Why I Am a Progressive Christian

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.

_____

*¹ Fed Up with Fundamentalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Fundamentalism (2007; 2^nd ed., 2020), and The Limits of Liberalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Liberalism (2010; 2^nd ed., 2020).
*² I encourage you to click on the following link to that website and see how progressive Christianity is portrayed there: https://progressivechristianity.org/.
*³ That difference is explained in a 2023 post by Presbyterian pastor Bo McGuffee. That post, which I read for the first time while working on this article, can be found at https://evolvingchristianfaith.net/2023/01/evangelical-progressive-christianity/

 

In Honor of Ken Medema on his 80th Birthday

Today is Pearl Harbor Day, but since I have mentioned that event in several past posts, this one is about an outstanding man I consider to be a musical genius who was born on the second anniversary of that tragic attack. 

Ken Medema in 2019

Kenneth Peter Medema’s birth day was December 7, 1943. He was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and brought up in the Dutch Calvinist tradition of the Reformed Church. But he jettisoned his childhood faith and then as a college student at Michigan State University, he met Jane Ann Smith.

Jane’s father was the Baptist Student Union director at MSU and pastor of a small Baptist church in Lansing. In his discussions with Jane and her parents, Ken decided that “If this Baptist thing is what Christians are all about I want to be a part of it.” *¹

Ken and Jane married in 1965 and she has been Ken’s exemplary “helpmeet” and his partner in composition for all the years from then until now. Ken acknowledges that “without her input and perspectives his music would not begin to be what it is today.”*²

The Medemas currently live in the San Francisco Bay area, close to their two grown married children and four grandchildren.

From the time he was born, Ken Medema has been visually impaired. His sight has been limited to distinguishing between light and darkness and seeing fuzzy outlines of large objects.

As Ken says on his website, “I started banging on the piano when I was five years old, making up crazy little pieces on my mom’s piano. When I was eight years old my parents got me a wonderful teacher who taught me the classics with Braille music and encouraged me to play by ear.”

After college, he worked for four years as a music therapist at Essex County Hospital in New Jersey. It was while employed there that he began writing his own songs. Then in 1973, Ken left that work and began a career as a performing and recording artist—and he continues to do so.

I have had the privilege of hearing Ken perform two or three times and of meeting him personally. The last time was in 2005 when he was at the Sunday morning worship service at a Baptist church in the Kansas City area.

In my diary/journal entry for that day, I wrote “Ken Medema was…wonderful. He is one of the most talented people I have ever seen and met personally.”

Ken Medema is a radiant Christian in the radiant center. Although as a teenager and in his first years in college Ken seems to have been rather harsh in his criticism of others, he began to mellow after meeting Jane, and through the years he became a radiant Christian and winsome musical performer.

In the 1980s he and Jane became outspoken supporters of moderate or progressive Christianity, becoming ardent advocates of social justice for marginalized and oppressed people.

Jane studied at Union Theological Seminary and became the assistant pastor of Dolores Street Baptist Church in San Francisco. That church began accepting LGBT persons as members in the 1980s—and in 1989 their monetary gifts to the California Southern Baptist Convention were rejected.

But Ken has also been able to maintain an amicable relationship with conservative Christians. One of the recent YouTube videos is of the Easter Monday chapel service at Wheaton College.*³ Also, a few years ago he was repeatedly a guest at the Hour of Power telecasts. (See here, for example.)

At the age of 80, Ken still keeps a busy schedule. His upcoming performances this month include venues at Santa Ana, Calif.; Plano, Tex.; and Albuquerque, N.M.; and his January schedule includes Christ Cathedral, Garden Grove, Calif.; and the Jackie Kennedy Onassis Theater, New York City.

Truly, Ken is a radiant Christian who is a good example of being in the radiant theological center that I have commended many times. I encourage you to listen to some of his many YouTube videos—and to join me today in saying,

Happy 80^th Birthday, Ken Medema!

_____

*¹ From “Blind musical artist Ken Medema articulates his art form,” Baptist News Global (June 26, 2011).

*² From KenMedema.com website.

