Progressive Christianity: Vol 7
November 30, 2005
This is in continuation to a series that I began last spring. Here are links to the rest of the posts: Point 1, Point 2, Point 3, Point 4, Point 5, Point 6.
By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping one another for the work we feel called to do: striving for peace and justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God’s creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of his sisters and brothers…
I don’t know that the last few points of the 8 Points of The Center for Progressive Christianity’s list will cause as much controversy as others did, but I think they are equally important. There are a few things from this that I would like to briefly highlight:
- “Communities”: The emphasis here is not on an individualized spirituality, a primary focus on the individual - rather, the emphasis is on creating communities - letting communities be the place where Christians and others come together to do the “work we feel called to do.”
- “Peace and justice among all people”: “All people” is the key phrase there. For many Christians, they would like peace and justice for one select group of people. They would like human & civil rights for one people group, but they are okay if those same rights are denied to another group. Progressive Christians realize that these rights of peace and justice belong to all.
- “Protecting/restoring God’s creation”: There is an obvious renewal of a focus on the stewardship of God’s creation - a focus that is becoming more and more prevalent throughout a variety of strands of Christianity (including evangelicalism).
- “Hope”: There is a focus on bringing hope - bringing a hope for all people, especially for those who are broken-down and oppressed: “the least of these.” I think this is balanced with a hope for the HERE and the NOW as well. If hope is strictly an eschatological hope, we have missed the idea of the kingdom of God in the here and the now - God’s Kingdom on earth as it is in Heaven.
Posted in Theology
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
November 30th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
I’m a bit confused. What is “progressive” about this definition? It doesn’t seem to require the label, “progressive.”
Moreover, please expand a bit about what you mean by “For many Christians, they would like peace and justice for one select group of people.” This is a sweeping statement that, I think, requires specificity in order to be considered credible.
Thanks.
November 30th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Daniel, if I may offer an answer to your questions…
As Adam said these are the last few of 8 points of the Center for Progressive Christianity and these last points are less controversial, check out some of the other points to get an idea of what makes this “progressive.”
And your second question, about Christians who seek peace and justice for one group of people… I think Adam is refering to are the Christians who have let American Civil Religion determine their theology and practice. The Pat Robertsons, Jerry Fallwells and Geroge Bushs of the world who have an unhealthy nationalism attached to (if not outright driving) their Christianity.
November 30th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Great stuff, Adam. Thanx for posting!
November 30th, 2005 at 3:21 pm
yes andrew, good stuff. i’m gonna have to check out the center’s website. i’m diggin what i’ve read.
shalom,
jonathon
November 30th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Charlie-
Thank you for your response. I read what Adam said about the last few points of the Center for Progressive Christianity. In fact, I had read the other 6 points prior to this. My question remains though. These are included in the Center’s definition of what makes them “progressive.” How do these points make them a more progressive interpretation of Christianity? What are they progressing beyond? It seems that these issues (community, seeking peace and justice, care for creation, and communitarian empahsis) are all central to the Gospel message.
You do, however, raise an interesting point in your response. I didn’t say anything about the post being “controversial.” I suggested that I didn’t see the need for (another) label such as “progressiveness.” But do you think that something is inherently controversial if it is truly progressive?
Secondly, I assumed Adam was speaking about the people you mentioned in response to my other question. However, I would just appreciate a more thorough description of what he means by statements like, “For many Christians,” or “There is an obvious renewal of a focus on the stewardship of God’s creation…” Who are the “many Christians?” Where is the “obvious” renewal?
I’m not trying to be too persnickety, I just think oversimplifications serve very little purpose in a public forum. However, I realize that this is a blog and cannot be a fully descriptive endeavour on Adam’s part.
Cheers,
RN Daniel
November 30th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
Daniel-
I’m guessing that the eight points that the center puts forth are what they see as making them “progressive,” but I’d also be willing to bet that they find these points to make good sense for all of us who follow Jesus, so perhaps the points are a reaction to a Christianity that does not find these points to be important.
It’s hard to know what is meant by the word progressive, unless you ask the user of the word. I’d think that progressive theology is going to be different from progressive politics (although there might be some overlap eg: Sojourners).
You asked me if I think that something is inherently controversial if its progressive… I’m tempted to say yes, just because of the “progression” either out of or beyond a previous way. Rockin’ the boat usually turns some heads. So while we all may find the points in the Center’s “manifesto” to be very sensible, you’ve got to know that Richard Land (does Land still read this blog? ha ha ha!) is going to get bent out of shape about some of these things… and it’s sad but I think there are a lot more fundamentalists than “progressives” out there (for now).
November 30th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
“progressive” christianity is when Leftism drives your christian beliefs. It’s like some of you claim “nationalism” drives Jerry Falwell’s beliefs? Same basic thing.
It’s why to progressive christians Clinton imposing regime change in Serbia - good, while Bush imposing regime change in Iraq - bad.
It’s why to progressive christians Clinton bombing Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists -good, while Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad.
It’s why to progressive christians no mass graves found in Serbia - good, while no WMD found in Iraq - bad.
It’s why Clinton bombing Chinese Embassy - good (or at least forgiveable), while Bush bombing terrorist camps - bad
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good, while economy on upswing under Bush - bad.
It’s why to progressive christians Clinton commits felonies while in office - good, while Bush lands on aircraft carrier in flight suit - bad.
etc., etc. etc. That’s progressive christianity in a nutshell.
>
November 30th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
DCB,
Terse style, oversimplification, castigation and sarcasm are the tools of forces we strive against, not for. “Be devoted to one another in love,” Paul wrote. I can understand your frustration with left-leaning “progressives”and their lemming-like ambulation concerning Clinton and Bush, but that doesn’t mean you should not try to understand where they’re coming from and where they (at least think) they’re headed. Using words and ideas to reduce a philosophical or theological adversary to an unrecognizable, unsatisfactory and/or unworthy opponent is un-Christian, not to mention unsavory and just downright rude. Practicing intellectual hospitality must become our modus operandi if we Christians today are to witness to the world that we are indeed Christians.
November 30th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
kp,
your response was not entirely unfair, and yes, it was an oversimplification. But my comments were no more un-christian or unfair, and no more simplistic than comments about “nationalism” driving conservative christianity. I don’t expect you to object to anti-conservative christian comments everytime you happen upon them, but at least you might recognize them for the rubbish they are when it’s pointed out to you.
Conservative christians have a deep respect for the Biblical text and for our christian theological traditions, regardless of “Bush” and nationalism or the political issue de jour. And, yes, we also happen to be deeply patriotic. But it does not drive our theology nor our doctrines. I’m amazed by how cartoonish Liberal christians portray conservatives. Do you really believe that stuff? If so, it doesn’t speak very well of people who are so obviously proud of their own intellect and complexity. Being cartoonish and ignorant isn’t intellectual nor complex.
November 30th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
ps, I didn’t mean cartoonish Liberals, I meant how cartoonishly conservatives are portrayed by Liberals.