Liberals vs. Progressives

[ExodusMe]

Sure you can.
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.

Okay, someone can be a Christian and be 'influenced by' post-modernism. I didn't say I did not agree with that. To be a post-modernist is to deny objective Truth. To identify as any particular follower of a religion as a post-modernist because necessarily hard, because you are denying the objectivity of Truth, while affirming core doctrines as objectively true.

 

[ExodusMe]

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.

Then you should be clearer as to what post-modernism you are affirming. Post-modernism is certainly well defined when it comes to objective truth.

The only philosophical difference between modernism and post-modernism is that modernism specifically denies moral and theological truth as objective, while post-modernism denies all objective truth.

 

[FireDragon76]

Okay, someone can be a Christian and be 'influenced by' post-modernism. I didn't say I did not agree with that. To be a post-modernist is to deny objective Truth. To identify as any particular follower of a religion as a post-modernist because necessarily hard, because you are denying the objectivity of Truth, while accepting doctrines as objectively true.

No, it's not as hard as you think. It's about believing something based on embodied experience, and holding to it provisionally with an open mind.

That's why Jesus said whoever is of the truth hears his voice. He was talking about something relational, not notional.

We see through a glass darkly in this world. There's nothing wrong about being humble about what we do know.

I would say a more post-modern informed approach to the Scriptures focuses more on the formational character.. Things like lectio divina, chanting the Psalms, etc., have a more prominent place than studying proof-texts for doctrines and engaging in rationalistic speculation in theology.

 

[ExodusMe]

No, it's not as hard as you think. It's about believing something based on embodied experience, and holding to it provisionally with an open mind.

That's why Jesus said whoever is of the truth hears his voice. He was talking about something relational, not notional.

We see through a glass darkly in this world. There's nothing wrong about being humble about what we do know.

I would say a more post-modern informed approach to the Scriptures focuses more on the formational character.. Things like lectio divina, chanting the Psalms, etc., have a more prominent place than studying proof-texts for doctrines and engaging in rationalistic speculation in theology.

Humility, right...

Yeah, just disregard all those verses about "God's Word" and "Law" or John 1 where Jesus is identified as the "Logos" or "Word". I think you are on to something.

 

[T.C]

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

Why should everyone be a christian?

 

[greenguzzi]

Why should everyone be a christian?

Good question. The more carefully I try to answer the question, the more I realise that my statements were incorrect; they contains too many assumptions.

I'm not sure I am a Christian. I am a follower of Christ, I have been baptised, I believe that I am born again, I try to live as Christ asked his followers to live. However so many people who call themselves "Christian" have morals and behavior that are totally in opposition to what Christ taught, so I no longer have any confidence that the word "Christian" describes what I am.

I heard the Gospel and believed it. Having believed it I decided to follow The Way.

If what I believe is correct, then I should want everyone to follow Christ. This is because it's the best life anyone can live. However no one can be coerced into being a follower. On the other hand, Christ told us to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation" not "go and preach the Gospel to those people over there". The Gospel is for everyone, therefore everyone should be invited to follow The Way.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not a philosopher nor a critic. Indeed I find philosophy completely opaque. But as far as I can understand post-modernism it's a reaction to what was seen as overly optimistic claims to be able to develop objective truth by modernists.

I think there are reasons for such skepticism. In my reading I often see people place far too much confidence in being able to understand just what someone in a completely different culture 2000 years ago thought, and a tendency to develop theologies of salvation that assume that everyone is saved exactly the same way.

This doesn't require us to give up the objectivity of truth, however. People who are "influenced" by this trend are going to use approaches that don't depend so much upon a kind of objectivity that is unrealistic to expect. That doesn't mean, however, giving up on all concepts of truth. I'm pretty sure that real post-modernists have things they're pretty sure are true and false.

Furthermore, I find that post-modernism is commonly used as an attack against people who actually aren't even influenced by post-modernism, but are carrying out standard critical thought. The people who use it seem to be trying to avoid the use of critical thought applied to their own tradition.

 

[hedrick]

What I think conservative Christians want isn’t objective truth, but rather unchanging ideas.

I guess I’m too influenced by science. We mostly accept that there’s actual reality, but that our own ideas are “models” of that reality. We don’t expect models to be unchanging. In the long run we expect them to get better. But we know all too well that major changes often occur, e.g. relativity and quantum mechanics.

Hence I don’t expect Christian theology to be unchanging. I think there’s really a God, who revealed himself, and based on that revelation I think we know a lot about him. But I don’t expect those ideas to be unchanging. The Reformation was a major change. I think in the right direction. But for people to expect our theology to be identical to that in the Reformation suggests that they aren’t doing their job. We’ve discovered lots about history, particularly early Jewish history, and the way we think of and describe the world is also very different. To me a theology that hasn’t changed in 500 years is probably a theology that has stopped looking. That’s why the original concept was “semper reformanda.” The Reformers didn’t think they had reached the end. They had just made a very promising start.