*³ Here is the link to that video; Ken first appears about 6½ minutes from the beginning.

** In 1977 a video was made portraying Ken’s early life, his meeting and marrying Jane, and his early musical career. If you have time, this is well worth seeing (here).

The Radiant Center Challenged by Criticism of Centrists

As many of you know, I am an advocate of what I call “the radiant center.” The last part of the last chapter of my book The Limits of Liberalism (2010, 2020) is about seeking and advocating a radiant theological center between the extremes of fundamentalism and liberalism (see pp. 317~330).

Last month, though, a man I greatly respect published an online opinion piece criticizing centrists. Naturally, I had to think about whether that was also a criticism of my strong emphasis on seeking the radiant center. 

Mitch Randall has been CEO of Good Faith Media (GFM) since July 2020. GFM evolved from what once was the Southern Baptist Convention’s Christian Life Commission (CLC), which I highly evaluated and appreciated in the 1960s through the 1980s.*¹

Randall began his July 20 article by asserting, “The greatest enemy of freedom is not white Christian nationalists breaching the U.S. Capitol. It’s white moderate — now centrist — Christian males advocating for civility over justice.” He immediately moves to MLKing’s powerful writing 60 years ago.

On April 12, 1963, King’s “The Letter from the Birmingham Jail” was published. In that pointed letter, King wrote that “the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White citizens’ ‘Councilor’ or the Ku Klux Klanner.”

No, that stumbling block is “the white moderate who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

I fully agree with King’s emphasis on positive peace and the necessity of justice. But it seems quite clear to me that King was also a centrist in that he was firmly between the extremes of doing nothing and of acting violently. He did not engage in the extremism of Malcolm X or the Black Panthers.

There are some who say that it was the extremism of the violent Blacks that made it possible for King to be so effective, but it is hard to know whether that was so. What we do know is that King had the “strength to love” and used those words for the title of his influential book also published in 1963.

Since I oppose the extremes of doing nothing and violent action, I guess I could be called a White centrist Christian. But according to Randall, such centrists “have done more to thwart the progress of faith and freedom than any fascist or anarchist.”

Moreover, Randall charges that such centrists “decry those demanding justice for the isolated, marginalized and oppressed” and they brand people like him as extreme because he advocates “for inclusion, affirmation, and equality for all of God’s children.” 

But I want to remind Randall that the center is quite wide, and the radiant center I advocate for ethics as well as for theology includes those things he so strongly calls for.

There are some who want the justice, the inclusion, the affirmation, and the equality that Randall desires but who are willing to use violent action to seek those good ends. However, I haven’t seen Randall advocate such violence, so I would place him, just as I did MLK, in the radiant center.

Seeking the radiant center doesn’t mean embracing “bothsideism.” When the opposing extremes are vacuous inactivity and violent action, the radiant center calls for “neithersideism.”*²

I have often emphasized the importance of both/and thinking. But there are also times that the emphasis needs to be on neither/nor. The radiant center often stresses the latter. So, in considering the radiant center with reference to ethics as well as theology, these words still are applicable:

The radiant center radiates the heat (passion and compassion) and light of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the gospel about Jesus. The radiant center is engaged, for light does not stay in the bulb nor heat in the radiator. Radiance entails engagement.*³

Yes, being in the radiant center means actively engaging in efforts to produce peace and justice for all, which usually means moving to the far left side of that center—and I appreciate Mitch Randall for criticizing those centrists who are on the far right and are not radiant.  

____

*¹ When the CLC was significantly changed (and later renamed) as a part of the conservative takeover of the SBC, the Baptist Center for Ethics was formed in 1991 by former Southern Baptists who had established the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship the year before, and in 2017 Randall became the second director of that organization, which is now GFM.

*² I don’t remember ever seeing/hearing the word “neithersideism,” so I thought maybe I was coining a new word. But in searching the Internet, I soon found that journalist Matt Labash subtitled his 4/21/22 Substack article “The case for Neithersideism.”

*³ The Limits of Liberalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Liberalism (2020), p. 329.

Is There a “World without End”?

