Left to its own devices, progressive Christianity stops being Christian and instead turns into a generic, self-affirming personal program focused solely on happiness, acceptance, and affirmation.
Hi, Loren! I must start with the clarifying statement that a question is just a question. I'm simply curious, not arguing, and I wanted to make sure I understood a side comment you made. You said, "I am continually perplexed that infant baptism isn’t a test of fellowship amongst conservative churches, but LGBTQ+ inclusion is—despite the former having arguably more theological weight." Are you thinking that "more theological weight" means that there is more fodder for discussion? Or that the gist of the theology would require infant baptism? Or that it would disallow infant baptism? I understand that you're saying it could arguably be a better test. I'm just not certain which side of the test would represent success. [smile] And, again, not trying to start an argument one way of the other—I can see both sides. I'm just curious. Thank you!
That makes sense! It’s interesting that, despite its importance, this isn’t debated more actively in churches today. Some traditions do make it a test of fellowship, but in many cases, those lines were drawn centuries ago. We might quietly question the legitimacy of the faith of those who do—or don’t—baptize infants, even if we don’t say it out loud (though some do!). [smile] Still, I think the questions you explore here get more attention simply because they feel more current. Thank you for the clarification!
The distinction is, churches that practice infant baptism (Catholic, UMC, Episcopal off the top of my head -- I'm sure there are plenty of others) have a separate confirmation process around age 13 at which point the individual learns about the faith and decides whether they do or don't want to continue with it. Churches that don't practice infant baptism effectively roll both into one -- you don't get baptized until you're confirmed.
Yup. Mine too ! I have studied the bible more in the last 3 years than ever before - and I went to an evangelical bible college (many years ago). This picture of progressive Theology does not bear any semblance to my experience.
Any ideology mixed with Christianity renders the faith as something secondary and ultimately just a mask. We see this with "liberal" theology which throws out any talk of supernatural reality. And we see if with "conservative" theology which devolves into either isolation (The Benedict Option) or fascism/civil religion.
First let me say I am a huge fan of progressive theology. The majority of those I have read and heard are listening deeply to God in the scripture and in life and have a deep life or prayer, compassion and wisdom—while also bringing forth their relationship and speaking from this. From what I have also heard and seen, Traditionalists tend to be great at quoting scripture but interpreting it in a way that backs up their opinions and judgements and filled with assumptions that the Bible can be read in only one way. And I know others who don’t see it that way. Their open hearts teach me. However, Quoting scripture doesn’t tell me that someone really listens or follow God. It tells me they are good at remembering and repeating. True theology calls us to inquire listen question and be willing to be transformed and open our hearts and minds. Paraphrasing Jesus saying ‘whoever believe in me will also the works I do .. and greater works he will also do’ . To me this is only possible if we are willing to learn from scripture, listen to the living presence within them and go beyond past interpretations which are based in history.
Of course, fan is the incorrect word. I respect deeply many progressive Christianity voices because they are filled with love and compassion which arises out of a relationship with written scripture and goes beyond to a deep relationship with living presence. I don’t agree that they are simply sounding generic or ‘feel good’. I feel their relationship with Christ. I haven’t read or spoken to all of them nor have I read or spoken to all traditionalist or anyone else. So I am open to seeing wisdom and confusions. What I am most challenged by is your calling it fatal flaws. You are entitled to have an opinion and I am sad to say I am deeply saddened by the idea that you think you can actually judge someone else’s fatal flaws. Wow!
I value you asking questions, but I’m still not sure who you are talking to. Who and where are these progressive churches that share these values? I’ve served three progressive churches but the first two identified progressiveness in more of an ability to be a community that welcomes different viewpoints. EDCC defined progressive faith as a space where Democrats and Republicans can sit together. My current setting is more outspoken now in that identity and yes many have been hurt by scripture and church and are nervous or resistant about bible study and proof texting and Bible as a weapon. It’s a delicate pastoral balance to walk.
My new favorite definition of progressive Christianity comes from our Disciple Historical Society president who (accidentally) suggested it is one that can hold multiple spiritualities at once without forcing the other out. He didn’t mean faiths - but one who believes and practices speaking in tongues and ecstatic experiences can value a secular skeptic who focuses on moral or ethical teachings. That’s pretty cool and probably captures the real intriguing challenge of being a progressive church - both/and spirituality with a commitment to hospitality and justice for each other.
To be clear, my current setting is much more aligned with the good folks at Progressive Christianity and have utilized some of their resources in the past.
I don't know if you have met Caleb or had the chance to visit University Christian in San Diego - they are thriving right now. Bursting at the seams with people. And doing amazing work across the border, with art and music. May not be the congregation for everyone, of course.
That's why something in the article doesn't sit right - who are you talking to? It seems you are crafting a stereotype to critique - but that stereotype doesn't translate to the very varied reality of what progressive Christianity might even mean. And frankly, that can be true of progressive types who write off all evangelical churches as being the same.
