Response to Wayne G. Rollins.

From the very beginning of my work, Wayne Rollins has known, better than anyone, what my objective was. In 1973 he gave a precis and appreciation of my project at the Society of Biblical Literature, characterizing it as somewhat flamboyant, an assessment that he still seems to consider valid, and which I suspect is right. Interesting writing is hyperbole that can be documented as accurate. There was a certain inchoate logic in my first developing a Bible study process and theory of interpretation before launching into full-scale exegetical inquiry. That process, given literary expression in The Bible in Human Transformation (Philadelpha: Fortress Press, 1973), created an uproar, with its--yes, hyperbolical--opening salvo: "Historical biblical criticism is bankrupt." That line cost me tenure at Union Theological Seminary, and left me virtually blacklisted in seminaries all over the United States. By the time I was offered a halftime position in continuing education at Auburn Seminary (in the buildings of Union but independent of it), I was grateful to have anything at all. Twenty-eight years later I look back with thankfulness for Auburn's hospitality.

Wayne Rollins is especially well located to put my book into perspective. His exhaustive study, Soul and Psyche: The Bible in Psychological Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), examines virtually everything ever written in any language on the use of psychology in biblical interpretation. His appreciation of my work is especially welcome to me, since it locates it in the widest possible context. Rollins is able, therefore, to understand the impulse that the historic Jesus inaugurated in the human psyche. The Human Being, he writes, "alters forever the way in which the Son-of-the-Man passages will be read.... It achieves this by placing the discussion in a totally new context, namely, the process, in which and out of which the Son-of-the-Man image emerges as a heuristic force within the human psyche." My concern in biblical study has been, from beginning to end, the issue of human transformation, that is, the search for a Jesus who can bring us to life. The failure, or rather, incapacity of the historical critical method to achieve that goal has led me to focus again and again on hermeneutics, with a concentration of what Rollins calls "psychological realism." His response to me is a masterly summary of an entire emergent field in the area of New Testament studies, and we are all indebted to him for creating the section on "Psychology and Bible" at the meetings of the SBL.

Let me respond quickly to a few matters. Sorry about the son of the man synonyms ("mother's son," "Wisdom's child," etc.), but the double sexism ("son" and "man") of the phrase creates the false impression that a male figure or archetype is intended, whereas in Hebrew it clearly means simply "a human being." And I also wanted to indicate that it really doesn't matter what we call it; it is the reality in experience, which is beyond names, that counts.

Jesus really did hammer out the first consistent critique of domination that we know of since the world began, as Riane Eisler showed in The Chalice and the Blade (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987).

Rollins questions one passage (and could easily have questioned more) in which I assert that a text reflects a spirit other than that of Jesus. He asks how I can know that. My answer is the critique of domination, which I use as a hermeneutical principle throughout the book. He doesn't press the point, however; I think because "psychological realism" is not dependent on the kind of historical judgments we are accustomed to apply to these texts.

More significantly, Rollins critiques my critique of early ecclesiastical tradition for alleging that it literalized rather than re-mythifying the tradition. I must not have made myself clear enough here. I distinguish between "good" and "bad" apocalyptic. Gunther Anders represents the positive use of apocalyptic as a means of mobilizing a radical response to a crisis. Anders confuses the issue by speaking of being Anti-apocalyptics, meaning persons who have risen to the occasion and are attempting to transcend a desperate, apocalyptic, situation. We are, at this moment, in such an apocalyptic situation. "Good" apocalyptic such as Anders's is a subaspect of eschatology, and is necessary for survival. "Bad" apocalyptic, on the other hand, has been literalized, and symbols have been historicized. For instance, the sun falling and moon turning to blood cease to be emotive warnings and become events awaited in outer history. So I find myself in accord with his warning against excess rationalism in regard to apocalyptic. But his suggestion that I may have become impervious to the critique of domination and become soft on injustice couldn't be further from the truth. I conceive my work on the Powers as an inquiry into what keeps people from becoming more human, and my work on the Human Being as an inquiry into what constitutes our becoming human. My new book is continuous with all my earlier work.

I depart from Rollins in that he evidences no awareness of the negative side of apocalyptic. Apocalyptic must be subjected to the critique of domination and challenged where it falls short, even if it be the biblical text itself. The hymns of the Book of Revelation are filled with images of domination, the prayers are for vindication, and Jesus is decked out in the garb of royalty. As I suggest in my book, we will need new liturgies, songs, hymns, prayers, and doxologies that are domination-free if we are to rise to the task. My program is more radical than a reinterpretation of Christian beliefs and practices. It is a reconception of Christianity from the ground up, beginning with the refashioning of a christology from below. At this point, many who would otherwise like The Human Being may find themselves scandalized, and pull back. But, judging from the amount of positive response I have received, at least some people are favorable, and that is all I could hope for.

Walter Wink is Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City.