Progressive Christianity: Vol 1
March 24, 2005
I hate labels. I don’t like the terms liberal or conservative, but I still use them. I tend to use "progressive" more often, but then what is the opposite of that: regressive, backsliding…can’t think of a term that doesn’t have a negative connotation. I think progressive is a pretty good term. I want to be progressive. I want to be open to the leading of the Spirit, wherever he or she may lead me. I want to be open to new theology…new ideas…newness, freedom, openness, all of things which seem important to me. That’s why I think organizations like the Center for Progressive Christianity and Progressive Churches are helpful, even though many will have problems with some of their beliefs. What does it mean to be a ‘progressive Christian?’ This is something I want to look at over the next few weeks. The Center for Progressive Christianity has a list of 8 points that define what they mean when they call themselves ‘progressive Christians.’ I will be looking at each of those points over the next few weeks, and encourage you to join the dialogue with me in encountering what it could look like to be a ‘new kind of Christian.’ Let us turn to point 1:
1. By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus.
Now, who can argue with that? I’ve consistently been encouraged in my life by those who look to Jesus first. My mom’s whole family is Mennonite and I love that one of the primary Anabaptist beliefs is to look to Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount first and foremost. There is definitely a preference for the New Testament, over and against the Old Testament. Now, I believe that the Hebrew Scriptures are incredibly important in our lives and for a more full understanding of our faith and the history and stories behind it. But…when it all comes down to it…if you’re going to make me choose - I’m going to look to Jesus. I’m going to look to the Gospels and to the stories of Christ-encounters with the downtrodden, the oppressed, the sinners, the outcasts…that is where I hear the gospel speak loudest. That is where the truth is found in experience, in human-human encounters between the God-man and humanity.
Tags: Liberal-Theology, Progressive Theology
Posted in Theology
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
March 24th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
This conversation is worth the read:
From Theology Today:
The Christian Reason for Being Progressive, by John B. Cobb, Jr. Theology Today Vol. 51, No. 4. January 1995.
Knowing How to Go On When You Do Not Know Where You Are: A Response to John Cobb, Jr., by Stanley Hauerwas. Theology Today Vol. 51, No. 4. January 1995.
Ally or Opponent? A Response to Stanley Hauerwas, by John B. Cobb, Jr. Theology Today Vol. 51, No. 4. January 1995.
I read the first two parts a few months back, but haven’t read Cobb’s final response. It would seem that this exchange might be very helpful, if not essential, for this conversation.
peace,
eric
March 24th, 2005 at 4:14 pm
Yah, I’ve never been big on progressive as a term; it pretty much got slaughtered during WWI and while, as a friend just reminded me, terms can be redeemed - I’ve started seing a lot of alarming parallels to the fundamentalist/modernist conflict of the early 20th century, and reclaiming that term right now kinda gives me the willies.
I just tell people I’m looking for the Kingdom… and even that doesn’t work because I have to explain it too much…sigh….
March 24th, 2005 at 8:34 pm
Why should we be a “new kind of Christian?” That doesn’t seem very progressive at all. Just arrogant. I have heard evangleicals fundies spout similar terms and ideas about being “new” and “different.” The problem is that no one ever defines what that means. I think it’s really just code for, “Hey, I am not like those others (read: lesser) over there. I am a cool Christian. I am a trendier, sexier, sleeker model of what you have seen before.”
It also seems really silly to call ourselves “a new kind of Christian” because of our consumer culture. We always want “new” things. Look at how we treat cars, toys, spouses, and friends. We almost always associate “new” with “better.” Why do we have to pimp ourselves with terms like “new.” Any church that claims to be “new” just seems to desperately need to be consumed.
I think it would be a much more honest church that just allowed itself to be defined by those who were affected by the community of faith. How do they see us? How would they define us? Who do they say we are?
March 24th, 2005 at 10:19 pm
great post. i applaud you for openly saying that jesus and the new testament is where your faith is built. the old testament is great and relevant and important…no doubt. but jesus is the foundation of our christian faith and he is found in the new testament so logically our faith is built around that. thanks again adam! peace.