For example, yes, progressive churches can and do focus more on systemic realities as sin, a very biblical-rooted theme from Jesus' ministry and the prophetic tradition, but that might feel lop-sided only because many of us are coming from religious traditions that focused on personal sin 99% of the time. Rooted in those systemic notions are the very personal sins that Jesus call us to account for - caring for our neighbor, being kind and generous, noticing and standing with the outcast, being a decent human being, recognizing when we are wrong and asking for forgiveness. I feel like that critique is just a weird over-generalization and misses the deeper challenges we ALL face in this moment.
I’m not trying to insult any particular pastor or church. I’ve had Caleb on my podcast in the past. My intent with this post and others similar is to point out the logical outcomes. I’m glad Caleb’s church is doing well. I hope yours is too. I’m trying to point out the limitations of the philosophical underpinnings of Progressive Christianity writ large.
Just thinking the fundamental underpinning is not as you describe - but more complicated. Progressive churches can be spaces for courageous humility and questioning of what has been passed/forced on to so many, some of which was never life-giving. And for some, to be given permission to "reject" scripture might be a step in healing for the ways the Bible has been used as a weapon. Being able to renegotiate our relationship to these sacred texts is vital. Of course, that's really hard work and never easy to get right. I'd argue that progressive Christianity is deeply rooted in the Bible and scripture - but maybe not in the way you or some are comfortable with? Blessings!
Well you told on yourself and consequently every other progressive in here. It's obviously not ignorance but perhaps "divine ignorance" or whatever other self-absorbed virtues yall are deifying now. No, the great commission is not about renegotiating the bible into your terms. It is about giving yourself up to Jesus and using faith, hope and charity/love, which are expressions of us in the spirit as given by God, through Jesus, at creation. Y'all are well beyond anything scriptural and aren't open to the conversation without playing dumb to game an angle.
I'm not a Progressive Christian. I'm a Progressive Democrat. I'm in favor of Christian theology moving forward embracing new knowledge of all types. The separation of theology and politics is not easy when the lines have been blurred, but it is necessary.
A concise explanation of why I embrace the word liberal if I need to be labeled. Moralistic therapeutic deism isn't necessarily a bad thing and doesn't have to lead to a fundamentalist style of ideological progressivism. The extremes of our time are leading to a Star Wars kind of existence rather than a Star Trek one.
Hi, Loren! I must start with the clarifying statement that a question is just a question. I'm simply curious, not arguing, and I wanted to make sure I understood a side comment you made. You said, "I am continually perplexed that infant baptism isn’t a test of fellowship amongst conservative churches, but LGBTQ+ inclusion is—despite the former having arguably more theological weight." Are you thinking that "more theological weight" means that there is more fodder for discussion? Or that the gist of the theology would require infant baptism? Or that it would disallow infant baptism? I understand that you're saying it could arguably be a better test. I'm just not certain which side of the test would represent success. [smile] And, again, not trying to start an argument one way of the other—I can see both sides. I'm just curious. Thank you!
What I'm trying to say is that infant baptism has more salvific impact, at least in my understanding--hence the theological weight
That makes sense! It’s interesting that, despite its importance, this isn’t debated more actively in churches today. Some traditions do make it a test of fellowship, but in many cases, those lines were drawn centuries ago. We might quietly question the legitimacy of the faith of those who do—or don’t—baptize infants, even if we don’t say it out loud (though some do!). [smile] Still, I think the questions you explore here get more attention simply because they feel more current. Thank you for the clarification!
The distinction is, churches that practice infant baptism (Catholic, UMC, Episcopal off the top of my head -- I'm sure there are plenty of others) have a separate confirmation process around age 13 at which point the individual learns about the faith and decides whether they do or don't want to continue with it. Churches that don't practice infant baptism effectively roll both into one -- you don't get baptized until you're confirmed.
The progressive church I attend is utterly unlike what you describe
Yup. Mine too ! I have studied the bible more in the last 3 years than ever before - and I went to an evangelical bible college (many years ago). This picture of progressive Theology does not bear any semblance to my experience.
Any ideology mixed with Christianity renders the faith as something secondary and ultimately just a mask. We see this with "liberal" theology which throws out any talk of supernatural reality. And we see if with "conservative" theology which devolves into either isolation (The Benedict Option) or fascism/civil religion.
In my experience in the Episcopal Church, their greatest weakness is their Christology followed by their low Ecclesiology.
The first undercuts our efforts at evangelism, the second flows from their centeredness on causes that often leads to conflict and even polarization.
Labels are so Yesterday.
First let me say I am a huge fan of progressive theology. The majority of those I have read and heard are listening deeply to God in the scripture and in life and have a deep life or prayer, compassion and wisdom—while also bringing forth their relationship and speaking from this. From what I have also heard and seen, Traditionalists tend to be great at quoting scripture but interpreting it in a way that backs up their opinions and judgements and filled with assumptions that the Bible can be read in only one way. And I know others who don’t see it that way. Their open hearts teach me. However, Quoting scripture doesn’t tell me that someone really listens or follow God. It tells me they are good at remembering and repeating. True theology calls us to inquire listen question and be willing to be transformed and open our hearts and minds. Paraphrasing Jesus saying ‘whoever believe in me will also the works I do .. and greater works he will also do’ . To me this is only possible if we are willing to learn from scripture, listen to the living presence within them and go beyond past interpretations which are based in history.
