As I wrote in response to Thinking Friend Vern Barnet’s excellent comments regarding my April 30 blog post, I grew up in a rather fundamentalist/traditionalist Protestant church and denomination. My theological understanding changed through the years, though, with the help of a good professor at William Jewell College (David O. Moore) and good profs/scholars at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (Eric Rust, Dale Moody, and Glenn Hinson).
Advocating a Radiant Center. My theological position changed
progressively, and now I am pleased to identify myself as a progressive
Christian. As one who has long advocated a “radiant center,” I intentionally
sought to avoid the extremes of fundamentalism on the right and liberalism on
the left. That intention is seen in the two books I have written on the subject.*1
In those two books, I had in mind a continuum with five positions: fundamentalism
on the far right and liberalism on the far left. Then, I titled the tenth chapter of the second book “Between Liberalism
and Fundamentalism,” and I concluded with a subsection called “Advocating the
Radiant Center” (pp. 329-330)
Perhaps it is now time to propose only three positions: liberalism,
the radiant center, and fundamentalism, with the center constituting half of
the spectrum and the extremes only one-fourth each. On such a scale, I now
place myself on the left side of the broad middle, rejecting the extremes of
liberalism but being as far as possible from the extremes of fundamentalism.
Introducing ProgressiveChristianity.org. Mark
Sandlin is a Presbyterian pastor of a small church in North Carolina, but a
prominent shaper of progressive Christianity. He is the president and
co-executive director of ProgressiveChristianity.org. On that website, Sandlin articulates
“The Core Values of Progressive Christianity.”*2
First, though, please bear in mind that a key difference between
progressive Christianity and evangelical Christianity is that the former
emphasizes the importance of this world where is the latter tends to be “otherworldly,”
emphasizing the importance of “saving souls” for everlasting life in Heaven. Progressive
Christianity, however, primarily stresses the importance of life on earth now,
helping people to flourish (with the “abundant life” Jesus promised) in this
present world.*3
Here are some of the values Sandlin postulates:
* We [progressive Christians] believe God is Love, not a distant
evaluator.
* Jesus shows us what Love looks like in human form.
* The Bible is a living conversation and we’re invited into it.
* Salvation
is about becoming whole, not escaping earth.
* Other religions hold wisdom too and that doesn’t threaten our faith.
Introducing Doubter’s Parish. Martin Thielen is a former Southern Baptist who
became the pastor of a large Methodist church. He graduated from The Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary in 1982 (20 years after I did) and later received
a D.Min. degree from Midwestern Baptist Seminary in Kansas City.
Since his retirement from the 8,000 member megachurch, he created a
website called Doubter’s Parish. He posts only one article a month, but I
have found them to be well worth reading. Here are some of what he said about
progressive Christianity in his April 7 post titled “A Life-Giving Alternative
to Religious-Right Religion” (see
here; the image above is at the top of that website,
but is location of that church sign is undesignated).
Thielen writes, “Thankfully, we don’t have to choose between
religious-right religion and no religion at all. There is an alternative. It’s
called progressive Christianity. And we need it now more than ever.” Here are a
few of the fourteen benefits he says that kind of faith embraces:
* Progressive Christianity emphasizes grace
over judgment.
* Progressive Christianity is committed to
social justice.
* Progressive Christianity prioritizes
Christian living over doctrinal conformity.
* Progressive Christianity practices inclusion rather than exclusion.
* Progressive Christianity seeks to follow the
example and teachings of Jesus.
* Progressive Christianity majors on living a
life of love.
Since my faith now resonates significantly with the values and
characteristics given by Sandlin and Thielen, I am pleased to say that I am (or
seek to be) a progressive Christian.
_____
*2 I encourage you to click on the following link to that website and see how progressive Christianity is portrayed there: https://progressivechristianity.org/.
The first comments received this morning (before 6:00), were these affirmative words from a local Thinking Friend: "Leroy! I love this blog. Progressive Christian fits me to perfection. It is a label to live up to, around with, and given ground. Thank you."
ReplyDeleteAnd then not long after 6:00, local Thinking Friend David Nelson, shared these comments:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for a well thought out articulation of progressive Christianity. This is the faith that Has nurtured me most of my life. I am proud to be a Christian and have been appreciative to have this faith shared by my parents and the churches I have attended. It saddens me when this is not practiced."
Thanks, David, for sharing these comments. You were fortunate to have been the son of a progressive pastor who was not shackled with the narrowness of the traditional conservative Christianity that some of us (including me) grew up in.