Since watching several of Michael Dowd’s videos last month (and writing a bit about Dowd on Jan. 25) I have been thinking much about the end of the world as we know it—and about the traditional Christian belief in a “world without end.” Is it possible to affirm both?

The Traditional Christian Belief

There is little doubt that from New Testament times until the present Christianity has asserted a firm belief in a “world without end,” that is, the reality of an eternal world that in every way surpasses the present physical world in which we now live.

The New Testament says, “Unto [God] be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen” (Ephesians 3:21, KJV). Based on these words, the Catholic and some liturgical Protestant churches regularly sing the Gloria Patri doxology: 

As the “world without end” is understood as the abode of those who have received the gift of eternal life, the Apostles’ Creed ends with words affirming belief in “the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.”

And the Nicene Creed, which is also regularly repeated in public worship services of many churches, ends with these words: “We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

Even those of us who grew up in non-liturgical churches, belief in “eternal life” and Heaven was central to our understanding of the Christian faith. But that basic belief seems to have been weakened, neglected, or even denied (in practice if not in words) by “progressive” or “liberal” forms of the faith.

For example, in spite of his dire prognostication about the coming ecological crisis that will most likely result in the end of the world as we know it, Dowd, an ordained Christian minister, says nothing (at least that I have heard) about even the possibility of life beyond death.

The Problem of “Evangelical” Over-emphasis

Those who grew up in conservative evangelical circles, as I did, know how strong the emphasis was on “soul-winning,” that is, getting people “saved” so they would go to Heaven when they died.

During my boyhood years, pastors and especially traveling evangelists would regularly emphasize the Second Coming of Jesus and the concomitant end of this present world, focusing on the reality of “the world without end.”

These same emphases became even more pronounced in conservative evangelical churches after the publishing of Hal Lindsey’s bestselling book The Late Great Planet Earth in 1970.

And then from 1995 to 2007, the Left Behind series of sixteen books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins was highly popular and influential in evangelical circles.

But all of this emphasis on the “end times” was usually accompanied by a marked lack of interest in the plight of people living in the world now. Hardly any emphasis was placed on social issues such as war, systemic racism, poverty, destruction of the environment, etc.

The Problem of “Liberal” Under-emphasis

Although the roots go back much farther into the past, from the 1960s on “progressive” or “liberal” Christians placed more and more emphasis on the social issues of the present world and less and less emphasis on the idea/hope of a coming world without end.

The apocalyptic ideas/beliefs of the conservative evangelicals were mostly ignored, or even scoffed at by many liberals. Of primary interest and importance was the formation of a “beloved community” here and now and being on the right side of the arc of the universe which bends toward justice.

The coming of an ideal society, the Kingdom (or Kindom) of God, was a strong hope for the future of humankind on this earth.

How utterly sad it is if, as Dowd and many liberal Christians (as well as most people without any religious faith) acknowledge, all we can do now is to serenely accept the coming demise of the world with no hope for the future either on this earth or in a world without end.

Is there not some radiant center position between the two extremes?

Advocating the Radiant Center

On this day before the American Thanksgiving Day, I am thankful that I am in the last stage of publishing the updated and slightly revised edition of my book The Limits of Liberalism. This post is based on the concluding chapter of that book. 

What is the Radiant Center?

In The Limits of Liberalism, I repeatedly call for a position between the “extremes” of the liberal Christian left as well as the “extremes” of the conservative evangelical Christian right. I struggled, though, with what to call the envisioned theological position between the polar opposites.

One term I seriously considered was “radical center,” a term used by Adam Hamilton, the Methodist megachurch pastor in greater Kansas City. Hamilton wrote about that in his book Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White (2008).

Hamilton used the words “radical center” as a term that is “able to hold together the best of the right and the left” (p. 232). It is the position that “seeks to build bridges rather than walls, and refuses to be the wedge in anyone’s theological or culture wars” (p. 235).

But because of the baggage born by the term “radical” and the general unattractiveness of the color gray, I decided to call the position Hamilton was promoting, and which I badly want, the radiant center.

