Ship of Fools: Progressive Christianity or Progressive Christianity?

Thread: Progressive Christianity or Progressive Christianity? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027813

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

In setting out to read this thread Christus Victor Redux I found myself, a confirmed Progressive, in completely unfamiliar territory. What was all this about

quote:
In Spiritual bondage to the powers of death , Slacktivist argues that
quote:
[Progreesive Chritianity] articulates a powerful, liberating understanding of “spiritual bondage to the powers of death, Satan and sin.” The explanation and exploration of such spiritual bondage is far more serious and substantial than any corresponding effort I have seen in mainstream white evangelicalism.

So I dipped into Slacktivist on Patheos and wondered what he was on about, though it was reassuring to come across trusted friends like Marcus Borg and other Living the Questions friends.

Then I went back to progressivechristianity.org and there was a most relevant piece from John Shelby Spong on creeds for the 21st century.

The Eight Points of Progressive Christianitygive the gist of what I know as Progressive Christianity and do not have anything to say about the powers of death, Satan and sin.

So are there two separate 'progressive christianity' movements, and what do they have in common?

Having firmly declared myself Progressive on the Denominational Representation thread, I don't want to feel I might be misunderstood.

What does 'progressive christianity' mean to other shipmates?
GG

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

I wonder if Slacktivist is referring to what I would call 'progressive evangelicalism'...? This, AIUI, would still hold to the uniqueness of Jesus (he's not merely 'one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life'), but would reject the approach of conventional evangelicalism, which claims (often, anyway) that a doctrinal confession of faith in Christ and an assertion of certain theological points (e.g. God as Trinity, Jesus as taking the punishment for my sins) are necessary for salvation.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I imagine that progressive, much like liberal, means different things to different people.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Surely, the point is that Fred Clark remains an evangelical, fighting the war against what he calls 'white evangelicalism', by which I suppose he means right-wing.

So a lot of 'progressive Christians' are not evangelicals.

It makes Fred's blog very distinctive, I find, as with Rachel Held Evans.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I wonder if Slacktivist is referring to what I would call 'progressive evangelicalism'...? This, AIUI, would still hold to the uniqueness of Jesus (he's not merely 'one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life'), but would reject the approach of conventional evangelicalism, which claims (often, anyway) that a doctrinal confession of faith in Christ and an assertion of certain theological points (e.g. God as Trinity, Jesus as taking the punishment for my sins) are necessary for salvation.

I'd say that's about right. (In terms of what Fred Clark thinks, and in terms of how I'd define progressive Christianity.)

The "eight points" link above was giving a definition of progressive Christianity that is completely alien to me.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I'm not a 'progressive Christian' but I too was puzzled by that article. My understanding of 'progressive Christianity' is that it doesn't believe in "the powers of death, Satan and sin". It thinks these are just an old fashioned understanding that is irrelevant now that humankind has come of age. So whatever the atonement means for you if you claim to be a progressive Christian, the death of Christ does not have an ontological consequences because all this ontological stuff is just so First Century.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I have a lot in common with Progressives, but I have a problem with the rather proscriptive way that some want to define "progressive". I blogged on it and I don't want to reject convevo faith to turn to another presentation what is as definitive.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not a 'progressive Christian' but I too was puzzled by that article. My understanding of 'progressive Christianity' is that it doesn't believe in "the powers of death, Satan and sin". It thinks these are just an old fashioned understanding that is irrelevant now that humankind has come of age. So whatever the atonement means for you if you claim to be a progressive Christian, the death of Christ does not have an ontological consequences because all this ontological stuff is just so First Century.

Indeed - and I'm glad, so glad, that the atonement actually 'does stuff' and isn't just a metaphor. If the atonement doesn't actually do something in my heart and life then it's not worth anything.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm not a 'progressive Christian' but I too was puzzled by that article. My understanding of 'progressive Christianity' is that it doesn't believe in "the powers of death, Satan and sin". It thinks these are just an old fashioned understanding that is irrelevant now that humankind has come of age. So whatever the atonement means for you if you claim to be a progressive Christian, the death of Christ does not have an ontological consequences because all this ontological stuff is just so First Century.

Clearly I need to be more careful about where I label myself as a progressive Christian.

I:
- believe the entire Creed (Apostles and Nicene)
- am an inclusivist, not an exclusivist or universalist
- am fairly pro-gay people

The last two of those have me calling myself "progressive" - but this is the first time I've come across people who would hear me call myself "progressive" and conclude I'm... what? not convinced that God really exists? or something?

