Was Jesus Conservative or Progressive in His Faith?

Who is the Founder of Progressive Christianity?

article link

by James F. McGrath

July 16, 2022

Rather than give “Jesus” as a one-word answer to the question of who founded progressive Christianity, let me begin with a quote from something I wrote here on my Patheos blog some years ago which makes that same point but in more words and with more detail, which those who are skeptical of my assertion will need if they are to be persuaded:

If “liberal Christianity” means Christianity that reflects the cosmology and worldview of a particular era, then the earliest Christianity is liberal Christianity. It is only later, as cosmologies and worldviews changed, that some insisted on clinging to the views of an earlier era, because those happened to be part of the worldview of previous generations of Christians, including the Bible’s authors. That is why “conservative” Christianity ends up being a very radical departure from earliest Christianity, even in the process of fighting to try to keep the same worldview as they had to the minimal extent that that is even possible. By making the assumptions of prior generations into articles of faith, they stand against and not with the approach of the earliest Christians, even while claiming to defend their specific beliefs.

Let me immediately add that it may not be helpful to speak of Jesus as the “founder” of Christianity, as though he was seeking to start a new world religion. Jesus, like most “founders” of new religions, did not intend to do so but was instead a reformer within his own religion, Judaism. The process of getting from there to here reflects the progressiveness of Jesus that I’ll be seeking to highlight here. My point is that, to the extent that progressive Christianity has a beginning, that beginning is with Jesus and has continued unabated ever since.

---

Everyone is more progressive or liberal than some people and less so than others. Progressive and liberal are tendencies along a spectrum and not absolute binary categories. In the case of Jesus, can anyone really deny that he was open to taking things in a new direction, to innovation and change? He taught his followers to do the same. This doesn’t mean that there weren’t elements in which Jesus was conservative, just as is true of his progressive followers today. Many progressives are also interested in getting back behind developments in doctrine and institutional structures to a simplicity they associate with Jesus and his first disciples. That’s very Protestant, and in one sense is inherently conservative. 

Those who are defined as conservatives today often claim to be doing (or at least trying to do) the same thing. But those who are most often labeled conservative are seeking to go back to the supposed original beliefs and practices of Christians and to replicate them irrespective of the changes that have taken place since then and the differences between our own context and that in which Christianity first arose.

Progressives, on the other hand, seek to implement in our time the same openness, the same guiding principles, that Jesus emphasized. Just as he was open to recognizing genuine and even superior faith among those who tended to be defined out of the people of God in his time (Matthew 8:10), today’s progressive Christians seek to do likewise. As Jesus envisaged Gentiles coming to the messianic banquet to dine alongside the Israelite Patriarchs (Matthew 8:11), Paul and others went against the clear teaching of Genesis which required the circumcision of all who were part of Abraham’s household. Instead these Christians insisted (over against the conservative Christians of their own time) that if God had shown that uncircumcised Gentiles are accepted by pouring out the Holy Spirit on them, circumcision must not be essential (Galatians 3:2-5).

As I have said here on my blog before, “Conservative Christians often claim to be the most faithful interpreters of Scripture. But it seems to me that if we have ears to hear what the Spirit was saying to the churches down the ages, it will become clear that focusing on written words and using them to argue against what the Spirit is doing often led people to be on the ‘wrong side’ as far as the Bible’s own perspective is concerned. And part of the message of many parts of the Bible is a warning to learn from such mistakes of the past.” Paul did not feel that pointing out “what the Bible says” settled a matter. Neither did Jesus, who famously said that Moses was the one who permitted divorce in scripture but God’s ideal for human beings was lifelong fidelity (Matthew 19:8).

---

Those who wrote the Gospels in Greek were likewise progressive inasmuch as they cared less about preserving the exact words of Jesus in his native tongue Aramaic, than they did about communicating the core of his message as they understood it to as wide an audience as possible, which meant writing in Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire.

Early Christian apologists like Justin Martyr (the original “apologists” before modern internet debaters sullied the term) stood in this tradition as well, being open to Greek and Roman philosophies and the insights they offered. All through the ages there have been those who have stood in this tradition, and so in that sense there is an unbroken lineage of progressive Christianity that connects Jesus to the present day.

Liberal Protestants closer to our time - such as Martin Luther King Jr. - must also be included. Many conservatives embrace his emphasis on racial equality, completely unaware that he represents a liberal Baptist position. If one reads his essay on the topic of the divinity, virgin birth, and resurrection of Jesus that he wrote while a student at Crozer Theological Seminary, one will find things that reflect the stance of today’s liberal and progressive Christians.