The center between the extremes of black and white doesn’t have to be gray. Rather, it can be a brilliant blue, a gorgeous green, or a rousing red. Yes, a radiant center.

Who Is Included in the Radiant Center?

As I envision it, the radiant center is composed of both progressive evangelicals and conservative liberals as well as all those in between. Moreover, it has ever-widening boundaries, becoming more and more inclusive.

Not everyone, however, is included, or wants to be included, in the center. So, I am not advocating a radical center that includes everyone. I still want, though, to be open to dialogue with those who are not a part of the envisioned center, and I don’t want to exclude anyone from friendship.

While I certainly want to have “malice toward none and charity for all,” not everyone is included in the radiant center because, frankly, some don’t want to be grouped with people with whom they have serious theological disagreements.

The radiant center can’t include those who are not willing to accept and affirm those with quite different beliefs; that is, the radiant center can’t accept “fundamentalists” of the right or the left, that is, those who think that they, and only they, are right.

Advocating the Radiant Center

I close my book by strongly advocating the radiant center as I envision it.

The radiant center radiates the heat (passion and compassion) and light of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the gospel about Jesus.

The radiant center is generous, for it spreads out to warm and enlighten everyone within its reach. Its effects radiate out to all alike, to the right and the left and to those not even on the spectrum.

The radiant center is progressive. While it may not go to the extremes of some contemporary liberal Christianity, neither will it be constrained to the confines of much Christian conservative evangelicalism.

Here, then, is how I close Limits of Liberalism:

I pray that other Christians who are fed up with fundamentalism but who are also aware of the limits of liberalism will join me in searching for, affirming, and then helping to build a radiant center for contemporary Christian faith.

Will you join me in this endeavor?

TTT #19 One Doesn’t Have to be a Liberal to Reject Fundamentalism

In my 7/10 blog article (and Chapter 18 of Thirty True Things . . .), I asserted that one doesn’t have to be a fundamentalist in order to be a good Christian. I am convinced that that is the case. But does opposing fundamentalism make one a liberal? Not necessarily, and that is the main point of this article (and Chapter 19 of TTT).

It Is Not Necessary To Go from One Extreme to the Other

My distaste for Christian fundamentalism is so strong that, as most of know, I wrote an entire book published under the title Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2007). Consequently, some people have assumed that I must be a liberal. One of my Facebook friends once referred to me as a “proud liberal.”

But does opposing fundamentalism make one a liberal? No, one doesn’t have to be/become a liberal to reject fundamentalism.

Coincidentally, the very week I was working on the first draft of the 19^th chapter of TTT, I received the first shipment of my second book, The Limits of Liberalism (2010). In that book I call for finding a position between the extremes of staunch fundamentalism and thoroughgoing liberalism.

The Difficulty of Finding the Middle Position

In The Limits of Liberalism I wrote about how in ancient Greek mythology, Scylla and Charybdis were the names of two sea monsters situated on opposite sides of the Strait of Messina between Sicily and Italy.

Those fearful monsters, representing a hazardous whirlpool and a dangerous reef, were located close enough to each other that they posed an inescapable threat to sailors who sought to pass between them: avoiding Charybdis usually meant passing too close to Scylla and vice versa. 

I certainly agree with those who seek to escape the “monster” called fundamentalism, as evidenced by the content of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism. Still, I see the danger of fleeing the “monster” on the right only to be gobbled up by liberalism, the “monster” on the left.

Unfortunately, some have been so intent on escaping Charybdis (fundamentalism) that they have sailed straight into the jaws of Scylla (liberalism).

Seeking the Radiant Center

While working on The Limits of Liberalism, I came across a delightful book by Adam Hamilton. He is the dynamic pastor of Church of the Resurrection, a Methodist megachurch here in the greater Kansas City metropolitan area. The book is titled Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White (2008).

While I largely agree with the centrist position Hamilton takes on most issues, I decided I did not like to talk about that position as being gray, for generally gray is not a very appealing color. So I went on to suggest that perhaps we can seek a position “between the extremes” of black and white, one that is a brilliant blue, a gorgeous green, or a rousing red.

