A Look at the Progressive Nature of Western Christianity

Posted on August 16, 2015 by me

I’ve been thinking lately about the concept of Progressive Christianity; not necessarily about any current person or group using the designation, but just about the concept. There are some Christians who proudly refer to themselves as Progressives, to distinguish themselves from the staid, Evangelical Status Quo. There are others, such as the aforementioned evangelical Status Quo, who use the word perjoratively in reference to the liberals who would destroy the SQ (Status Quo) and Christianity As We Know It.  

The truth of the matter is, western Christianity is progressive. Evangelicals, today’s SQ,  were once the progressives. Today’s progressives may be tomorrow’s SQ.  The fundamentalists, believe it or not, were once the progressives. Calvinists were progressives, Lutherans were progressives, and Roman Catholics were once progressives.

What this means is that Christianity As We Know It in the West includes many beliefs that are later inventions. I think it safe to say that the New Testament Christians would not recognize today’s church or it’s teachings. And, ironically, many contemporary progressives are merely rejecting many of these relatively late-breaking beliefs which were at one time rejected by the existing church. 

Here are a few examples of commonly-held beliefs which are later inventions & additions, which much of the contemporary evangelical church accepts as “orthodox”:

  1. Dispensationalism and the Rapture
  2. Biblical Innerancy
  3. Literal readings of Genesis, Revelation, and other passages
  4. Rejection of infant baptism
  5. Predestination
  6. Original sin & total depravity
  7. Penal Substitution theory of atonement
  8. Accepting Jesus as your personal savior

There are more, but as you can see, these represent many of the key tenets of contemporary Evangelicalism.  And yes, they can all be traced to a specific point in church history, although attempts are made to support some of these from snippets of writngs from the church fathers.  

Original sin, for example, was a concept developed by Augustine, who also laid the foundation for total depravity and predestination.  Augustine’s teachings were not accepted by the majority of the church at that time, and he is only considered to be a “saint” by the Roman Catholic church (which split from the Eastern church in 1054).  The Eastern church doesn’t consider him a heretic, but many of his new ideas were rejected.

Penal Substitution was developed by Anselm (11th Century).  John Calvin further developed Augustine’s ideas of total depravity and predestination, and also affirmed Anselm’s penal substitution theory.  Doctrines such as Dispensationalism and the Rapture originated sometime in the mid-1800’s and were popularized by Scofield who included the teaching in notes in his study Bible. (The concept that Revelation was about the future was first taught by a Jesuit priest in the 16th Century.) Biblical inerrancy and literalism are also later developments, being positions adopted by fundamentalists and evangelicals in the 19th and 20th centuries.

With Christianity (especially Protestant Christianity) being progressive in nature, it’s interesting to note the various time periods where certain groups have stopped progressing and become vaious “status quos.” My wife uses the phrase “leaving the conversation.”  The Amish, for example, left the conversation at some point in the 1800’s, both culturally and theologically.  There are some Lutheran groups who left the conversation theologically at the creation of the Book of Concord, the collection of early Lutheran works that establish Lutheran doctrine. 

Some fundamentalist groups and Pentecostal groups left the conversation theologically in the early 1900’s, and culturally about 1946.  And, contemporary Evangelical churches that I’ve been visiting seem to have left the conversation in the 1980’s, and culturally and musically in the 90’s.

Many contemporary “progressives” may only be progressive in that they are casting off dead conversations, rediscovering things like the christus victor concept of atonement, creedal statements, and reading the Bible like the 1st Century Jews read the Old Testament. The voices of the past – the “great cloud of witnesses” – are still a part of the conversation.  

When you look at how Christianity has evolved over the years (to me, a more accurate word than “progressed,” which implies getting better), you have to ask yourself who the real progressives are.  Perhaps the progressives are really the ones who simply refuse to leave the conversation.

Posted in Random Thoughts, Theological Musings | 3 Comments

The Fear of Doubt

Posted on August 5, 2015 by me

It seems that one of the greatest fears of many religious people is the fear of doubt. There are many types of fear, and there are many kinds of doubt; most of us, I think, are familiar with both. However, I don’t think many people stop to recognize the fear of doubt, which is not uncommon among those identifying with strong ideological groups. They fear their own tendencies to doubt, but also fear doubt in others, because of the potential for awakening their own doubt. As I write this I am reminded of a song off Toad The Wet Sprocket’s Coil album, “Don’t Fade,” which deals head-on with this: 

How could you forsake the love of God that way?
Don’t fade, you’re staying here with me
Don’t fade, I need to know that someone still believes.