This confusion of definitions is worrying...

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I have a lot in common with Progressives, but I have a problem with the rather proscriptive way that some want to define "progressive". I blogged on it and I don't want to reject convevo faith to turn to another presentation what is as definitive.

Your blog link is not letting me look at what you've written, by the way. ("You do not have permission to view this entry.")

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

I:
- believe the entire Creed (Apostles and Nicene)
- am an inclusivist, not an exclusivist or universalist
- am fairly pro-gay people.

Can I ask you to expand on your last 2 points?

What is an inclusivist?
And what does 'fairly' pro gay. Does that mean 'up to a point with reservations?'

Your answers might help me with my definitions of who I am [Smile]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

It seems that progressive does indeed have precisely the same definitional problem that liberal does - say it to one person and they think you mean you're an atheist who likes singing hymns and to another it means you're an orthodox Christian who thinks gay people and women can and should be ordained. It's ok for those of us of an Anglo-Catholic bent because Affirming Catholicism covers the socially liberal doctrinally orthodox position very nicely.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

1 and 2 are ... not Christian. This is NOT progressive Christianity. Christ is not the pivot, the inflexion point, the turn in human spiritual evolution in this. This goes beyond without holding on and falls away.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

I:
- believe the entire Creed (Apostles and Nicene)
- am an inclusivist, not an exclusivist or universalist
- am fairly pro-gay people.
Hi

Can I ask you to expand on your last 2 points?

What is an inclusivist?
And what does 'fairly' pro gay. Does that mean 'up to a point with reservations?'

Your answers might help me with my definitions of who I am

"Fairly" pro-gay in that I've met some Christians who say "Have as much consensual sex as you like! There's nothing wrong with it at all!", which is not my opinion. I think sex should be purely for marriage - and I think gay people can get married.

Re "inclusivist"...
Exclusivist: Salvation comes through believing X doctrines, and praying prayer Y.
Universalist: Salvation will happen to all people.
Inclusivist: Salvation comes through Jesus somehow, for reasons that are more his business than mine. Who will be saved is up to him, not me, but will almost certainly include many people who don't identify themselves as Christians.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I associate 'progressive Christianity' with the likes of Don Cuppitt, for whom words like 'Satan' are an irrelevance.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I have a lot in common with Progressives, but I have a problem with the rather proscriptive way that some want to define "progressive". I blogged on it and I don't want to reject convevo faith to turn to another presentation what is as definitive.
Your blog link is not letting me look at what you've written, by the way. ("You do not have permission to view this entry.")

Doh. Sorry: This is better

I think some people are using "progressive" as meaning "not traditional". But it is like "Progressive Rock" - it becomes traditional, because it defines itself - many of those in the progressive area come from an evangelical background, and need to define things for themselves.

In the end, I don't feel that I have a fixed set of beliefs - they are changing as I encounter other people and situations.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I associate 'progressive Christianity' with the likes of Don Cuppitt, for whom words like 'Satan' are an irrelevance.

As is the existence of God.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

I:
- believe the entire Creed (Apostles and Nicene)
- am an inclusivist, not an exclusivist or universalist
- am fairly pro-gay people.
Hi

Can I ask you to expand on your last 2 points?

What is an inclusivist?
And what does 'fairly' pro gay. Does that mean 'up to a point with reservations?'

Your answers might help me with my definitions of who I am
"Fairly" pro-gay in that I've met some Christians who say "Have as much consensual sex as you like! There's nothing wrong with it at all!", which is not my opinion. I think sex should be purely for marriage - and I think gay people can get married.

Re "inclusivist"...
Exclusivist: Salvation comes through believing X doctrines, and praying prayer Y.
Universalist: Salvation will happen to all people.
Inclusivist: Salvation comes through Jesus somehow, for reasons that are more his business than mine. Who will be saved is up to him, not me, but will almost certainly include many people who don't identify themselves as Christians.

Thanks.

On that scale therefore I would place myself on the point that says that gay is not the unforgiveable sin, that if a couple describe themselves as in a monogamous relationship and say they are Christians, then I will accept them as brothers in Christ and even into membership because it's between God and them and I can't deny them a living faith in Christ; but I can't accept the redefinition of marriage. If pushed I would have to say that being gay is not a sin but gay sex falls short of the ideal for God's people.

I guess that makes me a little more liberal than a lot of con evos.

