Progressive Evangelicalism

[naz]

I’m staking out some ground. On this board I may be in this corner all by myself. But perhaps some of you would like to join me over here and have a chat.

There is a growing new movement taking hold both in this country and others around the world. It goes under an umbrella of different names and takes many forms: progressive Christianity, red-letter Christians, the emerging (or emergent) church, and even progressive evangelicalism. I want to use the latter term because I think it best expresses where I am coming from. I will abbreviate it to “PE”.

While those who identify as Progressive Evangelicals may disagree on a precise definition I want to tell you what the term means to me in general terms. Later I may go into more specifics.

PE is first of all, as the name suggest, evangelical in outlook. Evangelism is defined as sharing the gospel, the good news of salvation, with the people of the world. However we believe that sharing the gospel should always be done in a respectful manner. We respect the fact that other people believe differently than we and hold different moral and ethical values from us. We never try to force our beliefs and values on others. We invite, never coerce, people to join us in making a reality the ever expanding kingdom of God on earth.

We are secondly progressive in outlook. We believe that God is still speaking today and that God’s revelation to humanity is progressive in nature. As we grow in understanding through the Spirit we come closer to the fullness of understanding God’s will and purposes in our lives and in the world itself. It is an on-going process of personal and universal transformation. The gospel message is both social and personal in nature and one aspect should not be emphasized over the exclusion of the other.

PE is not dogmatic or doctrinaire. It allows a liberty of thought unprecedented since the early days of the church. We view attempts to force people to accept creeds and doctrinal statements of faith as conditions of church membership as being contrary to the liberty of conscience we should all have in Christ. Differences of belief and practice among Christians should be respected. We should seek to engage in respectful dialog to reach consensus on issues of importance. Where we are unable to do so we should respectfully agree to disagree. Our differences should never obscure our unity in the body of Christ.

PE sees the Bible as a medium through which the message of God is transmitted. PE is not a slave to any form of traditional interpretation whatever its source. We believe tradition should be actively questioned and examined to see if it lines up with God’s Word as we understand it. We believe in the universal priesthood of believers: that all believers are empowered by the Holy Spirit to obtain scriptural guidance and revelation directly without need of any intermediaries.

PE focuses on the message of Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospels. Everything else in the bible must be interpreted through his words, not the other way around. We take his words literally at face value without attempts to wiggle out of his direct instruction to us on how we should live our lives. We believe in the importance of works as well as faith and that faith without works is dead. We believe that God is Love and that any teaching which promotes hatred and intolerance toward others is contrary to the Spirit.

PE does not focus on adherence to so-called “right” beliefs and practices. It does not view conversion as adopting a set of beliefs but rather opening ourselves to radical inner transformation though the power of God. When such transformation occurs our beliefs and actions will fall in line with the will of God naturally.

PE does not align or identify itself with any political persuasion. We do not think being a Christian means being a Democrat or a Republican, conservative or liberal, capitalist or socialist, pro-American or anti-American. Any political allegiance is entirely secondary to our allegiance to Christ and should flow from our commitment to follow him. We are first and foremost citizens of the Kingdom of God. We feel when Christians begin to align themselves exclusively with any political persuasion or nationalistic entity an unholy alliance with the world has been forged.

PE is non-denominational and trans-denominational. We do not see any Christian denomination, sect, or movement as having any monopoly on Truth. Truth is Jesus Christ and he is the Head of the Church Universal and all Christians who profess him as Lord and Savior are equal and full members of his body.

[cleo]

Hi Naz- you are of a simillar persuasion as me- although I am going through a time of reassessment of my beliefs currently- so I am a work in progress. I think the Church influenced my beliefs as Christ's representative, and having been so let down by it, I am now re-evaluating all I thought was true.

I would have described my self as an evangelical, charismatic style christian in the past- although I was always tolerant in my approach to others and viewed evolution as the scientific appraoch to studying the formation of 'life as we know it' and the Bible as the theological view. I have also always always had huge philosophical problems with the concept of Hell being a place of eternal anything away from God....

