Can An Evangelical Christian Be Progressive?

Can An Evangelical Christian Be Progressive?

This is Part 4 of What is a Liberal Christian?
http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/02/what-is-liberal-christian-parts-1-2-3.html

by R.E. Slater

February 18, 2013

In Part 1 Roger Olson stated "Why I Am Not A Liberal Christian." To that Scott McKnight asked "What is a Liberal Anyway?" Than Bo Sanders asked "What is a Progressive?" To that I would like to ask, "Can An Evangelical Be Progressive?"

What if an evangelical were to call themselves a progressive evangelical? Are we to then infer that that person is a liberal, or more rather, a progressive liberal?

Or, is the usage of the term progressive a descriptively different term than its noun-form?

But rather than imply that a progressive Evangelical is liberal it might simply imply that that evangelical wishes to move to the left of the conservative elements within his or her's religious affiliation.... By embracing social issues; by questioning existing religious structures, conventions and practices; by mitigating harsher words of judgmental Christianity for kindlier words of grace and peace; or for any number of other reasons.

An evangelical may thus wish to move left of a perceived hardline mentality fraught within their own form of evangelicalism. And so, we might describe an evangelical as one who might be conservative, moderate, progressive, or even leftist. But still, its description hangs upon how an evangelical interacts with his/her own evangelicalism.

So too may a liberal be conservative, moderate, progressive, or leftist, in relationship to their liberalism. Hence, to use the adverbial form of the term "progressive" is meaningless without its context.

Ironically, this same situation had also occurred within Fundamentalist Christianity birthing its more progressive twin - that of Evangelicalism. But one would not consider Evangelicalism as liberal, much less than one would consider Fundamentalism as being non-Christian. Even though each Christian group has their own distinctives, creeds, religious formulas, practices, and ministerial themes.

So then, to use the term liberal, or progressive, must be to use the terms intelligently, or coherently, within their greater context of literary meaning, and not as simply pejorative labels.

To be a progressive evangelical then is unlike being a progressive liberal. They are two different belief structures (or, world-and-life philosophies). The former holds to some form of Roger Olson's 6-point outline (see a summary of the list at the end of this article), the latter to some form of its opposite. They are unlike each other even though each uses the same label of progressive.

Furthermore, an Emergent Christian is one that has moved to the left of Evangelicalism, for the same reasons that an Evangelical had moved to the left of Fundamentalism - they each were dissatisfied with their current fellowship's Christian message. Moreover, an Emergent Christian may be the same sort of creature as that of a progressive Evangelical - though it is hoped that the term "Evangelical" is dropped for the more positive description that Emergent (or Emerging) Christianity brings with it.

And into the term progressive one might apply other terms such as moderate, or postconservative, which in my mind, are more-or-less the same, and utilized to soften, or harden, the label's description pertaining to the context and target audiences involved. For instance, an evangelical professor may wish to distinguish his form of evangelicalism by applying one of those descriptors to describe his approach to theology - and the Christian faith - as one that may be progressive, moderate, or postconservative, depending upon its meaning to the institution and its constituents, and what he wishes to accomplish by using it.

As example, both Roger Olson and Scott McKnight would describe themselves as postconservative Evangelicals (which means that they are some form of progressive, or moderate, Evangelicals as I understand it). A confounding term to say the least. But, based upon their careers, and school affiliations, wisely used in these times of career firings and public slanderings.

Bo Sanders, on the other hand is an Emergent Christian, as am I. We each seem to have been birthed out of the evangelical movement (well, actually, I began Christianity first as a Fundamentalist before transitioning to an Evangelical faith by transfer of marriage and time). Bo, on the other hand, being more widely read and professional trained in philosophy (and philosophical theology) is right at home in a larger framework (even as I attempt to do the same). Whereas my own background derives from a more conservative, evangelical institution that was formerly fundamental. So as I listen to Bo, even as I listen to Roger and Scott (who is a past college classmate of mine, I might add, but one year ahead), I try to understand the context from which they are speaking.

