Announcements
New Resource on ProgressiveChristianity.org
Exclusive Interview with Ben Corey: Discussing The Wide Spectrum of Progressive Christianity, and more…
By Eric Alexander
Read Here!
I recently had the pleasure of a deeply insightful discussion with Benjamin Corey about the state of progressive Christianity, Jesus as the only way, how the Emergent Church movement fits into progressive Christianity, the definition of sin (and our differing views about original sin), and what exactly he’s got strapped around his chest in his profile picture. If you’re not familiar with Ben, he is a self-described progressive Christian, and he authors a popular blog on Patheos called Formerly Fundie.
I was excited to have this conversation with Ben, because on numerous occasions this year I have had friends send me an article of his saying that I absolutely had to check it out. He certainly has some dedicated fans, as my Facebook inbox can attest. It’s easy to see why when reading his blog. He is passionate and decisive in his writings, and he seems to have a set of beliefs that are very friendly to those who are in the process of working their way out of more conservative flavors of Christianity.
But his recent string of articles examining (and even critiquing) progressive Christianity caught my eye, as on a few issues we seemed to represent very different poles of the ever growing progressive Christian tent – and this offered an excellent opportunity to look at the subject in more depth together. In the end I was pleased with our discussion, and while we didn’t always agree, I think the wide spectrum that is developing within today’s progressive Christianity became more clear. Progressive Christianity really is becoming a huge tent which brings with it both challenges and opportunities.
I hope our discussion might be an example of how we can all own our differences, while at the same time respectfully look for ways to understand each other better and remain harmonious as we seek the common goal of transforming ourselves and the world. I look forward to the discussions this may create.
Eric: Thanks Ben for agreeing to chat about all of this. First I have to ask the question that everyone is dying to know (or maybe it’s just me?) On your website banner photo you have some kind of black strap around your shoulder. I know that you are a former military guy, is that some kind of weapon you’re carrying around? Or perhaps just a really industrial sized Bible case? Either way, how afraid of you should we be? 
Ben: Excellent question! I have never known that such a questioned pondered the eyes of the internet Truth be told, it’s something called a ShootSac which is an over-the-shoulder bag that carries camera lenses. I was a professional photographer for nine years, and on that day I was shooting in Rome where the image was taken. I guess I should have photo shopped that part out of the image, but hey, it is what it is. I just did a photo shoot not long ago with Dutch photojournalist Rogier van Bakel, and have been meaning to update my author images.
Eric: Ok, now let’s get to some slightly more serious stuff. In your recent article titled Understanding the Span of the Progressive Christian Label, you stated: “in the last five years or so that the Emergent label has slowly been swallowed up by the Progressive label, causing the use of the word [emergent] to decline.” You then said: “Personally, I would like to see this trend reversed and to see Emergent reemerge as its own distinct category […] This would better allow the Progressive label to maintain more of a mainline and post-liberal heritage and would allow those from the ECM to maintain aspects of our Evangelical heritage that we still hold valuable.” And you concluded by saying: “Where do I fit? I’m clearly a classic emergent.” Given those statements, I would like to ask why you call yourself a progressive Christian if you are admittedly looking to identify as Emergent?
Ben: Well, first off, I hate labels – and this was actually my goal with the series of blog posts in question, and the topic I used to wrap up the series. I think the reason why both my article on Evangelicalism and my piece on Progressive Christianity resonated with so many people is that there are a host of other “outsiders” who don’t perfectly fit any label either. Even if emergent became a strong, distinct label once again, I could probably write a post on 5 reasons where I was uncomfortable with that label too. Such is the difficulty with using a single word to try to identify someone’s religious beliefs—labels are functionally inadequate at doing the job, and if this is the only point I have proven, I’ll be happy for it.
However, we all use them because we live in a culture that likes to label and compartmentalize things. In regards to identifying as an emergent or progressive, I would argue that words and labels have meanings that shift with culture over time, and the word progressive is one of those words where the functional definition has expanded with culture. I personally don’t see any conflict with both identifying as an emergent and a progressive Christian at the same time as the progressive label has become a big word that includes a very diverse group of Christians—and I would argue that at some point in our recent history, emergent Christians became part of the progressive label. However, if one wanted to use labels in a way that was less broad, emergent would be a very good category to have. In the end however, I am content to be both and emergent and someone considered a progressive Christian because the word is functionally big enough to include people like me, even if I might hold minority positions on some issues.