As fas as exclusive, inclusive, is concerned, I have to agree with you except that there is a defined and described way to be saved
that must not be presumed upon. I believe that Jesus will save some people 'somehow' but I wouldn't want to allow people to simply assume it might be them. Better to 'repent, believe and be born again.' I do not recognise the accusation that salvation comes simply by believing the doctrines, etc. Being born again does not depend on orthodoxy but very much depends on believing that Christ is who he said he was and has done what the Bible says he has done. It's faith in him that saves, not faith in creeds or church.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

Skipping neatly over the bullshit term that is 'the redefinition of marriage' which ignores the polygamy, forced marriage and use of concubines in the Bible....

I believe in "the powers of death, Satan and sin". I do believe it's fine for people to have as much consensual sex as they like because I don't think God's enough of a joyless fascist to care. I'm not sure where I stand on salvation but inclusivist seems fairly accurate. I wouldn't identify as liberal - I'm a leftist and so not a liberal in that sense (liberal is not the same as leftist!), and while I don't believe the Bible is the literal word of God because that's Jesus, I have no problem accepting some kind of divine inspiration. I accept the historic creeds and doctrine of the Church.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

I:
- believe the entire Creed (Apostles and Nicene)
- am an inclusivist, not an exclusivist or universalist
- am fairly pro-gay people.
Hi

Can I ask you to expand on your last 2 points?

What is an inclusivist?
And what does 'fairly' pro gay. Does that mean 'up to a point with reservations?'

Your answers might help me with my definitions of who I am
"Fairly" pro-gay in that I've met some Christians who say "Have as much consensual sex as you like! There's nothing wrong with it at all!", which is not my opinion. I think sex should be purely for marriage - and I think gay people can get married.

Re "inclusivist"...
Exclusivist: Salvation comes through believing X doctrines, and praying prayer Y.
Universalist: Salvation will happen to all people.
Inclusivist: Salvation comes through Jesus somehow, for reasons that are more his business than mine. Who will be saved is up to him, not me, but will almost certainly include many people who don't identify themselves as Christians.

Do you believe that sex is necessary for marriage to be valid, as is RC and other churches' doctrine? Do you believe that marriage between an asexual couple who do not have sex and do not intend to ever have sex is invalid? Gay =/= all sex and gender minorities.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I don't.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Read Walter Wink. Slactivist is using the devil metaphorically. Sin means the stuff contrary to Slactivists political beliefs. Death? Who doesn't believe in death? So, yes, slactivist is describing Progressive Christianity. Unpack his description of Progressive Christianity a little bit and it in no way contradicts the Eight Points of Progressive Christianity.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Gay =/= all sex and gender minorities.

I'm well aware of that. However, I'm not aware of many branches of the church that have a problem with asexuals.

quote:
Do you believe that sex is necessary for marriage to be valid, as is RC and other churches' doctrine? Do you believe that marriage between an asexual couple who do not have sex and do not intend to ever have sex is invalid?

Nope. And nope.

Posted by Byron (# 15532) on :

As illustrated by my dustup in the Christus Victor thread, progressivism is principally concerned with social justice issues, not systematic theology. It's not necessarily liberal in the theological sense of rejecting the concept of unalterable, revealed truth.

I'd agree that Clark remains an evangelical, but now, he testifies in the name of social justice. His theological certainties have been replaced by polical ones. The way of thinking remains the same.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Gay =/= all sex and gender minorities.
I'm well aware of that. However, I'm not aware of many branches of the church that have a problem with asexuals.

quote:
Do you believe that sex is necessary for marriage to be valid, as is RC and other churches' doctrine? Do you believe that marriage between an asexual couple who do not have sex and do not intend to ever have sex is invalid?
Nope. And nope.

Well as I just pointed out, at least the RC church requires marriage to be consummated to be valid. In some areas this is actually a legal requirement.

Edited to add that plenty of evangelicals would deny the existence of asexual people - people are supposed to have nice Christian marriages and pop out babies for Jesus, after all.

[ 18. October 2014, 15:34: Message edited by: Pomona ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

That isn't actually quite correct. A marriage that has not been consummated can be annulled, but the couple are married unless and until it has been annulled. That's different from, say, a bigamous marriage, an incestuous one or an underage one, where the marriage is completely void. There the couple have never been married, however much sex they may have had or however many children they have produced.

So if an asexual couple were to marry and agree that neither of them ever wanted to have sex with each other, they would be married - though I suppose there would be a risk that one of them might change their mind and apply for an annulment.