 

So that from each, has found me working through what it means to be a progressive evangelic. One whose name I prefer to uncomplicate by using the term emergent (or emerging) Christian. Allowing it to breathe in the fresher airs of postmodernism, as versus the enlightened, secular, modernism that Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism had grown up within over the past 200 years.

For the emergent / emerging Christian the question isn't one of either secular modernism or atheistic liberalism (as exampled by Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism's faith adaptations to their eras of Enlightenment and Modernism), but how a postmodern Christian might respond to the various forms of postconservatism on the one hand, and postliberalism on the other. Each, in their own right, was a moving target, even as Emerging Christianity was when it began 15 years ago as one thing, but has since evolved into something else from it's earlier self 15 years later as postconservatives and postliberals have interacted with contemporary society.

So then, just what is an Emergent / Emerging Christian? It is the one we have been writing about for these past two years here at Relevancy22. And just what is an Emergent / Emerging Theology? It too is in various stages of development and expression and can likewise be found at Relevancy22. Overall, Jesus is its center, the Word of God its foundation, and faith's practice its multiplier. The boundary sets are broader, if existent at all, since Emerging Christianity is center-set, and not boundary-based. Moreover, it is a contemporary expression of Christianity - dealing with issues of globalism, pluralism, multi-ethnicity, communication, language (symbols, meaning, and idiomatic expressions), collaboration, societal expression, epistemology, metaphysics, science, justice, equality, and God Himself, to name a few.

In terms of Christian labeling, an Emerging Christian is one who may have left Evangelicalism or, moved to the right of Mainline Denominationalism's progressive expression of a Christ-less liberalism. However, an Emergent may also be a former traditional Catholic wishing to contemporize their Catholic faith by following the reforms of Vatican II that have become stillborn by its more conservative Catholic constituents and theologs. Or, perhaps an Emergent is one that was either liberal, or without any religious affiliation, wishing to re-express their atheism, hedonism, natural theology, and so on, to that of a biblical theology that is both postmodern and contemporary.

But to any Christian wishing to remain Christian, or biblically theological, Roger's 6-points are a good beginning point for any Christian faith expression wishing to be orthodox - regardless of its religious expression down through the ages of the church. Whether it was that of an early Jewish Christian, or that of one bearing an Hellenistic extract, or pre-Medieval, Medieval, Reformational, Enlightened, Modern, or Postmodern. Even the term "orthodoxy" is as lucid a term as any other Christian label - requiring its re-expression with every passing age of man (cf., The Church's Struggle Today, Not Unlike Paul's Struggle Then, with Inflexible, Dying Traditionalism). Thus Emergent Christianity's task today is one of redefining a Christian Orthodoxy that is postmodern, and progressing towards societal forms of participation and authenticity, one that is narrative and poststructural, decentralized and process-oriented.

Regardless, a Christianity that is orthodox may be postmodern and can indeed observe all 6 points - to which I'm sure we could add a few more.... Throughout all, God will be God. A God who has not left us to our own selves, our designs, nor to our ideological devices. Who actively pursues us in all our endeavors despite sin, this lost world, or our lost souls. Who wishes to redeem us and bring us into active fellowship with Himself. And to His will, as His redemption expands outwards (and inwards) into all of creation, as a greater spiritual ethic and rule, that is unstoppable and unrelenting.

This is God's Kingdom. God's habitat. God's rule of fellowship. One to which humanity is invited to participate actively within. This is how I would understand a progressive Christianity that remains descriptively Orthodox but epistemologically malleable through every age of mankind.

 

- R.E. Slater

 

 

Christian Orthodoxy's 6-Point Manifesto:

1. A God who is Creator-Redeemer
2. A Special Revelation that is supernatural in origin
3. A Christology that is Incarnational and Trinitarian
4. Scriptures that are Inspirational and Authoritative
5. A lost humanity requiring God's salvation
6. A future that looks to Jesus Christ's return and rule

 

 

What is a Liberal Christian? Parts 1, 2, 3, 4

Why I Am Not a “Liberal Christian”

PART 1

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/02/why-i-am-not-a-liberal-christian/

 

by Roger Olson

February 7, 2013

Comments

Anyone who comes here regularly or has read any of my books knows I’m no fundamentalist. In fact, I struggle to get along with fundamentalists and pray for God’s grace to do it. I’m not proud of that fact, but I admit it. I’ve been burned by fundamentalism and seen the damage it does to individuals, churches and society.

