Liberals vs. Progressives

[greenguzzi]

I consider myself a progressive, both politically and theologically. However on this forum I am sometimes accused of being a liberal. I am not a liberal.

Being Australian, there is also the added confusion of Australian English:

Our conservative party - Similar to the Tories and Republicans - is officially known as the "Liberal Party of Australia". And our Republican movement is mostly supported by progressives.​

But no, I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about the difference between progressive and liberal Christians.

I reckon the difference is that liberals are willing to openly accept diverse philosophies, whereas progressives need to be convinced first.

Liberals embrace the Enlightenment, Progressives are suspicious of it.
Liberals like modernism, progressives like postmodernism.
Liberals are undogmatic, progressives are painfully dogmatic.

Progressives question all traditions, liberals embrace all traditions
Progressives support social justice, but liberals probably do a better job doing it.
Progressives love intellectual rigor, liberals rate the intellect alongside other equally dubious traits.
Progressives understand the scientific method, liberals question it.
Progressive value the critical interpretation of the scripture. Liberals value all interpretations of the scripture.

Now, I'm sure that I've managed to offend everyone.
There is obviously heaps I have missed, plus plenty I have got wrong.

Hopefully I have started a discussion.

 

[Anguspure]

I'm not sure which box to hop into here, but I'm sure that somebody could place me.
The one box I really hate to be put in is the "religious" one.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not convinced that there is a systematic difference. Some people use "liberal" to refer to a caricatured 19th Cent approach, supposedly now superseded. So "progressive" becomes the new term. But as far as I'm concerned liberal Christianity is simply Christianity that has continued the reexamination of foundations started in the Reformation. Progressive seems like another term for essentially the same thing.

The one difference I can see is that sometimes progressive is used for positions that only accept some elements of the liberal position. I think some evangelicals prefer to be called progressive because they accept social justice, but not necessarily liberal theology.

But referring to the OP:
- Progressives question all traditions, liberals embrace all traditions
* The original liberal position was sparked by the Enlightenment. The key element was to reevaluate everything, including tradition. Liberals are often willing to embrace a variety of spiritual practices, but I think questioning all traditions is liberal.

* Progressives support social justice, but liberals probably do a better job doing it.
- I think most people who call themselves liberal or progressive have pretty much the same position here.

* Progressives love intellectual rigor, liberals rate the intellect alongside other equally dubious traits.
- Not in any form of liberal Christianity that I know. Historically, and currently, it's founded on Biblical scholarship and theology based on it.

*Progressives understand the scientific method, liberals question it.
- Huh? One of the key elements behind liberal theology was taking account of the results of science and scholarship.

* Progressive value the critical interpretation of the scripture. Liberals value all interpretations of the scripture.
- Huh? again. Critical interpretation came out of liberal Christianity. That was pretty much the key thing on which it's based.

I will say that "liberal" is used in two different ways. I'm thinking of traditional theological liberals, the liberalism based on current Biblical studies and a skepticism of the influence of Greek philosophy and religion on the early Church.

There's something else, which some scholars are calling "lay liberalism." I think the term is weird, but it's being used pretty widely. It seems to be what I've called "'Taint necessarily so" Christianity (after the wonderful song in Porgy and Bess). It's kind of a generic skepticism about our ability to ever really know anything about religion, and thus doubting pretty much everything. But that's not what liberal Christianity has meant historically, nor what people who call themselves liberal today typically mean by it.

 

[greenguzzi]

Thanks to both of you, that was quite helpful.

 

[greenguzzi]

PS:

Anguspure, I like your avatar.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I consider myself a progressive, both politically and theologically. However on this forum I am sometimes accused of being a liberal. I am not a liberal.

Being Australian, there is also the added confusion of Australian English:

Our conservative party - Similar to the Tories and Republicans - is officially known as the "Liberal Party of Australia". And our Republican movement is mostly supported by progressives.​

But no, I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about the difference between progressive and liberal Christians.

I reckon the difference is that liberals are willing to openly accept diverse philosophies, whereas progressives need to be convinced first.

Liberals embrace the Enlightenment, Progressives are suspicious of it.
Liberals like modernism, progressives like postmodernism.
Liberals are undogmatic, progressives are painfully dogmatic.

Progressives question all traditions, liberals embrace all traditions
Progressives support social justice, but liberals probably do a better job doing it.
Progressives love intellectual rigor, liberals rate the intellect alongside other equally dubious traits.
Progressives understand the scientific method, liberals question it.
Progressive value the critical interpretation of the scripture. Liberals value all interpretations of the scripture.

Now, I'm sure that I've managed to offend everyone.
There is obviously heaps I have missed, plus plenty I have got wrong.

Hopefully I have started a discussion.

I agree with a point Hedrick. In this country, in general, Progressive has replaced Liberal as being somehow seen as more PC.
Many (not all) of your opposing positions I would place on the left leaning side of any right/left or conservative/liberal scale.

