Lee at verbum ipsum has a post from a few days ago that articulates my reservations about the progressive Christian label. I recommend a full read, but here’s a taste:
Stuck in the Middle (or Maybe on the Margin)
One of the unforseen consequences of President Bush’s re-election has been the new attention suddenly given to liberal or progressive Christians. Because Bush’s victory has widely (if perhaps erroneously) been attributed to religious “moral values” voters, some secular liberals have recognized the need to reach out to religious people, and left-of-center Christians have made new efforts to distinguish themselves from their conservative brethren.However, progressive Christians are by no means a homogenous group. For starters, we have to distinguish between politically liberal Christians and theologically liberal Christians. I take a “theological liberal” to be someone who has a more or less revisionist understanding of traditional Christian doctrines like the resurrection, the virgin birth, etc. Theological liberals tend to be religious pluralists, seeing all religions as human responses to the divine and thus (potentially at least) equally true and salvific.
I think it’s fair to say that theological liberals tend to be political liberals, but the reverse is not necessarily true. Some Christians are politically liberal (or at least not conservative) because they’re theologically orthodox. N. T. Wright, for example, widely regarded as a defender of orthodoxy, has said that debt relief for poor nations and a just form of globalization are the most pressing political issues of our day. Jim Wallis of Sojourners and Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action combine a traditional evangelical piety and theology with opposition to war and militarism, progressive stances on economics and conservative positions on sexuality and abortion.
The distinction between progressive Christians that are theologically orthodox and those that are theologically liberal is an important one, and is a much more succinct description of my schizophrenia than My politically liberal beliefs are a direct result of my theologically orthodox faith.
Unlike Lee, I am comfortable with the Progressive Christian label, and even more so as I gain the words to describe where I stand within the universe of Christian Progressives. I am happy to join with theologically liberal Christians to achieve the political goals we have in common. However, my theological orthodoxy comes first, and my political liberalism follows, and for this reason, I may part ways with some Progressive Christians on some issues.
Interesting point. One observation I’ve made is that those clergy who were in the forefront of the Civil Rights movement, including with Martin Luther King, Jr., had a very orthodox Christian faith and a reverential view of Scripture. I think those two facts are in fact, related.
For me, I cannot accept “Orthodox” Christian faith. Period. It’s a slippery slope starting with http://www.godhatesshrimp.com (and fags) – and further down the slope is the doctrine that only Christians are saved, and the rest burn for ever.
A scholarly anlaysis of scripture can support a view that the traditional “hell” as viewed by a typical Southern Baptist, doesn’t actually exist. (Hebrew sheol=hole in the ground, or grave. Gehenna=actual physical place where lepers’ corpses were burned. Greek Hades=archaic reference to the pagan “underworld”, likely no longer relevant in the Christian mythology. . plenty of places on the Web to find support for this view). And my ELCA Pastor once told me that “hell” is simply “being without God for eternity”. Even Jesus said that the “dead are as sleeping, they know nothing” (until their Ressurection on the Last Day, and acceptance into the Kingdom, etc.). Interpretation varies.
But the bottom line for me, is the insistance that people who are so devoted to loving God, and obeying his Laws, that they ritually bow and pray to him 5 times a day, are all going to burn in Hell eternally, simply because they believe “the wrong scripture” – to me, is cruel, racist, hatemongering. I can’t believe in a God that would punish anyone with excuciating torture, simply because that person didn’t follow the precise, correct doctrine and rituals, even though they devoted themselves lovingly to submission to God. I find that many “evangelicals” I talk to are delighted to believe that such a fate awaits “evil heathen muslims” (because they’re all terrorists), and “liberals”. That’s just wrong. The God I believe in simply wants to reconcile the relationship with us, that was broken when we decided we didn’t need Him or His guidance. The contrition in our heart, the repentance, is what counts.
First and foremost, to believe in a “just” God, a “loving” God, a “forgiving” God, I have to toss out Scriptural Inerrancy. The two concepts are simply diametrically opposed. What I believe, is that any person who believes that there is a Creator, no matter what that Creator is named, and respects that Creator’s supreme power over Creation, and in the Creator’s ultimate goodness, and that the Creator loves us, and wants us to love Him back – any person with that mind, ought to be eligible to live forever in the Kingdom of Heaven, be “saved” – or whatever you want to call it. If a person does not believe in the Creator, or simply hates the Creator, or any part of Creation (including any other people, whether individual people, or members of other religions, races, or sexual orientations), anyone with that mind, is choosing to not share eternity with that which they hate, and therefore, NOT saved. Judge not, lest ye be judged.
It’s the only thing that makes sense, and is consistent with my view, of what God is. The God in which I believe, is not a torturer. The Bible says that he is. Therefore, the Bible’s at least partially wrong.
Enjoy your ‘blog. Introspection is necessary for learning and dialogue. One thing I would like to note. There is a distinct difference between Christianity and government. As a Christian I feel it is my responsibility to live a life upright before God, based on values and ideals I have learned from the scripture. I don’t however, think that I should force those values and ideals upon others who do not share my faith or perspective. It has been my impression that liberals want to force others by using government to do things they find morally acceptable. For example, most liberals want other people to give money to the poor, and they are willing to use government to force people to do that. The government has no business enforcing morality, and it is because of many of the liberal movement’s empowering of government that it does so. The only problem is, that when the government starts forcing a morality other than their own, it becomes outraged and calls it fascist. It’s fascist either way whenever its enforcing anyone’s code of morality either left or right. Our founding fathers recognized that government in its purest form is “FORCE”. Government is the use of force to dictate what it deems necessary. The next question begs to be asked is “what should force be applied to?”. Liberals and conservatives should both agree that no one should be forced to do something that is not part of their moral code. Our government should not force people to go overseas and kill, our government should not force people to get married or not, our government should not force us to give to things we morally don’t feel we should have to. Force should only be applied in relationship to crime, life and limb and enemies foreign and domestic. Force should be used to protect life. Force should be used to prohibit crime and wrongdoing.
I think that many liberals struggle with a sense of self-righteousness…a sense that everyone should adhere to their morale code and it should be enforced through an agency such as government. Keep in mind that I’m not saying ALL, but many do.
As a Christian, we have responsibilities that are our OWN and should not be forced upon others. Feeding the hungry, administering to the sick, clothing the naked are all moral decisions, and should be left to the individual. I do this on my own, with no expectation of reward, but most importantly with no expectation of my fellow man. That is between him and the Lord and he will give an account for his actions or lack thereof one day.
The problem with the pharisees of Jesus’ day was that they wanted to use their government to force their morality, their law on others. They were heartily criticized by Jesus in this. Today, liberals are accusing conservatives of the same thing, but fail to recognize it within their own ranks. The pharisees HATED Jesus to the point where they wished him dead. This seems to be a common emotion today in many liberals.
Would welcome debate or more importantly dialogue! Wish that many Christians would come together in honesty on these issues.
Thanks,
jack
Oh and a note for Osama above:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Matthew 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Of course if you don’t believe in the Bible, these verses won’t mean much to you. What arrogance though you have, that if something in the Bible doesn’t match up to YOUR theology, it’s wrong…
Couple of thoughts:
There were no babies in the Ark
Fire rained down on Sodom–I’m sure there were children there
Do you believe these events didn’t happen either?
[...] Wanna know what a progressive Christian is? Go here to find out. [...]