A summation of "Progressive" Christianity beliefs.

[The Liturgist]

This list seems to be a summary of Progressive/Liberal Christianity written by someone who does not herself identify as Progressive or Liberal. As such, I would read it cautiously.

If I were you I wouldn’t take it altogether personally, since aside from the issue of human sexuality in many of its parishes (but not all; conservative Episcopalian parishes do exist and are surprisingly common), the Episcopal Church, thanks to its weekly recitation of the Nicene Creed, is much healthier in this respect than some other denominations where the Nicene Creed is not recited weekly.

And indeed Nashotah House, which to be fair also now supplies clergy to ACNA, is among the best seminaries in the US, a bastion of doctrinal orthodoxy. Many Eastern Orthodox priests used to go to Nashotah House for instruction in the Bible before the current system of seminaries was fully established.

 

[PloverWing]

Justice is giving everyone his due, or what he is owed, or what he has earned.

I think that what we are owed, and what we have earned, are two different concepts, which is part of what I was getting at with my examples.

The stranger is both due and owed non-violence from you as his human right.

[Infant children] were due food, clothing and shelter.

The idea of earning things is the idea of transactions: If you do something good for me, then you earn the right for me to do something good for you.

So, yes, but you've also spoken here of human rights which are ours simply by virtue of our existence. There's been no prior transaction with the stranger -- the stranger hasn't done anything for me that earns my good behavior in return -- but the stranger nevertheless has human rights that I am obligated to honor.

Going back to the original list, I would be happy to speak of "human rights" instead of "social justice", if that would make conversations go more smoothly.

 

[Clare73]

I think that what we are owed, and what we have earned, are two different concepts, which is part of what I was getting at with my example"s.

They are likewise the same concept.
I mowed your lawn. You owe me what I have earned thereby.

The idea of earning things is the idea of transactions: If you do something good for me, then you earn the right for me to do something good for you.

1) Justice is not about earning rights, it is about pre-existing rights.
I don't earn the right to be paid, I have the right to be paid if I render a service.
2) Service voluntarily rendered does not in justice obligate return service.

So, yes, but you've also spoken here of human rights which are ours simply by virtue of our existence. There's been no prior transaction with the stranger -- the stranger hasn't done anything for me that earns my good behavior in return -- but the stranger nevertheless has human rights that I am obligated to honor.

Going back to the original list, I would be happy to speak of "human rights" instead of "social justice", if that would make conversations go more smoothly.

And the authority for and statement of these human rights?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I was listening to Issue, etc. today and heard Alisa Childers give a summary of the Progressive movement. I looked her up on the internet and found her summation of progressive beliefs posted on the White Horse Inn archives.

**************

The Atonement
Often, progressive Christians will refer to Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross as horrific or unnecessary. The idea that God the Father would require the blood sacrifice of his Son is perceived to be an indictment on God’s character, turning him into a divine abuser. This is sometimes referred to as “Cosmic Child Abuse.”


Biblical Authority or Inspiration
In the progressive church, the Bible is viewed more like an ancient spiritual travel journal than the inspired, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God. The Biblical writers are viewed as well-meaning ancient people who were doing their best to understand God in the times and places in which they lived, but they were not necessarily speaking for God. Scripture is also seen as contradictory, not internally coherent, and not authoritative for Christians.


Original Sin
The doctrine of Original Sin is roundly rejected in progressive Christianity, with the idea of Original Blessing put in its place. Progressive Christians don’t typically deny that sin exists or that it is a bad thing. But they often deny the idea that we have some sort of a sin nature that was passed down to us from Adam and Eve. Instead, progressive Christians often teach that sin isn’t what separates us from God, but our own self-imposed shame. In the progressive view, it’s often taught that we simply need to realize that we were never separated in the first place…that we are beloved and accepted by God just as we are.


The Deity of Jesus
Certainly not all progressive Christians will deny Jesus’ deity, but this doctrine tends to be downplayed. The concept of “Cosmic Christ” is sometimes presented as our ultimate goal…that Jesus is a model and exemplar of someone who was christened as both human and divine, and we can follow his example by finding the divine within ourselves.


The Physical Resurrection of Jesus
Again, not every progressive denies the physical resurrection, but the idea that Jesus was bodily raised back to life is often deemed less important or significant than the meaning we can draw from the idea of resurrection.


The Virgin Birth
In the progressive church, the virgin birth and other miraculous events can be downplayed, ignored—or like the resurrection—viewed as less important than the life-lessons we can learn from these stories.