Having said that, people use words and the usage changes by region and over time. Just noticed Canada has a Progressive Conservative party. Politically, especially in a two party system, the general ideology of a party changes over time. Am conservative, and used to identify myself as Republican, but many political leaders and candidates in that party are far to comfortable with liberal/progressive/socialism views for my taste. The Democrat party is currently co-opted by leaders I would label socialists and also call themselves Progressive.

So it is not always easy to get where someone is coming from with such labels without digging deeper. Having a scale with only two labels also puts the wide spectrum each side represents into such a big box that not everyone in that box wants to be associated with all the people it covers.
In general the extremes of both labels are rejected by people on both sides as being unacceptable, but sometimes we use the extreme to knock everyone on the opposing side. People are people.

 

[greenguzzi]

The Democrat party is currently co-opted by leaders I would label socialists and also call themselves Progressive.

No US Democrat leader could be called a socialists, not by any definition of "socialist" used outside the USA. Even Bernie isn't a socialist by any non-US understanding of the word; he's a social democrat, and so are those Democrat leaders you call "socialists". They are progressives though, and they are right to call themselves that.

Using the proper names of political parties to try to understand the meaning of words is a futile exercise. The names are rooted in history. Both the nature of the party and the definition of the words would probably have changes since the party was formed or renamed.

I think the words speak for themselves; a progressive is willing to accept progress, a liberal is willing to accept anything.

 

[greenguzzi]

Having a scale with only two labels also puts the wide spectrum each side represents into such a big box

I totally agree, that wasn't the point I was making.

 

[hedrick]

Sure, if you want to use progressive as a synonym for liberal i guess that's OK. My objection was to a comparison between the two terms that proposed differences that I don't think exist. (The previous posting is the most extreme: "I think the words speak for themselves; a progressive is willing to accept progress, a liberal is willing to accept anything.")

The disadvantage to these changes of terms is that they are also often accompanied by losing history. There's a history of liberal theology going back to the 19th and to a certain extent late 18th Cent. I don't agree with everything in that tradition, but I also don't want to start from scratch.

 

[T.C]

I didn't realize there was a difference. Why are you a christian?

 

[FireDragon76]

Progressive is a better word to describe the American politics. Liberal can mean any number of things. At one time what goes for libertarianism now days was considered liberal.

At one time Republicans were the progressive party. Democrats did not become a "liberal" party as the term is commonly used here until the 70's. Before then it was a big tent populist party.

 

[greenguzzi]

Why are you a christian?

Why am I a Christian? Because everyone should be one is the best answer I can think of.
Why do you ask?

 

[FireDragon76]

There's a history of liberal theology going back to the 19th and to a certain extent late 18th Cent. I don't agree with everything in that tradition, but I also don't want to start from scratch.

There are some folks that would be liberal by CF standards that don't have strong ties to the 19th century theological tradition. Sometimes they arrive at similar conclusions, but the way they get there can be different. I think we've discussed the case of Emergents and liberal Evangelicals before.

The 18th-19th century liberalism was about rationalism and the conviction that religion was necessary to be a moral person (something fewer people believe now days). The emergents seem to be more influenced by just the sheer weight of culture and how technology has changed our lives (just look at the story of Edward Snowden, that couldn't have happened 40 years ago, cellphones and webcams did not exist). They aren't necessarily rationalistic, indeed, I would say it is the existentialism of postmodernity that makes them more uncomfortable with traditional religious answers.

 

[AJTruth]

I consider myself a progressive, both politically and theologically. However on this forum I am sometimes accused of being a liberal. I am not a liberal.

Being Australian, there is also the added confusion of Australian English:

Our conservative party - Similar to the Tories and Republicans - is officially known as the "Liberal Party of Australia". And our Republican movement is mostly supported by progressives.​

But no, I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about the difference between progressive and liberal Christians.

I reckon the difference is that liberals are willing to openly accept diverse philosophies, whereas progressives need to be convinced first.

Liberals embrace the Enlightenment, Progressives are suspicious of it.
Liberals like modernism, progressives like postmodernism.
Liberals are undogmatic, progressives are painfully dogmatic.

Progressives question all traditions, liberals embrace all traditions
Progressives support social justice, but liberals probably do a better job doing it.
Progressives love intellectual rigor, liberals rate the intellect alongside other equally dubious traits.
Progressives understand the scientific method, liberals question it.
Progressive value the critical interpretation of the scripture. Liberals value all interpretations of the scripture.

Now, I'm sure that I've managed to offend everyone.
There is obviously heaps I have missed, plus plenty I have got wrong.

Hopefully I have started a discussion.

I think I may have the answer to your question.

You're Australian, I believe most people posting here are from the USA.

Here: These days; democrat, liberal, progressive generally (a few exceptions) mean the same thing. A progressive wants to step by step fundamentally change what America is.

