Supreme love would seem to require every single one of us to strive to become truly human; to be transformed in the light of humane being as it is made known to us here and there among the world�s sages and saints, sinners all. Is it really necessary for a Christian believer to claim special privilege for Jesus in order to accept his incarnation as fully human, fully humane? In that light, is humility not a preferred accent to accompany humane being?
Now more than a decade ago, in a Christian Century article, "Being a Transformationist in a Pluralistic World" (August 10-17, 1994), John Cobb, Jr. defined "pluralism" as the existence of diverse views and traditions. He then went on to say that "we live, indisputably, in a time of theological and religious pluralism." As a genius of contemporary religion, he was of course right. But has any age been otherwise? So far as we can tell, at no time in recorded history has there been a single faith tradition alone. Not to recognize others is not evidence of their absence. So what seemed important for Cobb in raising the issue of pluralism was the right view of pluralism, itself.
Cobb proposed "transformationism" as his alternative way of viewing other faith traditions. Basically, he would have us open ourselves to the transforming grace available in traditions not our own, therefore to approach the fullness of truth in our own. The intellectual background for this topic is the little fascinating issue of Christian uniqueness. Though in some sympathy with Cobb, in my view all isms fail the sight of deep faith apart from traditional formulations. Deep faith can traverse traditions so to be humane (truly human) in a world of human beings by relaxing the tension between trust, which is necessary, and an object, which is not necessary.
It is the provincial view that sees one and only one view (tradition, scripture, teacher) to be the one and only bearer of ultimate value, the one and only harbor for ultimate virtue, the one and only path to ultimate truth. An alternative view is to notice that no vehicle we trust can save us from ourselves, be the vehicle a heritage, a book, or a person. No legacy, no writing, no individual can save us from own ego. The good use of traditions, scriptures, and teachers is surely the very degree to which they may point in an intimate way beyond themselves to ultimate value, virtue and truth, found nowhere if not in the dreary detail of everyday deed absent selfish interest.
To regard Jesus' own self-being as ultimate is to risk a category mistake since not even God can have own self-being. Can we imagine a god, any god, apart from and independent of our imagination or at least some context? The god we imagine is necessarily but a pale image of Supreme Love which defies definition and which Christians believe Jesus incarnates. In any case, evidence of our deep faith is not the tradition we claim. Our deep faith is the deed we do in any transaction. It is the degree to which we are able to open ourselves to Supreme Love so that it finds rest within our being and exercise within our doing.
In a world of human beings, what matters most is how we act toward one another. If we utterly love (what is called) God, and neighbor as self, our deeds of love transform us and make us increasingly transparent. In wholehearted love we are not there, love alone is, love alone acts; not our small love but Supreme Love. No ism can capture or communicate this love and no ism can transform us from being there to not being there. So there is no need to make of Jesus, whom one may adore, an idol. His own transparent faith is evident to anyone with eyes to see, from whatever tradition. It is our faith that sets us free, Jesus said, not the particular object of our faith. Such deep trust is available to people of all the earth, not through Jesus, but the way Jesus trusted, by delight in the moment of presence at hand, which comes silent and still and gives rise to abundant music and movement and creative mystery in the absence of ego's false self.
Page 3