First of all, we need to ascertain exactly what “Progressive Christianity” is. Here, I intend to be more generous than the opponents of Christian Nationalism and allow its supporters to define it, rather than doing so myself. Recall that I am also going to restrict the basis of my criticism to primary doctrines of Christianity (as opposed to my own secondary or tertiary doctrines).
First Definition
The principal website for supporters of “Progressive Christianity” appears to be (unsurprisingly) progressivechristianity.org. They assert that Progressive Christianity is characterized by 8 points. Progressive Christians
- Believe that following the path and teachings of Jesus can lead to an awareness and experience of the Sacred and the Oneness and Unity of all life;
- Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey;
- Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to:
- Conventional believers and questioning skeptics,
- Believers and agnostics,
- Women and men,
- Those of all sexual orientations and gender identities,
- Those of all classes and abilities;
- Know that the way that we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe;
- Find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes;
- Strive for peace and justice among all people;
- Strive to protect and restore the integrity of our Earth; and
- Commit to a path of life-long learning, compassion and selfless love.
Response to First Definition
Points 1,4,6 and 8 can be affirmed by all orthodox Christians (and lots of non-Christians). My only quibble with any of these is with point 1 – it’s not incorrect, only unnecessarily weak: actually following the path and teachings of Jesus DOES lead to an awareness, etc. and if it does not so lead, the problem is not with the “path and teachings” but rather with the “following.”
Point 3 is fine, as long as that community is different from the Church (particularly on the first and second sub-points).
Parts of point 5 are fine – the only exceptionable part is the “more value in questioning than in absolutes” phrase – God Himself is an absolute, and scripture is full of them as well; our understanding of these absolutes, however, is never complete, and the value of questioning is that it CAN lead to an improved understanding of the absolutes. This is one of the places where philosophical postmodernism parts company with Christianity (and most forms of theism and most of the philosophical underpinnings of science).
Point 7 appears to me to be simply gibberish – the only definition of “integrity” that might apply here is “unimpaired condition” but you would need LOTS of qualification to clear up what “condition” is being referenced as the unimpaired state of the Earth – Eden? The Cretaceous Period? The Holocene Optimum? The 1950s? I suspect that the intent is to get environmentalists to nod along sagely, but I truly don’t have any idea what is meant here.
The first half of point 2, though, cannot be affirmed by any orthodox Christian without some serious additional qualifications. It contradicts, among others, John 14.6 (and the 381 version of the Nicene Creed, and Acts 4.12). The last half is the essence of theological assimilation in which (true, beautiful) ideas consistent with orthodoxy, but not required by it, are brought into the Church from the broader culture. This part is not a problem, as long as the ideas brought in from the “diverse sources of wisdom” are truly compatible with orthodoxy.
Now, perhaps in the first half of point 2, the phrase “experience [of] the Sacredness and Oneness of life” means something different than the Christian concept of salvation, but even then, I doubt seriously that any orthodox theologian of more than 200 years ago would have ever affirmed such a statement.
Second Definition
Roger Wolsey, in his book, Kissing Fish, defines Progressive Christianity this way – Progressive Christianity is an approach to the Christian faith that is influenced by post-liberalism and postmodernism and*:
- proclaims Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, Savior, and Lord;
- emphasizes the Way and teachings of Jesus, not merely His person;
- emphasizes God’s immanence not merely God’s transcendence;
- leans toward panentheism rather than supernatural theism;
- emphasizes salvation here and now instead of primarily in heaven later;
- emphasizes being saved for robust, abundant/eternal life over being saved from hell;
- emphasizes the social/communal aspects of salvation instead of merely the personal;
- stresses social justice as integral to Christian discipleship;
- takes the Bible seriously but not necessarily literally, embracing a more interpretive, metaphorical understanding;
- emphasizes orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy (right actions over right beliefs);
- embraces reason as well as paradox and mystery — instead of blind allegiance to rigid doctrines and dogmas;
- does not consider homosexuality to be sinful;
- and does not claim that Christianity is the only valid or viable way to connect to God (is non-exclusive).
Response to Second Definition
Before Wolsey’s list even gets started, we have a problem – postmodernism is dealt with elsewhere, and post-liberalism relies on narrative instead of truth as its foundation, rendering it susceptible to all the same selection biases as Marxist critical theory. Ultimately, if either of these were correct, Jesus’ response to Pilate’s “What is Truth?” query should have been, “Eh, I don’t know either…”
A blanket objection to much of Wolsey’s phrasing: as we’ll see in the details below, it seems to be designed simply to paint orthodox Christians in as unflattering a light as possible; to say “we’re not like those old fuddy-duddies you’ve seen caricatured in movies and TV.” On to Wolsey’s actual points: 1,2,3,5,6 and 7 are unexceptionable, as they are either wholly orthodox (point 1) or purely matters of emphasis (and thus secondary or tertiary in nature).
Point 4, though, is a serious problem. There is an extensive array of Christian criticism of panentheism making it clear that orthodox Christianity is, at its core, theistic (see, for example, Geisler’s Christian Apologetics, pp. 208-212, among many others). Specifically, a panentheistic God, who is “becoming” in process-theological terms, is incompatible with the “I AM” of Ex. 3.14 and the God “from everlasting to everlasting” in Ps. 90.2 (or the addendum in the 325 version of the Nicene Creed regarding Jesus).