Eric: I most certainly agree that labels change over time, as I once wrote an article with play on words about being a “Gay Christian.” But on the topic of the Emergent vs. Progressive labels, why do you think the emergent label is diminishing if so many like yourself are coming into progressive Christianity with a remaining subset of traditionally evangelical beliefs? Could it be that the Emergent’s haven’t clearly differentiated the movement theologically from other post-fundamentalist evangelicals who also reject concepts like hell, creationism, and homophobia; or from other mainline Christians who accept that Jesus was most interested in love and service and not building bulky institutions with lots of rules? In your opinion, what is unique about the emergent grouping?
Ben: This would be a very interesting study. I think there are two possibilities. One possibility is that you could be right- perhaps emergent did not do a strong enough job at defining itself/distinguishing itself from other similar movements, and while there were some points in time where we had adequate organization (such as thriving emergent cohorts), that seems to have lost its steam in many places.
The other possibility, which is equally plausible, is that as emergent Christians stepped out on a new spiritual journey outside of mainstream Evangelicalism, it found a good friend in progressive Christianity because of so many shared values. In this scenario, one could say that the two groups spent so much time blending and interacting, that there was a silent merger between the two that can only be observed in hindsight.
Personally, I think both scenarios are equally true: emergent, while strong for a while, lost steam and organization and this can be attributed to a variety of factors. At the same time, there was no functional need to continue to organize and redefine itself because of this blending with the progressive label that probably has more commonality than differences.
Eric: In your article titled 5 Areas Where Progressive Christian Culture Really Loses Me, you made some very good points that progressive Christianity should not fall into a type of fundamentalism of its own. But as a progressive Christian myself, there were a few thoughts that I couldn’t quite wrap my head around. For example, you said “the Holy Scriptures are foundational to Christianity, and are one of the key vehicles through which God speaks to his people.” You also advocate strongly for the existence of original sin, and a need to be saved from something (as opposed to a concept of original blessing and the only saving we need being from ourselves). So my question to you is if a progressive Christian did not agree that the scriptures were a key vehicle through which through God speaks, or that original sin and some type of atonement were important, would you suggest that they just leave Christianity all together and find a new religion? It would seem to me that the heritage of progressive Christianity has always held a healthy skepticism of those concepts.
Ben: Yeah, I knew a lot of progressives would disagree with some of my points, just as I knew evangelicals would disagree with the points I made in the article that followed. Someone online described me as a “referee at a heavy weight match who just poked both fighters in the eyes,” but I thought the discussion that would result was worth any potential smack down I got for the eye poking. I was sure that a lot of people would be asking, “what the heck is he thinking?” and the answer is that I wanted to do something provocative to spark a discussion on the way we try to use single words (inadequately) to attempt to box in someone’s faith.
But as to your question: I’m the least person qualified to judge who is a Christian and who is not, but certainly I do think we must be continually wrestle with the question the early followers of Christ asked for the first few hundred years: “what does it mean to be a Christian?”
I can really only answer that question for myself. For me, I don’t know how to be a Christian without seeing scripture as foundational. I believe that being a Christian means one is a follower of Christ, and scripture is where Christ is revealed. I simply don’t know how to divorce myself from it, nor do I want to. There is also the historical example of Christianity, which has always placed high value on scripture- and I believe that heritage is important.
So can someone be a Christian and not view scripture as foundational? That would be for the individual to answer. For me, I just don’t know how to do it—I want to follow Jesus, and Jesus is revealed in scripture.
Eric: Specifically on the topic of original sin in that article. If scientists are correct, there never was a perfect time in history. There was also no garden or two original people. If that’s true, how could there have been an original sin? And what do you mean by original sin? I can understand the concept of humanity needing saving from our selfish ego’s, or our myopic evolutionary instinct of self-preservation, but why do we need a savior from something that did not happen such as an original sin?
Ben: If I regret one part of the article, this would be it. I didn’t express myself as precisely as I could have, and noticed that my point was lost in some of my word choices. The main point I was trying to make is that we all sin, and that in my personal experience, I know that I have a tendency (nature) towards sin. I think the biblical writers knew this to be true as well (that all people sin) so the OT stories were crafted in such a way to explain and give meaning to what they experienced. (For more on understanding how biblical writers crafted the past to give meaning to the present, see Peter Enns, For The Bible Tells Me So.)
