I recently ran across an article citing numbers on the increase of people that associate themselves with "Progressive Christianity" in America, rather than other more traditional types (which as I recall they grouped as "evenagelical," but surely any category definitions would be open to debate).
I won't address the changes in percentages of people holding different beliefs in America, or really even address what I think the broad category means, besides introducing it. My purpose here was to introduce my own past exposure to unconventional interpretation of Christianity, mainly in the form of religion classes I took at Colorado State University.
References:
The following general overview is cited from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity
The characteristics of Progressive Christianity can be summarized as:
- A spiritual vitality and expressiveness, including participatory, arts-infused, and lively worship as well as a variety of spiritual rituals and practices such as meditation
- Intellectual integrity including a willingness to question; distrust of dogma
- Understanding of spirituality as a real psychological or neural state (see Neurotheology)
- Liberal interpretation of the bible as a record of historical human spiritual experiences and ideas rather than of historical or physical facts. Acceptance of modern Biblical criticism.
- Acceptance of multiple understandings of the concept of "God", including God as Nature, as the Universe, as a shared psychological construct, and/or as community.
- Understanding of communion as a symbol of the church community as the body of Christ
- An affirmation of the Christian faith with a simultaneous sincere respect for other faiths
- An affirmation of human diversity
- Strong ecological concerns and commitments
My own study was most interesting related to a specific interpretation presented by a former CSU professor, Dr. Sanford. He didn't spell out his own beliefs about Christianity, or offer a comprehensive interpretation of what it should include or omit from a traditional interpretation, but instead drew on a non-literal reference, tying Christianity to a lot of completely different types of ideas.
I'll get into more of what it was and what it meant, but the short version is that the main reference linked development psychology theory to Christianity and "stages" of faith, with an excerpt about what those were following (the "highest" four stages only, the rest is in that reference page):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._Fowler (reference on Stages of Faith)
- Stage 3 – "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence; aged 12 to adulthood) characterized by conformity to religious authority and the development of a personal identity. Any conflicts with one's beliefs are ignored at this stage due to the fear of threat from inconsistencies.
- Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties) a stage of angst and struggle. The individual takes personal responsibility for his or her beliefs and feelings. As one is able to reflect on one's own beliefs, there is an openness to a new complexity of faith, but this also increases the awareness of conflicts in one's belief.
- Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis) acknowledges paradox and transcendence relating reality behind the symbols of inherited systems. The individual resolves conflicts from previous stages by a complex understanding of a multidimensional, interdependent "truth" that cannot be explained by any particular statement.
- Stage 6 – "Universalizing" faith, or what some might call "enlightenment." The individual would treat any person with compassion as he or she views people as from a universal community, and should be treated with universal principles of love and justice.
Background and interpretation
Note that none of this has much to do with belief in miracles and such, the most literal interpretation, or even to specific points in Christian teachings. It's not about Christianity at all; really about faith in general, forms of it.
Refer back to the first reference list of Progressive Christianity aspects:
- Understanding of spirituality as a real psychological or neural state (see Neurotheology)
- Liberal interpretation of the bible as a record of historical human spiritual experiences and ideas rather than of historical or physical facts
That's essentially it. The discussion is about faith in general, on to how it relates to human experience, not as a set of guidelines or clearly determined beliefs, and the interpretation it points to is non-literal, so to a great extent the actual events or ideas can be seen as representative or even as possibly added later.
Non-literal New Testament interpreation; the idea that the texts changed over time
It's a bit of a tangent, but some other study on the changes in publication order in the New Testament text related to the latter point. My take-away, based on much more specific findings through literature study, was that the different books in the New Testament were not written soon after the death of Jesus, and were not independent accounts, but some were based on others. This analysis allowed for a study of the changes in the ideas over time as well, with the general trend that more miracles and more God-like attributes were assigned to Jesus as time passed. That's definitely not literal Biblical-authority Christianity, in fact it disputes that there even is such a thing.
How could this be possible? To begin, accepting it could require a lot more study than I conducted, a much closer review of research sources, and it seems likely that someone might end up concluding whatever they wanted to initially, especially if they held strong beliefs one way or the other at the outset. But to answer the question, it was based on the study of the language used, not the English translation, but the original version. But the Bible was translated over time, right, and original written texts wouldn't be available, so the study would be quite complicated.
My son and I were just discussing one issue that enables such dating and study; the changes to language over time. It seems language doesn't change quickly, but at the same time every year new words are added to modern English use, and there is a slower transition from older terms for things to newer ones. Hard to come up with examples, right? Sort of, not exactly. In that conversation with him I mentioned that curtains used to be called "drapes," and pants used to be called "trousers." Of course I'm no linguist, and it's possible that in England right now someone is calling curtains "drapes and pants "trousers." The general point remains the same, even if I'm terrible at giving examples.