Point 8 is unclear, depending on the definition of “social justice.” It is either a complete non-issue or a fundamental incompatibility with orthodox Christianity, depending on the particular definition of “social justice” chosen. Unjustly labeling individuals by group membership for the sake of generating anger and guilt is at odds with many Biblical injunctions.
Point 9 is really a straw man, as no theologian actually takes the Bible “literally” (some sort of hermeneutic framework is always involved). However, orthodox Christians do generally use a coherent hermeneutic that requires a compelling reason (and there are many possibilities for such) to bypass the clear, surface meaning of the Biblical text. Moving too quickly to metaphor and “spiritualizing” is an easy way to fall prey to a “hermeneutic of wishful thinking.” It also allows one to fall prey to the postmodern “power of language” fallacies.
Point 10 is truly a non-issue when understood correctly – for more information on this, see any orthodox commentary on the New Testament Book of James.
Point 11 is really a non-issue as well, it’s just phrased so as to imply that “those obnoxious orthodox Christians really are just as narrow-minded as you think they are – but we Progressive Christians are not!” For orthodox Christians, there ARE certain “doctrines and dogmas” that are sine qua non for us – that’s the point of any belief system: it has some axioms, and then you deduce the theorems from those. I would suggest, though, that we choose to believe them because of our faith in God, not because we have any “blind allegiance” to them for their own sake.
And then point 12 shows up out of nowhere. All the other points are broad (even vague) theological statements and then this one pops out! And they say that conservative Christians are sex-obsessed! At any rate, it’s also worded in such a way that it doesn’t mean much: the historically orthodox view is generally that “homosexuality” (that is, same-sex attraction) is not sinful (though, like any temptation to sin, it is to be denied not embraced), but rather that same-sex sexual activity is. I will deal with human sexuality more fully in a later post.
Point 13 then makes it even clearer than point 2, definition 1 that Wolsey has broken with orthodox Christianity. Again, it contradicts at least John 14.6 (and the 381 version of the Nicene Creed, and Acts 4.12). No orthodox Christian can affirm this statement. In light of point 13, I truly have no idea what Wolsey means in point 1 that Jesus of Nazareth is Savior and Lord. It’s a puzzlement!
Overall assessment
The most charitable assessment that I can make is that Progressive Christianity is an effort to do missions “behind the Woke Curtain” – an attempt to inculturate Christianity into the world of the American political left.** If this is truly the intent, it’s fine and noble. However, this goal can’t be accomplished by leaving Christianity behind!
Is there any statement in either of these two definitions that could not be affirmed by, say, an adherent of Hinduism (apart from perhaps point 1, definition 2, but as I mentioned, it’s truly unclear what that means in light of point 13, definition 2)? This is especially true, since one is given carte blanche to view any inconvenient portions of the Bible as metaphorical.
One definitely gets the impression that Progressive Christians would re-render Jesus’ words in John 14.6 (“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”) as “I am one of many possible ways, one of many narrative constructs, and a possible route to life. I suggest that you get to the Father the best way you can – the way you like the best.” This is all the more puzzling because the Gospel of John, with its emphasis on love, is in other ways one of the preferred books of the New Testament for Progressive Christians.
I can’t know for certain, of course, but it appears from the outside that the push toward “one of many paths to God” arises not only from an indoctrination in postmodernism, but also from the feeling that the exclusive truth-claims of Christianity are somehow unloving or unkind. I strongly suspect also that an over-emphasis on feelings and emotions (as opposed to an understanding of revealed truth) is involved as well.
For the Christian, love is important; it is vital that we treat each other kindly and compassionately. This does not mean, however, that we should pretend that the Christian message is other than it is. The world absolutely needs Christians to “speak the truth in love.” Christian love, though, is NOT “niceness” or “agreeableness” – it’s acting in the other person’s best interest, as God sees it and describes it to us (not as they see it, or even as we see it). Love is definitely not “never disagree with anyone who is farther up (down?) the intersectionality matrix of domination from you.”
The Christian gospel is, and always has been, a truth-claim grounded in exclusivity. It’s not “bad news” that there is not a plethora of ways to God; it’s “good news” that He has provided one at all, when we can’t make one ourselves. The world of the early church was no less pluralistic than ours – they weren’t shy about speaking the truth; we can do no less.
A final comment for any readers who are Progressive Christians: if you are attempting to inculturate the Gospel so as to evangelize the political left, then that’s absolutely fine – they need Christ, too. If, in the process, you feel the strategic need to throw your fellow Christians under the bus, and affirm and support the left’s caricatures and stereotypes about the rest of us, well, I suppose that’s fine, too (though it’s going to make bringing your new converts into the Church rather difficult). But you have a choice as to what you will take with you onto that mission field – please take the Gospel with you, and leave behind the postmodern “one of many paths to God” stuff. If that’s true, then Christ died for nothing.
* Wolsey’s list is unnumbered, but I am numbering it for convenience in referring to specific points subsequently.
** See here for what I mean by “left” politically.