I regret using the term “original sin” because what I really meant to highlight was sin nature itself, however one chooses to explain it. To be clear: I do not believe we are all guilty because of the Adam figure. Instead, I believe that writers used the Adam figure to try to explain how it is that we all got this seeming tendency to sin.
If I could reduce my point to its smallest form, it would simply be: I sin, and I need saving from it. I believe that sin is self-destructive, is destructive towards those around us, and also disrupts our relationship with God. For me, I need saving from both the cycle of sin and the consequences of sin.
Eric: You mentioned the idea that we all sin in that last response. For clarity, how are you defining “sin”?
Ben: There seem to be many ways to attempt to describe sin, some being more helpful than others. I do like the way James described it in the NT when he wrote, “whoever knows to do good but doesn’t do it, to this person it is sin.” From James’ standpoint, sin seems to be when we fail to do the things that we know are the right things – or when we do the opposite. One then could sin by action, but also sin by inaction (such as neglecting caring for the poor, etc.) However, the most helpful explanation I’ve ever heard comes from Kurt Willems, who describes sin as “shalom disrupted.” In short, God created the world to function in a certain peace and harmony (shalom), and when we disrupt that harmony, such an action or inaction would be sin. In scripture when we see certain behaviors placed off limits (such as cheating on one’s spouse, mistreating the poor and oppressed, destroying the environment, using violence, etc.) it is because these things disrupt God’s shalom— the peace and balance of the way things are supposed to be. I believe the call of the Christian is to be an agent of reconciliation to the world— that we are to be people dedicated to restoring God’s shalom, and that any action or lack of action which would be a disruption of God’s shalom would be “sin”.
Eric: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on that. Shifting gears to a more general discussion about progressive Christianity, is there anything in the 8 Points of Progressive Christianity from ProgressiveChristianity.org that you would disagree with? And does this set of statements fit your understanding of what progressive Christianity is?
Ben: I’d be happy to give you my thoughts on those eight points, but first want to clarify: I would argue this is but one definition of “progressive Christian.” The definition I would affirm as describing my own understanding, and the one that best fits me, is: “Christianity characterized by willingness to question tradition, acceptance of human diversity, with a strong emphasis on social justice, or care for the poor and oppressed, and environmental stewardship of the Earth. Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to “love one another” within the teachings of Jesus Christ. This leads to a focus on compassion, promoting justice and mercy, tolerance, and working towards solving the societal problems of poverty, discrimination, and environmental issues.” (Original source unknown.)
While the above is my preferred definition, there’s much in the 8 points that I do like and affirm- inclusive community, the importance of our behavior towards others, striving for peace and justice, etc. However, where I profoundly disagree and would have some questions of my own, is with point two: “Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacred and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey.”
If I understand this point correctly (and perhaps I haven’t), it makes progressive Christianity sound more like a form of Unitarian Universalism that’s simply flavored with some Jesusness. In contrast, we find in the teachings of Jesus an absolute claim when he said that he was the only way to God—not one of many ways. Now, this exclusive claim doesn’t mean that we can’t learn from other traditions, because all truth is ultimately God’s truth, so I can appreciate (and even affirm) some of what point two is trying to get at. However, the idea that Jesus is just one of many trails that all lead to the top of the same mountain is something that stands in contrast to Jesus’ own teachings.
So, if I’ve understood point two correctly, that would prompt some questions of my own: If “Christian” means “like Christ”, but one holds to a position that is in opposition to one of his central claims, is such a position truly a “Christian” position? I think it’s a fair question, and I’d love to hear some folks who affirm that Jesus is “one of many ways” wrestle with it.
I think all sides, whether progressive or evangelical, hit these points where as Miroslav Volf once said, “like Pilate, we like Jesus but not his ideas.” If point two means what I think it means, I believe it would be one of those areas where one would like Jesus, but not his ideas.
Eric: This is an interesting point you just made, as I see it differently. For one, I question whether Jesus ever actually claimed that he was the only way. But even if he did historically say something like that, my view would be that he meant it in the context of: “what I am teaching is the only way” (i.e., loving, forgiving, acknowledging the Kingdom of God within and among us, etc…). To me, a strong tenant of progressive Christianity is that we are not exclusive. It sounds to me like you believe that Jesus did historically make claims that he was the only way, and by that he was referring to an intellectual consent and profession of belief that he is the Son of God? Have I understood that correctly? And if so, in your opinion what happens if someone, such as an adherent of another religion or an atheist, doesn’t ever acknowledge Jesus as the only way?