Following up on my prior post on Why I Am Not a Joiner, the fear of doubt challenges our perceived commitment to an ideological group such as a church, as well as to the ideology (such as belief in God) itself. I would hazard to guess it is more common among more conservative groups, which are conservative simply because they have laid down extraneous qualifications for belonging, such as a belief in inerrancy, literalist interpretations, and doctrines such as Calvinism or dispensationalism. The more fundamentalist a group gets, the number of extra qualifications for membership increases, as does the opportunities for the fear of doubt, which becomes the worst sin imaginable for the group.  Immorality, for example, can be tolerable and even forgiven. Doubt, however, is like a plague that must be eradicated. What’s worse is that these extraneous doctrines become so associated with faith itself, that when people do lose faith in, say, Creationism, or Biblical inerrancy, they will throw the baby out with the bath and walk away from Christianity altogether.  

This fear of doubt often becomes cyclical: The fear of doubt, and the need to maintain control, causes leaders to insitute more rules about belief, beleiving that setting up these rules will keep doubters and non-believers out of the group. This in turn results in a strong group-think, which then causes a fear of doubt among the members, because doubt is the greatest enemy of belonging. And belonging is important. It’s so important, in fact, that the fear of doubt even plagues those who self-identify with a particular group, even if they have no direct ties (an example would be someone who is a “follower” of a TV faith preacher).   

The fear of doubt can also keep people insulated from the outside world. Truth becomes secondary to the prescribed beliefs of the group, so any challange, no matter how well-reasoned or supported (like the earth rotating around the sun) is matter-of-factly rejected by the group. Truth, it would seem, should be everyone’s goal, and encourage everyone to work together to acheive that goal. However, tribal mentality puts the tribe before lofty goals like truth or the well-being of others, to the detriment of everyone. 

I’m a fan of truth. I’d rather not believe in something that isn’t true, especially if it matters. On the other hand, if I choose to believe that the Vikings could actually win the next Superbowl, there’s no real harm done, except to my eventual disappointment. Facing the truth when it conflicts with your current beliefs is often uncomfortable, especially if you’ve found some type of security in that belief. However, I believe that reality and truth are good things, especially where you will have to eventually face the truth anyway.

I have, at times, suffered from a secondary fear of doubt; that is, a fear of doubt in others. I would expect this is common for people who are parents or who have served in various pastoral roles. However, I’m getting over it.  After years in communities where doubt was a bad word, I find discussions of doubt now to be a breath of fresh air. Doubt is at least honest; proclamations of belief are not always.

The following is, I think, an amazingly honest treatment of faith and doubt, by Kasey Chambers. The video features her son, Talon, who inspired the song by telling her that he believes in God when he’s with her, but doesn’t when he’s at his dad’s house.  In some ways this whole post serves as an intro to the song:

Apparently there’s a problem in my embedding so here’s the link:  http://youtu.be/8Rh62aWp5Ow

Posted in Thoughts on Tribalism | Leave a comment

Why I Am Not A Joiner: A Confession of Sorts

Posted on July 2, 2015 by me

I say “of sorts” because my purpose here is not to discuss me; rather, I’m using myself as a jumping off point to discuss the larger issue of what it means to join a group, even informally.

I’ve never been what you could call a “joiner.”  (Cue quote from “PeeWee’s Big Adventure: “You don’t wanna get mixed up with a guy like me. I’m a loner, Dottie. A rebel.”)  I’m not one to rush after the latest fad, follow the crowd, or jump on bandwagons. If I do happen to find a parade going my way, it’s more of a synchronistic happening.

I usually haven’t taken “the road less traveled” with much forethought or design. Often, it’s just because I don’t like crowds. I grew up in the middle of nowhere, where I could see the horizon in all 4 directions. I still like to have a 360-degree view of things, even on the interweb. 

Another reason why I am not a joiner is that I usually find that I simply don’t fit in with many groups. Part of it is my natural tendancy toward introversion, but over the years I’ve discovered that I tend to think differently than other people. If there’s a different viewpoint in the room, it’s more than likely to be mine. I almost never agree completely with the general consensus on many issues, often to the bewilderment and frustration of more single-minded thinkers.  Unless it’s important, I often keep my opinions to myself, which is not that hard, being a man of few words anyway. 