---

Having put matters in those terms let me now pose an important question: Why Switch to Progressive?

I realize that sounds like a slogan in a car insurance ad but that’s not what I mean here, as is hopefully clear from the context.

In the first instance the question is about the terminology (which I confess I don’t find all that helpful). Why do people tend to identify as “progressive” Christians nowadays when a generation ago they tended to use the label “liberal”? 

Progressive doesn’t have a meaning that is clearly distinct from liberal. Moreover, some progressive, or liberal Christians, are theologically conservative but politically liberal, while others are the exact reverse. There’s potential for misunderstanding, to say the least. However, because liberalism reflected a stance that was very modern and shaped by the values of the Enlightenment (just as fundamentalism is shaped by that same context as the flip side of liberalism and a reaction against it), those who have accepted postmodern critiques of liberalism tend to prefer the term “progressive.”

Yet the same openness to new insights (whether from biblical study, history, science, psychology, or anywhere else) characterize the two. Progressive Christianity thus reflects the present-day iteration of a liberal/progressive approach to God, faith, and other human beings that we can trace back as far as the very beginnings of Christianity, to Jesus himself.

---

Hopefully the above makes clear another sense in which I want to answer the question, “Why switch to Progressive?”

Why do I think others should embrace progressive Christianity? Because it reflects the outlook of Jesus and his earliest followers.

Christianity has always been bridging gaps, including outsiders, challenging assumptions, and innovating new beliefs and structures.

Some deny that, and so, rather than speak about progressive Christianity, I’d much rather talk simply about Christianity, or about honest Christianity, one that doesn’t pretend that there is no picking and choosing going on, just a preservation of a faith in static stagnant sameness.

[But], that has never been the case.

The key difference between progressive Christians and conservatives is that progressives acknowledge the fact that we preserve things selectively, that we pick and choose, and that we never fail to experience change. We do not view this process negatively the way conservatives do, even though they participate in the same processes, however much they might try to deny this is so.

That’s the answer in a nutshell.

It could have been briefer, as I indicated at the outset. I could have said “Jesus is the founder of progressive Christianity” and left it at that. But many people today treat conservative forms of Christianity as the default, as though they genuinely represent the classic historic Christian faith. In actual fact they merely preserve a dogmatic rejection of change that arose in that specific form relatively recently in history.

There were conservatives among the earliest Christians, and we read about them because they did things like opposing Paul’s proclamation to Gentiles of a gospel that did not require circumcision. It is ironic that today’s conservatives cite Paul’s letters as authoritative when they represent the stance of Paul’s opponents.

TL; DR: The core of Christianity was progressive from its beginning, and today’s progressives continue that tradition.

Also related to this topic:

• Critical Christianity

• Q Theology, Coup Theology

• Progressive Christians and the Bible

• Why I Am a Progressive Christian

• Conservative is Just a Code Word for “Godlessness”

• Inerrancy: The Hermeneutics of Defending Slavery

• Defining Progressive Christianity

• Progressive Christianity in the Spotlight

• Literalists aren’t Literally Literalists

• Original Christianity is Liberal Christianity

Finally, a couple of memes you can share:

The Authentic Rigor of the Bible as a Literary Narrative of the Ages

To read the bible is to read of its composition at the hands of many many authors and editors. As has well been said, the bible is a literary composition not a literal composition when we read its pages. To me, this makes the bible all the more authentic over the contrived "inerrancy" movement which would say otherwise. If this literary authenticity was not found in its pages than the bible would simply pass into the archives of history as another mythical narrative elicited from ancient civilizations long pass.

To that end, the biblical legends that arise from the bible's pages are a common narrative theme bespeaking cultural relevancy rather than historical irrelevancy. When compared to other literary narratives it is a very common argumentation derived from the human breast linking past to present. Even today, in our postmodern cultures, news services and social media, contemporary interpretations of the news continually purports to "interpret" God's hand in human affairs as did the "divines" of yesteryear from the pages of the Old and New Testaments.

No less was this narratival work done by other, more ancient civilizations, bespeaking God's "favor" upon their actions through war canons, documentaries, and cultural legends. Today we do the same. It seems we cannot avoid thinking in nationalistic terms when interpreting our past and present actions. Revisionism lies everywhere to the uncritical, inward-evolving human story of pathos in event. It is how humanity tells its story to itself and other peoples and nations though its story may not be God's story of redemption but a more earthly form of "redemption" a civilization may wish to cling too.