What isn't on, is for one of a couple to wait until after they have got the other one to marry them, and then say, 'by the way, I'm asexual, and I don't want our marriage to be a normal sexual one'. That is unilaterally imposing on the other something different from what a person might reasonably expect a marriage to be about.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Gay =/= all sex and gender minorities.
I'm well aware of that. However, I'm not aware of many branches of the church that have a problem with asexuals.

quote:
Do you believe that sex is necessary for marriage to be valid, as is RC and other churches' doctrine? Do you believe that marriage between an asexual couple who do not have sex and do not intend to ever have sex is invalid?
Nope. And nope.
Well as I just pointed out, at least the RC church requires marriage to be consummated to be valid. In some areas this is actually a legal requirement.

Edited to add that plenty of evangelicals would deny the existence of asexual people - people are supposed to have nice Christian marriages and pop out babies for Jesus, after all.

...since I am not a Catholic, nor am I claiming that the Catholic Church is filled with progressive Christians, I'm not entirely sure why you're telling me this.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Gay =/= all sex and gender minorities.
I'm well aware of that. However, I'm not aware of many branches of the church that have a problem with asexuals.

quote:
Do you believe that sex is necessary for marriage to be valid, as is RC and other churches' doctrine? Do you believe that marriage between an asexual couple who do not have sex and do not intend to ever have sex is invalid?
Nope. And nope.
Well as I just pointed out, at least the RC church requires marriage to be consummated to be valid. In some areas this is actually a legal requirement.

Edited to add that plenty of evangelicals would deny the existence of asexual people - people are supposed to have nice Christian marriages and pop out babies for Jesus, after all.
...since I am not a Catholic, nor am I claiming that the Catholic Church is filled with progressive Christians, I'm not entirely sure why you're telling me this.

So that now you that there are branches of the church that have a problem with asexual people.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That isn't actually quite correct. A marriage that has not been consummated can be annulled, but the couple are married unless and until it has been annulled. That's different from, say, a bigamous marriage, an incestuous one or an underage one, where the marriage is completely void. There the couple have never been married, however much sex they may have had or however many children they have produced.

So if an asexual couple were to marry and agree that neither of them ever wanted to have sex with each other, they would be married - though I suppose there would be a risk that one of them might change their mind and apply for an annulment.

What isn't on, is for one of a couple to wait until after they have got the other one to marry them, and then say, 'by the way, I'm asexual, and I don't want our marriage to be a normal sexual one'. That is unilaterally imposing on the other something different from what a person might reasonably expect a marriage to be about.

Who mentioned anything about one of a couple not saying anything until after marriage?

Some places require consummation for a marriage to be legally valid - along with corrective rape, it's the main problem for asexual people. In the RCC, entering a marriage with no intention of having sex renders it invalid.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
So that now you that there are branches of the church that have a problem with asexual people.

At most, they have a problem with asexuals getting married. Which isn't quite the same thing.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
So that now you that there are branches of the church that have a problem with asexual people.
At most, they have a problem with asexuals getting married. Which isn't quite the same thing.

Indeed. I think the RCC would love it if all their priests were asexual - would save them a lot of bother.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Without wishing to be derogatory, I struggle to see what's distinctively Christian in 'Progressive Christianity' as defined in the link. Points two to eight are generic free-floating spirituality. Even point one hardly pins things down. I'm also guessing that anyone subscribing to the eight points is somewhat selective about which of the recorded teachings of Jesus they feel to be relevant. I guess I fail to see why anyone holding those beliefs would bother attaching the label 'Christian' to them. What's so important about the C word?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Without wishing to be derogatory, I struggle to see what's distinctively Christian in 'Progressive Christianity' as defined in the link. Points two to eight are generic free-floating spirituality. Even point one hardly pins things down. I'm also guessing that anyone subscribing to the eight points is somewhat selective about which of the recorded teachings of Jesus they feel to be relevant. I guess I fail to see why anyone holding those beliefs would bother attaching the label 'Christian' to them. What's so important about the C word?

If I were being really cynical I would suggest that free-floating spirituality doesn't carry a stipend.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

Progressive Christianity, AIUI, is about living the Kingdom of God as Jesus encouraged his followers to, rather than being saved as a ticket to an afterlife. Salvation is from the materialist values of this world to a life that acknowledges the worth of all humans in the eyes of God – for there certainly is an Other, not sitting on a golden throne somewhere up above, as conceived by devout men with a world view far distant from my own, but an ever-present loving spirit.