But this is seem by some as “post-modernist,” because to many Christians objective truth means ideas that don’t change. But even if truth is unchanging, our knowledge of it is not. Of course not everything has to change. Despite new ideas in physics, in normal situations objects fall when you drop them, and we can use equation that go back to Newton to compute the motion. But if nothing changes, I suspect people have their eyes closed. Of course we also have to look at whether the right kind of changes are happening.

 

[greenguzzi]

I'm not a philosopher nor a critic. Indeed I find philosophy completely opaque.

I beg to differ! You write like a philosopher.
Thanks for your replies, they were very helpful.

 

[ExodusMe]

I'm not a philosopher nor a critic. Indeed I find philosophy completely opaque. But as far as I can understand post-modernism it's a reaction to what was seen as overly optimistic claims to be able to develop objective truth by modernists.

Philosophy boils down to the definition of terms. Every time someone makes a statement and you ask yourself "what do they mean by that?" you are essentially engaging in philosophy. If it is opaque it is only because it gets mixed with some weirdo mystics you make philosophy into something it is not like Buddhist nirvana and such.

I think there are reasons for such skepticism. In my reading I often see people place far too much confidence in being able to understand just what someone in a completely different culture 2000 years ago thought, and a tendency to develop theologies of salvation that assume that everyone is saved exactly the same way.

Interesting statement because it is kind of self-contradictory. On one hand you are saying someone cannot interpret a book from 2,000 years ago and how would you go about doing that? Reading the book and interpreting it your own way? I get what you are saying, but at the very least we should be attempting to interpret the book and then engage in gathering criticism of our viewpoint to determine its strength/weakness, which is what the scholars do.

This doesn't require us to give up the objectivity of truth, however. People who are "influenced" by this trend are going to use approaches that don't depend so much upon a kind of objectivity that is unrealistic to expect. That doesn't mean, however, giving up on all concepts of truth. I'm pretty sure that real post-modernists have things they're pretty sure are true and false.

Furthermore, I find that post-modernism is commonly used as an attack against people who actually aren't even influenced by post-modernism, but are carrying out standard critical thought. The people who use it seem to be trying to avoid the use of critical thought applied to their own tradition.

Yeah, I don't even believe post-modernism can actually exist. I was just helping with the definitions in this thread.

What I think conservative Christians want isn’t objective truth, but rather unchanging ideas.

I guess I’m too influenced by science. We mostly accept that there’s actual reality, but that our own ideas are “models” of that reality. We don’t expect models to be unchanging. In the long run we expect them to get better. But we know all too well that major changes often occur, e.g. relativity and quantum mechanics.

Hence I don’t expect Christian theology to be unchanging. I think there’s really a God, who revealed himself, and based on that revelation I think we know a lot about him. But I don’t expect those ideas to be unchanging. The Reformation was a major change. I think in the right direction. But for people to expect our theology to be identical to that in the Reformation suggests that they aren’t doing their job. We’ve discovered lots about history, particularly early Jewish history, and the way we think of and describe the world is also very different. To me a theology that hasn’t changed in 500 years is probably a theology that has stopped looking. That’s why the original concept was “semper reformanda.” The Reformers didn’t think they had reached the end. They had just made a very promising start.

But this is seem by some as “post-modernist,” because to many Christians objective truth means ideas that don’t change. But even if truth is unchanging, our knowledge of it is not. Of course not everything has to change. Despite new ideas in physics, in normal situations objects fall when you drop them, and we can use equation that go back to Newton to compute the motion. But if nothing changes, I suspect people have their eyes closed. Of course we also have to look at whether the right kind of changes are happening.

Eh, I don't like where you are headed. I am sympathetic to the scientific method and how science develops over time, but even you are contradicting yourself, because you know somewhere 'out there' there is a 'perfect model'. You just haven't found it yet or know the mathematical terms to describe it. This would be the objectivity (unchangingness?) of theology. There are doctrines that are core to theology and there are 'peripheral' issues that are open to discussion. I think anyone who believes that core doctrines are 'optional' shouldn't be identifying as a Christian, because to identify as a Christian means that you affirm the core doctrines. It is mind numbing to me.

 

[JackRT]

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 regard "liberal" and "progressive" as pretty much synonymous. However over the past half century or more there has been a concerted and largely successful effort on the part of the right wing to paint liberals with horns and a tail. The post above attests to the success of that effort.

 

[T.C]

Good question. The more carefully I try to answer the question, the more I realise that my statements were incorrect; they contains too many assumptions.