This makes the Bible authentic. It was never written as a creedal tract but as a theological narrative relating the difficulty of faith in the streams of popular beliefs and actions. And in many instances, as a-less-than-godly narrative from the lips of God's people steeped in lore, legend and legacy. For many a faithful one, it required standing up to one's culture to challenge its common misperceptions. And when done, receive for their efforts shunning, excommunication, libel, and perhaps death, when speaking out. Today, popular examples abound in postmodern civilization as both church and government, communities and individuals decide who or what is worthy to be heard. It bespeaks the ancient disease of sin in the hearts of the faithful wishing to be valiant but finding their works but filthy rags needing Jesus' atoning redemption.

As such, this historical-literary feature of the Bible makes it all the more interesting and relevant to today's postmodern cultures grasping how to interpret God's Word in a day-and-age when all claim "knowing God" but really are living far-far-away from His Heart, Word, and Spirit. And no, I am not speaking of the world here, but of the today's fundamental and conservative churches and faith claimants clamoring about to the truth of their messages yet finding their dutiful work, preaching, and outreach nowhere close to God's heart and mission. Thus religion is bourne away from faith to idolatry, away from good intentions to evil, without any questioning of its truer, darker heart held within the human breast casting eyes ever outwards rather than inwards. So the bible tells us let us examine ourselves first, our faith, and our commitments, and learn to be wise when seeking truth and fellowship. Amen and Amen.

R.E. Slater
August 3, 2017

* * * * * * * * * *

A Few Facts Christians Should Know About The Bible’s “Canaanite Genocide”

link to article

by Benjamin L. Corey

July 31, 2017
Comments

In recent years the issue of violence in the Old Testament has become a hot topic of discussion in many Christian circles. While there’s plenty of violence in the Old Testament worthy of wrestling and discussion, one particular event seems to come up a lot: the Canaanite genocide.

There’s fewer stories in the Bible that create the problems the Canaanite genocide creates. How could “God’s nation” completely slaughter an entire people group? How is it loving to one’s neighbor to kill all of them? Why would God make them do such a thing?

All good questions. Atheists have pounced on them for years, while most evangelicals have had to engage in cognitive dissonance as the modern concept of inerrancy has forced them to now find a way to justify an event (that if true) isn’t morally different than the holocaust or other genocidal conquests we’ve seen through history.

This discussion has been re-sparked by recent news that scientists have discovered that the Canaanites were not wiped out. This study reports:

“DNA retrieved from roughly 3,700-year-old skeletons at an excavation site in Lebanon that was formerly a major Canaanite city-state shows that “present-day Lebanese derive most of their ancestry from a Canaanite-related population, which therefore implies substantial genetic continuity in the Levant since at least the Bronze Age.”

In light of this study, here’s some important facts that Christians might want to know about the Bible’s Canaanite genocide:

Fact: The Bible itself ultimately makes it clear that the genocide did not happen.

Later in the Bible we find out that there are, gasp, still Canaanites. In fact, Jesus actually heals one of them in the Gospel of Matthew. So this idea there was a genocide where all of the Canaanites were destroyed? We know just from reading the Bible this isn’t true.

Fact: We already knew scientifically that the genocide didn’t happen.

As Dr. James McGrath pointed out today, many of us were surprised that people are acting like this is some sort of new discovery, when it’s not:

“First of all, the Bible is very clear (in places) that the Canaanites were never completely wiped out from Israel. But second and more importantly, historians have always been aware that the Phoenicians were a Canaanite people, and so the discovery that their descendants are to be found in the regions they historically inhabited should not be a surprise either…”

Furthermore, as Peter Enns has pointed out in his own work, we know from archeological evidence that the genocide did not happen– certainly not on the scale the Bible implies.

Fact: False reports of genocide are common in the bronze age.

Should the fact that the Bible implies genocide occurred, but that modern evidence disproves this, be shocking? No, of course not. In fact, this clear exaggeration of events actually makes the Bible more authentic instead of less– and this is because at the time these passages were written, it was actually commonplace to falsely claim one had wiped out all of their enemies. Instead of shocking, it is quite affirming because it is exactly how I would expect a bronze age written war conquest to read. Had Canaanite records survived to present day, I wouldn’t be surprised if they claimed to have wiped out all their enemies, too.