Change the Bill of rights, constitution & individual liberties. To a collective-socialist-marxist (example Obama) utopian. Even though time & time, HELL every time this philosophy has failed miserably. If you stick will the conservative label, you'll be fine. Best wishes, AJ

 

[ExodusMe]

I consider myself a progressive, both politically and theologically. However on this forum I am sometimes accused of being a liberal. I am not a liberal.

Being Australian, there is also the added confusion of Australian English:

Our conservative party - Similar to the Tories and Republicans - is officially known as the "Liberal Party of Australia". And our Republican movement is mostly supported by progressives.​

But no, I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about the difference between progressive and liberal Christians.

I reckon the difference is that liberals are willing to openly accept diverse philosophies, whereas progressives need to be convinced first.

Liberals embrace the Enlightenment, Progressives are suspicious of it.
Liberals like modernism, progressives like postmodernism.
Liberals are undogmatic, progressives are painfully dogmatic.

Progressives question all traditions, liberals embrace all traditions
Progressives support social justice, but liberals probably do a better job doing it.
Progressives love intellectual rigor, liberals rate the intellect alongside other equally dubious traits.
Progressives understand the scientific method, liberals question it.
Progressive value the critical interpretation of the scripture. Liberals value all interpretations of the scripture.

Now, I'm sure that I've managed to offend everyone.
There is obviously heaps I have missed, plus plenty I have got wrong.

Hopefully I have started a discussion.

You can't be a Christian and profess post-modernism. Post-modernism is literally the denial of moral and theological objective truth. Like literally...

 

[hedrick]

You can't be a Christian and profess post-modernism. Post-modernism is literally the denial of moral and theological objective truth. Like literally...

Postmodernism, as far as I can tell, have given up on the existence of a truth that is objective, in the sense for being the same for all observers. The critical point of view started in the Enlightenment. It understood that people have a tendency to believe what they've always believed, and to let that bias their assessment of evidence. Hence they attempted to construct methods that would be sufficiently objective as to overcome those builtin biases.

Postmodern has taken the insight that people tend to interpret things as they want to an extreme, and conclude that there is no observer-indepdent truth. The problem with this is that when we abandon objectivity, we end up with what we want to believe. Hence, somewhat ironically, postmoderns and conservatives seem to end up in the same place, unwilling to use evidence critically. It's just that their biases are different.

The liberal theological tradition, including its current practitioners, are more or less by definition, critical. They use evidence, even if it leads somewhere we didn't expect. From our point of view conservatives and postmoderns look pretty much alike, even though they may believe different things. They both refuse to allow evidence to change what they believe.

 

[FireDragon76]

You can't be a Christian and profess post-modernism.

Sure you can.

Post-modernism is literally the denial of moral and theological objective truth. Like literally...

That's oversimplified. Nadia Bolz-Weber is a good example of a Christian influenced by postmodernism. When she speaks of truth, or rather, when she talks about God, she relies heavily upon talking about her experiences. But that doesn't mean she denies the existence of God, Jesus, or any number of other Christian doctrines. She's inviting people into her vision of God, she's not hitting them over the head with it or waterboarding them into belief. That makes a huge difference. She's also very comfortable talking about the mysteries of faith, of the unexplainable, without having the naivite of the premodern.

 

[greenguzzi]

If you stick will the conservative label, you'll be fine.

One thing I am not is conservative. Oh, and Obama is far right of any Socialist/Marxist.

 

[greenguzzi]

You can't be a Christian and profess post-modernism.

That's simply not true. For starters postmodernism isn't particularly well defined, and covers many aspects of life from aesthetics, to how we treat others, to consumer capitalism.

In any case I wouldn't say that I profess postmodernism, that's putting it a bit too strongly. But as a progressive Christian I tend towards postmodernism rather than modernism.

 

[ExodusMe]

Postmodernism, as far as I can tell, have given up on the existence of a truth that is objective, in the sense for being the same for all observers. The critical point of view started in the Enlightenment. It understood that people have a tendency to believe what they've always believed, and to let that bias their assessment of evidence. Hence they attempted to construct methods that would be sufficiently objective as to overcome those builtin biases.

Postmodern has taken the insight that people tend to interpret things as they want to an extreme, and conclude that there is no observer-indepdent truth. The problem with this is that when we abandon objectivity, we end up with what we want to believe. Hence, somewhat ironically, postmoderns and conservatives seem to end up in the same place, unwilling to use evidence critically. It's just that their biases are different.

The liberal theological tradition, including its current practitioners, are more or less by definition, critical. They use evidence, even if it leads somewhere we didn't expect. From our point of view conservatives and postmoderns look pretty much alike, even though they may believe different things. They both refuse to allow evidence to change what they believe.

Eh, I think you have a definition problem and you are conflating different terms. Conservative has nothing to do with how evidence is used. For instance, I can be a conservative and a post-modernist. Post-modernism has nothing to do with someones political orientation, but (like you said originally) whether someone accepts objective Truth.