Anyway, I look forward to good, open discussions away from biased censorship!

[dahduh]

Hey Naz, I'm all for PE as you describe it; but I can't help having a few doubts about its future.

Firstly, I think a person's attitude towards evangelism depends very much on their moral intuitions - intuitions that are innate, drawn from their biology. Some people equate morality to being respectful of authority and being loyal to your in-group. That's fine so far as it goes, but it does tend to breed a degree of hostility towards anyone not in that in-group.

Secondly, there is the question of religion itself, when perceived as an organism that inhabits our culture. It needs to compete against other ideas like 'evolution' or 'Scientology' or 'democracy'. One way of course is to grow by inhabiting as many minds as possible.

These two things together - an insular morality and the religion's need to competed - can combine to create an aggressive evangelism, and history has shown it is very effective. It is no accident that the dominant religions today - Christianity and Islam - are also the most aggressively evangelistic. It's no accident that the Methodist church's limp-wristed liberalism is leading to its virtual demise in England.

From what you say - "progressive in outlook", "allows a liberty of thought" etc - I would guess you are of liberal tendencies. That's great, so am I; but I don't think your brand of evangelism is going to be effective. Because you have no evidential foundation for your movement, "liberty of thought" simply equates to schism; everyone will be formulating their own brand of theology and it will be like herding cats, you will simply never end up with a coherent movement. Science does not have this problem and can allow as much liberty of thought as it likes because there is an evidential foundation; wherever there is a dispute it is ultimately settled in the laboratory, like it or lump it.

So while I applaud anyone with the kinds of liberal values express, in the religious domain I think you will struggle to create a real movement around it.

[brentbranaman]

Nov 26, 2009 17:31:16 GMT naz said:

I’m staking out some ground. On this board I may be in this corner all by myself. But perhaps some of you would like to join me over here and have a chat.

There is a growing new movement taking hold both in this country and others around the world. It goes under an umbrella of different names and takes many forms: progressive Christianity, red-letter Christians, the emerging (or emergent) church, and even progressive evangelicalism. I want to use the latter term because I think it best expresses where I am coming from. I will abbreviate it to “PE”.

While those who identify as Progressive Evangelicals may disagree on a precise definition I want to tell you what the term means to me in general terms. Later I may go into more specifics.

PE is first of all, as the name suggest, evangelical in outlook. Evangelism is defined as sharing the gospel, the good news of salvation, with the people of the world. However we believe that sharing the gospel should always be done in a respectful manner. We respect the fact that other people believe differently than we and hold different moral and ethical values from us. We never try to force our beliefs and values on others. We invite, never coerce, people to join us in making a reality the ever expanding kingdom of God on earth.

We are secondly progressive in outlook. We believe that God is still speaking today and that God’s revelation to humanity is progressive in nature. As we grow in understanding through the Spirit we come closer to the fullness of understanding God’s will and purposes in our lives and in the world itself. It is an on-going process of personal and universal transformation. The gospel message is both social and personal in nature and one aspect should not be emphasized over the exclusion of the other.

PE is not dogmatic or doctrinaire. It allows a liberty of thought unprecedented since the early days of the church. We view attempts to force people to accept creeds and doctrinal statements of faith as conditions of church membership as being contrary to the liberty of conscience we should all have in Christ. Differences of belief and practice among Christians should be respected. We should seek to engage in respectful dialog to reach consensus on issues of importance. Where we are unable to do so we should respectfully agree to disagree. Our differences should never obscure our unity in the body of Christ.

PE sees the Bible as a medium through which the message of God is transmitted. PE is not a slave to any form of traditional interpretation whatever its source. We believe tradition should be actively questioned and examined to see if it lines up with God’s Word as we understand it. We believe in the universal priesthood of believers: that all believers are empowered by the Holy Spirit to obtain scriptural guidance and revelation directly without need of any intermediaries.