One of the things I have begun to understand over the past few years as I have pulled away from some things that I had “joined,” is that joinging involves, to some extent, a loss of self.  If you are going to fit in and be a true part of a group, even only internally identifying with a group or ideology, there are things about yourself that you have to give up.  This can often be a very good thing; for example, learning to put others first involves putting some of your own interests aside. When I got married, and then we had children, this was essential.  Refusing to step out of the spotlight results in destruction of the family, etc. 

However, occasionally joining a group, especially when it’s centered around a certain ideology, requires a sacrifice of a part of yourself (unless you’re already bent in that direction).  You can’t maintain a “solo-think” and at the same time adopt the “group-think.”  And let’s face it – it’s so much easier to just adopt the group-think, especially if you already lean that way and respect other people in the group.  

All over the web, there are sites which preach to the choir, reaffirming the extremist group-think. Pretty soon, those who take up residence in these tribal territories begin to see the world in such a way that the extreme appears to be centrist and “balanced.” They may even believe they are the free-thinkers, but in reality they are only free from the gravitational pull of the other point of view. Politically, theologically, and socially, I have some basic conservative views that I’ve held since I was young. I also have some basic liberal views that I’ve held as well. This tension has caused even more tension, at times, but it has served me well by protecting me from becomeing sucked into one vortex or another. 

I am not free from the need to belong, even if I am something of a recluse. There are times I have wanted to belong, and found for one reason or another that I just can’t, at least for an extended period of time. And at times I’ve occasionally immersed myself in a group that I later realized was just wacko, and to be honest, I’m fairly embarrassed that I let myself be sucked in. Not wanting to be embarrassed in the future is a good motivator to look before I leap. So who knows – my reluctance to be a joiner may be a little wisdom layered on top of a personality defect.  However, I am blessed to belong to a wonderful family, and that’s a tribe that I can give myself whole-heartedly to, and which in turn I find satisfying. 

The point of all of this, again, is to say that becoming a true part of a tribe involves a real loss of a part of yourself. Joining a tribe is not something to be taken lightly (unless it’s something just for amusement, like playing music or joining a sport). It’s good to be sure that what you are gaining is both valid and is more valuable than what you are sacrificing.

Posted in Thoughts on Tribalism | Leave a comment

Why the Supreme Court is Right about Same-Sex Marriage

Posted on June 27, 2015 by me

Over the past couple of days I’ve read a lot of stuff about Friday’s Supreme Court decision on the Obergefell case. Some of what I’ve read has been thoughtful, but to be honest, much of it hasn’t.  I understand that there are people who have strong feelings on the issue, and will react one way or another without any actual understanding or opinions on the legal issues involved, and that’s okay.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  The Obergefell decision actual makes this point:

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

However, I’ve also read some things that are positively wacko, claiming things like the Supreme Court didn’t have the right to make this decision, or that it will result in the end of the world as we know it.

The Supreme Court’s job – when they do it properly – is to rule on the constitutionality of an issue. They are not to make moral or emotional decisions based on their own whims or feelings, but to look at the specific issues that are sent to them, and apply the Constitution to those issues.

In this case, I believe the Supreme Court not only made the correct decision, but that they made the only reasonable decision.  They were looking at 2 issues: Whether a state could deny marriage rights to same-sex couples, and if same-sex marriages would be recognized in states where same-sex marriage was not legal.  The court looked at the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal rights to all citizens.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court is not a religious institution, and looks at marriage from a legal persepctive, not a spiritual or religious one. And the Constitution doesn’t care how your religion defines marriage (or we would have to ask, “which religion?”). It is a legal definition, not a spiritual one.  And marriage, from a legal standpoint, means having certain rights relating to things like insurance coverage, taxation, citizenship, and estate issues.  Equal rights to marry essentially means that these various legal benefits are now available to everyone involved in a committed relationship.

The ruling is not going to result in more same-sex couples cohabitatng. It simply meand that they can’t be denied the same legal rights as other couples. And, under the 14th Amendment, that is correct. Basically, there is no Constitutional basis for denying same-sex couples these rights. The decision also means that the confusion created by marriages in one state not being recognized in another state will not be an issue.  Under the Constitution, and by simple common sense, it would seem that this is the only reasonable decision the Supreme Court could have made.  If we still believe in equality under the law. Some may not like it, but equal rights are equal rights.

Endnote: I am making no comments here about whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong or how the Bible is to be interpreted. I am only saying that according to the Constitution and the laws of the land, I believe the SC decision was the correct one, and it is a civil rights victory for the LGBT community.

Posted in Politics/Current Events | 1 Comment