The Trinity
A denial of the deity of Jesus would naturally be a denial of the Trinity. But some progressive Christians take it further and affirm the view of pantheism, which states that the universe is God. Others will affirm a slightly less radical view called panentheism, which is the belief that God and the world are inter-related. God is in all and all is in God. This implies that God is somehow dependent upon creation, which casts serious aspersions on the nature of the Trinity.


The Sinlessness of Jesus
You probably won’t find many progressive Christians who outright declare that Jesus was a sinner. However, Jesus’ humanity tends to be emphasized. For example, in Matthew 15, Jesus tells the Syrophoenician woman, “It’s not good to take children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” This is viewed as Jesus’ having racial biases that were recognized and corrected during this exchange.

Affirmations​

LGBTQ Relationships and Marriage
One of the hallmarks of progressive Christianity is the shift on issues of sexuality and gender. There is an almost universal acceptance of same-sex relationships and marriage, a belief in the validity of transgenderism, and a rejection of cisgender norms.


Universalism / Universal Reconciliation
The primary view of heaven and hell in the progressive church is Universalism, which is the idea that no one will be punished in hell, and everyone will eventually be saved and restored to right relationship with God. Some progressive Christians will still say that Jesus is the only way, but believe he will save everyone.


The Gospel of Social Justice and Critical Theory
In progressive Christianity, the gospel is not seen primarily as the good news of God saving sinners and reconciling them to Himself. Instead, social justice issues become the heart of the gospel message, with what one does being viewed as more important than what one believes. Often, the secular framework of critical theory is embraced, where the world is viewed through the lens of oppressed vs. oppressor.


Pluralism
Religious pluralism is the idea that all roads lead to God, and no one religion holds ultimate truth when it comes to who God is and how he reveals himself to the world. Often, progressive Christians will tout the mantra, “Everyone has a seat at the table,” meaning all creeds and religions are true in their own way and the people who embrace them are equally accepted by God.


Pantheism, Panentheism or Perennialism
As stated above, many progressive Christians affirm pantheism or panentheism. Another view that is promoted in the progressive church is perennialism, the idea that although different religions look different on the outside, at their core they share the same truth. In other words, they share the same source and come from the same ultimate or divine reality. This divine reality can be discovered through mysticism and contemplative practices.

*********

My additional 2cents.... All GOSPEL and no LAW.

In much the same way, I think, that "Conservative Christianity" has little intrinsic meaning, "Progressive Christianity" often seems to have little intrinsic meaning.

The term "Progressive" seems like it's actually pretty hard to define here, as it relates to Christianity.

Something about myself: I tend to lean left on a number of political and social issues. I don't identify as a "Progressive Christian", though I've been identified by others as many things. The following is in the context of American politics: I believe in social welfare programs to mitigate against poverty, I believe that there should be a universal healthcare system and that we should abolish for profit insurance companies which are predatory and cruel. I believe that there should be a scaling tax system where the overwhelming tax burden should fall upon the wealthiest members of society. I believe that we should reduce military spending and move that money to cover infrastructure, public transportation, and social programs. I believe that we need to continue to address the ongoing problems of systemic racial injustice, and work toward increasing equity for all people. I believe in the goal of maximal equity, maximal prosperity, and maximal happiness--I use the word maximal because I'm not under the delusion that we can create anything near a utopia--but I do believe that we should always strive toward a society that maximizes human flourishing without discrimination based on wealth, race, gender, or any other identifying characteristic of a group of people. All people should be provided with the best opportunities possible toward a life in which they can have a roof over their head, food on their table, where there needs are met and in which they can live and raise families and not just survive, but have the real opportunity to thrive.

There are many other things to. I oppose private prisons and believe in massive prison reform. I believe that policing in this country is a total failure and needs a major overhaul--I believe very strongly in the rule of law and the necessity for its enforcement to curb against evil; but a system which perpetuates that same evil is a broken system. I believe that we need stronger anti-monopoly laws, corporations are getting too big, and their interests consistently trump the interests of the people. There should be term limits for members of members of Congress, and drastically reduce their salary--they should be working for the people of this country.

In all of these things I am what is called a "progressive" or a "leftist". I don't think I'm a "Progressive Christian", but I am a social progressive who is very much a Christian.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PloverWing]

And the authority for and statement of these human rights?

As a Christian, I look to the teachings of Jesus for much of my instruction in ethics.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In much the same way, I think, that "Conservative Christianity" has little intrinsic meaning, "Progressive Christianity" often seems to have little intrinsic meaning.

The term "Progressive" seems like it's actually pretty hard to define here, as it relates to Christianity.