March 24th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
I’m confused about how this first point of what it means to be a progressive Christian is any different than what it means to be a Christian at all. Don’t all Christians claim to have found an approach to God through Jesus’ life and teachings? I mean, unless they’re excluding the death and resurrection part, it sounds like a fundamental Christian statement of faith. Even I, who far prefers the Spirit to Jesus, would claim this as true for myself. I hear you making this into a which member of the Trinity or which part of the Bible is your preference kind of demarcation, but I don’t get that from the quote and wonder if I am missing something or what it is that is “progressive” about this belief.
March 24th, 2005 at 11:45 pm
I could argue with that. What’s with “an approach to God”?
It sounds like what it is - a wishy washy interpretation of the very exclusive language of the gospel. I am sure that the use of the word “an” is quite intentional and meant to imply there are other ways to God. Jesus used language that was very exclusive - ‚ÄúI am THE way, and THE truth, and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
I agree that you must look to Jesus first, but all the prophets of the old testament point to Him as God’s righteous right hand by which we would be redeemed. Jesus did not come just to leave us His teachings as model by which to live our lives. He came for the cross. While Jesus’ teachings and life provide the only perfect example of the fulfillment of the Hebrew law, they cannot save us from the penalty of our sin. It is ONLY through faith in the blood that was shed that we are reconciled unto God…and even that faith is a gift from God. Sola Fide! The life we then live in Christ is only possible through the empowerment of the promised Holy Spirit as HE brings to mind the life and teachings of Jesus so as to help us in our sanctification.
It seems that in our post-modern culture such exclusive language is deemed intolerant, but in reality it is a reflection of God’s love that he tells us exactly how to be forgiven of our sins and have fellowship with Him. Christ didn’t use language so as to allow wiggle room - He alone is the righteousness of God. If there were another way to be reconciled to God (such as following a set of teachings or modeling our lives after Jesus), would God have subjected His son to the cross? Anything less - reliance on our individual efforts to establish our own righteousness through works - falls woefully short of God’s standard of righteousness.
Lastly, I have to agree with some of what Van S, um er..I mean johnymous said… why the need for a new theology, etc…has the gospel changed? Or do groups such as the center for progressive christianity present a false gospel that represents a capitulation to post-modern thought/culture and mores?
March 25th, 2005 at 12:20 am
First things first: c’mon friends - non-anonymous posters claim your comments! Name them and claim them. So, “anonymous johnymous” was from a PTS IP address, but..anyway. Just claim them folks - it’s easy.
Sarah, yah - I’m not really sure what is so progressive about the focus on Christ - I’d agree, that’s a pretty fundamental Christian belief. The only thing I’d add is that many more conservative churches look to scripture first, Paul first, and…SOLA SCRIPTURA! So, to suggest that Jesus is the penultimate expression of the Christian life can be a little ‘out there’ for some…and I think that is just where the Center for Progressive Christianity (CPC) chose to start with their discussion. I think you’ll see where they are more “progressive” even by the next installment of this; which - progressive heretic - you totally jumped the gun on that one - hold your thoughts just for a couple more days until we get to CPC’s second post.
March 25th, 2005 at 12:42 am
I think Adam should threaten to remove the comments of those who aren’t willing to claim them.
March 25th, 2005 at 8:46 am
Yikes! Threats of digital flagellation! My name is James!
Yours Truly,
James
March 25th, 2005 at 10:36 am
As James suggests, I think the “found an approach” clause is a very loaded term. What other approaches exist and how is their validity determined? What does “found” in this context mean? Is our faith our activity in trying to “find” God, or is it God reaching out to “find” us?
And, of course, we have to ask what are they not including in the “life and teachings”? What is meant to be excluded by this statement? Perhaps it is the law, as you suggest Adam, but it could also include a rejection of specific institutions, structures, theologies, etc. I imagine this point, as with the others, was phrased diplomatically so as to be as unoffensive as possible, but it still leaves a lot of unresolved questions.
**I just took a quick look at their website - I think you probably should have posted points 1 & 2 together since they are clearly linked. Point 2 also answers some of the questions raised about point 1.