Case in point, here is a short 2 minute video blog I made in Amman, Jordan when I stumbled upon a Moabite artifact that does exactly this– and ironically, falsely claims there was a genocide that destroyed all of ancient Israel:

One of the hot issues in theology today is the issue of violence and genocide in the Old Testament. Did God command genocide? Did the people of God ruthlessly slaughter their enemies? I'm here at a museum in Amman, and have stumbled upon an artifact from a Moabite king that might completely change the way you read some of the claims of the Old Testament, especially claims of genocide:

https://www.facebook.com/benjaminlcorey/videos/1002072116605360/

So, when we as Christians discuss the problematic Old Testament passages claiming genocide, we need to begin from a starting point that recognizes that both the Bible, and multiple angles of science, affirm the reality that there was not an extermination of the Canaanites. Furthermore, we must also recognize that these exaggerations do not call the authenticity of the Bible into question, but instead affirm it is a historical document of a specific time and place, and that it reads exactly the way one would expect it to read– including exaggerations of genocide.

Of course, this brings up other questions, perhaps the most important being: “If the Bible claims that God ordered genocide, does that mean God really did?”

That’s a question for a different day– but the important facts to remember, is that they didn’t do what we often think they did.

And that’s actually good news.

Follow BLC on Facebook

Were the Titles of the Gospel on #Sillyboi?

Were the Titles of the Gospel on #Sillyboi?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2016/05/were-the-titles-of-the-gospel-on-sillyboi.html#st_refDomain=www.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/

by James F. Mc Grath

May 18, 2016

Comments

You may think I’m a “silly boy” for writing about this. But when Sarah Bond recently wrote a blog post about the ancient Greek use of a tag (sillybos) to indicate the author and title of a work on a scroll, I felt I needed to blog in a bit more detail about the possible implications of this practice for the study of the New Testament, which Bond mentioned briefly. Not that this has not come up before. But one will often hear people outside of the academy (and occasionally even within it) speak about the “anonymity” of the New Testament Gospels as though this were something surprising. The placement of a title at the top of the first page is something relatively new. It goes along with the development of the codex, since in a scroll, you wouldn’t want to have to unwind it all the way to see what it was. And so tags were used. Even in codices, whether a title would be included, and if so whether it would be at the start or end of a work, varied for a long time.

And so it seems to me unsurprising that the Gospels lack titles of the kind modern readers expect. Would the earliest version of Mark ever have been written on a scroll? It is impossible to know (Francis Moloney thinks so, and so too does Ben Witherington). But at the very least, its author would have been more used to reading scrolls than codices, and might therefore have expected any designation for his literary work to go on a tag rather than someplace else.

It is probable that the Gospel of Mark would have been known initially as “The Gospel of Jesus Christ,” with the author certainly known to those who first read the work. The Gospel of Matthew would have been known as Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (“The Genesis/Genealogy of Jesus Christ”). The author of the Gospel of John may perhaps have hoped that his work would be confused with that other, already famous “In The Beginning,” and so actually have had the evangelistic purpose some have detected in the statement of purpose in John 20:31. With the composition of these other works in the same vein, however, it became natural to refer to them in a similar way, with the author being the point of comparison between them. The fact that the first of them highlighted the word Gospel at its start would then explain well why the titling followed Mark’s lead. And given that it is the conclusion of modern scholarship that Mark was written first, but that this was not the historic view of the order of the Gospels, the convergence of modern scholarship on the order with these ancient considerations about the titles is perhaps noteworthy.

(I’m pretty sure no one ever called the Gospel of Luke ΕΠΕΙΔΗΠΕΡ ΠΟΛΛΟΙ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησινπερὶ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων… And that too is something worth talking about, since it begins in a manner that does not make for easy reference. Might it have been referred to as ‘The Things Concerning Which You Were Instructed’ or perhaps ‘In the Days of Herod the Great,’ the words which follow the introducion?)

When groups tended to use a small number of books (and in those times, very few individuals or groups owned large collections), shorthand ways of referring to them would be preferred. Even today one can find numerous examples of this.

For those who’ve been wondering ever since they read the title, the Greek word σύλλαβος is supposed to provide the origin of the English word syllabus. But in fact, the word for a tag on parchments was σίττυβας, and it seems that “syllabus” therefore derives from a transcription mistake that was made in a Greek word, or a Latin word derived from it. You can read in various places online about the debates regarding the term – and how to make the plural of “syllabus” in English if it is neither properly Greek nor properly Latin.

See also my earlier two posts on the question of whether the Gospels were originally anonymous:

Were the Gospels originally anonymous?

Are the Gospels anonymous?

As you’ll see in the first post, we have actually found a “flyleaf” or attached tag indicating the title of the Gospel of Matthew. We know from the history of literature that the ways works were referred to could change over time.

What do you think the relevance is of this ancient practice of “tagging” literature (with what we today would call “metadata”) for the question of the titles and authorship of the New Testament Gospels?