DeleteAbout an hour ago, I received the following comments from Thinking Friend Rob Carr, who is a retired pastor and one who has long emphasized the important contemplative tradition of the mystics in Christianity. (This is the type of response I was hoping for.)
ReplyDelete"Greetings Leroy ... thanks for continuing to offer your thoughts around pertinent matters.
"What I don't see here is how a 'Contemplative Christianity' fits into the larger schema. The Christianity of the Mystics....the Desert Fathers etc.
"What this 'school' of Christianity says is on offer from the Gospel is a transformation of consciousness toward 'being filled with all the fullness of God.'
"Hence, the contemplative spiritual practices are essential as we offer our consent to the Spirit's activity deep in the soul/psyche. Jesus as the supreme example of this.
"The conversation around the differences between conservative and liberal/progressive Christianity seems to center around how people approach Christianity intellectually---parsing out theological and interpretive approaches. There is value there, to be sure.
"But what are we to make of 'if anyone is in Christ they are a new creation.....?'
"Seems to be that Jesus, Paul, and the contemplative mystics are hard to pin down as to the question of their conservatism or progressivism. Or, to put it another way, they defy us to put them in theological boxes or categories.
"Welcome your thoughts."
As I said, Rob, I much appreciate your comments/questions. First, let me say that I agree that talking about conservative and liberal/progressive Christianity does, indeed, center mostly about how people approach Christianity intellectually. And I believe that is something that needs to be done. But I also agree with you that that is not all that needs to be done.
DeletePlease recall what I wrote in my April 10 blog post. I said that Ultimate Truth (and I could also have said the Ultimate) “must be known by personal encounter” and I used the term mysticism “to refer to personal contact with God rather than intellectual reasoning about God.” In that connection, I commented briefly on the mysticism of Pascal, Kierkegaard, and Richard Rohr.
As I’m sure you know, Fr. Rohr founded the Center for Action and Contemplation. It seems to me that is a good blend of the progressive and contemplative forms of Christianity, and I have learned much of benefit regarding both forms from him.
Concerning your last paragraph, I think that being a progressive Christian, among other things, rejects the tendency to place anyone, past or present, in “theological boxes or categories.”
A retired college professor who now lives in eastern Tennessee, sent this brief comment: "Thanks, Dr. Seat, for this encouraging message." And about ten minutes ago, an college classmate from the 1950s, who now lives in North Carolina, wrote, "I loved this blog. I guess I am a progressive Christian and just did not know it!'
ReplyDeleteHere is my response to my old classmate, "Thanks for reading and responding, LeRoy. What you wrote reminded me of the words of an unsophisticated man that I have heard regarding various positions: "I didn't even know what a ... was, and now I are one." Perhaps many of us became progressive Christians before we knew there was such a suitable term for us to use in self-identification.
DeleteHi Leroy, Thank you for your insightful post. I too have been a monthly reader of Doubters' Parish. I look forward to exploring what Sandlin has to say. While I agree with, and would describe myself as, a progressive Christian, I personally have gone one more step to no longer use the term "Christian." When asked if I am Christian, I now reply, "No, I am a follower of Jesus."
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments, Gary. And certainly most people would not know what you meant if you introduced yourself as a progressive Christian. And I agree that saying you are a follower of Jesus rather than saying you are a Christian, because of the way the latter has been tarnished so much. But I think there is a problem even in saying "a follower of Jesus." That is because the way you (and I) understand Jesus and his message if quite different from the understanding of Jesus by most MAGA Christians.
DeleteSorry, I didn't intend to be anonymous! Gary B.
ReplyDeleteAs others have found, Gary, if you are not signing in with Gmail (or a Google account), it is hard to sign in with your name. I haven't been able to find any way to change that.
DeleteThanks, Leroy, for spelling the basic principles of progressive Christianity. In yesterday’s sermon at Wicker Park Lutheran, our pastor emphasized a couple of the points listed—particularly “grace over judgment” and love instead of exclusion. Rev. Glombicki is definitely a progressive Christian, something reflected in most of his sermons, with which I almost always agree.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this blog entry, Leroy. Your progressive Christianity is what I preached throughout most of my pastoral career. Lately, though, I've found the metaphysics and the liturgical/preaching practices of even progressive Christianity so problematic that I've started attending a Unitarian Universalist church. I find it refreshing to see the emphasis on "inclusion, compassion, and justice" without all the metaphysics of Christianity and the grounding of sermons and liturgics solely on biblical narratives, and typically utilized without hardly a shred of biblical criticism. Thanks, again. I truly hope there is a future for progressive and extreme liberal Christianity in humanity's future. But whether it can get a serious foothold in a world dominated by the authoritarianism and patriarchy of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and fundamentalism-evangelicalism.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Rob Carr's comment about "liberal/progressive Christianity" centering "around how people approach Christianity intellectually." One could argue that Christianity's "downfall" was not only its identification with the political empire of Rome but also its appropriation of Greek philosophical influences that turned "faith" into believing doctrines. In that move, the existential-mystical realities of a historical-cultural humanity are lost. So it seems to me.
