First,
McGrath says that Progressive Christianity is a reaction fundamentalist and
literalist views of the Bible. Liberal Christianity, which arose out of the
Enlightenment, does the same thing. At this point, the liberal Christian and
the progressive Christian are one. Now, let me say that someone who self-identifies
as evangelical, orthodox, or conservative, could also react against the narrow
reading of the Bible that the fundamentalist often brings to the table. The
test case is whether one who seeks faithfulness to scripture also accepts the
findings of physics and biology. Wolfhart Pannenberg, in Chapter 7 of his Systematic Theology, is one who shows
the way in this regard. Science describes the world it sees, based upon its
procedures of tests and hypotheses. One does not need an ancient view of the
world of nature to say that God created the universe and caused life to burst
forth here. One can still affirm that the heavens declare the glory of God. My
point here is that the view one has of the Bible does not determine where one
ends up theologically. Other issues are involved, and it is time to explore
them.
Second, McGrath
defines Progressive Christianity in the following way.
Progressive Christianity is a broad
tradition, encompassing all forms of Christianity which honestly acknowledge
that being a Christian is not merely about preserving things from the past, but
innovating, revising, reforming, and creatively engaging with the present as
well.
In my view, this definition fits the conservative,
evangelical, and orthodox traditions far better. Among the many good points of
Pannenberg is that one does not establish the truth of Christian proclamation
in particular, historically conditioned statements. Such statements call for
continual testing in terms of their faithfulness to the subject matter of
scripture and to its truth. The point here is that the content and truth of
Christian teaching does not rest on consensus. Rather, knowledge of the subject
matter of scripture should produce consensus. Yet, even if we have consensus,
it stands in need of constant renewal because the exposition and interpretation
of scripture is still ongoing.[1]
Those faithful to the Bible have had to change as they move into differing
cultures and differing centuries.
Third, when he refers to
Progressive Christianity as a broad tradition, I simply disagree. He tries to
identify it with a tradition that goes back to the Reformation, but I do not
find him persuasive. In reality, Progressive Christianity is a relatively
recent and narrow movement. It has advanced beyond the liberal in that it
accepts a Marxist critique of the Enlightenment and Modernist view of the
world. McGrath specifically says that Progressive Christianity agrees with
atheism in challenging “anthropomorphic depictions of God,” promoting
scientific discoveries, and recognizing the historical and moral ways in which
the Bible is wrong. He thinks that if atheists were not reacting against
fundamentalism, they might find themselves open to a form of Christianity that
is “skeptical of the miraculous, committed to reason, and equally committed to
living lives of love and self-sacrifice.” Most of us who self-identify as
conservative or orthodox in our faith are not as incredulous and ready to
believe in every testimony of the miraculous as McGrath or the atheist suggest.
Even the Roman Catholic Church, while embracing such testimonies in certain
specific cases, does not do so universally. I will say that openness to things
that science cannot presently explain is a dimension of Christian life and
practice. Further, commitment to reason is thoroughly within the genuinely
broad and deep tradition of orthodox Christianity, as we find it expressed in
Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, John Wesley, Karl Barth, and Wolfhart Pannenberg.
When it comes to living lives of love and self-sacrifice, I find this far more
evident in missionaries, in Mother Teresa, in St. Francis, and in many others
of orthodox belief, as over against many self-identified progressives.
Fourth, McGrath gets to the nub of
the issue, however, when he says that Progressive Christianity is willing to
revise theology, beliefs, and values based upon new evidence. This path opens
the way to liberate the Progressive Christian from accountability to Jesus and
to the biblical witness. For the traditional believer, Jesus and the biblical
witness is the path to the freedom of the children of God. For the Progressive
Christian, Jesus and the biblical witness have become a prison. This amounts to
placing present interpretation of experience above the depth of tradition. He
refers favorably to an explanation of the Unitarian-Universalist view that
rejects the Trinity, and that therefore Jesus is one valuable teacher among
many. He admits that Progressive Christianity is open to revising views of God,
and of everything else. Thus, God is:
an experience of
belonging — not just to a family, or a nation, or even a galaxy, but to
everything: the experience of ultimate belonging. The experience of God
intimately and extensively CONNECTS us to everything — all that is present in our
lives and our world, as well as all that is past and all that is possible.