March 25th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Nathan, like I told progressive heretic (James apparently) - we’re going to get to that point - and you’re right, it’s point #2. So, I’ll be posting on that one in the next few days - and we can carry that conversation over into that post.
I’d say the life and teachings is the crux of Jesus’ ministry, wouldn’t you? I was just talking to Sarah last night about The Passion and about why I wasn’t a huge fan of it…and that is one of the reasons: because Mel Gibson’s interpretation of the event focused exclusively on the death of Jesus, and even more exclusively, on the scourging, which gets like 1 verse in the gospels.
I’d say the life and teachings of Jesus are the part that we need to focus on now…I think the penal substitutionary atonement has had its share of the limelight…it may be time to move on…
March 25th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Just to echo a point made earlier on by Adam, it seems to me, from outside the evanglical community, that most of the evangelical community focus primarliy on Paul, then the OT, and only if absolutely necessary do the go to the gospels. (I only mention evangelicals specifically because they’re the ones most likely to deride the term “Progressive Christianity”.)
Why is that? Well, Paul’s writings break down much easier to propositions than do the gospels. Same with the OT - The Lord said this, and the Lord said that, do this, don’t do that. Much easier to make rules out of it.
Jesus life is much harder because it’s more about emulating a way of life. Even in the stories that might shed some black and white light on things, Jesus is often presented with a choice of A or B, but instead of choosing, he always finds hidden option C.
Jesus frustrated rulemakers, and still does to this day.
On the term progressive, though, I’m with Weslo in disliking it overall - it has too much of an early 20th Century, Brave New World feel to it.
March 25th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Well put, Dave — “Jesus frustrated rulemakers, and still does to this day.”
March 25th, 2005 at 3:23 pm
In one sense focusing on Jesus is completely understandable & unimpeachable since he is what we believe all of scripture testifies to. But I’m not sure the distinction between “Jesus” and Paul, the OT, sola scriptura, etc. is really sustainable. Mostly because we only have access to who Jesus is/was through the apostolic witness (I don’t deny that Jesus can speak to us here and now, but am speaking in terms of what is normative for the church). For instance, by opposing “Jesus” to Paul, what we’re really doing is opposing Mark or John to Paul, or (worse) some scholar’s idea of Jesus to Paul. Also, it’s worth pointing out that Paul’s letters are pretty much universally agreed to be the earliest documents in the NT - so insofar as they provide us an account of who Jesus is I’m not sure why they should be given less importance than the gospels.
March 25th, 2005 at 4:45 pm
I largely agree with Dave’s comment regarding the propositional tendencies of the evangelical community. Nonetheless, I think there is also a danger in thinking of the O.T. as purely propositional. (I am not saying that Dave does this, but one might end up there from his line of thinking) I just don’t think we can fundamentally understand God’s covenantal relationship to God’s people without the O.T. Christ comes into full view because of the O.T. It is not just a bag of laws. Just because the evangleical community delights and mires in the propostitions and laws of the O.T. does not mean that is all it consists of. Furthermore, to say that evangelicals “only if absolutely necessary do they go to the gospels” just seems silly. I don’t happen to like some of the ways that evangelicals use the gospels, but that does not mean they don’t use them at all. That seems to be what the statement implies, even if that was not intended.
Yes, Jesus is unique and our focus should be there, but not at the exclusion of the rest of scripture. Don’t you think?
March 25th, 2005 at 6:37 pm
i don’t really buy “progressive” as a good alternative to left/right labels, simply because it defines those that are not “progressive” as “not faithful”. it’s kind of a silly semantic, i think. why not something that’s a little broader net, like “eschatalogical”? not quite as catchy, but more accurate, i think. simply because something is forward-thinking does not make it faithful, and simply because something is faithful does not make it true. “Eschatalogical” on the other hand, recognizes that none of us are completely without error, or will be, but are led to a better place by the Spirit. Christians of all stripes can agree that–that none of us have it completely right.
i’ll flesh this out in a post after Easter. but that’s my thought, that “progressive” is a sneaky way of redefining the left/right nomers without using directions.
