Some Thoughts on ‘Progressive Christianity’, a New Religion, and Carl Jung
This article has been inspired by one from a few weeks ago by Eric Sentell entitled ‘What is Progressive Christianity?’. He is part of a movement (which apparently doesn’t consider itself a movement) which he says is finding it hard to define itself. It wants to move on from Fundamentalism, Literalism and Evangelicalism, but is not sure exactly where it is going.
Sentell nevertheless mentions the features that he believes Progressive Christianity to have — these are the main points, for a full elaboration of them please see his article:
- the decentralization and flattening of authority
- engagement with the perspectives of others
- the rethinking of faith, thus retaining authority over one’s own thinking, believing, and doing
- the prizing of orthopraxy (correct practices) over orthodoxy (correct belief)
- a trust in God’s grace
- a belief in progressive revelation.
Sentell summarises this Progressive Christianity as “a grace-trusting effort to grow, learn, and love”.
The one item which I missed out because I want to focus on it is “learning from people who think differently than us”, (which may have some connection with the second and third items in the list). He says: “We aren’t threatened by the possibility of believing something else and the implication that our belief might be wrong. We can freely explore and consider other ways of understanding Christianity, Jesus, the bible”. He then continues “which doesn’t mean we accept anything and everything… What we find valuable, we integrate into our faith. What we don’t, we accept in others but don’t necessarily embrace for ourselves”.
Coincidentally, since Sentell published his article, two others highly relevant to this question have appeared on Medium. The first was by Geoff Ward entitled ‘Why a new spirituality is on the way’. He is reviewing a new book Thinking about Religion in the 21st Century: A new guide for the perplexed by George C. Adams Jr., who is proposing a new religion for the future. (I assume the subtitle is a reference to the book by E. F. Schumacher, A Guide for the Perplexed.) As Ward notes, “in the words of its author, it attempts to ‘thread the needle between the two extremes of overcautious traditionalism and careless innovation’ ”. This sounds something like this aim of Sentell’s Progressive Christianity that I have picked out. This new religion will have:
- a more expansive, cosmic, non-anthropomorphic understanding of Spirit/God
- more emphasis on empirical experience of the sacred
- less emphasis on adherence to ancient sacred texts and allegiance to institutional structures
- less interest in dogma and doctrine
- recognition of the legitimacy of the plurality of ways of thinking about and experiencing the sacred (in Ward’s words “ religious experience of the numinous and the ineffable will be key”)
- and adherence to a sense of moral responsibility that expands our sense of moral obligation to other species and life-forms.
One of the stated aims is to bring about a rapprochement between science and religion. Ward also notes that the new religion will be to some extent a return to an old one, what is known as the Perennial Philosophy, “a common core of universal spiritual truth that would be just as much a part of the spirituality of the future as that of the past”.
My purpose here is to offer some thoughts on these two different ‘religions’ and any possible relationship between them. I should for the sake of honesty declare my own vested interest. I am a believer in the Perennial Philosophy, the most significant and possibly the oldest example of which is Hinduism. I do call myself a Christian (although conventional Christians would probably call me a heretic), but I believe that Christianity is in serious need of a new Reformation, part of which would be to align itself more closely with the ancient wisdom of the Perennial Philosophy. I also seek a reunification between science and religion. I am also a big fan of Carl Jung, whose ideas I believe can make a significant contribution in these areas. With all that in mind let me make a few points about the above.
My first question is, how far are Progressive Christians really willing to go to engage with the perspectives of others, to rethink their faith, to learn from people who think differently? Will they consider anything, or do they have any red lines that they are not willing to cross? A few weeks ago Medium writer Matthew invited me to have an exchange of views on the historical Jesus. In my first article I listed five (in his eyes) controversial conclusions that various researchers had come to, based on their investigations. In his response which was subtitled ‘ a rant about conspiracy theories’, he also used the words “mad ideas”, “speculative theories”, and “ nor anything any scholars take seriously”. I think it would be fair to say that he would not count himself as a Progressive Christian according to Sentell’s sense of the term.