In a word, God is the
experience of possibility.
Little wonder, then, that a Progressive Christian finds the
concept of “mending the universe” (a term found in a willingness to serve form
submitted to the Indiana Annual Conference) an appealing mission.
Little
wonder, again, that some Progressive Christians are comfortable with the term
“atheist Christian.” It forms the typical elitist jab that one might find in
the faculty lounge of almost every public university.
McGrath
comes back to the commitment by the Progressive Christian to revising and
revisiting historic beliefs and values, contrasting such openness with
accepting what the Bible and Jesus say with obedience without questioning or
understanding. Such a Christian will not unquestioningly follow anything in the
Bible, and that includes Jesus. Karl Barth will say that our study of Christian
teaching will lead to new questions as we constantly test what the church
proclaims and what the Bible wants it to proclaim. If questioning ceased, we
would be at the end of history. The kingdom of God would have dawned.[2]
In the words of Pannenberg, God alone has the competence to speak the final
word about the work of God in history.[3]
Many of us have a personality that naturally asks “Why.” I would be among them.
I am not sure anyone can take seriously the Bible or Jesus without asking
questions. In fact, classic Christianity has always revisited its teachings. We
see examples in various historic creeds, in differing uses of philosophy (Plato
in Augustine and Aristotle in Aquinas), in renewal movements within the Roman
Catholic Church, in Reformation, in Evangelical Renewal, and in many other
ways. The Christian tradition has depth and breadth because it must continually
revisit its beliefs and values. The tradition is dynamic in that sense. It does
not speak with a single voice.
The overlap
McGrath describes between the Progressive Christian and the atheist is a
problem. I have read several recent atheist authors such as Sam Harris, Richard
Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett. As intelligent as they obviously are, they have an
infantile knowledge regarding religion. The most obvious place one sees this
shallowness is the accusation of superstition. Anyone who reads seriously the
depth of thought contained within Christianity, the insight of Buddhism, the
practices of Hinduism, could hardly dismiss it with the label of superstition.
Further, when referring to sacred writings, to read it with literalness is to
read it in ways that, at least within the Christian tradition, have not been
the primary way to read the text. My point is that Progressive Christianity
shares this infantile and shallow reading of the Christian tradition in which
atheists have long engaged with the purpose of discrediting the sacred text.
The motive of the Progressive Christian in identifying with such an infantile
reading of the sacred text that the Progressive Christian claims to honor is a
mystery to me.
Although
McGrath does not explore specific matters that are before the churches today, I
would like to explore two.
One is the
place of Jesus in Christianity. As strange as it feels to me to have to explain
this, I will offer my view. For Christian teaching, the subjective matter is
the act of God in Jesus of Nazareth. This act is the object of the faith of the
church and of all individual Christians. Christian faith from the very first
has confessed Jesus of Nazareth and the act of God in him. This is the essence
of the confessions and dogmas of Christianity. He reveals the love of God to
humanity. God has brought clarity into human history by offering the Son, Jesus
of Nazareth to offer his word and deed, his sacrificial life, for us. The
witness of the apostles is that God raised him from the dead. I accept their
testimony. I do so with many questions. I do not find it easy. Yet, I accept it
and have sought to live my life by the belief that my life needs to be about
Jesus. What this means for me is that the orthodox view of the Trinity is
central. The development of this teaching arose out of the experience of God in
Christ and in the power of the Spirit. It resolves a tension that we find in
the Old Testament, but I would suggest, in the history of religion as well. The
tension is between the transcendence and immanence of God. Yes, God transcends
nature and history. God has a life, so to speak, beyond the world of human
experience. Yet, God has entered the world God has made for no other reason
than that God loves this world. God especially has seen the self-destructive
nature of humanity and has entered the human condition in order to show the way
to healing and liberation of what ails humanity. God has entered the world in
Jesus of Nazareth, and God continues to enter the world through the presence of
the Holy Spirit.