I'm not sure I am a Christian. I am a follower of Christ, I have been baptised, I believe that I am born again, I try to live as Christ asked his followers to live. However so many people who call themselves "Christian" have morals and behavior that are totally in opposition to what Christ taught, so I no longer have any confidence that the word "Christian" describes what I am.

I heard the Gospel and believed it. Having believed it I decided to follow The Way.

If what I believe is correct, then I should want everyone to follow Christ. This is because it's the best life anyone can live. However no one can be coerced into being a follower. On the other hand, Christ told us to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation" not "go and preach the Gospel to those people over there". The Gospel is for everyone, therefore everyone should be invited to follow The Way.

Nice, because if we don't we will have to suffer God's wrath for our sin. You should seek your assurance too

 

[hedrick]

Interesting statement because it is kind of self-contradictory. On one hand you are saying someone cannot interpret a book from 2,000 years ago and how would you go about doing that? Reading the book and interpreting it your own way? I get what you are saying, but at the very least we should be attempting to interpret the book and then engage in gathering criticism of our viewpoint to determine its strength/weakness, which is what the scholars do.

Of course we can. However what we get out of it depends in part on what we know of the author and his context. English (and Greek) isn’t context-free and unambiguous. So what you know about the speaker really does matter.

We’ve got enough more knowledge about 1st Cent Judaism now than they did in the 16th Cent that if it doesn’t affect our reading of the Bible something is wrong.

Eh, I don't like where you are headed. I am sympathetic to the scientific method and how science develops over time, but even you are contradicting yourself, because you know somewhere 'out there' there is a 'perfect model'. You just haven't found it yet or know the mathematical terms to describe it. This would be the objectivity (unchangingness?) of theology. There are doctrines that are core to theology and there are 'peripheral' issues that are open to discussion. I think anyone who believes that core doctrines are 'optional' shouldn't be identifying as a Christian, because to identify as a Christian means that you affirm the core doctrines. It is mind numbing to me.

No, out there there is no perfect model. Out there is the universe. Models are in our heads. There is no guarantee that there will ever be a perfect model, though in limited areas there might be. One hopes they’ll get better.

I take exactly the same view of theology. God is simply God. The Trinity and other doctrines like that are our way of understanding and talking about him. It’s a model. So is the Incarnation. I’ve argued in other threads that as we started to talk about God something like the Trinity was inevitable. Similarly with the Incarnation. But if God appeared to Vulcans or Klingons, it’s not very likely that they would come up with three persons with one essence. That particular way of describing the Trinity came from a particular cultural and philosophical way of looking at the world. Indeed the beginning came from people who had as a specific goal making Christianity intelligible to and attractive to intellectuals of late antiquity. Given the very different way we look at the world today, I’d still expect something like the Trinity and Incarnation, but if there aren’t some differences in the way we express it, I don’t think we’re doing our job. We certainly don’t need modernized versions of Arianism or Unitarianism, of course.

 

[greenguzzi]

You should seek your assurance too

I have.

 

[ExodusMe]

Of course we can. However what we get out of it depends in part on what we know of the author and his context. English (and Greek) isn’t context-free and unambiguous. So what you know about the speaker really does matter.

We’ve got enough more knowledge about 1st Cent Judaism now than they did in the 16th Cent that if it doesn’t affect our reading of the Bible something is wrong.


No, out there there is no perfect model. Out there is the universe. Models are in our heads. There is no guarantee that there will ever be a perfect model, though in limited areas there might be. One hopes they’ll get better.

I take exactly the same view of theology. God is simply God. The Trinity and other doctrines like that are our way of understanding and talking about him. It’s a model. So is the Incarnation. I’ve argued in other threads that as we started to talk about God something like the Trinity was inevitable. Similarly with the Incarnation. But if God appeared to Vulcans or Klingons, it’s not very likely that they would come up with three persons with one essence. That particular way of describing the Trinity came from a particular cultural and philosophical way of looking at the world. Indeed the beginning came from people who had as a specific goal making Christianity intelligible to and attractive to intellectuals of late antiquity. Given the very different way we look at the world today, I’d still expect something like the Trinity and Incarnation, but if there aren’t some differences in the way we express it, I don’t think we’re doing our job. We certainly don’t need modernized versions of Arianism or Unitarianism, of course.

Okay well that is fair. I would agree that models are used as "the best way to describe what we know NOW". I guess my disagreement is because I have interpreted what you have said as saying that somehow our models are wrong. I don't think they are wrong. Just incomplete. The Trinity is the best way to describe God because how would you have three person's while affirming monotheism? I don't think it is wrong, but I do think there is more to know about the Trinity than we currently have access to.