March 25th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
C’mon Adam,
Your coy post neatly avoids any mention of the cross and death. Anyone who actually understands what Sola scriptura means worships God,not the Bible or Paul. Talk about sweeping generalizations. Modern evangelicals and seeker friendly folk preach a crossless christianity, and emergent and all things liberal preach a worse gospel, a Christless cross.
March 25th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
Chris,
I agree about the “crossless christianity” of “modern evangelicalism,” but I’m not sure what you mean by a “Christless cross” in liberal christianity. Can you elaborate?
March 26th, 2005 at 2:57 am
“I’d say the life and teachings of Jesus are the part that we need to focus on now…I think the penal substitutionary atonement has had its share of the limelight…it may be time to move on…”
Well said! I am sure you don’t mean “move on” as in “move past”, but rather as grow beyond, similar to the “tree rings” McLaren discusses in A Generous Orthodoxy.
I’m glad to see that I’m not the only progressive coming out of Whitworth!
March 26th, 2005 at 3:07 am
Chris,
I do not believe that modern evangelicals preach a crossless christianity, I would argue that their Christianity involves ONLY the cross as far as Christ goes, and additionally Paul and the OT.
Liberals do have a tendency to focus more on Christ’s life prior to the cross, making it more about morals and ethics than salvation. But most do not disregard the cross completely.
If anything, I’d say the reverse of what you said is true: evangelicals focus almost purely on the cross, while liberals tend to minimize it.
Its completely possible that I am missing the entire point of your comment, so please elaborate. What do you mean by “crossless christ” and “christless cross”?
March 26th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Although I hate to find myself in the position of disagreeing with Adam, and even more hate to find myself in the position of agreeing with Chris P….
I’m not sure that the answer for Christians who want what the “Progressive Christian Network” seems to want is to focus on the life and teachings of Jesus while excluding the cross and resurrection. As I just preached last night for Good Friday, the very power of Jesus’ teachings–as well as his sufferings–is found at the cross. He doesn’t merely talk about justice–he *dies* for justice. He doesn’t just teach about love–he *dies* for the sake of God’s love. That’s where the sin he aims to combat is redeemed. The life and teaching have indeed been too frequently overlooked or omitted by evangelicals, but I cannot agree they are the “crux” (and that’s a nice pun, by the way) of his ministry. They are not what Jesus uniquely offered. Their validation and authentication is found at the cross and the empty tomb.
Glancing at the website, I’m concerned that #1 seems to be the most “exclusive” claim of the eight–and it’s a pretty low bar. There are lots of admirers of Jesus Christ’s life and teachings who I’m not sure can with good conscience call themselves “Christians” (and wouldn’t). In fact, many of them would call themselves Buddhists, Muslims, avowed atheists. While I find myself agreeing with the truly more progressive items that are lower on their list, my problem is that #1 is so weak that it makes those pretty meaningless.
March 26th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
So let me get this straight…You Hate labels. Yet, you love to be seen and known as a SUBARU driver and a MAC user…
March 26th, 2005 at 8:29 pm
Forest - If you concede that liberals/progressives at least partially diregard the cross…what is the cross, in part or in whole, replaced with? Jesus made it clear that we need a helper, the Holy Spirit, to live the Chrisitan life, but that gift is based upon the finished work of the cross. The risen Christ accomplished his task! It seems that to the extent that progressives/liberals/evagelicals/anyone ignores that “it is finished” there seems to be a need to be on a continual quest to find palatable “truths”; hence, the progressive christian movement places more emphasis on the search or being sojourners. I think the verse goes - seek and ye shall find…not seek and ye shall keep on seeking!
In the same vein of thought that Milton brought up…while labels are supposedly eschewed by the original author (Adam) and by progrssives in general, it sure seems like they are tossed around a lot. Evangelicals/Conservatives/Progressives/Liberals… whatever. At heart of the matter is the question is whether one has trusted in Christ’s atoning sacrifice as the ultimate expression of God’s love and His only provision for our sins. Its not as theologically complex as many propose and is not a theology in need of revision. In Christ we are called to take up our cross daily, die to self…not to accomodate our sinful natures by adopting worldly principles and half truths. By whatever label we call ourselves, is God pleased when we dance around the asherah poles of modern culture and say that we know and love Him?