Two is the
place of the moral teaching of the Bible, but especially that of the Ten
Commandments, Jesus, and Paul. Here is not the place to offer a broad ethic,
although I would strongly suggest that you read the beatitudes, the parables of
Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount, the household rules of Paul, and the vice and
virtue list of Paul. To my way of thinking, read prayerfully and with a desire
to understand and ask questions, one will have a good grasp of the kind of life
we are to lead. However, the place where these values seem attacked today is
that of family and sexuality. Jesus made it clear that marriage is between man
and woman. We see it in his presence at weddings, in his parables of weddings,
and in his bringing back to the creation of humanity the institution of
marriage in Mark 10:6-8. Paul does so in his household rules and in his
exploration of marriage in I Corinthians 5-7. If read with humility and
willingness to learn, as well as with questions, one will gain wisdom in what
both Jesus and Paul have to teach us regarding family and sexuality. Unfortunately,
saying you are “for” this understanding of family and sexuality means to many
that you discriminate based upon fear, as yet another clergy “willingness to
serve” form put it. Yet, to offer anecdotal evidence from my experience, Christians
of all stripes work with people who differ from them in beliefs and values all
the time. They still love their neighbors and treat them respectfully. Most
have family members whom they continue to love while disagreeing with the
lifestyle choices they make.
At this
point, let me briefly return to the role of Scripture in the formation of faith
and values in the lives of many of Christians. What I find in the Bible is a
reliable witness to what God is doing in Israel and therefore what God is doing
in Jesus. Of course, the focus of my attention is Jesus. The witness of the
apostles is reliable. I am willing to lay my life alongside the Bible, meditate
upon it, and accept its wisdom for my life. I do so with many questions that I
keep exploring. I understand the struggle with matters of science and history,
and I suppose I have my way of thinking through these things that some who hold
to conservative theology might not like. At the same time, I do not find that
questions in these areas demand a conclusion that one needs to place classic,
orthodox, conservative Christianity in the trash-heap of history.
Fifth, McGrath
includes the matter of progressive politics in his considerations. He admits
that some Progressive Christians will hold to orthodox beliefs, but hold to a
progressive politics. He is at least hinting that one might be evangelical and
progressive. However, the caveat is that they must then accept progressive
politics. Here is what I have noticed. Progressives can “forgive” someone who
holds to orthodox beliefs only if their politics are “progressive.” That which
unifies the progressive side of American culture is not its religious opinions
or judgments, but its politics. This fact elevates a political agenda above the
theological. I might suggest that the political has become an idol, the true
god of the movement. Their willingness to demonize anyone who disagrees with
their political positions as misogynist, haters of gays, racist, and so on,
suggests as much. These political beliefs must embrace the agenda of the
various radical politics of the day, which one might broadly define as identity
politics. Your “tribe” defines you. If your tribe is homosexual, then 98% of
the people oppress you. You are on the margins. If your tribe is black, then
white people oppress you. If your tribe is white, you have received privilege.
If your tribe is woman, the male has oppressed and used you. Such an approach examines
America from a radical perspective, and therefore the nation had an
illegitimate founding. Its present is immoral. Understanding this explains why
the Progressive wants the American footprint in the world to decline, the
economy to decline, and moral values (much of it traditionally Christian but
also Enlightenment) to decline. What defines America are its sins, especially
racism and greed, rather than its commitment to liberty and justice. For the
Progressive, their opponents are evil. For their conservative opponents, the
Progressive is wrong. These are two quite different forms of argument. The
Progressive seeks to shame their opposition into submission. The attempt to
purge the language of politically incorrect statements is a powerful example. Their
conservative opponents seek to persuade through rational discourse.