No, I don’t pick what I fancy and discard what I don’t like from the scriptures, but I do read, where scholars teach me, what was written as metaphor and parable. I don’t assent to statements of doctrine that don’t make sense in the 21st century. Bishop Spong puts it clearly in a letter at http://tinyurl.com/lox684r

I am not expressing myself as well as I would like – it was a big day and now it’s late. But any of the people I spend time with, or study with, or the books I read, would express similar convictions.

GG

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I don’t assent to statements of doctrine that don’t make sense in the 21st century.

What does the 21st century have to do with whether a piece of doctrine is true or not?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Indeed

Choosing which doctrines to accept and which ones to reject based on what makes sense in the 21st century is very much picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe. The criteria of what makes sense in the 21st century is itself very vague and subjective.

Appeals to scholars and metaphor are also subjective and an example of picking and choosing. Who is a scholar? John Shelby Spong I not a scholar. Marcus Borg and the rest of the Jesus Seminar represent a minority of scholars. Scholars don't agree on what is metaphor or not metaphor. For instance, some scholars believe the empty tomb was a metaphor. Others who don't believe in the physical resurrection nevertheless accept that the tomb was empty. One must even pick and choose what is metaphor and what is not. The quest for the historical Jesus itself relies on subjective criteria. Even if you clearly prove some events are metaphorical that doesn't answer the question of how those events should be interpreted. Besides, Jesus spoke in parables all the time. Aren't those parables authoritative despite not being literal?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Skipping neatly over the bullshit term that is 'the redefinition of marriage' which ignores the polygamy, forced marriage and use of concubines in the Bible...

Skipping neatly over the bullshit idea that everything written in the bible was intended by God to instruct us to do the same as the biblical protagonists...

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
In the RCC, entering a marriage with no intention of having sex renders it invalid.

In the RCC, marriage has the favour of the law, i.e., a marriage will be considered valid unless and until it is proven otherwise (Canon 1060). So Enoch is correct in saying that unless the spouses turn their sexlessness into an issue, their marriage will be de facto valid anyhow. Furthermore, concerning the particular question of whether one must have the intention to have sex to have a valid RC marriage, the answer is simply: no, so-called Josephite marriages (after Joseph's role in the upbringing of Christ) are allowed by mutual agreement of the spouses.

First, the validity of a marriage is not established by its consummation, but by the mutual exchange of their consent to marriage ("wedding vows"). It is then called "ratum tantum" (Canon 1060), and since one usually doesn't have sex on the altar during the wedding ceremony, basically all marriage were valid but not consummated at one point. When a marriage is consummated it becomes "ratum et consummatum" (Canon 1060), and then becomes indissoluble but by death, before that it can be dissolved by the pope for just cause (Canons 1141 & 1142). If one never has sex, then that does not make the marriage invalid, but rather leaves it dissoluble. (There never was the "becoming one flesh" of Gen 2:24, Mk 10:7-9.) Note that a valid but unconsummated marriage between baptised person is always sacramental (Canon 1055), so it is not entirely accurate to say that sacramental marriages are indissoluble.

Second, while it is necessary for the spouses to understand and accept that marriage is ordered to sexual procreation (Canon 1096) in order to give proper consent (without which the marriage is invalid, Canon 1057), this does not imply a specific number of sex acts. But it does mean that one accepts that one's spouse has a right to expect sexual activity ordered to procreation. However, a right does not need to be exercised. Thus if both spouses agree to not have sex, then that is fine, even if they never have sex. However, what would not work is if one spouse wishes to have sex and the other denies it (systematically and always, we are not talking about a "right" in the sense of "whenever I want"). Because that would indicate that the denying spouse does not accept that marriage establishes a general right to sex. Furthermore, it is not possible to secure a Josephite marriage against future demands of sex by one's spouse. Any statement of the from "I marry you but only if this and that is true in future" renders the marriage invalid (Canon 1102).

In summary, in the RCC a valid and sacramental marriage without any sex is possible, by mutual and continuing consent of both spouses (so-called "Josephite marriage"). But it is not possible to secure such a marriage against one of the spouses changing their mind in future, at which point the consent given to marriage as ordered to procreation means that the other spouse should willingly agree to having sex (in a reasonable and hopefully loving manner, not simply "on demand"). Persistent failure to do so and insistence on remaining sexless then can indicate that the consent given was not proper, and hence that the marriage was invalid. But until such a time, not having sex is not as such a sign of an invalid marriage.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
... Bishop Spong puts it clearly in a letter at http://tinyurl.com/lox684r ...