 

Recently a friend asked me to look at some web sites of Christians who proclaim themselves “progressive”—sometimes using the label “un-fundamentalist.” Labels alone don’t really tell me very much about a group. I look beneath and behind the labels for ideas—convictions, presuppositions, commitments, attitudes.

 

Many people who call themselves “moderate to progressive” theologically are really just asserting their non-fundamentalism. Like me, they have rejected extreme biblical literalism, hostility to science and philosophy, separatism and legalism, extreme dogmatism. Yet, there are others who use labels like “moderate to progressive” who are out-and-out liberals theologically.

 

What makes the difference? When and how does one cross from non-fundamentalist evangelical, broadly conservative, into out-and-out theological liberalism? Ah, there’s no litmus test. Discernment of that is complicated and must be done cautiously.

 

A while ago I argued that “evangelical” is defined partly, at least, by prototypes—individuals and documents and events of the past (and perhaps the present) that stand out as epitomes of the “ideal type.” With evangelicals, at least since World War 2, there’s a fairly easy prototype to go by—Billy Graham. Not that all evangelicals are thrilled with everything about him, but he represents, in a general way, that “type” of Christian faith and life we call “evangelical.”

 

So it is with “liberal.” It’s a type of Christian faith and life defined at least in part by prototypes. Who are its prototypes? Friedrich Schleiermacher and Marcus Borg—to name historical-theological “bookends.” Sure, they don’t agree on everything, but they both, in their own ways, represent an approach to Christian faith that is fairly called “liberal.”

 

Historical theologian Claude Welch, author of a magisterial two volume history of nineteenth century theology, boiled it (viz., “liberal Christianity”) down to a phrase: “maximal acknowledgment of the claims of modernity” in theology. Gary Dorrien, professor of theology at Union Theological Seminary and author of a magisterial three volume history of liberal theology in America, defines liberal religion as rejection of any authority outside the self. However, when I read his three volume history of liberal theology in America I discern that all these theologians have one thing in common—recognition of the authority of “modern thought” alongside or above Scripture and tradition.

 

Liberal theologian Delwin Brown describes the essence of liberal Christianity as granting authority to “the best of contemporary thought” in his dialogue/debate with Clark Pinnock entitled Theological Crossfire. Ironically, fundamentalists and many “conservative evangelicals” accused Pinnock of being “liberal” theologically. But in that book Pinnock comes across as almost a fundamentalist—compared with Brown (a former evangelical). They agree that the “bottom line” difference between evangelicals and liberals is authority.

 

I find myself in broad agreement with some liberal Christians on some issues—especially over against fundamentalism. On the other hand, I agree with some fundamentalists more than with liberals on some other issues.

 

What do I look for in trying to discern whether a person or group is really theologically liberal?

 

First, I look at their overall view of reality. Do they think the universe is open to God’s special activity in what might be called, however infelicitously, “miracles?” Do they believe in supernatural acts of God including especially the bodily resurrection of Jesus including the empty tomb? If not, I tend to think they are liberal theologically.

 

Second, I look at their approach to “doing theology.” How do they approach knowing God? Do they begin with and recognize the authority of special revelation? Or do they begin with and give norming authority to human experience, culture, science, philosophy, “the best of contemporary thought?” That is, do they “do” theology “from above” or “from below?” Insofar as they do theology “from below” I tend to think they are liberal theologically.

 

Third, I look at their Christology. Do they think Jesus was different from other “great souls” among us in kind or only in degree? Is their Christology truly incarnational, affirming the preexistence of the Word who become human as Jesus Christ, or is it functional only, affirming only that Jesus Christ represented God, was God’s “deputy and advocate” among men and women? Insofar as their Chistology is functional and not ontologically incarnational, trinitarian, I tend to think they are theologically liberal.