McGrath
makes it clear that poverty is not something the poor create, but a system of
capitalism that impoverishes them. The poor are victims. Such a notion is pure
Marxism, a term I use in a descriptive way, as one who has read Marx, and not
in a pejorative way. It will see the political and economic world as the
opposition of rich and poor, the one percent against everyone else, and so on. It
fails to see the multi-faceted reasons that persons in a free society might be
poor. Of course, this means moving away from a romantic notion of the self and
to a more realistic view of the self as “crooked timber,” as Immanuel Kant put
it. I have seen it. Some may have slowness of learning. Some may have never
learned the proper attitudes and behaviors that would lead to a healthy
participation in the economic system. The clearest example would be those who
commit themselves to drugs and alcohol. To my knowledge, no one is sitting
around thinking how to keep people out of the economic system. In fact, if you
have learned to make a valuable contribution to a business, you will find work.
The Marxist interpretation of capitalism alienates the poor from the very
people who would love to help them out of poverty. My point is that an economic
system rooted in freedom on the side of producers, consumers, and employees requires
that people learn what it takes to engage the system.
On the
anecdotal side of this matter, the journey of Tony Campolo and David Neff
suggest that the inevitable journey of the evangelical left will be toward a
thoroughly progressive Christianity. The hoped for “center” will not hold.
As I review
this essay, I have a few concluding remarks.
For one thing, I do not assume that
McGrath has defined the totality of Progressive Christianity. However, I hope
he has given me a reasonable grasp of this movement. He expresses the need for
humility and generosity in such discussions. I have sought to express myself in
that way. I will say, however, that the Progressive Christians I know are far
from humble and generous with classic, traditional, evangelical, and orthodox Christians.
I think Progressive Christians are wrong in the direction they want to take the
church. They think I am evil. It will be difficult to have a humble
conversation in such a context.
For another
thing, I believe we are moving toward a time in America when to hold the
beliefs of traditional Christianity will be to risk the label of hate speech
from the Progressive in general and from the Progressive Christian in
particular. I do not think that those who hold to traditional or classic
Christianity are under any obligation to affirm ways of life it views as
leading to brokenness and imprisonment. It ought to follow Jesus, who calls us
to follow him, even as Jesus of Nazareth bid people to follow him long ago. The
story in John 8:1-11 is illustrative. The woman caught in adultery engaged in a
broken way of life. Others approached her simply in judgment. Jesus reminds us
all that we are sinners. Human beings unite in their brokenness. Yet, the one who
seeks to follow Jesus, the one who seeks to have Christ living within and who
seeks to live in Christ, is also one who, with the woman caught in adultery,
hears the word of Jesus, “Go, and sin and no more.” Human brokenness and
imprisonment spiritually has the possibility of healing and liberation. It does
involve a way of life, a journey, in which we stumble, lose our way, and fall.
It also involves Jesus, who walks with us and lifts us up.
One final
point I offer, but with a caveat. I recognize that some Progressive Christians
would themselves as “evangelical” and “orthodox,” and believe their Progressive
Christianity arises out of their relationship with Jesus. Karl Barth in a 1952
letter, wrote to Rudolf Bultmann that the deepening differences between them
are a bit like the whale and the elephant who met each other on the shore. They
had gotten so deep into their ways of thinking that they were talking past each
other. They no longer understood each other. I feel something like that when I
hear someone speak of faithfulness to Jesus and the Bible while arguing against
what Jesus and the Bible say. However, for other Progressive Christians as
McGrath defines them, I think the following concern applies. The end of John 6
contains a powerful story. After Jesus has said some tough and unpopular things
to say, some of his disciples left him. They no longer wanted to associate with
him. Jesus gives the Twelve a chance to leave. Of course, they do not leave.
They continue associating with Jesus. Yet, I would suggest that if Progressive
Christianity were what James F. McGrath says it is, it would take the
opportunity to leave Jesus behind. Their notion of progress has taken them to
the point of “progressing” past Jesus and into new experiences of the present
that are decidedly without the guidance Jesus brings.