Something about myself: I tend to lean left on a number of political and social issues. I don't identify as a "Progressive Christian", though I've been identified by others as many things. The following is in the context of American politics: I believe in social welfare programs to mitigate against poverty, I believe that there should be a universal healthcare system and that we should abolish for profit insurance companies which are predatory and cruel. I believe that there should be a scaling tax system where the overwhelming tax burden should fall upon the wealthiest members of society. I believe that we should reduce military spending and move that money to cover infrastructure, public transportation, and social programs. I believe that we need to continue to address the ongoing problems of systemic racial injustice, and work toward increasing equity for all people. I believe in the goal of maximal equity, maximal prosperity, and maximal happiness--I use the word maximal because I'm not under the delusion that we can create anything near a utopia--but I do believe that we should always strive toward a society that maximizes human flourishing without discrimination based on wealth, race, gender, or any other identifying characteristic of a group of people. All people should be provided with the best opportunities possible toward a life in which they can have a roof over their head, food on their table, where there needs are met and in which they can live and raise families and not just survive, but have the real opportunity to thrive.

There are many other things to. I oppose private prisons and believe in massive prison reform. I believe that policing in this country is a total failure and needs a major overhaul--I believe very strongly in the rule of law and the necessity for its enforcement to curb against evil; but a system which perpetuates that same evil is a broken system. I believe that we need stronger anti-monopoly laws, corporations are getting too big, and their interests consistently trump the interests of the people. There should be term limits for members of members of Congress, and drastically reduce their salary--they should be working for the people of this country.

In all of these things I am what is called a "progressive" or a "leftist". I don't think I'm a "Progressive Christian", but I am a social progressive who is very much a Christian.

-CryptoLutheran

And yet we put a stake in the ground somewhere to begin our discussion. Not all of Alisa Childers listing applies to all liberals or progressives. But some of the talking points will. I rather enjoy a more exhaustive listing than confined. The only progressive I have studied more than just causal is Richard Rohr (due to a personal friend caught up in his religious scheme).....of which a majority of the listing would apply to him.https://whitehorseinn.org/multi_author/alisa-childers/

 

[PloverWing]

If I were you I wouldn’t take it altogether personally, since aside from the issue of human sexuality in many of its parishes (but not all; conservative Episcopalian parishes do exist and are surprisingly common), the Episcopal Church, thanks to its weekly recitation of the Nicene Creed, is much healthier in this respect than some other denominations where the Nicene Creed is not recited weekly.

I agree that the Nicene Creed helps keep us anchored. The words of the liturgy do, as well.

It's not so much personal offense that's the issue. It's more that her descriptions of Liberal/Progressive beliefs are "off" in their wording, described using phrasing that Liberals or Progressives wouldn't use if they were speaking for themselves, as though she doesn't deeply understand their beliefs.

Contrast, for example, N. T. Wright, several of whose books I've recently read. He's on the small-o-orthodox side of things, emphasizing (for example) the importance of Jesus' literal resurrection. When he writes about the Liberal point of view, he writes as though he genuinely understands that viewpoint and why people would hold it, but then he goes on to say why he disagrees. That's the kind of understanding and accuracy that I expect from a list like this, if it's going to be any use to me.

 

[PloverWing]

I suppose I should add something about my personal beliefs, in case anyone's wondering what label describes me.

I tend to use the word "Progressive" to describe the cluster of social/ethical issues and "Liberal" to describe the cluster of scholarly/theological issues. (I acknowledge that others use the terms differently. There's no Liberal Creed or Progressive Creed.) Progressive ethical views and Liberal theological views are often held by the same people, but they're different.

My ethical views are very similar to what @ViaCrucis described above. For me, these views are very much a consequence of studying the teachings of Jesus, and for the life of me I don't know why they aren't more widely held among Inerrantists. I'm comfortable calling this cluster of views "Progressive", but I'm not wedded to that label.

My theological views hold two things together, somewhat in tension. On the one hand, I affirm the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds, and I try to be strongly informed by the historical theology of the church. On the other hand, I accept modern critical scholarship of the Bible and modern science. That makes me...moderately Liberal, perhaps? It's something of a (ahem) via media, I suppose, or maybe just the acknowledgement that we can't go back and pretend that scholarship and science didn't happen, but rather that we have to push through it and see what lies on the other side.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In much the same way, I think, that "Conservative Christianity" has little intrinsic meaning, "Progressive Christianity" often seems to have little intrinsic meaning.

The term "Progressive" seems like it's actually pretty hard to define here, as it relates to Christianity.