I remember my Grandmother referring to a couch as a "Davenport" when I was young. I never really knew the extent to which that was common (seems likely related to the city in Iowa, presumably where couches were manufactured at some point). It would be a monumental task but scholars could trace the same types of changes in ancient Greek and Amharic texts to try and pin down when certain passages were written two thousand years ago.
As for text dependency, that's a different issue. One could determine which passage was sourced from another when too much of the content was common for the two to be independent. Both would be impossible tasks for an ordinary person to really even fully understand but that's how specialized scholarship goes; lots of people work on things that would be nearly impossible over a long period of time, and if all goes well clear and correct findings would emerge over time.
But back to Christianity, or rather perspectives on faith in general, not document dating or revision, but the ideas.
Stages of Faith and non-literal faith; general ideas
The general point that text (Stage of Faith) and my professor were making was that faith can be reviewed in the form it occurs in, not only in being correct or incorrect based on to what extent different ideas are accepted. The most literal and narrow forms relate to a simpler type of belief, and according to this theory simplest types of belief correspond to people also interacting in the most socially limited forms, and essentially framing the world in simpler terms. So actually interpreting faith and teachings, rather than trying to accept them in the most literal and simplest forms possible, is a sign of psychological maturity, or in a sense also spiritual maturity.
If anything the whole framework was a bit too tidy, incorporating too many elements into too clear a form to be plausible. But the basics worked; it seemed clear enough there could be some benefit to reviewing faith forms in general, and that faith could be structured in these ways to some extent, and that to some extent combining the ideas with other psychological aspects might be informative.
Mind you my professor didn't accept this as something he happened across and swapped out literal faith for. He'd been a Southern Baptist minister for most of his life (per my understanding), and he was quite old when I studied under him, surely at least in his late 60's, so his ideas were informed by a literal lifetime of reviewing faith in very grounded contexts, both as theory and practice. He'd been a practicing minister and marriage counselor, and it seemed his interaction in reviewing in detail how different people related to each other informed his understanding more than religious doctrine or psychological theory.
Of course I'm not suggesting that I accepted what he said based on faith in him over the literal Biblical teachings. He didn't present his own ideas so directly anyway; it was convention for professors of philosophy to say as little about that as they could, identifying issues and questions to only lead to consideration by the students directly, and he inclined towards that format, even though he was teaching religion instead. He would never say he didn't think Jesus came back from the dead, or anything about specific teachings like that. He presented the idea that accepting faith more or less literally is possible, but not tied to specific interpretations, of his own or others.
Seems the review could get a bit wispy then, doesn't it? If one wasn't going to embrace a review of what seemed literally true or not how could study progress at all? One way is by focusing on the source content, a reference like Fowler's work. Another is by reference to specific examples of different representations of faith, individual people and their beliefs, and by interpreting those. This was an interesting part of the class, where people came in from different backgrounds, and we analyzed what they said based on a series of questions about faith issues and the form of their own faith, not just Christians but from different cultures.
Conflict of differing faiths; how could that work?
How could it be that both Christianity and Buddhism could be right? This type of question gets to the crux of it, doesn't it?
Literally maybe some points need to remain contradictions. Or do they? After death, are we reincarnated, or do we go to heaven? It seems clear that Christianity says one thing, Buddhism another (or the prior Hindu traditional framework another--complicated how that works). But there are heavenly realms described in Buddhism, so it isn't so clear someone would necessarily come right back. Some Christians are inclined to accept "recycling" souls to some extent, although from that direction the canonical text background may not work so well.
Really the point is more about teachings either being so literally true or not, so the answer "goes between the horns of the dilemma," or doesn't accept the clear division. Maybe agnosticism is a part of that, accepting a final destination wouldn't be so clear, or maybe picking one or the other as a personal belief need not be so contradictory related to what others believe or other ideas that could be seen as related or not.
The ethical teaching in both are so similar that contradictions occur less frequently. On one read Buddhism completely rejects consumption of alcohol, so we could accept that as an example of a difference, but the actual practice and theory isn't so clear. Of course both religions are going to condemn drunkenness, and most Buddhists tend to drink some alcohol anyway. Both religions are more similar from there; "doing the right thing" is essentially the same, and not different in Western philosophy for that matter. That last point gets complicated because there are two main branches for ethical practices basis in Western philosophy, the good of the many versus a logical derivation, to over-simplify, but it's not easy for them to derive to any particular differences in practices from there.
It might sound like I'm saying there is no contradiction between the different sets of ideas. In a way I am. Fowler's point was that to the extent someone could integrate very different types of beliefs as exhibiting common elements, and combing them into one worldview--not a simple thing at all--to this extent they had a more mature, sort of "global" perspective. What is the opposite of this? Someone that couldn't relate to anyone outside of a very narrow social group, essentially the narrowest being their own family, maybe with the next level being their own village, excluding anyone there with differences in belief as well. Categories that might also relate are easy enough to cite as examples: cultural groups, different types of social groups, Christian versus other religions or atheist, related to nationalities, maybe onto gay versus straight perspectives, and so on.