 

Fourth, I look at their view of Scripture. Do they believe the Bible is “inspired insofar as it is inspiring,” a wisdom-filled source of religious illumination and record of our “spiritual ancestors’” experiences of God? Or do they believe the Bible is supernaturally inspired such that in some sense God is its author—not necessarily meaning God dictated it or even verbally inspired it? Another way of putting that “test” is similar to the Christological one above: Is the Bible different only in degree from other great books of spiritual wisdom or in kind from them? Insofar as they view the Bible as different only in degree, I tend to think they are liberal theologically.

 

Fifth, I look at their view of salvation. Do they believe salvation is forgiveness and reconciliation with God as well as being made whole and holy by God’s grace alone or do they believe salvation is only a realization of human potential—individual or social—by spiritual enlightenment and moral endeavor? Insofar as they think the latter, I tend to think they are theologically liberal.

 

Sixth, I look at their view of the future. Do they believe in a real return of Jesus Christ, however conceived, to bring about a new world of righteousness? Or do they believe the “return of Christ” is a myth that expresses an existential experience and/or social transformation only? Insofar as they believe it is only a symbol, myth or metaphor, I tend to think they are liberal theologically.

 

The problem is that discerning whether someone is theologically liberal is not a black-and-white process. It’s not an “either-or.” Many people and groups are some kind of mixture, hybrid of conservative and liberal. But, in my book, anyway, a true liberal is one who for the most part leans toward the views I have labeled “liberal” above.

 

So what’s wrong with being liberal theologically in that way? I find it thin, ephemeral, light, profoundly unsatisfying. It seems to me barely different from being secular humanist. Sure, theological liberals (in the sense I have defined that type above) can be profoundly “spiritual,” but I don’t think they are profoundly Christian. Their commitment is greater to modern culture, the Zeitgeist of the Enlightenment, than to Christian sources. Their “Christianity” is barely recognizable if recognizable at all—compared with anything that was called “Christian” before the Enlightenment. Ultimately, I believe, theological liberalism robs Christianity of its distinctiveness, the “scandal of particularity,” its prophetic edge and makes it easy, respectable and dull.

 

I have come to the conclusion over the years that most people who are theologically liberal grew up fundamentalist and are simply in deep reaction to it—throwing the baby out with the bathwater of an overly legalistic and literalistic Christianity.

 

I have no problem with Christians who struggle with traditional belief; my problem is with those who “reinterpret it” so radically that it isn’t recognizable anymore. They say, for example, that they believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but when pressed to explain it, what they really believe is that the disciples came to a realization of the continuing relevance of the message of Jesus or Jesus’ ongoing “spiritual presence” among them and us. They don’t mean that the tomb was empty and that Jesus’ dead body was transformed to a new mode of eschatological life.

 

If I ever wake up and find that I think like a true theological liberal, I hope I will be honest enough to stop calling myself “Christian.”

 

Now, having said that, harsh as it sounds, believe me when I say I am not judging liberals’ salvation. Their salvation is up to God, not me or any other human being. Can a person be truly liberal theologically, as I have defined it above, and be saved? I honestly don’t know. I hope so. But it would be in spite of their beliefs, not because of them.

 

 

 

What is a Liberal anyway?

PART 2

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/02/11/what-is-a-liberal-anyway/

 

by Scott McKnight

Feb 11, 2013 @ 0:05

Comments

 

Roger [Olson] lists paradigmatic theological liberals as Schleiermacher and Marcus Borg, I’d add Harvey Cox as another example.

 

One observation: over the years I’ve seen lots of evangelicals “drift” into liberalism. Quite often they refuse to admit they are liberals. What happens is that they absorb evangelicalism’s denunciation of liberals as non-Christians while simultaneously both embracing liberalism and thinking (and knowing) they have not left the Christian faith. Evangelicals have successfully made “liberal” a pejorative term. So today many liberals call themselves “progressives.” Is there any difference?