Even though I like Hamilton’s position and found his calling for a “radical center” appealing, I decided to call my vision for the desired middle position the radiant center.

The radiant center is the gathering/rallying place for those who reject fundamentalism as well as for those who recognize the limits of liberalism.

It is the between-the-extremes place for all who realize that one doesn’t have to be a fundamentalist to be a good Christian as well as for all who recognize that one doesn’t have to be a liberal to reject fundamentalism.

[Here is the link to the entire Chapter 19 of TTT, which amplifies and gives examples related to this brief blog article.]

Can There Be a Radiant Center in Politics?

“Republicans are moving further Right and Democrats are moving further Left. NEITHER situation makes for a unified country.” That comment on my Jan. 25 blog article was posted by Easel Roberts, a Thinking Friend (TF) with whom I used to attend the same Sunday School class here in Liberty but who now lives in South Carolina.

COMPELLING COMMENTS

Easel is a P.E. (Professional Engineer) who works at GE Renewable Energy, and I value his viewpoint, partly because few of my TFs have the educational background and occupational experience that he has.

In a follow-up email, Easel wrote,

“It is, as if, some cosmic force (media, Facebook, politics, social issues) has put us all on a kid’s merry-go-round. The only answer is ‘I’m right and you are wrong’ and vice versa. There is no meaningful dialogue or debate.

“The ‘forces’ are making the merry-go-round go faster and faster. We are fighting desperately to hold on for dear life to keep from being thrown off. IF we could only get to the center, we could relax because there would be no forces throwing us toward the edge. 

“While certainly not human nature, we need to lead people to the middle OR . . . we will destroy the country by trying to WIN. If Christians, and by extension the church, cannot figure this out, then we truly have no hope.” 

AN AFFIRMING RESPONSE

In my response to Easel’s thought-provoking comments, I said, “In my book The Limits of Liberalism I wrote about the need for a ‘radiant center’ regarding theological issues. Perhaps that is one of the biggest needs politically also.”

Finding such a radiant center, however, is probably more difficult, more elusive, and more unlikely in the political world than in the theological world. Yet perhaps that is a goal, an intention, an aspiration that needs to be given the highest priority.

Over the last couple of weeks I have heard mention of a possible civil war ensuing in the near future. Finding the center is not only essential for Christians (the church) as Easel emphasized, it is essential for the United States as a whole.

THE PERSISTING PROBLEM

The ongoing, persistent problem, though, is this: How could a radiant center ever be formed?

For example, what would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider all abortion the same as murder and others see abortion as an essential part of “women’s reproductive rights”?

What would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider same-sex marriage as an abomination contrary to the clear teachings of the Bible and others see it as a necessary part of some people’s civil rights?

What would a radiant center look like in a society where some people consider “illegal aliens,” visitors from Near Eastern countries, and refugees from Syria to be serious threats to the safety and wellbeing of U.S. citizens and others see the welcoming of strangers and suffering people to be an indispensable expression of Christian love or even of human decency?

Perhaps there is no center position on such issues. Perhaps it illusionary to think that there could be a center embracing both “pro-life” and “pro-choice”—although there are those now who are emphasizing that “pro-life” means far more than anti-abortion, and most on the left can agree with that emphasis.

Maybe, though, with a constant emphasis on such things as freedom with responsibility, full acceptance of those who are “different,” justice, compassion, etc., there can gradually be, even in politics, the growth and expansion of a much-needed radiant center.

Christianity Today or Christianity Yesterday?

Last week as I was having coffee with friends, I mentioned that I was really enjoying Philip Yancey’s book Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived the Church (2001). One of my friends didn’t know who Yancey is.

Yancey (b. 1949), I explained, is a widely read Christian author who has written often for Christianity Today. My friend then asked this rhetorical question: Isn’t that a rather conservative magazine?

In response, I told him how Eric Rust, my esteemed seminary professor, referred to it as “Christianity Yesterday.” (An article in it had criticized Dr. Rust, accusing him of being a liberal.)