Something about myself: I tend to lean left on a number of political and social issues. I don't identify as a "Progressive Christian", though I've been identified by others as many things. The following is in the context of American politics: I believe in social welfare programs to mitigate against poverty, I believe that there should be a universal healthcare system and that we should abolish for profit insurance companies which are predatory and cruel. I believe that there should be a scaling tax system where the overwhelming tax burden should fall upon the wealthiest members of society. I believe that we should reduce military spending and move that money to cover infrastructure, public transportation, and social programs. I believe that we need to continue to address the ongoing problems of systemic racial injustice, and work toward increasing equity for all people. I believe in the goal of maximal equity, maximal prosperity, and maximal happiness--I use the word maximal because I'm not under the delusion that we can create anything near a utopia--but I do believe that we should always strive toward a society that maximizes human flourishing without discrimination based on wealth, race, gender, or any other identifying characteristic of a group of people. All people should be provided with the best opportunities possible toward a life in which they can have a roof over their head, food on their table, where there needs are met and in which they can live and raise families and not just survive, but have the real opportunity to thrive.

There are many other things to. I oppose private prisons and believe in massive prison reform. I believe that policing in this country is a total failure and needs a major overhaul--I believe very strongly in the rule of law and the necessity for its enforcement to curb against evil; but a system which perpetuates that same evil is a broken system. I believe that we need stronger anti-monopoly laws, corporations are getting too big, and their interests consistently trump the interests of the people. There should be term limits for members of members of Congress, and drastically reduce their salary--they should be working for the people of this country.

In all of these things I am what is called a "progressive" or a "leftist". I don't think I'm a "Progressive Christian", but I am a social progressive who is very much a Christian.

-CryptoLutheran

What do you think about the great elephant in the room - NASA?

 

[ViaCrucis]

And yet we put a stake in the ground somewhere to begin our discussion. Not all of Alisa Childers listing applies to all liberals or progressives. But some of the talking points will. I rather enjoy a more exhaustive listing than confined. The only progressive I have studied more than just causal is Richard Rohr (due to a personal friend caught up in his religious scheme).....of which a majority of the listing would apply to him.Christianity vs. Progressive Theology

But, and I say this just for the sake of making discussion, if we were to flip this, would we be able to come up with a summation of "Conservative Christian" beliefs?

I guess where I'm going with this is that I think we are confusing subjects by conflating theology and doctrinal positions with social or economic positions.

By doing that I think we, ultimately, wouldn't be having an honest conversation.

For example, I think we'd all agree that calling Mormons "Conservative Christians" would be incorrect. Largely because, theologically, doctrinally, they aren't Christian. Though if we were to look at the political, social, economic (et al) views of the LDS church it would fit within the broadly conservative camp, right of center rather than left. Further, we wouldn't lump together the political/social/economic (et al) views of Mormons/the LDS church with their doctrine.

In other words, heresy is heresy. It's neither right nor left.

So what would "Conservative Christianity" look like? How would we sum it up? Do Conservative Christians believe in the Real Presence of the Lord's Supper? If "Conservative" is being used to describe historic doctrines of Christianity--then yes it would. But there are a lot of Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals who would have something to say about that.

Is believing in Young Earth Creationism a doctrine of Conservative Christianity? Lots here would say yes. Does that mean accepting evolution, or being an Old Earth Creationist, a Gap Theorist, or an Evolutionary Creationist/Theistic Evolutionist "Progessive"?

I'm not trying to kill the discussion. I just don't think we can lump doctrinal positions with political/social positions.

In my opinion someone like Shelby Spong (best example I can think of, I'm not familiar with Richard Rohr) is simply heretical and apostate. And it would have nothing to do with what he thinks about certain political and social issues, and it has everything to do with what he says about Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

What do you think about the great elephant in the room - NASA?

Like, NASA NASA? One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind NASA? I feel like maybe something has gone right over my head.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

But, and I say this just for the sake of making discussion, if we were to flip this, would we be able to come up with a summation of "Conservative Christian" beliefs?

I guess where I'm going with this is that I think we are confusing subjects by conflating theology and doctrinal positions with social or economic positions.

By doing that I think we, ultimately, wouldn't be having an honest conversation.

For example, I think we'd all agree that calling Mormons "Conservative Christians" would be incorrect. Largely because, theologically, doctrinally, they aren't Christian. Though if we were to look at the political, social, economic (et al) views of the LDS church it would fit within the broadly conservative camp, right of center rather than left. Further, we wouldn't lump together the political/social/economic (et al) views of Mormons/the LDS church with their doctrine.

In other words, heresy is heresy. It's neither right nor left.

So what would "Conservative Christianity" look like? How would we sum it up? Do Conservative Christians believe in the Real Presence of the Lord's Supper? If "Conservative" is being used to describe historic doctrines of Christianity--then yes it would. But there are a lot of Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals who would have something to say about that.