From one of the comments on that letter,

quote:
It is my guess that virtually all of us who read Progressive Christianity deny what Bishop Spong denies, but probably affirm our faith differently from the Bishop and differently from one another.

Sorry but to me a community of 'faith' founded in unity of what we don't believe rather than what we do, if Christianity at all, isn't Christianity as we know it. Nor IMHO does it look like anything the apostles and martyrs would have recognised.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
Progressive Christianity, AIUI, is about living the Kingdom of God as Jesus encouraged his followers to, rather than being saved as a ticket to an afterlife. Salvation is from the materialist values of this world to a life that acknowledges the worth of all humans in the eyes of God – for there certainly is an Other, not sitting on a golden throne somewhere up above, as conceived by devout men with a world view far distant from my own, but an ever-present loving spirit.

You see, if you think that what you have written here is not also part of the evangelical faith, then I'm afraid you show your ignorance. On these pages I have seen constant reference to evangelical theology being reductionist in the extreme - ie just repeat the words of the sinners' prayer and you'll get to heaven - and yet that is far, far from the truth of what evangelical churches believe.

It's about as far from the truth as the mistaken Protestant opinion that catholics simply say a few hail Marys at the behest of the priest who then forgives their sins.

I really do think we should look at the detail of what we each believe before we set up straw men.
Don't you agree?

...and now I shall await the inevitable, 'Ah well I heard a sermon/went to a church/read a tract where that was exactly what was said, blah blah blah...'

Don't listen to the odd tele-evangelist, read the doctrine book that explains what each indovidual denomination really believes about the way of salvation and sanctification.

[ 19. October 2014, 13:25: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

I think many of you are missing the point that Fred C. was brought up as a GLE, and thought he was continuing to be one, until he was kicked out of his church for expressing doubts. At this point he had more questions and began to answer them, just as RHE did. He still thinks as an evangelical, because it is the way he was made, but his church moved away from him.

And that church became politicized, to the point that "that sort" of evangelical is now required to vote Republican, despite every non-Biblical thing that the GOP (and those evangelicals) root for. So he is on a bit of a crusade against the infidels.

BUT this is where the definition of "progressive" has become fuzzy. Being seen as accepting that there are some cases in which abortion is acceptable or The "least bad thing" makes one "liberal", "Progressive" or "non-Christian", all used as pejoratives and exclusionary terms. Accepting that gays are, to some extent, born that way, is an excluder, see above. Etc.

Referring to the "Operation Christmas Child" thread, I notice Franklin Graham's name. Billy Graham was well-regarded in most circles because he stuck to being a preacher, albeit well-connected. Franklin thinks that Oliver North, Rupert Murdoch and Donald Trump are suitable guests for B.G.'s 90th birthday party. This may sum up the problem.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

Echoing Leo and Mudfrog slightly, if someone uses the term 'progressive christianity' then the thought that comes to mind is someone who has a priori rejected anything resembling orthodoxy. One would expect them to be fans of the likes of Cupitt, Borg or Crossan.

That's not how everyone uses the term, admittedly, as it can be simply synonymous with someone who holds liberal views on Dead Horse topics.

I think my issue is with the self-defined nature of the term and its implicit opposite. Just as Daniel Dennet's idea of 'Brights' implies that religious people are dim, so the label of 'Progressive' 'implies that those who don't share the same point of view are in some way regressive. Yet, taking Borg as an example, his rejection of some aspects of American theology as docetic (citing Superman as an example of how Americans view Jesus) he then goes so far as to advocate adoptionism. So in being 'progressive' he ends up advocating an old idea that was long ago rejected by mainstream christianity.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On these pages I have seen constant reference to evangelical theology being reductionist in the extreme - ie just repeat the words of the sinners' prayer and you'll get to heaven - and yet that is far, far from the truth of what evangelical churches believe.
...
I really do think we should look at the detail of what we each believe before we set up straw men.
Don't you agree?
...
Don't listen to the odd tele-evangelist, read the doctrine book that explains what each indovidual denomination really believes about the way of salvation and sanctification.

While I'm not an expert on what denominations believe (my own included), as a member of that denomination (Baptists) I did indeed grow up with the impression that "praying the prayer" was the main necessary step in salvation.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On these pages I have seen constant reference to evangelical theology being reductionist in the extreme - ie just repeat the words of the sinners' prayer and you'll get to heaven - and yet that is far, far from the truth of what evangelical churches believe.