Thanks, Anton, for your thought-provoking comments. You learned about progressive Christianity much earlier that many of us (including me) did. But, as you might expect, I don’t agree with your serious questions about metaphysics “of even progressive Christianity”—although I tend to agree with your questions about liturgical practices (which are quite similar) while wondering what you mean by preaching practices, which if they are truly progressive, can include a wide range of preaching.
DeleteAs the Western world moves more and more into postmodernism, I think there will be a surge of progressive Christianity and a continuing decrease of the present dominant form of the type of Christianity you mentioned. I also fully agree with what you said about Christianity’s “downfall.” Anabaptists, with whom I have long self-identified, have long linked Christianity’s downfall to Constantine. And from their beginning in the 1520s, they emphasized the importance of discipleship (following Jesus in action, Bonhoeffer’s “nachfolge”) as far more important than writing about doctrine.
Here are brief comments received since noon from local Thinking Friend Ed Kail:
ReplyDelete"What a concept! -- Thanks for offering an appealing alternative."
I remember some years ago when I first heard your theory of the radiant center, I was concerned about putting it on a single line between fundamentalism and liberalism, and replied with an attempt to map an alternative using a triple scale and showing where I thought various opinions would land on my map. Luckily, I guess, I am not sure where I have that chart today, so everyone is spared trying to understand it. Since I have read physics theories that have the universe everywhere from one-dimensional to fourteen-dimensional, I will let your two-dimensional faith line stand as a good approximation.
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, I am nearing completion of reading Bart Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" (2014), and am currently working through his explanation of all the ways to be an early heretic. Raised Episcopalian, converted to fundamentalism, which led to education at Moody Bible Institute, which led to a life of scholarship, he finally left Christianity. He did not take the path of Karl Barth, whose "Epistle to the Romans" took faith apart and put it back together in an attempt to rebirth Christianity for a more modern age. Now, I must admit, I believe Barth failed, giving birth not so much to neo-orthodoxy as to pseudo-orthodoxy. Granted, much of that was due to how Paul finished Romans, but it would have been nice if Barth could have found a better synthesis. Then again, it took me three tries to finally make it all the way through Barth's book. The first 500 pages were an amazing high-wire act. Perhaps Ehrman will do something in his epilogue, which I have not read, yet. I imagine a religious version of Emily A. Austin's "living for pleasure: an epicurean guide to life." The social and economic suggestions are surprisingly similar to what I get out of the gospel.
Thank you, Leroy, for another thought provoking piece. I have long appreciated your analysis of Liberal Christianity and Fundamentalist Christianity. Your attempt at a mediating position of a radiant center is commendable. It remains interesting to me, however, that the words "Christian" and "Christianity" retain any real meaning, with such broad disparity of meanings and understandings within the world religion called "Christianity" over the past 2,000 years. Tellingly, such disparity of meanings today, I suppose, should not be surprising since not even the Church Father's agreed on what the life and teachings of Jesus meant. Only beginning with Constantine do we see the beginning of a militant, coercive and forced homogenization and essentialization of "Christianity." It was Constantine who convened the Council of Nicea. Why? Because it conveniently served his purpose of a united Rome, in post-Tetrarchy Rome. The primary debate during this critical time was the nature of Jesus, the divisive issue among Christians during Constantine's early reign. Was the historical Jesus of the same substance or similar substance of the Divine (the difference that a Greek iota can make!)? Can that with beginning ("begotten") be of the same substance as the eternal God? Etc.? And, philosophically speaking, can that which is God (not-man) be man? I've come to see what many today would identify as "orthodox Christianity" as the convenient machinations of Emperor Constantine and his attempt to eliminate any dissent and centralize his power, as expressed by his matra "One God, one Logos, one emperor." Since Constantine, what totalitarian authoritarianism can accomplish is absolutely amazing, as we see even in today's politics. But, in the final analysis, even Constantine was arguably a henotheist (honoring primarily the God Sol Invictus, the sun God, while continuing to honor and pay tribute to the God/desses of his time.) and Pagan, as he never sought to abolish the classical Paganism (the pax Deorum and pax Romana) of the Roman Empire. Paganism was by nature tolerant, an essential Pagan virtue, valuing and encouraging tolerance and pluralism (even acknowledging/making allowance for/honoring the "unknown gods"). Intolerance came only afterward, when intolerant "orthodox Christianity" (and other monotheisms) took hold, leading to the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch trials, and to the present we unfortunately see with much of White Christian Nationalism today. One might conclude that "Christianity" has been bane to the world. The teachings and example of Jesus, the purported founder of Christianity, are another story.