 

 

 

What is a Progressive?

PART 3

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/02/18/what-is-a-progressive-anyway/

 

by Scot McKnight

Feb 18, 2013 @ 5:06

Comments

 

This post is by Bo Sanders [from Homebrewed Christianity], a self-confessed progressive who will sketch how he distinguishes progressive from liberal:

 

Questions: Who are the progressives? Who are the liberals? Do liberals see themselves as progressives?

 

Roger Olson caused some ripples last week when he posted “Why I am not a Liberal Christian”. Then Scot McKnight went and took it even farther with “What is a Liberal Anyway” and said: “Evangelicals have successfully made “liberal” a pejorative term. So today many liberals call themselves “progressives.”

 

My contention is that saying progressives are really just liberals who don’t like the ‘L’ word is like saying that athletes and baseball players are really just the same thing. While baseball players are athletes, not all athletes play baseball. It’s an inexact statement. They aren’t exactly the same thing.

 

There is as big a difference between liberal and progressive as there is between evangelical and emergent. There may be some overlap, but to equate the two is unhelpful.

 

Here is the most basic definition I can provide – it comes from John Cobb, the greatest living American theologian:

• Liberal simply means that one’s experience is a valid location for doing theology.
 
• Progressives are liberal folks who have learned from Feminist, Liberation and Post-Colonial critiques. *

 

We all read Roger Olson’s 6 point definition last week, but when it comes to liberals there is something more categorical that would be helpful for our current distinction. Liberal is simply a constellation of positions and answers to questions that were established in the Enlightenment. Liberal is a settled matter. It has accepted the basic inherited framework to be the as-is structure and conceded the basic ground-rules as given.

 

Progressive on the other hand is to question, to wrestle, and to push. Progressives don’t necessarily think that all progress is good and certainly don’t think that history is inevitable.

 

Liberals are predictable - because the matter is settled. If one takes the basic considerations handed down from enlightenment concerns, liberals are just the other side of the coin from conservatives. Take any issue – miracles, Biblical authorship, other religions, etc. – you know exactly what you are going to get from both conservatives and liberals.

 

They have been doing this dance with each other for a long time. One takes the high road and the other takes the low. One makes a move right. The other secures the left. This is why they are both easy to pigeon hole and caricature.

 

Maybe an example would be helpful. Let’s take economics.

 

Capitalism is the default economic theory of the Western (liberal) society. While conservative and liberal Christians would believe different things within a capitalistic framework (tax brackets, incentives, government programs, and social involvement) what is not in question is capitalism itself. The system is both beneficial and unquestioned to both teams. Like Yankees and RedSox fans stress how much they dislike each other and the opposing team’s tactics, what is never in question is the goodness of baseball in the first place. That is assumed.

 

Progressives call the system into question and call out a different set of concerns. Issues of globalization, free trade, deregulation and disparity come in.

 

Liberals want a slightly nicer, kinder, more equitable, more accessible version of capitalism than conservatives do. Progressives question the whole enterprise and may go so far as to say that the ethical teachings of Jesus about how we are to treat other humans are incompatible with the workings of the capitalist machine.

 

We could do this with any number of issues. My only point is that progressives are not liberals shying away from the ‘L’ word because it has been made a pejorative. [Rather they embrace it and run with it - res]

 

So even if you just want to say that progressives are aggressive liberals, that would be more accurate. Liberals concede the rules of game, they just want to pick the better of the provided options. Progressives question the as-is possibilities of the given structures. This causes progressive to engage in critical examination and to re-evaluate both the road ahead and the road that delivered us here.

 

* He said this during a Homebrewed Christianity interview for episode 101.

 

*res - r.e. slater

 

 

 

Can An Evangelical Be Progressive?

PART 4

 

by R.E. Slater

February 18, 2013

 

What if an evangelical were to call themselves a progressive evangelical? Are we to then infer that that person is a liberal, or more rather, a progressive liberal?