Facebook post: A thoughtful and interesting read, and I appreciate the perspective! I admit, I had a few cringe moments when trying to determine if I agree with the definition of progressive. As you noted, the trouble is progressive Christianity has a lack of clear lines to define it. Thank you for the well laid out examination.
ReplyDeleteFacebook post: I guess my question is what is a Christian. This is not to be snarky mind you, but if we are going to speak about a cross section of Christianity, we should have first a working definition of what Christian is so that there can be an accurate comparison.
ReplyDeleteFacebook Post: Lots of good thoughts in the article, but it's hard to tell which are McGrath's and which are Plasterers. And, I'm not really sure I can subscribe to the definition of all the labels.
ReplyDeleteWhen someone says "conservative" or 'orthodox", that necessarily carries with it a timestamp. You can only be orthodox in terms of some version of orthodoxy that existed at same point in time (perhaps today). For example, orthodox Christianity was decidedly anti-Semitic for a long time. Is that the orthodoxy you subscribe to (I'll assume no). Should we talk about heliocentrism?
Likewise, when you use the term "progressive" it can mean to challenge assumptions held by the orthodoxy of some time period. It was progressives who (attempted to) get anti-Semitism out of the Christian faith (and mostly progressives who continue that struggle). You would also have to count St. Ignatius as progressive, along with St. Augustine (mentioned by the author) as well as many others along the way.
So Christian progressivism has been around at least since Pentecost. And you could argue (I will) that Jesus was a progressive, because he argued against the assumptions held by the orthodox of his day.
The whole history of Christianity is progressives saying "look - we have a better though / idea / method" countered by conservatives saying "there's nothing wrong with where we are right now". In fact, you could say that Protestant Evangelicals of the 60's and 70's were progressives, because they built the Protestant arguments about abortion. Protestant orthodoxy prior to that was "meh".
If it were not for progressives, the entire Christian movement would have been considered to be fully formed and developed when it was delivered from the womb at Pentecost. There would be no need for Scriptural study, Paul's work (and the other Epistle writers) and all of the theologians and philosophers who have argued, challenged, and found better ways over the millennia. Rejecting progressivism is the same as saying "we got it - we're done. No need to improve."
My Response: As I think my article makes clear, orthodoxy has always been more flexible than the progressive wants to face. The progressive wants to set up a straw person that has never existed, a "conservative" that never changes. The progressive today has a very clear political agenda and a somewhat ambiguous theological agenda.
Facebook post: Orthodox commonly refers to Eastern Orthodox of course, while orthodox commonly refers to those whose faith conforms to the big three creeds. As for what defines a "progressive" I have no idea. I have asked the question often and the only constant is the willingness to ask questions about everything. That of course assumes that my orthodox faith came about because I asked no questions about anything. The closest things to actual definitions of progressive Christianity that I have seen are either 8 point progressiveism or the phoenix confession or often some variation of those two.
ReplyDeleteMy experience with progressive Christians has often been that they are dismissive of any form of traditionalism, any concrete answer about faith, and have fallen into many of the heresies of the early church. This is not all of course, just the sampling I have seen. They have also often been very quick to label everything that is not theologically liberal as fundamentalist. Again, not all, just most I have had contact with.
I think that there are many who are more than willing to talk about what progressive christian is to them, but no one is willing to make any distinctive statements about what actually constitutes progressive Christian as an identity.
Tom on facebook: I consider myself a progressive. Actually, I'm probably a little left of most progressives.
ReplyDeleteI'm not setting up any sort of 'straw man' that says conservatives never change. In fact, my comments were all about the definition of progressive and conservative needing a time reference, because they do change over time.
At any point in the history of Christianity, there was aa defined (sort of) orthodoxy, or some confusion about certain points. In either case, some people (conservatives) clung to the views they held. Other people (progressives) held different views and wanted to pull people toward that view. In some cases conservatives won, and resulted in the Church holding to a certain view over a long period of time. In other cases, the progressives won and the Church moved. There have been setbacks, but the process has almost always improved the Church, either by strengthening beliefs or by improving our ability to follow Jesus.