PE focuses on the message of Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospels. Everything else in the bible must be interpreted through his words, not the other way around. We take his words literally at face value without attempts to wiggle out of his direct instruction to us on how we should live our lives. We believe in the importance of works as well as faith and that faith without works is dead. We believe that God is Love and that any teaching which promotes hatred and intolerance toward others is contrary to the Spirit.

PE does not focus on adherence to so-called “right” beliefs and practices. It does not view conversion as adopting a set of beliefs but rather opening ourselves to radical inner transformation though the power of God. When such transformation occurs our beliefs and actions will fall in line with the will of God naturally.

PE does not align or identify itself with any political persuasion. We do not think being a Christian means being a Democrat or a Republican, conservative or liberal, capitalist or socialist, pro-American or anti-American. Any political allegiance is entirely secondary to our allegiance to Christ and should flow from our commitment to follow him. We are first and foremost citizens of the Kingdom of God. We feel when Christians begin to align themselves exclusively with any political persuasion or nationalistic entity an unholy alliance with the world has been forged.

PE is non-denominational and trans-denominational. We do not see any Christian denomination, sect, or movement as having any monopoly on Truth. Truth is Jesus Christ and he is the Head of the Church Universal and all Christians who profess him as Lord and Savior are equal and full members of his body.

Welcome, Naz!

I'll have to say that I have had better conversations with emerging/emergent Christians than traditional ones. I haven't heard the term "progressive evangelical" used yet.

One question I have for you concerns your view of the bible. How do you view its inspiration? How do you view the O.T.? Do you believe in a literal place called Hell?

I look forward to future conversations with you.

[naz]

Nov 27, 2009 13:40:52 GMT dahduh said:

Hey Naz, I'm all for PE as you describe it; but I can't help having a few doubts about its future.

Firstly, I think a person's attitude towards evangelism depends very much on their moral intuitions - intuitions that are innate, drawn from their biology. Some people equate morality to being respectful of authority and being loyal to your in-group. That's fine so far as it goes, but it does tend to breed a degree of hostility towards anyone not in that in-group.

Secondly, there is the question of religion itself, when perceived as an organism that inhabits our culture. It needs to compete against other ideas like 'evolution' or 'Scientology' or 'democracy'. One way of course is to grow by inhabiting as many minds as possible.

These two things together - an insular morality and the religion's need to competed - can combine to create an aggressive evangelism, and history has shown it is very effective. It is no accident that the dominant religions today - Christianity and Islam - are also the most aggressively evangelistic. It's no accident that the Methodist church's limp-wristed liberalism is leading to its virtual demise in England.

From what you say - "progressive in outlook", "allows a liberty of thought" etc - I would guess you are of liberal tendencies. That's great, so am I; but I don't think your brand of evangelism is going to be effective. Because you have no evidential foundation for your movement, "liberty of thought" simply equates to schism; everyone will be formulating their own brand of theology and it will be like herding cats, you will simply never end up with a coherent movement. Science does not have this problem and can allow as much liberty of thought as it likes because there is an evidential foundation; wherever there is a dispute it is ultimately settled in the laboratory, like it or lump it.

So while I applaud anyone with the kinds of liberal values express, in the religious domain I think you will struggle to create a real movement around it.

I'm not at all attached to the idea of aggressively promoting this as a movement (been there--done that sort of thing). I think it is something that is simply growing on its own as more and more Christians let go of fundie baggage in their belief systems.

As I see it Christianity has to evolve or it will die out. Fundamentalism is fundamentally reactionary but it is fighting a losing battle against science and rationalism. Its increasingly shrill vocalism is its death rattle, IMO. Liberal Christianity as you point out is also dying out as it lacks vibrancy and appeal. That is why PE (or more generally PC) seeks to promote the dynamic quality of the evangelical experience while simultaneously dropping the more dogmatic aspects.

I do disagree a movement cannot grow successfully while simultaneously embracing freedom of individual thought. This freedom characterized early Christianity which grew in leaps and bounds in its infancy.