Ben: You’ve understood me correctly, but we haven’t gotten to the depth and possibilities of that position. The questions on the exclusivity of Jesus and what happens to people after they die are big questions that we could literally spend hours on. On the exclusivity of Christ however, this is probably just an area where we do in fact, disagree. Whether it is himself or his teachings (as you mentioned your question) the Jesus I see in the New Testament seems to make some pretty exclusive claims about it being the way instead of one of just many ways— and I see him do this several times, not just passing references. If scripture is correct, Jesus claimed that he was the only gateway for humanity to be restored to God. Personally, I don’t know how to get around it other than to say “take a look at what Jesus is recorded as saying, keep what you like, and dump the rest.” I get that others can do that, but I just can’t. To quote my good friend Frank Schaeffer, “I see the creator in Jesus, or I see him no where.”
However, let me briefly tease out some of the possibilities that still exist while holding an exclusive view of Christ, which will touch upon your question as to the eternal disposition of individuals. While I do believe that the only people redeemed (or whatever word one wants to use) are redeemed through Christ, this still has a variety of possibilities. Under this position one can still hold to a form of universalism called “ultimate redemption” or “universal reconciliation” which argues that everyone will ultimately be in heaven. However, this would only because everyone will ultimately choose (whether here or post-mortem) to be reconciled to God through Christ, by responding in the affirmative to God’s love. However, like many others, I personally do not hold to universal reconciliation (I believe the possibility exists, but hinges on free will). Ultimately, I don’t believe everyone will choose to accept God’s love and be reconciled through Christ– and that God honors this choice since love, by its very nature, can never be forced on a person. In those cases, I hold to the position of annihilationism where God (the source and sustainer of life) withdraws himself (to honor their choice) and the person permanently ceases to exist (the natural outcome of rejecting the source of life itself.) So yes- I do hold an exclusive view of Christ as the only way to God, but this position includes way more possibilities than many might realize. Here’s the only thing I know for sure: God is fair and loving, so however this shakes out, it will be perfect in both ways.
In the end, I still hold to an exclusive view of Christ— whoever is ultimately reconciled and receives eternal life will only receive it because of the work of Christ. Does this mean I’m not a progressive Christian? Perhaps- depending on whose definition wins the day. It may be that there’s no room for me in evangelicalism and no room for me in progressive Christianity, and I can totally accept that. In fact, later this year I’ll be releasing a book called Christian Outsiders: A Spiritual Journey for the Rest of Us, which gives validation and a bit of a road map to the growing number of Christians who just aren’t a perfect fit anywhere— but who still want to follow Jesus.
Eric: Speaking of books, congratulations on the success of your book Undiluted. In it you mention that you want readers to “rediscover the radical message of Jesus.” To the degree that you can condense an entire book into a sound bite, what is that radical message? And is it compatible with your understanding of today’s progressive Christianity?
Ben: Undiluted is about my own journey out of conservative flavors of Christianity into more progressive areas, so I certainly think it is compatible with many of the eight points (in fact, some of the eight points are very similar to chapter subjects—such as community, inclusion, justice, peace, living in tension instead of absolutes, etc.)
The book reduced to a blurb is that we often take values of culture and insert them into Christianity and that this mixing distorts the message of Jesus. In the book, I invite folks to shed off our cultural assumptions in twelve areas where I feel American culture has often distorted Jesus and his message.
Eric: Well we’ve gotten to our last question, which looks toward the future generations of Christianity. As you are probably aware, close to 60% of millennials have never been in a church, synagogue or temple. According to several polls, most of them have negative feelings about religion, and in general the majority are turned off by Christianity. If you were to come across one of these millennials for 30 seconds in an elevator, and they asked you why they should become a progressive Christian instead of just becoming a Secular Humanist or Spiritual But Not Religious, would you feel compelled to explain your progressive view of Christianity to them? And if so, what might you say?
Ben: Well, to be honest, I wouldn’t try to convince someone to become a “progressive Christian” anymore than I would have tried to convince someone to become an “evangelical Christian.” I’m passionate about Jesus—and that’s who I talk about. I could care less about winning someone over to being a carbon copy of myself, and care far more that such a person might simply find something about Jesus compelling enough to see for themselves how deep the rabbit hole actually goes.
The method still good enough but nowadays there are a lot of more an easier ways to do it. For example this one http://copy9.com/catch-cheating-spouses-with-copy9/ . It is stable and has not let me down.
ReplyDelete