesus and Creativity I am trying to move beyond that dead end by showing that, with some significant revisions, the two central symbols of Christian faith--God (creativity) and Jesus--can be brought into significant relation to this modern world-picture."

IV

We can sum up this exploration of human agency-in its interconnectedness with our creativity and historicity and its dependence on a Jesus and Creativity picture of the context within which life is to be lived responsibly-by brief consideration of a value deeply cherished in many cultures today: human freedom.” As we have seen, human action becomes possible only within contexts of extraordinary complexity including feedback interconnections in self and society and the necessary physiological and physical supports for these; learned patterns of behavior and symbolic facility together with correlated social customs, roles, and institutions; and subjective feelings and moods, attitudes and beliefs, pictures and knowledges of the world within which life is to be lived. Given this complex interconnected conditioning of our every action, what does it mean to speak of human groups and individuals as free, as in a significant sense self»determining?

It would be a mistake to regard free acts (that is, acts thought of as freely chosen) as simply spontaneous in origin, that is, as just beginning on their own, so to speak, as coming from nowhere. Free action emerges within a context of ongoing processes of activity and striving in an organism that is itself interconnected with ongoing sociocultural processes. To consciously and deliberately guide and order (to some extent) certain of these processes, to turn them in directions they otherwise would not go, is an emergent capacity gradually acquired, ordinarily in childhood. Dynamisms are already present and working in these various processes, as the child's freedom begins to appear; and these provide the materials and the power to which the child learns to give form and direction. As language is acquired, the child is enabled to employ more complex forms of symbolization, and this in turn makes possible envisaging diverse sorts of potential actions with increasing accuracy and sharpness. The possibility of comparing and choosing among alternatives also arises. None of this could happen, of course, until humanity itself had progressed through the long linguistic»cultural»historical development we have been examining; free action and its scope and range are products of this historico-cultural process. ln some cultural contexts these possibilities remain small. In others that provide the necessary patterns of social differentiation and organization together with adequate resources for symbolization, they may become highly developed. As appropriate behavioral habits and symbolization networks, together with the requisite motor skills, are formed in the child, possibilities for acting with some measure of freedom begin to appear. The child disciplines its fingers and learns to read music, for example, and gradually becomes able to play the piano--and thus the possibility of choosing to play Chopin emerges (is created). Psychological studies suggest that the childhood environments that are most conducive to the development of free and responsible agent»selves are those in which caring and love, acceptance and approval, trust and loyalty-these and other moral qualities!-are frequently experienced. In contrast, contexts of neglect, rejection, hatred, and violence frequently bring forth warped and stunted selves, often incapable of effective and responsible action. Thus, even in its most intensely subjective and personal dimensions, freedom is not something belonging simply to individuals. It is interpersonal and social in its origins, and it requires an appropriate social and interpersonal context for its continuing exercise and nurturance.

Freedom should not be thought of as a kind of "metaphysical" quality a controversial matter about something humans may or may not possess. The term "freedom" refers to that which distinguishes human action from mere behavior; it points to those situations and those respects in which we are in a significant degree agents, not just organisms; it indicates that we men and women have control (in certain respects) over what we do, and that we can therefore take responsibility for it and be held accountable for it. Human agency-freedom-emerged over many generations as a gradual modification of what had originally been simply organic patterns of behavior into patterns largely humanly created and thus susceptible (to some extent) to being deliberately chosen. Our actions always remain a modification of previously existing appetites, habits, and customs over which some degree of deliberate control has been gained. They are an expression of their organic base (at least in part), the habitual and customary patterns characteristic of our socio-cultural environment, and the modes of symbolization made possible by the linguistic resources available; hence, they never are "absolutely free" (whatever that might mean). My freedom thus belongs as much to the context of my action-the relationships in which I stand-as it does to me. Although freedom is a distinctive mark of our humanity there are great disparities in the degrees to which different humans, or groups of humans, are enabled to exercise their freedom; and it is this, of course, that has informed and motivated the many recent liberation movements. This valuing of freedom goes back many centuries, and the early Christian movement made it a central theme: "For freedom Christ has set us free," declared Paul; "stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal. 5:1).