I agree 100%. There are many forms of evangelicalism, from the utterly banal and simplistic to highly intelligent and nuanced approaches. It is far easy to characterise all Evangelicals as simple-minded bigots when that is very far from the truth.

Strange as it may seem to its critics, there are some very competent Evangelical theologians and, indeed, preachers out there! Let's not, as Mudfrog says, erect a straw man only to demolish it - that's far too easy and, in any case, not worth doing.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Pot black.

And GG - you did just fine. And aye St Deird, I felt alienated by the list from the top down, BUT I missed, twice, the contextualizing remark: "By calling ourselves progressive Christians, we mean we are Christians who…" WE are Christians FIRST: "... for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.".

WE are therefore one with ALL Christians; Evangelical, Roman, whether they recognize us or not.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I agree 100%. There are many forms of evangelicalism, from the utterly banal and simplistic to highly intelligent and nuanced approaches. It is far easy to characterise all Evangelicals as simple-minded bigots when that is very far from the truth. ...

And, of course, it's impossible for any form of anything that calls itself progressive to be either banal or bigoted or both?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The term 'progressive Christianity' seems to be a response to a particularly American religious and political reality. I'm not sure how well it applies to Britain.

AIUI, British evangelicalism came under scrutiny a long time ago (even before the birth of Pentecostalism), so it seems somewhat foolish for today's evangelicals in Britain to take up the 'progressive' label when all it means is that they're moving in the same direction as several generations of other Christians before them. Can one be 'progressive' when one's bringing up the rear?

By contrast, evangelicalism in the USA represents the dominant, popular form of Christianity, so I suppose a change of heart for many American evangelicals seems more momentous and more culturally significant than it would be in the UK.

Postmodernity confuses things, of course. Several DH issues have made dinosaurs of some mainstream Christians who once thought they'd made great 'progress'. And evangelicalism is gradually taking up a bigger and more interesting share of the declining British Christian pie, so its shifting boundaries are more noticeable than might have been the case 50 odd years ago. The outcome, I suppose, will be for British evangelicalism to split into 'progressive' and 'non-progressive' varieties. Meanwhile, the retreating steps of many other forms of Protestantism will probably be more in evidence than their 'progress'.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Are we talking Woodrow Wilson progressive or Teddy Roosevelt progressive?

"Progressive" covers a spectrum of ideas and values (as does "conservative," if you examine it closely enough.) The reason why there's variation in "progressive Christianity" is because there's a lot of variation in "progressive."

The listed eight things cited at the top seem to describe one subset of progressive Christianity. and a noticeable one, but I don't think it covers the entire progressive community.

[ 20. October 2014, 01:29: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Horseman Bree: I think many of you are missing the point that Fred C. was brought up as a GLE, and thought he was continuing to be one, until he was kicked out of his church for expressing doubts.

I'm not sure if this is a correct characterization. He still considers himself an evangelical. I also don't think 'expressing doubts' is the right expression here. He still claims to agree with Bebbington's quadrilateral, but he disagrees with the political turn he perceives Evangelicalism to have taken in the US. And he doesn't talk a lot about it but AFAIK, he's still in his church.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
He still claims to agree with Bebbington's quadrilateral, but he disagrees with the political turn he perceives Evangelicalism to have taken in the US.

Heck that characterizes a good chunk of us American evangelicals as well.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

The thing is that most evangelicals in the UK don't hitch their evangelicalism to a political wagon.

In a congregation you can have two evangelicals - one who will vote labour and the other will vote Tory; but they will both subscribe to the same doctrine and the same ethical view.

In the UK it's not usually the done thing to mix faith with party politics - which is not to say that we don't talk about individual issues.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The thing is that most evangelicals in the UK don't hitch their evangelicalism to a political wagon.

In a congregation you can have two evangelicals - one who will vote labour and the other will vote Tory; but they will both subscribe to the same doctrine and the same ethical view.

In the UK it's not usually the done thing to mix faith with party politics - which is not to say that we don't talk about individual issues.

This is 100% true as a general rule, although I think that any given individual church, by dint of where it is and the lifestyles and class backgrounds of its congregants will be more welcoming to a point on the political spectrum (ie. you'd be hard pressed to find an evangelical church here in central Swansea where anti-Tory views on poverty and that are not a given, and maybe even preached from the pulpit, which has more to do with Swansea than evangelicalism).

