Progressive. Maybe it's because I'm practically a card-carrying evangelical, but the word sets me on edge, especially when used in connection with religion. There's even a weblog called, Progressive Protestant. As far as I can tell the blog author is a nice, respectable guy, but the name of his blog still rankles me a little bit and here's why...
To say that your beliefs are progressive implies that other beliefs are regressive or backward. It implies a sense of superiority or elitism. It says, in effect, "My beliefs are much better than your old-fashioned, quaint beliefs." The progressive beliefs are somehow more advanced or evolved than the non-progressive beliefs. To further define the meaning of the term "Progressive Christianity" there's an organization called The Center for Progressive Christianity. They list their beliefs on their website as 8 Points, as follows:
I'm not going to go into a point by point refutation of "Progressive Christianity" (maybe some other time), but it's worth noting in the above points that certain key facets of the Christian faith are abandoned. Under this system of belief: Jesus Christ is no longer the only way to be saved. The sacrament of communion is no longer reserved only for those who believe in Christ. Point number four implies that there is no requirement as far as a belief system and point number 6 implies that there is no such thing as absolute truth and one would assume this includes the authority of scripture. There are other points listed that aren't loathsome at all. Afterall, who wouldn't want to resist evil, or act as a judge over other people. All churches should love others and show respect for their beliefs. However, most of the points here were considered heretical many centuries ago and still are.
A statement on the website expresses a certain hostility toward those with orthodox beliefs, "The claim that Jesus offers the only access to God for all people promotes attitudes that lead to racial and ethnic divisions." They go on to say,
"By promoting an acceptance of all people and a respect for other religious traditions, the Center can help transform evangelism from a divisive activity in our society to enterprise that, by its very nature, will promote peace and justice." [Source]
The real problem with "Progressive Christianity" is that it fails to recognize it isn't progressive. In my opinion, the "progressive" label is applied so it's adherents can feel clever and advanced. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD addressed a variety of heretical teachings very similar to the ones espoused by this group. As a result they issued the following doctrinal statement called The Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father (and the Son).
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
[Source]
Regardless of whether you agree with the Nicene Creed or not, you have to admit that the beliefs of the so-called "progressives" aren't exactly new. They've been addressed and found to be heretical. They are certainly different than orthodox Christian beliefs, but that doesn't make them progressive.
Personally, I have more respect for atheists who deny there is a God than I do for "progressive" Christians. The progressives want to keep only the stuff they like and reject the rest, but it just doesn't work that way. Afterall, Jesus said he was the only way to be saved and it's a little tricky to get around that. I imagine this post might prompt some response from these progressives. I'm not an expert in Church History or theology, but one thing I do know; there's nothing new under the sun. The progressive label is false advertising, or at best, misleading. I think it would be more accurate if they called themselves, "Heretical Christians".
I like to collect old books. I especially like finding old books with "new" or "modern" in the title like "New Math" or "Modern Social Concepts". It's fun to read these books because of a certain irony. The more they claim to be new or modern the more antiquated or dated they look. Let's hope it will be that way with "progressive" religion someday.
Additional Note: I have no idea if the author of the Progressive Protestant ascribes to any of the views I've discussed in this article. I do know that he's a big fan of John Kerry and in that respect he's a little mislead. :) However, it is possible to be a Bible-believing faithful Christian and not be a Republican.
The OBK folks were just talking about the 8 Points in the context of the proper response to "true for me, true for you" spirituality, and we came to the concensus that we could only accept points five and seven (of the 2003 version). So no, I don't subscribe to the pseudo-Christianity TCPC espouses, nor does Kenneth, who wrote the post you linked to when I was in Wisconsin working on the Edwards campaign.
However, I take exception to your criticism of the term "progressive". You could just as easily suggest using the term "evangelical" implies a sense of superiority/elitism as well, since it could suggest all other world-views have an imperfect understanding of the Gospels.
But I recommend reading Kenneth's post and the points he makes. Especially point 5. The post was written several months after the name change to "Progressive Protestant", and it wasn't even written by me, but point 5 sums up what I mean when I speak of a "progressive" Protestantism pretty well.
Posted by: Chris T at March 23, 2004 07:17 PMOops, I misspoke. I shouldn't speak as if the whole group actually decided on a consensus about the 8 Points. What I meant was that the prevailing opinion in the conversation was that most of the points were impossible to accept.
Posted by: Chris T at March 23, 2004 07:30 PMGood sir,
I can only speak for myself in saying that of the Eight Points espoused by TCPC, 2-6 are definitely apostate in nature, either partially or entirely. Number 1 doesn't mean much in light of Number 2. The two remaining points are fine and good, but a regenerating Christian faith they do not make. So my layman's opinion is that the Eight Points are totally unacceptable.
I consider myself "progressive" strictly and exclusively in the sense of Paul's "Forgetting the things that are behind and reaching out for the things that are ahead" (Philippians 3:13c NET)*This* is what I call Progressive Christianity, not the miasma with which you have erroneously associated me with.
If you want to call me an elitist, I can't stop you, but you'd find yourself arguing with Paul :-)
Chris T.: Personally, I'm thrilled that you find those points of TCPC's beliefs to be unacceptable. I suspected as much which is why I put the short disclaimer at the end.
As far as your contention that progressive doesn't imply a sense of superiority or elitism and that I could say the same about the term evangelical, I would have to disagree. A quick look at the dictionary finds this as the most common definition of Progressive: Moving forward; advancing.
For Evangelical: relating to or being a Christian church believing in personal conversion and the inerrancy of the Bible especially the 4 Gospels
Since progressive includes the concept of moving forward and evangelical is based on a belief in the gospels I don't think you can really make that accusation without squeezing awful hard. You might want to compare the antonyms of both progressive and evangelical as well.