Up to this point I have been using the idea of deliberate choice among alternative possibilities as the principal metaphor for understanding freedom; but however illuminating that may be, it does not yet show clearly the full reach of human freedom. Our freedom is not only a matter of our ability to choose moment by moment what we will do: it is also the power to act upon and to transform our very selves. All types of self-discipline, of training the self to do something or be something--developing a skill, practicing various sorts of exercises, reading, studying, meditating--are actions of the self on itself (Note once again the circle of self-reflexiveness that is involved here.) Such activities are usually intended to transform the self into an agent with possibilities of action different from those that now obtain-thus creating a somewhat new and different self Agency is not a static condition that simply is what it is: agency is, rather, a living process, a creative process continuously engaged as much in transformation of itself-of opening one's self to new and different possibilities of action--as in transformation of external realities. By virtue of this power of acting upon ourselves, we are able to take responsibility not only for our particular choices and actions but-in certain respects-for our very selfhood, for what we have become and what we shall become. It was this modality of freedom of which Paul was speaking in the above quotation: the freedom to become a"new creation" (2 Cor. 5:l7), the new fulfilling freedom that a re-creation "in Christ" could bring. Elsewhere he makes clear that we ourselves must take major responsibility for this transformation; "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," he says; "for it is God [creativity!] who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12b-13).

Our consideration here of human action and responsibility of human freedom and creativity has brought us to some of our most profound moral-indeed religious-concerns: questions about who or what we humans are, questions about our self-acceptance and self-discipline, questions about how we should act and what goals we should pursue, questions about our failures and guilt, questions about the meaning of life, questions about the world within which we take ourselves to be living, questions about the ultimate reality with which we must come to terms. Morality and religion, it is now clear, are not peripheral or optional matters superimposed on our basic human existence, matters that we can take or leave as we like. They are matters that emerge unavoidably out of our still-developing humanity out of our historicity agency and creativity-matters that emerge because we are in a significant measure free and responsible and creative. In emphasizing the appropriateness of the term "freedom" to characterize the distinctiveness of our humanity I am not making a primarily psychological point-that we humans feel free in our action. Our freedom is a feature of our human self-reflexiveness; that is, of our having learned to relate ourselves not only to those others with whom we are interacting but to ourselves as well. If our freedom ever reaches its potential and we are enabled to act with a full ecological consciousness, we should find ourselves able to fit more smoothly and effectively into the natural environment that is the setting for our lives and our activities. Perhaps-in some distant future-it may even become possible for humans to feel truly at home in the world in which we find ourselves. We are, of course, far from realizing this eschatological dream. But we have tasted enough of human agency and freedom, and we know enough about what constitutes human responsibility to have some sense of what it might mean to live as members of communities of truly free persons-at home in the world. It was an early version of this sort of vision that was expressed in the ancient metaphor of the coming "kingdom of God": Jesus--and many others during the last two thousand years--have prayed that this kingdom might come "on earth as it is in heaven." For most versions of Christian faith, jesus has been regarded as key to the coming on planet Earth of this New Age. Chapter 4 will explore this claim that the creativity of Jesus will (or can) help bring humanity into a New Age.

As I have been arguing throughout this book, today we live in a much different world than the earliest Christians did, indeed different from that of the generations up to and including the nineteenth century. Many today of course, do not accept the overall scientific picture of the origins of the world and of life. In my opinion, however, that picture provides us with the best information available on these matters today though it is in many respects incomplete and will, no doubt, be modified and probably significantly transformed in future years. But its principal outlines will likely remain with us for a long time, and we can expect human life to be increasingly understood in terms of these scientific knowledges. In consequence, our understanding of many of the problems of life-as well as the overall meaning of human existence-will have to take these knowledges into account. Think of the enormous impact modern medicine and biology are already having on the way many today understand human existence and the issues with which humans now must come to terms.

It is very important that we overcome the so-called warfare of science and religion and bring our thinking about religious and moral issues into connection with our scientific knowledges. The biohistorical understanding of the human sketched in this chapter enables us, on the one hand, to maintain significant connections with modern scientific conceptions of the World around us and the web of life of which we are a part, while, on the other hand, also giving us-in the concept of human historicity-a way to connect these scientific ideas with the religious and moral themes of human freedom, creativity and responsibility themes of central importance to ongoing human life and its meaning. With this understanding of the complexity and the uniqueness of our humanness in place, we are in a position to sum up and assess the significance of the Jesus-trajectory2 christology that began to emerge in the first two chapters of this book.