 

Or, is the usage of the term progressive a descriptively different term than its noun-form?

 

But rather than imply that a progressive Evangelical is liberal it might imply that that evangelical wishes to move to the left of the conservative elements within his religious affiliation.... By embacing social issues; by questioning existing religious structures, conventions and practices; by mitigating harsher words of judgmental Christianity for kindlier words of grace and peace; and for any number of other reasons.

 

An evangelical may thus wish to move left of a perceived hardline mentality fraught within their own evangelicalism. And we might describe an evangelical as one who might be conservative, moderate, progressive, or even leftist. But still, that description hangs as to what how an evangelical interacts with his/her own evangelicalism.

 

So too may a liberal be conservative, progressive, or leftist, in relationship to their liberalism. To use the adverbial form of the term "progressive" is meaningless without its context.

 

Ironically, this same situation also occurred within Fundamentalist Christianity birthing its more liberal, or progressive, twin - that of Evangelicalism. But one would not consider Evangelicalism as liberal much less than Fundamentalism as being non-Christian. However, each Christian group has their own distinctives, creeds, religious formulas, practices, and ministerial themes.

 

So then, to use the term liberal, or progressive, must be to use the terms intelligently, or coherently, within their greater context of literary meaning, and not as simply pejorative labels.

 

To be a progressive evangelical then is unlike being a progressive liberal. They are two different belief structures (or, world-and-life philosophies). The former holds to some form of Roger Olson's 6-point outline, the latter to some form of its opposite. They are unlike each other even though each uses the same label of progressive.

 

Furthermore, an Emergent Christian is one that has moved to the left of Evangelicalism, for the same reasons that an Evangelical had moved to the left of Fundamentalism. Moreover, an Emergent Christian may be the same as a progressive Evanglical, but it is hoped that the term Evangelical is dropped for the more positive description of Emergent (or Emerging) Christianity.

As example, both Roger Olson and Scott McKnight would describe themselves as postconservative Evangelicals (which means that they are progressive Evangelicals as I understand it). A confounding term to say the least. But, based upon their careers, and school affiliations, wisely used in these days and times of firings and public slanderings. Bo Sanders, on the other hand is an Emergent Christian, as am I.

So then, just what is an Emergent / Emerging Christian? It is the one we have been writing about for these past two years here at Relevancy22. And just what is an Emergent / Emerging Theology? It too is in various stages of development and expression and can likewise be found here at Relevancy22.

 

In terms of Christian labeling, an Emergent Christian is one that has left Evangelicalism or, has moved to the right from Mainline Denominationalism's progressive liberalism. However, an Emergent may also be a former traditional Catholic wishing to contemporize their Catholic faith by following the reforms of Vatican II that have become stillborn by its more conservative constituents and theologs. Or, perhaps an Emergent is one that was either liberal, or without any religious affiliation, wishing to re-express their atheism, hedonism, natural theology, and so on, to that of a biblical theology that is both postmodern and contemporary.

 

But to any Christian wishing to remain Christian, or biblically theological, Roger's 6-points are good qualifiers for a Christianity that is always orthodox, regardless of its religious expression down through the ages. Whether it was that of an early Jewish Christianity, or that of an Hellenistic extract, or pre-Medieval, Medieval, Reformational, Enlightened, Modern, or Postmodern.

 

Regardless, Orthodox Christianity will observe all 6 points - to which I'm sure we could add a few more.... Throughout all, God will be God, and a God who has not left us to our own selves. Who actively pursues us in all endeavors despite sin, this lost world, or our lost souls. Who wishes to redeem us and bring us into active fellowship with Himself. And His will, as it expands outwards throughout His creation, as a greater spiritual Kingdom unstoppable and unrelenting.

 

1. A God who is Creator-Redeemer
2. A Special Revelation that is supernatural in origin
3. A Christology that is Incarnational and Trinitarian
4. Scriptures that are Inspirational and Authoritative
5. A lost humanity requiring God's salvation
6. A future that looks to Jesus Christ's return