Lastly, Jesus did confront hypocritical rulemakers, but he fully upheld and fulfilled the laws of God. Jesus showed absolute grace and mercy to sinners who were and are powerless to uphold the law, but in Christ promised:
And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,
Ôªø “This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws on their hearts,
and write them on their minds,” then he adds,
” I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more”
Praise God!
-James
March 27th, 2005 at 2:52 am
James/heretic,
I don’t think that progressives “disregard” the cross. I think that they (and I should probably be using “we” here instead) do not appear to focus on it solely, or at least so much that other very important aspects of Christ’s live and teachings suffer as a result.
It certainly appears to me that the most important thing in a modern evangelical’s life is his/her own personal salvation, then their well-being, then the salvation of those nearest to them, then the well-being of those closest to them, slowly spiraling out so that the “entire world” and humanity as a whole receives the least focus.
While Christ did indeed come to save the individual, he also came to redeem all creation. We are instructed again and again to place ourselves and our own interests below those of everyone else, not just our family’s, or friends’, or city’s, or country’s, but everyone’s. I don’t actually believe it would be a stretch to say that the stagnation of American Christianity is due to the emphasis on the personal above all else.
The “quest” that you seem to criticize progressives for focusing on is not a continual search for the truth of God and his love. Rather, we know God is unchanging, but our “quest” concerns how to deliver the message of Christ’s love effectively in a constantly changing, very diverse, dynamic world. Paul himself makes clear in 1 Corinthians 9 that our message should not be static and unchanging.
“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.”
Christ supercedes culture and religion (and religious culture), as he is and was God, an infinite being. As Brian McLaren states in A Generous Orthodoxy, “to help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I could gladly become one of them (whoever they are) to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love, as mine has been entered by the Lord.”
The “quest” of progressives is to continually learn to change the way we share the unchanging truths of Christ in an effective manner. It isn’t the core message that changes, but rather the means by which this message is shared.
March 30th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
Talk about sweeping generalizations. Modern evangelicals and seeker friendly folk preach a crossless christianity, and emergent and all things liberal preach a worse gospel, a Christless cross.
Yes talk about sweeping generalizations. Let’s put a face on at least one of these, shall we? I’d probably be in your “emergent and all things liberal” category (which is funny, since “Liberal” Christians won’t have much to do with me); and I head up a fellowship called “CrossPoint Fellowship.” It’s very much in the strain of Ancient-Future worship, and is an odd mix of digital projection, liturgical worship, and contemplative prayer. It takes a lot of pages from the Orthodox Communion, and yet is also in the Evanglical fold.
Let’s look at the whole point of CrossPoint Worship:
1. We need to deliberately become part of God’s story of redemption, and ultimately revealed in Jesus Christ.
2. God’s holy, we’re not; we need to confess our sins because we can’t stand in God’s presence otherwise.(and assurance that God, in Christ, forgives those who humbly confess).
3. The “revealed story” that we’re part of is the Scripture.
4. Our bodies are part of who we are, and need to be engaged in worship.
5. The Nicene Creed.
6. Worship needs to be part of the rythmn of everyday, not just Sunday Morning/Evening.
In fact, what makes me so upset about your sweeping generalization is that one of the reasons I started CrossPoint was because the typical Protestant-syle worship wasn’t doctrinal enough. And yet the assumption from your post is that I care nothing for Christ, or the Cross, or of the need for redemption. May we put the brooms away now?
April 18th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
hmm, id consider myself a progresive Christian. In my mind this means that im a christian who allows herself to be guided by the holy spirit to new ideas and truths, someone who lives with the beielf that God can speak through all people, all religions, and is present in all things. I believe in many Buddhist teachings as well, im not Buddhist but I believe that God has spoken through other religions as well ( try meditiation or yoga..amazing!) Of course, Jesus is the only way to slavation, but there is much more to life then simply being saved. We are called to gain a higher understanding of God in our lives and other (dare i say, religions) have ways that we can do that as well. Traditional Christianity holds the truth, but not all the answers.