Progressives will be with you always. Conservatives will be too. They are all part of God's Church.
Tom on Facebook: Like most things, there is more than one definition of progressive. Some people self-label themselves as progressives because they sign on to the 8 points you mentioned. It's like calling yourself "evangelical" because ou're part of a movement, not because you're an evangelist.
ReplyDeleteI don't consider my self to be a "progressive" because I've signed onto some movement - in fact I disagree with them on a number of things and don't want to associate with that team. But as a social and Christian progressive, I find myself willing to ask questions and challenge those things that don't make sense to me.
All of us (at least most of the people who spend time on this page) ask questions because they're interested in the answers. Some people listen to those answers and say "that makes sense". Other people listen to them and say "how can I verify that"? And "that doesn't seem to make sense to me". I definitely put myself in the latter category, which is not to say that I don't accept things that people tell me. In fact, I've learned a lot by interacting with you and a few others on this page.
Progressives are people who are naturally disposed to listen to the answers and try to improve on them. Conservatives are more willing to accept the answers as given because they like the sense of certainty that comes with that. Neither is always right or always wrong; I accept lots of stuff because I read things the same way, or I don't know anything about it, or because it just makes sense. I'm certain that you have tried to change some things because the answers didn't make sense, so you researched it and came up with a better answer.
That's it. Neither place is inherently evil. The evil would be if we quit trying to develop a better understanding of Jesus.
Scott on facebook: "Progressives are people who are naturally disposed to listen to the answers and try to improve on them. Conservatives are more willing to accept the answers as given because they like the sense of certainty that comes with that."
ReplyDeleteIt is a nifty definition, but by it, I would properly be called a progressive. Ask around, I doubt you will find many who would agree with that.
Tom on facebook: Well, if you're challenging orthodoxy with a view toward changing it, then you're at least an activist. I guess if you want to change it back to the way it was in some previous time, that would make you a conservative activist rather than progressive.
ReplyDeleteScott on facebook: What would you call someone who had examined and challenged the answers and found them not needing improvement?
ReplyDeleteTom on facebook: Lacking in imagination.
Tom and Scott: just wondering if either of you have read Pannenberg. His Systematic Theology is an attempt to re-think every doctrine and creed of the church in light of modern/post-modern philosophy, science, psychology, and sociology. He will do so in a conservative way, in that he takes the tradition seriously, both the Bible and official tradition, but he also does not simply accept them because of some notion of their "authority." Just wondering!
ReplyDeleteTom: Nope. I'm so backed up in reading that I may need to have a book sale on things I haven't started yet.
ReplyDeleteNo and to be honest, I probably won't. There are a great many things on the list already. That, combined with, unless I and a slew of others are mistaken, he denies the virgin birth. While there is a lot of good stuff that he has said and come to conclusions about, denial of the virgin birth is sort of a big deal. Also, his idea of a form of progressive revelation, that is that God reveals Himself, indirectly, in history and continues to do so is a problem. God has revealed Himself to us through Christ and also through the scriptures. That is just me personally though.
Scott on facebook: did an excellent job of summing up what progressive Christian meant to him. In his summation is really the key to the discussion of Progressive Christianity. We can't honestly have one. Not because of a lack of effort, or for any bad reason really, just because it does not define itself in any meaningful way outside of the broad statement of willing to question. Talk to 10 progressive Christians, get 20 answers sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteDenying the virgin birth as biology and history, yes. If for you that is a deal breaker and not worth your time, then you are correct. I am not so sure about your idea of progressive revelation. Of course, "truth" has an open quality to him because it is part of the historical process. Yet, it also has a proleptic appearance in Jesus. In other words, his view of revelation is every bit as Christ-centered as your last sentence suggests. The reason I mentioned him, however, is that he engages in a re-thinking of Christian doctrine that is creative, open to new possibilities, as were Augustine and Aquinas, for example, but also respectful of the tradition.
ReplyDelete