The second relevant article since Sentell’s was by Gerald R. Baron, a committed Christian, where he writes about the mysteries beyond what science can understand. He says: “I don’t know how the Deity responsible for the creation of a universe so vast we measure it in billions of lightyears could be poured into the fragile, blood and bones of a human being over 2000 years ago. I don’t know what the Holy Spirit is and how it operates within the universe and in my own life, body, and spirit. I don’t know what my spirit or soul is. I don’t know how to explain the unity of three persons in one. I can’t explain how an act of bloody cruelty imposed on an innocent man can rid the universe of the pain, suffering, and evil that pervades it. For that matter, I don’t know how to explain evil in a world that I deeply believe was created good and beautiful”.
My question here is, if these are all mysteries that cannot be explained, are Christians willing to reconsider all these beliefs? Are they willing to even contemplate the possibility that some or all of these ideas are wrong? How far are they prepared to go in this process of creating a ‘progressive’, reformed Christianity? I’m not going to go into detail about all these questions, but just make some points about what I consider the most important issues. This will hopefully allow readers to begin their own reflections.
Let’s begin with the nature of God. According to George Adams, the religion of the future will have “a more expansive, cosmic, non-anthropomorphic understanding of Spirit/God”. This sounds very similar to something written by Edi Bilimoria in his book The Snake and the Rope. He says: “There are four crucial misunderstandings that must be cleared before there can be any hope of genuine and sustainable progress, on a large scale”. The first is “the notion of an external, anthropomorphic ‘Creator God’ (who performs according to his fancy), as preached by the exoteric religions”.
God would therefore not be some kind of superhuman being, intervening in history. At the very least, this would seem to rule out the God of the Old Testament. Such an understanding would also be more in accord with the Perennial Philosophy, most obviously Brahman in Hinduism. Are Christians willing to contemplate this possibility?
If they are, this might help to address Gerald Baron’s problem, that he doesn’t know how to explain evil in a world that he deeply believes was created good and beautiful. If we understand ‘God’ as a cosmic pure consciousness which is the source of everything that exists, then logically that consciousness must be the source of (what we call) evil. After all, in Isaiah (45.6–7) ‘God’ says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other. I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the LORD do all these things”.
That is the NRSV translation. I have been informed by a Medium reader that an alternative and better translation is “causing well-being and creating evil”, rather than “I make weal and create woe”. The Hebrew word translated as ‘evil’ in this passage is ‘râ’a’, the meaning of which is to spoil, make good for nothing, afflict, do harm, hurt, punish, vex, do wickedly.
I am aware that other passages in the Bible contradict this passage. For example, Deuteronomy 32.4 says: “our God (is) the Rock, his work is perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God, without deceit, just and upright is he”. So what are we to make of this passage in Isaiah? Do we believe what’s written in the Bible or not? In any case, do these two passages not contradict each other?
The same argument can be applied to the concept of the feminine. If ‘God’ is the source (not the Creator) of all that exists, then this must include everything that we call female or feminine. If God is considered masculine, then this cannot be the Ultimate Principle, the Oneness which is the source of everything.
Jesus is said to be the ‘Son of God’, or God incarnated into human form. What does this actually mean? How does it work in practice? Gerald Baron says that he cannot understand how the creator deity of the whole universe “could be poured into the fragile, blood and bones of a human being over 2000 years ago”. Neither do I understand how, but the teaching of the Perennial Philosophy is that this is true of all of us — our essential nature is divine. For example, in Hinduism Atman (the individual self/soul) = Brahman. Translations of Genesis refer to the ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ of God. It would be more helpful if they said ‘of the same nature as’.
We have to ask, therefore, if we are all incarnations of God, how was it different in the case of Jesus? What was special about his incarnation?
The above-mentioned rapprochement or reunification between science and religion may help to answer Gerald Baron’s question. Since Christianity was founded, many new discoveries have been made in the world of science. The most significant in recent times was the quantum physics revolution. Following the first breakthroughs we find physicists saying:
- “The universe is looking less like a great machine, and more like a great thought” (Sir James Jeans).
- “The external world of physics has thus become a world of shadows. In removing our illusions we have removed the substance, for indeed we have seen that substance is one of the greatest of our illusions” (Sir Arthur Eddington).
- “The smallest units of matter are not physical objects… They are forms, structures, or — in Plato’s sense — Ideas” (Werner Heisenberg).