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Mudfrog: The thing is that most evangelicals in the UK don't hitch their evangelicalism to a political wagon.

In a congregation you can have two evangelicals - one who will vote labour and the other will vote Tory; but they will both subscribe to the same doctrine and the same ethical view.

The same is true in Brazil. The fact that statistically, (white) Evangelicals overwhelmingly vote for a single political party seems to be a US thing.

Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :

In my parents' old church, my dad had a particularly close friendship with a chap called Maurice (who used to be a champion sprout-picker) where basis for their closeness was that they were the only 2 Labour voters in the church in a constituency my dad described as "blue-ribbon-on-a-pig country".

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I imagine that progressive, much like liberal, means different things to different people.

Yes, I would definitely describe myself as politically progressive/liberal, but not at all theologically so. Though I find the word "conservative" not the right one at all. I would normally say "orthodox" (and I think that is technically correct) but unfortunately every word like conservative, traditional, old-fashioned, orthodox, etc. seems to be pressed into service by groups I would consider to be Pharisaical, so every time this happens I have to give qualifiers about what I don't mean.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On these pages I have seen constant reference to evangelical theology being reductionist in the extreme - ie just repeat the words of the sinners' prayer and you'll get to heaven - and yet that is far, far from the truth of what evangelical churches believe.

It should be, but if this is about stuff from my Fundamentalism vs Evangelicalism thread, I really did encounter attitudes of that nature back in college.

Mind you, this was in the same sort of crowd in which I had to explain the difference between devotion to saints and, um, necromancy, even though they both involve, and I quote, "talking to dead people." And it was, as I look back, a college-age crowd, firm devotees of the Four Spiritual Laws booklet, not a group of necessarily well-educated people. I remember the concern some of them showed about the fact that I believed in evolution, and so on. Some of them wound up involved with the Lingoniers, but these were the more erudite ones, and again these were people between the ages of 18-21 with a few older ones back at the University of Florida circa the mid-late 1980s.

There is still a scary, scary kind of fundamentalism here in the US which really is like the stereotype, alas, though it's arguably less about whether you've said the Sinner's Prayer right and more, well, extreme right-wing political, with a big dollop of assumed dominionism. The evos in the UK seem like a wholly different, and nicer, group of folks. [Smile]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

(As a side note, I'm not a big fan of the (misspelled, sorry [Hot and Hormonal]

) Ligoniers, who also seem to be focused on the whole US "culture war" business.)

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

IME I think the issue is that the reductionist tendency of evangelicalism is, as often happens with any off-centre ideological position, a product of people who want to help people "get it".

Say the Sinner's Prayer and you're OK, they say, because they don't want to go into the minutiae, which is actually not always a bad position to take, because that minutiae can be really confusing. And when you're new, you want to know you are loved, and you are in the family.

The problem comes when there are people, and there really truly are, who, for a bunch of reasons, never get past it.

I don't think that is uniquely evangelicalism's problem. You find Catholics like that, and socialists, and Tories.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

This has been an interesting excursion into the wider reaches of Progressive land. I don’t go along with Don Cupitt – who writes ‘Life’ in place of ‘God’ – or with Gretta Vosper – in whose church the word ‘God’ is not used. I and the people I share my interests with spent too long with Borg, Crossan, Rex Hunt, Fred Plumer and others to be interested in theological concepts formulated in the early centuries of the faith by people of a strange and foreign worldview, elaborated over the centuries, and bit-by-bit carved in stone.
I respect my shipmates’ points of view and concerns, and am grateful to them for sharing their insights.
I’ve thought of starting a thread on ‘How do you pray to a God who is not an Old Testament patriarch, nor a micro-organiser, nor anything but a great and wonderful and loving Mystery?’ but I don’t know how many takers there would be.
Got my copy today of Robin Meyers’ ‘Saving Jesus from the Church’ and that will be my reading for a while.
And may God bless us every one.

GG

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I'd buy that for a dollar GG. The thread, not the book. Well that too. Eighth Day explores this.

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I'd buy that for a dollar GG. The thread, not the book. Well that too. Eighth Day explores this.

Eighth Day?

GG

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

It's a section of the board that runs temporary topics for discussion. Currently it's on prayer. See the bottom of the discussion boards or go to: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=83

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

This post of Slacktivist sums up the political problem that has poisoned evangelicalism in the US.

Salvaation depends on "environmentalism" being a farce, and evolution being false. Oh, and true Christians vote GOP. Full stop.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0