And of course I disagree that Christianity in general is not based on an evidential foundation. It is just one drawn from personal experience.

If you would like to learn more about the general movement and how it differs from others here is a good place to start:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity

[naz]

Welcome, Naz!

I'll have to say that I have had better conversations with emerging/emergent Christians than traditional ones. I haven't heard the term "progressive evangelical" used yet.

One question I have for you concerns your view of the bible. How do you view its inspiration? How do you view the O.T.? Do you believe in a literal place called Hell?

I look forward to future conversations with you.

Thanks for the welcome!

I do not see it as the inerrant word of God. I do not even think the book makes such a claim about itself. It is not even one book but a collection of many. Certainly the bible is an inspired work but not all its inspiration is necessarily divine in origin.

I look at the bible as basically a collection of written works which record the experiences and beliefs of other believers in a continuous tradition stretching back millennia. I see a progressive understanding gradually emerging that took a primitive tribal based religion and turned it into a movement of universal ethical monotheism based on the teachings of Jesus.

I am agnostic regarding the afterlife so no, I do not believe in a literal hell as described by Christians. I see hell as the state of mind/being that results from separation from God.

[dahduh]

Nov 27, 2009 16:40:33 GMT naz said:

As I see it Christianity has to evolve or it will die out. Fundamentalism is fundamentally reactionary but it is fighting a losing battle against science and rationalism. Its increasingly shrill vocalism is its death rattle, IMO. Liberal Christianity as you point out is also dying out as it lacks vibrancy and appeal. That is why PE (or more generally PC) seeks to promote the dynamic quality of the evangelical experience while simultaneously dropping the more dogmatic aspects.

Christianity has already evolved a great deal; the reformation was a reaction against the autocracy of the Catholic church, and was probably the 'progressive Christianity" of the day - although by today's standards of course it was anything but liberal. Probably the biggest change occurred during the enlightenment, when Christianity was forced to soften its stance in the face of the nascent democracy and 'age of reason'.

And today's fundies, as you know, were a reaction to that; an attempt to return back to the 'fundamentals'. My point is that you are all engaged in little more than a marketing campaign, exploring around for ideas that will appeal to the minds of the time. You have a bible which is about the only immutable ground in which to set your anchor, but it is so malleable that it can be interpreted to be anything you want - and you yourself are now prepared to discard its inerrancy, and declare that it is merely the word of man. If that catches on, then you have almost nothing at all, and I think the politically astute fundies realize this perhaps more clearly than you do.

I do disagree a movement cannot grow successfully while simultaneously embracing freedom of individual thought. This freedom characterized early Christianity which grew in leaps and bounds in its infancy.

All right, you disagree: and you point to early church as evidence. I think from this distance the early church might be rather idealized. At that time, this new upstart religion was invading a society that was receptive to it; the religions of Rome were brittle and exclusive and there was a mass of people - women, slaves, all the non-elites - were ready to accept an idea that told them they were special. So the early churches expanded fast and innovated, and adopted a lot of traditions already established in the pagan religions - the virgin birth, the resurrection, Jesus being a son of god probably among them. But already by 185AD Rome was exerting its influence, establishing orthodoxy and excommunicating dissenters. For a system based on dogma - as any non-evidential system must be - this centralization of power is absolutely inevitable.

And of course I disagree that Christianity in general is not based on an evidential foundation. It is just one drawn from personal experience.

And I think our disagreement on this point is what we understand to be evidence. Personal experience does not meet the standard of evidence demanded by science; evidence has to be something testable, independently measurable, and ultimately indisputable. Personal experience will never meet that standard.

If you would like to learn more about the general movement and how it differs from others here is a good place to start:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity

Thanks for the link; it was interesting. I wish it luck as a counterbalance to the fundies, but even if it is successful I still think that in 20 or 30 or 50 years there will be a consolidation and schisms and all the nastiness that goes with that.