ReplyDeleteThis is well said and spot on. I would add only that Constantine was motivated to call the Council also because Christianity had become a volatile divisive force within itself which threatened the cohesion of the empire. Christians were fighting among themselves over the TRUE Christian beliefs. I had a church member once express the sentiment that her view of God was very fuzzy. I thought that is exactly what we need. A very fuzzy view and actually built a sermon on that idea.
Delete[When I first saw these comments, I wondered who among my Thinking Friend would post such a theological astute comments, but then the writer identified himself by email. He is Tom Nowlin, who was a missionary colleague of mine in Japan before returning to his home state of Arkansas.)
DeleteThanks so much for your meaningful comments, Tom. It would take a long time to respond fully to what you have written here, so I will comment briefly on your last two sentences. Basically, my response was already made in my response to Anton's first comments above. The bold stance of Anabaptists in the 1500s and the position of most progressive Christians in the 2000s has been to get back to and move forward with the gospel of (=the message/teachings of) Jesus Christ. That message is far different from what has been entwined with so much of Christianity, in different ways, from the time of Constantine to the present.
Basically, I think that most who identify as progressive Christians now, would agree with your criticism of historic Christianity.
And, Anton, I was surprised to see your comments at 4:19 a.m.! I had gotten up a few minutes before that, but I didn't expect anyone to have already posted comments that early in the morning. -- I also found the woman's comments about having a fuzzy view of God quite interesting. That fits well with the concept of postmodernism, which I am thinking quite a bit about now. During the modern period (1500~2000), views of God were quite clear-cut (even though many were also quite inadequate). But to the extent God's presence in the world is perceived at "ruach"'/Spirit, "fuzzy" it an expressive term for that reality.
DeleteBro. Leroy, a most enlightening blog. Before I get into more extensive comments, I agree with your evaluation of the three positions on the religious spectrum. If only that central half would raise their voices a little louder, realizing we have a lot of common ground to acknowledge before we start assessing our differences.
ReplyDeleteForgive me as I stumble through these thoughts related to death, this life, and the post-death existence. Progressive Christianity seems to see 'death' as a defining factor in practicing the teachings of Jesus to the extent what happens after death is of little consequence. Traditional/fundamental Christianity definitely places a far greater emphasis upon life after death rather than the Jesus follower's (I like this phrase more than ever) responsibility for helping others find and live the abundant life Jesus came to give. Just note the music of Southern Gospel! Is it not possible we give this moment in our existence too much importance? Might it not be possible death is nothing more than the change from the mortal to the spiritual whatever that may look like? We cannot denigrate these mortal years nor should we ever say these mortal years should take precedent over eternity. There exists a large difference in their length!
I cannot argue the points Thielen makes. Some ideas do raise some questions that more space for discussion could provide obvious answers.
* Can grace have meaning without the possibility of judgment?
* Does living a life of love involve a concern only for that which will exist until death?
I confess the same level of agreement for Sandlin, but also feel a greater discussion could answer some questions. I need to read their sites and works.
* How can the salvation that introduces the abundant life which should begin with the new birth not be seen as having an impact in this life and also having a continuance in the existence beyond death? How can we offer a hope of an abundant life if we restrict it realistically to a relationship with the Creator-Father through the Creator-Son primarily in the days/years before death? If that is the case, Jesus didn't offer the thief on the cross much of an abundant life.
With all this I am not sure where it places me on your three position continuum.
Tom, I'm sorry to be so slow in responding to your thought-provoking comments. Let me begin by briefly seeking to answer your questions regarding Thielen. 1) Yes, I think we all need God's grace repeatedly and it doesn't relate to judgment. Rather, we need God's grace because we humans so often say and do bad things that injure others, and ourselves, and that causes suffering because of our failures, not because of God's judgments.
Delete2) You asked if living a life of love involves a concern only for that which will exist until death. I would say, no not only that, but that is where we are living now, and so maybe we need to pay more attention to how we and others are living now and forget the old song about "this world is not my home, I'm just a passin' through."
3) I don't want to restrict the abundant life at all, but I firmly believe that Jesus intended for us to know that such a life is available NOW, although the man on the cross didn't have much of a now to realize such a life--but maybe even two or three minutes was far better than never realizing it at all.