Taking this idea even further, we find Max Planck who said: “There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter”.
This suggests that we should understand God to be a divine mind, which is constantly thinking the physical universe into existence, possibly many trillions of times per second. That would be significantly different from the idea that God ‘created’ the universe, including our planet, at some finite time in the past. Is that actually possible if that same ‘being’ is incarnated at the same time into human form? The answer might be yes, if we accept the philosophy of panentheism, that God is both transcendent and immanent. Such ideas also feature strongly in the philosophy of Idealism.
Perhaps we can take this idea even further, and consider the possibility that every single existing thing in the universe is a microcosm of the Ultimate Principle. This is what is known as the Holographic Theory, that the whole is contained within every part, albeit in a very limited and restricted form. The poet and visionary William Blake seemed to believe this, as expressed in his poem Auguries of Innocence: “To see a World in a Grain of Sand, And a Heaven in a Wild Flower, Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand, And Eternity in an hour”. Was he a man ahead of his time?
Let’s now turn to Jesus. The next question that I wonder whether Christians are willing to consider is the possibility that no such human ever existed. This is what is known as the mythicist argument. In the exchange with Matthew referred to above, this was the first of the supposedly ‘controversial’ theories I mentioned that he described as “mad”, “speculative”, “ nor anything any scholars take seriously”. However, Tom Harpur, one of the main proponents of the theory, writes: “the mythical or spiritual as opposed to the historical interpretation of the Gospels has been set out repeatedly by such scholars as Dupuis, Drews, Robertson, Smith, Renan, Strauss, Massey, Higgins, Mead, Kuhn and a score of others” (The Pagan Christ, p158–9). One wonders therefore who qualifies as a scholar for Matthew. Presumably only those who agree with him. (Coincidentally, or perhaps synchronistically, while I was preparing this article, even though it was published some time ago, this article by Robert W Ahrens appeared in my Medium Daily Digest, which discusses the mythicist argument. In it he provides a link to an article which lists 44 historians who take mythicism seriously. On the whole, these are in addition to those mentioned above.)
Far from being mad or speculative therefore, this is a suggestion that has to be taken seriously, because it is based on a lot of research. When all this has been taken into account, one can consider whether it can be refuted. I personally believe that there probably was a historical Jesus, although I can understand the powerful arguments of those who think otherwise. However, if a historical Jesus existed, it is unlikely that the gospel accounts are a true record of his life, since much mythological material has been added. See what you think after reading the next few paragraphs.
Some time ago I wrote in an article that Jesus was probably a spiritual teacher, most likely an Essene, but had been turned into a god by the Catholic Church. One reader responded that this was the best definition of Christianity he had come across. That doesn’t mean that he was right, and doesn’t prove anything of course, but it is easy to see why he might think that.
For those unfamiliar with the mythicist theory, its main features are that:
- a crucified or dying-and-resurrecting saviour god is a familiar theme in the mythologies of the world, is therefore what one might call an archetypal idea or a mythologem. Jesus would therefore be but one more example, and is therefore a pagan god.
- there is nothing, or incredibly little, in the gospel accounts that cannot be found in earlier traditions, notably that of Egypt. If there is nothing new in the story of Jesus, is there any reason to believe he existed?
Thus Harpur writes that the Gospels are “exposed as the old manuscripts of the dramatized ritual of the incarnation and resurrection of the sun god, a ritual that was first Egyptian, later Gnostic and Hellenic, then Hebrew, and finally adopted ignorantly by the Christian movement and distorted into ‘history’ ” (p147). In more detail: “It takes very little imagination indeed to see this entire Gospel as a ritual drama or mystery play. The divine teacher is called, is tested by the ‘adversary’, gathers disciples , heals the sick, preaches the Good News about God’s kingdom, finally runs afoul of his bitter enemies, suffers, dies, and is resurrected after three days. This is the total pattern of the sun god in all the ancient dramas”. In the gospels, however, “it is all presented as if it was genuine history!” (p145).
Let’s have a bit of fun and do a short quiz.