As far as calling yourself "progressive" in the non-liberal sense, I understand what you're saying, but in the thesaurus the one word definition for Progressive is "Liberal" (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=progressive) so you might want to re-think that.
Progressive is one of those codewords, along with "diversity" that now has connotations beyond it's original meaning. (unfortunately)
Thanks all for commenting. Frankly I'm thrilled to discover a few less heretical liberals in this world. (That includes you Kenneth Vendler)
-Jim.
Now if I could only get you to "convert" to being Republicans (Chris T and Kenneth) I would really have something! :)
PS: I think you guys are in the same part of the country as me. I caught a reference to Rockford in one of your posts.
Well, I am liberal in the political sense, so "Progressive Protestant" is an appropriate label both for my fairly run-of-the-mill political liberalism (although I differ from the left on the basic ethics of abortion) and my fighting-for-space religious progressivism.
I just looked through your about page and it looks like I am indeed pretty close to you. In fact, one of my frat brothers lives outside Stillman Valley, and I usually drive through there on the way to the Northern Illinois Synod office for candidacy stuff. Kenneth is from further away, though—our friendship has been only virtual. ;-)
Posted by: Chris T at March 23, 2004 09:58 PMI might be closer to what one is being opposed to in this piece. When I look at the 8 points (and notice this is already a change from an earlier statement, so this shouldn't be understood in creedal terms) I find some agreement and disagreement.
1 and 2 I generally agree with. My concern about the language of gate is that I suspect that there a number of avenues in any one person whereby we become related to God, including family, friends, nature, and so on that don't fit into some "religious pattern". I think God can be found and is found in every day life and experience.
I fully agree with 3
The basic idea of 4 is the same as 3, God is what tears down barriers, provides some basis for recognizing a common life together. But this seems like an ideal, not an actuality.
5 is worded oddly: isn't the way I treat others an expression of my beliefs? It sounds like they've created a disconnect which shouldn't be. Our activities and our beliefs should flow into each other, not be at odds.
6 runs into a problem: One searches to find out, not to continously search. I agree that absolute certainty can be a roadblock to inquiry, has all sorts of dangers (maybe even idolatry?) but I don't search to search, I search because I think there may be answers to the problems of human existence. I don't know if the authors of this statement believe this to be the case.
I fully agree with 7 and 8
So this is just one take from someone who probably would get classified as a heretic *heh*
Dwight,
I don't have anything against someone who believes in all, some or even none of the 8 points listed. The point is that I think the "progressive" label is misleading and even the "Christian" label when it's applied too loosely.
Some of the 8 points are worded oddly and I think they're that way intentionally. I think there are some specific points that are being made, but I'm not necessarily aware of what all those issues are.
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.
-Jim.
I believe there are some things that cannot be over looked... like the acceptance of homosexuality, and agnostics. Because even Paul said in Romans that homosexuality came from our sinful nature, and is unnatural.
It seems as if the "Progressive Protestants" (the quotation marks because that is a label, and I don't like labels) likes to include everyone and have peace with all denominations, but that was not meant to be.
---49"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."--- Taken from Luke 12
Although I believe in the gathering of diff denominations, I would not go as far as all those 8 points.
PS--- my views
Pt1 Fully agree
Pt2 Disagree, because ---16Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.--- Taken from John 14
Pt3 That is what we want to achieve, to bring everyone to the Lord, then we can feast within God with them
Pt4 We invite them to come to the Lord, maybe through coming to our meetings, but not as full partners with them because ---14Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[1] ? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?--- Taken from 2Corinthians 6
Pt5 Although I don't like labels, I do look into what I'm being called these days, and the current trend, and I can't help but notice the way this is similar to the "Ethical Christians," to I understanding they believe that good works is more important than the belief itself... and I have to say that I strongly disagree because one might do social works for God, but I do not believe one BELIEVE in God for social work, it is about the emphasis
Pt6 I have to agree to one of the comment above, one does not search to search
Pt7 I can say that as a Christian, I believe we should hope for peace and justice, but we are not to strife for it because like what I mentioned above, Jesus is not here for peace, He is here for salvation. As for justice,---18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[1] says the Lord.--- Taken from Romans 12
Pt8 I have to disagree, I am labeled as an "Evangelical/Fundamental Protestant Christian," because I believe Salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ, and that God is not pleased through our conscientious effort, but pleased through our letting the Life Christ live out of us because God wants us to Glorify Him, I don't believe we can with our corruptible self as ---22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.--- Taken from Romans 3, but what better way to Glorify Him than to let Him Glorify Himself through us. Note, I am not saying that we can let ourselves to all sorts of sinful lusts, ---1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?--- Taken also from Romans 6
I do not hold myself as an authority on Religions and Christianity, because I am human, which is capable of error, but I believe in the Bible completely because it is God's Word, which is the Truth. I believe taking the Bible as literal as we can because when open to all sorts of free interpretation, it is easy for even nonChristians to twist God Word to favor them. So let the God's Word explain itself. And we need to take the Bible as a whole; we can't omit parts out of convenience. ---18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.--- Taken from Matthew 5 Quite a few verses above were taken from Romans, because it is the book that explains the doctrines of Salvation.
God Bless
Personal Note:
The main problem, I see, concerning the modern day Christians in the United States and around the globe, is they value outward appearances. They want the Church to be bigger, to have more activities, to sound nicer, to do more good works. One way of achieving this is to have more people agreeing with them, and have this outward unity. How do one have unity, when the doctrines are different? One simply change the doctrine. I'm not talking about cross denominations, but allowing sin to enter the Church of God. They twist or overlook God's word so that will suit them, but that is not good because all things in the Bible are important, and must be taken seriously.