CT’s 60th Anniversary

The next day I opened the new issue of CT, as it is often called, and saw that it was the 60th-anniversary edition. After awaking from a dream in 1953 and feeling led to found a new Christian magazine, Billy Graham was successful in getting the first issue of CT published in October 1956.

I was impressed with the cover of the new anniversary issue: the picture of a painting by Makoto Fujimura, the Japanese-American artist I recently introduced (see here). The painting’s title is “Grace Remains—Nard,” based on Mark 14:6-9. 

"Grace Remains -- Nard" by Makoto Fujimura

Through the past 60 years, I have read CT off and on. For several years now have been getting an email from CT almost daily with links to articles and other information. I have mixed feelings, however. There is some good and helpful stuff, but at other times I agree with Dr. Rust: it seems like Christianity yesterday.

The “Radiant Center”

My positive feelings toward CT are because of people like Yancey, who is still one of the fourteen “editors at large.” It is hard to find fault with people like him. He is the author of the scintillating book What’s So Amazing About Grace? (1997), and he, among several others, has written many superlative articles for CT.

In Soul Survivor Yancey tells about writing the cover story for a 1983 issue of CT. It was about Gandhi. Yancey remarked that he “was not prepared for the volume of hate mail the article generated” (p. 171). Many of his conservative readers thought he/they should not praise a “heathen” (non-Christian) so profusely.

In my book The Limits of Liberalism (2010), I call for seeking Christianity’s “radiant center,” between the extremes of fundamentalism and liberalism. In many ways Christianity Today, and certainly Philip Yancey, is a good example of a publication, and a person, in that center—although the magazine would definitely be on the right side of the center.

Beautiful Orthodoxy

The cover story of the new issue is “Beautiful Orthodoxy,” which is also the title of editor Mark’s Galli’s short new book, which I’ve just read. The book wasn’t bad, but I was a bit disappointed with it.

To the degree that Galli and other editors at CT thinks that “beautiful orthodoxy” and Christianity today requires blanket condemnation of any abortion by any woman and the denigration of LGBTQ people, I’m afraid it needs to be considered “Christianity yesterday.”

The growing percentage of the “nones” in American society is not so much because of their rejection of “orthodox” Christian doctrines but rather because of the condemnatory, intolerant, and judgmental attitudes of purveyors of traditional Christianity.

While I take great exception with much of what Bishop John Shelby Spong writes—he is an example of the liberal extreme—I do think he makes a valid point in his 1998 book, Why Christianity Must Change or Die.

We need a Christianity today that focuses on meeting current challenges rather than just seeking to preserve yesterday’s ideas and practices.

Can the Church Ever be United?

Last Sunday I had the opportunity to preach at the Rosedale Congregational United Church of Christ (RCC) in Kansas City, Kansas. As RCC is currently without a pastor, I was asked to preach each Sunday this month, and I much appreciate their invitation. (It will be the first time for me to preach at the same church four Sundays in a row in 50 years.)

As you may know, the United Church of Christ (UCC) was formed in 1957. It was the result of a merger of the Evangelical and Reformed Church and the General Council of the Congregational Christian Churches. RCC was formerly a part of the latter.

The vision of the UCC is a great one—but one that is unlikely to be actualized anytime soon. Of course, this is not the first time an effort has been made to unite the Church, doing away with denominations.

In the 1830s the vision of Thomas Campbell, along with his son Alexander and others, led to the formation of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). But now that Church, as well as the UCC, is just another denomination.

The history of Christianity is a history replete with divisions, great and small. The first major division occurred in 1054 when the Eastern Church, centered in Constantinople, separated from the western Church, centered in Rome.

The second great division took place with the Protestant reformations in the 16^th century—and then very soon there were divisions among the Protestants. In January 1527 Felix Manz, whom I wrote about here, was martyred in Zurich, the first Protestant to be punitively killed by Protestants.

Since the beginning of the 20^th century there have been attempts toward great unity among Christians. The 1910 World Missionary Conference, held in Edinburgh, was an important step in that direction.