Progression of faith; how could that work?
How to get from one range of exposure to the next, to go from narrow to broad? In short, increased exposure. Someone with broad exposure to differing perspectives could expand their range of beliefs to address contradictions and incorporate more complex forms of understanding. Or maybe they wouldn't; it would depend on how they assimilated their own experiences, in addition to that exposure.
Me currently living as an expat serves as one possible example of broad cultural exposure; I live within a different culture. It took years to adapt to this culture, and I don't feel fully integrated now, or that I ever completely would be. On the other extreme some people never get very far from their own starting point. On a visit home this year we went to see someone in a social group designed for a very limited exposure to outside influences, in the Amish community. Of course it could sound as if I'm criticizing their faith, or form of it, or psycho-social development, but I don't know much about being Amish, or what they believe and accept, it's just an example. I do know people from the more rural areas in my home area and some really don't have much exposure to different worldviews, so issues like foreign cultures or minority races are still a complete mystery to them. Fowler or my professor might well claim this could limit their faith-form development.
But of course it's not so simple as that. It depends on what an individual person accepts within their own worldview more than the general boundary of social exposure. Someone could live in a place where they are in direct contact with people of other beliefs and still have absolutely nothing to do with integrating those beliefs into how they see things, even expats, or in their own domestic environment.
My professor gave an interesting example of how he felt college fraternities could potentially limit this type of development at a critical stage of a young person's life. Let's go back to the original stages citation for an introduction to what I mean, or what he meant:
- Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties) a stage of angst and struggle. The individual takes personal responsibility for his or her beliefs and feelings. As one is able to reflect on one's own beliefs, there is an openness to a new complexity of faith, but this also increases the awareness of conflicts in one's belief.
Right about at this stage, or just prior, someone in their very late teens or early twenties would often be exposed to the most social diversity they had been up to that point in going to college, or in a corresponding change of environment aside from education. But according to that professor one aspect of life in a fraternity could be that someone joins a group based on others having a very identical perspective, with a screening process and isolated living environment and social exposure limitations in place to assure this. In short, not necessarily a good thing.
I couldn't help but think back to this later when I lived with a roommate that had been a member of a fraternity that was one of the most socially isolated people I've met. He wasn't anti-social--quite the opposite--but absolutely could not relate to our third roommate, or seem to connect with many other people outside of a narrow range of settings. In response he focused more on a limited range of activities than others, sticking to spending a lot time in the gym versus the range of outdoor sports that were popular where we lived, and found a social "home" in a group of people he worked with. I don't think he was unhappy but he did seem to feel a bit alienated by unusual perspectives, which were kind of the norm in that place and time (a Colorado ski resort in the 90s).
Per my professor's description moving to the highest levels of broad awareness typically had a "hard-won" aspect; this could only happen based on interactions and demands that wouldn't necessarily feel like natural or easy transitions. The very highest level might be the hardest to relate to. Of course Jesus or the Buddha would be on this level, but their own perspective is only available through close review of their teachings, and these seem inclined to be adjusted and distilled to rules and simplified points that don't really capture the essence of their intention.
Or at least that was a general theme that came up; maybe it's not so simple to get to how that works, or final conclusions. Really maybe that was more a point; if a set of ideas could be reduced to a dozen bullet-points then it wouldn't be a description of a general perspective, a worldview, a specific "stage of faith."
Maybe a modern example would be easier to work with; someone like Martin Luther King or Mother Theresa might be cited (although the general intent was never to use someone as an example of the perspective or how to get there). How could someone really adapt themselves to accept MLK's perspective on race identity? It helps that American society generally integrated what he was saying 50 years ago as a change in overall perspective; races aren't seen as so distinct now, at least in America. Or maybe for some people they still are, in much the same ways as back then, so I mean in general.
Of course the point is more about a general perspective (I keep saying that, right), not specific views on culture, races, social groups, or specific ideas from religions. Going further towards "New Age" instead of literal Christian faith wouldn't be the point; believing people of different races are just the same wouldn't either. Understanding how perspectives differ within social groups or religions systems of beliefs and integrating that to a more broad personal perspective would be.
So in the end "did Jesus come back from the dead" ends up not being the right line of questioning. Someone might well accept that he did or didn't, based on a range of types of worldview, or might accept that maybe something really interesting or unusual could have happened related to that. For me I'm agostic; how could I know. That alone doesn't seem to necessarily indicate a level of maturity of perspective either.
Is what I'm talking about essentially the same as modern Progressive Christianity, or a variation of it, or similar but relatively unrelated, a tangent, or not related at all? I'm not really sure. It may not be so easy to judge that, since Progressive Christianity seems to be a broad category of things, a general approach, which may overlap quite a bit with these other ideas, or may be relatively different. It would seem similar, at least related parts of a larger whole.