Question 1: Who is being described here? He is God incarnate, the Son of God, a saviour figure, born of a mortal virgin on December 25 with shepherds present. He offers his followers the chance to be born again through the rites of baptism. He turns water into wine at a wedding. He rides triumphantly into a town on a donkey while people wave palm leaves to honour him. He dies at Eastertime as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. He descends into hell, is resurrected on the third day, and ascends to heaven. His followers await his return as the judge during the Last Days. His death and resurrection are celebrated by a ritual meal of bread and wine which symbolize his body and blood.
Answer, the hero figure in the Osiris/Dionysus myth (according to the analysis by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries, p6. They use the term Osiris/Dionysus to denote the “universal and composite nature” of the godman of the various pagan Mystery traditions).
Question 2: Who is being described here? He was a god born in innocence of a virgin birth, from a ray of divine reason. Eventually he was suspended on a tree.
Answer, Zoroaster. Here is one of his prophecies: “A virgin should conceive and bear a son, and a star would appear blazing at midday to signalize the occurrence. When you behold the star, follow it wherever it leads you. Adore the mysterious child, offering him gifts with profound humility. He is indeed the Almighty Word which created the heavens. He is indeed your Lord and everlasting King” (Harpur, p34).
Question 3: Who is being described here? “In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the eastern end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the practice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself the son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and then ascended to heaven”.
Answer, Apollonius of Tyana, who died about 98 CE; his story may be read in Flavius Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius. (Source Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, p9. There is also a book about him by Raymond Bernard, Apollonius of Tyana the Nazarene.)
If all this is true, the very least that can be said is that Jesus was in no sense unique, neither as a mythological god nor as a human being, despite what the Catholic Church might want you to believe.
Harpur is not alone in thinking that the gospel accounts resemble a mystery play; this has been noted by various scholars. This is perhaps most apparent when one considers the events of the hours before the crucifixion. We are expected to believe that in one single night, according to Luke’s gospel, the following events occurred: the Last Supper, the lengthy walk to the Mount of Olives, the long watch in the Garden of Gethsemane followed by the arrest, three distinct trials - the first before the high priest Caiaphas and others, the second before the governor Pilate, a third before Herod, and then a return to Pilate. Then follow all the events leading to the crucifixion, the appeal to the crowd and so on.
Harpur says that there is “an obvious, meagre limit to what can actually occur in the temporal span of one evening”, and that this was “an impossibly busy night to close his sad career”. There would be no problem, however, if all these events were part of the drama in a mystery play.
Now, if we draw the obvious conclusion from the above, that the story of Jesus was by no means original, where does that take us? How do we now interpret the gospels? My suggestion is that, if there was indeed an actual historical Jesus, then we should accept that much mythological material has been added to his story, therefore that the accounts in the gospels are not his true biography. We would therefore have to contemplate what is the deeper meaning of the story/myth that is being related, and what was the nature of the actual historical Jesus, if there indeed was one.
One item not in Sentell’s Progressive Christianity list is something that does appear in Adams’ list of ingredients for a new spirituality, “more emphasis on empirical experience of the sacred”. This is a good point to bring Carl Jung into the discussion, for his Individuation Process, the goal of which is the self (the God-image in a human), offers a personal experience of and connection with the divine in this lifetime, not as a reward in the afterlife.
Jung has been described as one of Christianity’s greatest advocates and also one of its greatest heretics. For what it’s worth, he wrote that it would be better if we took seriously the idea that the gospel story of Jesus should be understood allegorically or symbolically, since the meaning is very profound. This avoids getting bogged down in arguments as to the historicity. He also believed that ‘God’ has a dark side, and was an advocate of the Divine Feminine.
If Sentell and Progressive Christians truly believe in progressive revelation, how much of all this are they willing to take on board?
This article is already long enough, so I won’t go into more detail here. I’ve written much about Jung on Medium. Here are some links:
Jung in relation to Christianity’s next Reformation
Jung in relation to Taoism, part 1 and part 2
The above have been extracted from this list, because they are those most relevant to this article. Other topics can also be found there. See also a series about Jung’s journey into the underworld.
===============================================================
I hope you have enjoyed this article. I have written in the past about other topics, including spirituality, metaphysics, psychology, science, Christianity, and politics. All of those articles are on Medium, but the simplest way to see a guide to them is to visit my website (click here and here). My most recent articles, however, are only on Medium; for those please check out my lists.