Is believing in Young Earth Creationism a doctrine of Conservative Christianity? Lots here would say yes. Does that mean accepting evolution, or being an Old Earth Creationist, a Gap Theorist, or an Evolutionary Creationist/Theistic Evolutionist "Progessive"?

I'm not trying to kill the discussion. I just don't think we can lump doctrinal positions with political/social positions.

In my opinion someone like Shelby Spong (best example I can think of, I'm not familiar with Richard Rohr) is simply heretical and apostate. And it would have nothing to do with what he thinks about certain political and social issues, and it has everything to do with what he says about Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

Quit crying in your beer. Does a confession Lutheranism affirm or deny the listing? Shelby Spong, Markus Borg, JOhn Dominic Crossan and Robert Funk are defacto Richard Rohr philosphically.....panenthesists.

Progressives and liberals portray the "Christ of faith" is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. They reconstruct the historical Jesus portraying him as an itinerant sage and faith healer who preached a gospel of liberation from injustice in startling parables and aphorisms. Progressive Christianity is by definition political in nature. It can't be avoided because it is the only thing that is appealing about it to the masses....unless your are only into deconstructionism.

Bucks to bottle tops....progressives affirm one or more of Childers listing.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Perhaps we are really talking about the shift from Classical Theism to Process Theology or Neoclassic Theism.

 

[bbbbbbb]

But, and I say this just for the sake of making discussion, if we were to flip this, would we be able to come up with a summation of "Conservative Christian" beliefs?

I guess where I'm going with this is that I think we are confusing subjects by conflating theology and doctrinal positions with social or economic positions.

By doing that I think we, ultimately, wouldn't be having an honest conversation.

For example, I think we'd all agree that calling Mormons "Conservative Christians" would be incorrect. Largely because, theologically, doctrinally, they aren't Christian. Though if we were to look at the political, social, economic (et al) views of the LDS church it would fit within the broadly conservative camp, right of center rather than left. Further, we wouldn't lump together the political/social/economic (et al) views of Mormons/the LDS church with their doctrine.

In other words, heresy is heresy. It's neither right nor left.

So what would "Conservative Christianity" look like? How would we sum it up? Do Conservative Christians believe in the Real Presence of the Lord's Supper? If "Conservative" is being used to describe historic doctrines of Christianity--then yes it would. But there are a lot of Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals who would have something to say about that.

Is believing in Young Earth Creationism a doctrine of Conservative Christianity? Lots here would say yes. Does that mean accepting evolution, or being an Old Earth Creationist, a Gap Theorist, or an Evolutionary Creationist/Theistic Evolutionist "Progessive"?

I'm not trying to kill the discussion. I just don't think we can lump doctrinal positions with political/social positions.

In my opinion someone like Shelby Spong (best example I can think of, I'm not familiar with Richard Rohr) is simply heretical and apostate. And it would have nothing to do with what he thinks about certain political and social issues, and it has everything to do with what he says about Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

Precisely. That is the point I have been attempting to make. Christianity is peripherally engaged with social and political culture, but is a theological belief system, pure and simple. The focus on the discussion IMO ought to be on theology in which case, as you have clearly pointed out, there are very significant definitions of conservative and liberal based, not on objective truth per se, but on things such as tradition and hermeneutics.

 

[The Liturgist]

Perhaps we are really talking about the shift from Classical Theism to Process Theology or Neoclassic Theism.

Well Process theology is purely heretical; if anyone is aware of anyone outside of the UUA, for example, a mainline parish pastor, who is teaching Process theology, please let me know.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The focus on the discussion IMO ought to be on theology in which case, as you have clearly pointed out, there are very significant definitions of conservative and liberal based, not on objective truth per se, but on things such as tradition and hermeneutics.

I would phrase this differently.....maybe things of "tradition" but certainly not hermeneutics. A good dose hermeneutics is sorely needed here at CF.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Well Process theology is purely heretical; if anyone is aware of anyone outside of the UUA, for example, a mainline parish pastor, who is teaching Process theology, please let me know.

This is what I mean. Neoclassical theist view of life, I think, tends to be progressive and I think that involves a different interpretation of life and how we ought to live it.

 

[Clare73]

As a Christian, I look to the teachings of Jesus for much of my instruction in ethics.

Keeping in mind the subject is justice.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I would phrase this differently.....maybe things of "tradition" but certainly not hermeneutics. A good dose hermeneutics is sorely needed here at CF.

I agree with you. CF definitely seems to b hermeneutically challenged.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Keeping in mind the subject is justice.

Actually, the OP is not about justice, but about a summation of "Progressive Christianity".