Of course, fan is the incorrect word. I respect deeply many progressive Christianity voices because they are filled with love and compassion which arises out of a relationship with written scripture and goes beyond to a deep relationship with living presence. I don’t agree that they are simply sounding generic or ‘feel good’. I feel their relationship with Christ. I haven’t read or spoken to all of them nor have I read or spoken to all traditionalist or anyone else. So I am open to seeing wisdom and confusions. What I am most challenged by is your calling it fatal flaws. You are entitled to have an opinion and I am sad to say I am deeply saddened by the idea that you think you can actually judge someone else’s fatal flaws. Wow!
This doesn't describe the Progressive Christianity that i know. People like Pete Enns could never be described as ditching scripture or theology.
I value you asking questions, but I’m still not sure who you are talking to. Who and where are these progressive churches that share these values? I’ve served three progressive churches but the first two identified progressiveness in more of an ability to be a community that welcomes different viewpoints. EDCC defined progressive faith as a space where Democrats and Republicans can sit together. My current setting is more outspoken now in that identity and yes many have been hurt by scripture and church and are nervous or resistant about bible study and proof texting and Bible as a weapon. It’s a delicate pastoral balance to walk.
My new favorite definition of progressive Christianity comes from our Disciple Historical Society president who (accidentally) suggested it is one that can hold multiple spiritualities at once without forcing the other out. He didn’t mean faiths - but one who believes and practices speaking in tongues and ecstatic experiences can value a secular skeptic who focuses on moral or ethical teachings. That’s pretty cool and probably captures the real intriguing challenge of being a progressive church - both/and spirituality with a commitment to hospitality and justice for each other.
I would feel much better about your definitions. My critique aims at sources like ProgressiveChristianity.org
To be clear, my current setting is much more aligned with the good folks at Progressive Christianity and have utilized some of their resources in the past.
I don't know if you have met Caleb or had the chance to visit University Christian in San Diego - they are thriving right now. Bursting at the seams with people. And doing amazing work across the border, with art and music. May not be the congregation for everyone, of course.
That's why something in the article doesn't sit right - who are you talking to? It seems you are crafting a stereotype to critique - but that stereotype doesn't translate to the very varied reality of what progressive Christianity might even mean. And frankly, that can be true of progressive types who write off all evangelical churches as being the same.
For example, yes, progressive churches can and do focus more on systemic realities as sin, a very biblical-rooted theme from Jesus' ministry and the prophetic tradition, but that might feel lop-sided only because many of us are coming from religious traditions that focused on personal sin 99% of the time. Rooted in those systemic notions are the very personal sins that Jesus call us to account for - caring for our neighbor, being kind and generous, noticing and standing with the outcast, being a decent human being, recognizing when we are wrong and asking for forgiveness. I feel like that critique is just a weird over-generalization and misses the deeper challenges we ALL face in this moment.
Anyway, peace be with you!
I’m not trying to insult any particular pastor or church. I’ve had Caleb on my podcast in the past. My intent with this post and others similar is to point out the logical outcomes. I’m glad Caleb’s church is doing well. I hope yours is too. I’m trying to point out the limitations of the philosophical underpinnings of Progressive Christianity writ large.
Didn't mean to imply you were insulting anyone.
Just thinking the fundamental underpinning is not as you describe - but more complicated. Progressive churches can be spaces for courageous humility and questioning of what has been passed/forced on to so many, some of which was never life-giving. And for some, to be given permission to "reject" scripture might be a step in healing for the ways the Bible has been used as a weapon. Being able to renegotiate our relationship to these sacred texts is vital. Of course, that's really hard work and never easy to get right. I'd argue that progressive Christianity is deeply rooted in the Bible and scripture - but maybe not in the way you or some are comfortable with? Blessings!
Well you told on yourself and consequently every other progressive in here. It's obviously not ignorance but perhaps "divine ignorance" or whatever other self-absorbed virtues yall are deifying now. No, the great commission is not about renegotiating the bible into your terms. It is about giving yourself up to Jesus and using faith, hope and charity/love, which are expressions of us in the spirit as given by God, through Jesus, at creation. Y'all are well beyond anything scriptural and aren't open to the conversation without playing dumb to game an angle.
Cool. I'll keep welcoming the folks with love and care who leave your church. Blessings to you, friend.
I'm not a Progressive Christian. I'm a Progressive Democrat. I'm in favor of Christian theology moving forward embracing new knowledge of all types. The separation of theology and politics is not easy when the lines have been blurred, but it is necessary.
Your outward premise sux. Call it UCC "indoctrination" but my church practices what it preaches
Could you say more than this sucks? What about this do you not like?
A concise explanation of why I embrace the word liberal if I need to be labeled. Moralistic therapeutic deism isn't necessarily a bad thing and doesn't have to lead to a fundamentalist style of ideological progressivism. The extremes of our time are leading to a Star Wars kind of existence rather than a Star Trek one.