Then after the disastrous divisions caused by two world wars, the World Council of Churches (WCC) was formed in 1948. And that ecumenical body, composed of Protestants only, has in recent years reached out to greater cooperation with the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

But, alas, the WCC has been largely rejected and is often criticized by conservative Protestants. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., has through the years remained aloof from the WCC.

Conservative Protestants formed the World Evangelical Fellowship in 1951, changing their name to the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) in 2001. While recently there has been some fruitful interaction between the WCC and the WEA, greater unity is highly unlikely.

The disunity of these two Protestant groups is largely between fundamentalist/conservative understandings of Christianity and moderate/liberal understandings, which differ seriously—and maybe irreconcilably.

Recently, referring to J. Greshem Machen who made a similar assertion in his book Christianity and Liberalism (1923), Al Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, said, “Rather than representing two points on a spectrum of Christianity, evangelical Christianity and liberal Protestantism are different and competing religions” (see this article by Bob Allen).

As much as I hate to say so, I’m afraid he’s right.

While I hope and pray for Christians to move from the extremes (and errors) of both fundamentalism and liberalism and to the “radiant center,” as I propose in my book “The Limits of Liberalism,” I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

While in the years ahead there may be greater unity among conservative Christians and especially greater unity of moderate/liberal Christians, I think, sadly, there will be little movement toward or formation of a truly united Church of Christ.

Where's the Middle?

The cover story of the November 5 issue of The Economist is about “America’s missing middle.” The cover picture shows Uncle Sam looking at a large hamburger bun with nothing in the middle between the top and bottom of the bun.

Currently, in the country as a whole, and particularly in the U.S. Congress, it seems as though the political position of the population is far more like a “well-shaped curve” than the traditional bell-shaped curve. In the latter, the peak includes far more people than those on the far right or the far left. But in the former, those in middle are far fewer than the number on the far right and the far left.

Unfortunately, that seems to be what is developing in the Christian/theological world as well. Even though in the last chapter of my book The Limits of Liberalism I call for support of and identification with the “radiant center,” I sense that that is not descriptive of where most Christians are now.

Back in 1923, J. Gresham Machen’s book Christianity and Liberalism was published. Machen (1881-1937) was a New Testament professor at Princeton Seminary between 1915 and 1929, but then led a conservative revolt against the modernist theology at Princeton and founded Westminster Theological Seminary as a more orthodox alternative.

In his book, Machen refers to liberalism as a religion “entirely different” (p. 6) or “totally different” (p. 79) from Christianity. He makes that assertion by comparing liberalism’s views of God, human beings (sin), the Bible, Christ, salvation, etc. with that of traditional Christianity (as he understood it).

From the time I first read Machen’s book years ago (although I didn’t read it when it first came out!), I thought he was overstating the case. Now I am not so sure.

Recently I have been reading Marcus Borg’s new book Speaking Christian (2011). In the Introduction, Borg (b. 1942) says that “Christians in this country (and elsewhere) are deeply divided by different understandings of a shared language” (p. 1). In fact, he goes on to assert, “The differences are so sharp that they virtually produce two different religions, both using the same Bible and the same language: (p. 2).

I am beginning to think that Machen and Borg may be right and that the hope for a strong “radiant center” may be just a pipe dream.

Earlier this month June and I went with our daughter Kathy and her family to their strongly evangelical church. Even though the sermon was based on 2 Chronicles, it stressed the atoning death of Jesus on the cross, consistent with their statement of faith confessing that Jesus “died for the redemption of man’s sin.”

It dawned on me that it had been a long time since I had heard that kind of emphasis in a sermon. Moreover, that emphasis is completely different from Borg’s ideas set forth in “The Death of Jesus,” his eighth chapter. Borg clearly rejects the idea of Jesus’ death being “substitutionary atonement” for sinful human beings.

It seems that most Christians now tend to agree either with the evangelical viewpoint (similar to that of Machen’s in 1923) or with the viewpoint of Borg and expressed by many contemporary liberal theologians/churches. Still, I would like to find, to enlarge, and to enjoy being a part of the radiant center, maybe wide enough to include the middle third, emphasizing both/and rather than either/or.