Alisa Childers
  • Blog
    • Comments Policy
  • Popular Posts
  • alisachilders.com

5 Signs Your Church Might be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity

5/8/2017

 
Picture

​Several years ago, my husband and I began attending a local Evangelical, non-denominational church, and we loved it. We cherished the sense of community we found among the loving and authentic people we met there, and the intelligent, "outside the box" pastor who led our flock with thought-provoking and insightful sermons. Sadly, the church started going off the rails theologically, and after about a year and a half, we made the difficult decision to leave. Today that church is a self-titled "Progressive Christian Community." 

Back then I had never heard of "Progressive Christianity," and even now it is difficult to pin down what actually qualifies someone as a Progressive Christian, due to the diversity of beliefs that fall under that designation.  However, there are signs—certain phrases and ideas—that seem to be consistent in Progressive circles. Here are 5 danger signs to watch for in your church:


 1. There is a lowered view of the Bible 

One of the main differences between Progressive Christianity and Historic Christianity is its view of the Bible. Historically, Christians have viewed the Bible as the Word of God and authoritative for our lives. Progressive Christianity generally abandons these terms, emphasizing personal belief over biblical mandate.

Comments you might hear:
  • ​The Bible is a human book...
  • I disagree with the Apostle Paul on that issue...
  • The Bible condones immorality, so we are obligated to reject what it says in certain places...
  • ​The Bible "contains" the word of God...

​
2. Feelings are emphasized over facts

In Progressive churches, personal experiences, feelings, and opinions tend to be valued above objective truth. As the Bible ceases to be viewed as God’s definitive word, what a person feels to be true becomes the ultimate authority for faith and practice.

Comments you might hear:
  • That Bible verse doesn't resonate with me....
  • I thought homosexuality was a sin until I met and befriended some gay people....
  • I just can’t believe Jesus would send good people to hell....


3. Essential Christian doctrines are open for re-interpretation

Progressive author John Pavlovitz wrote, “There are no sacred cows [in Progressive Christianity]....Tradition, dogma, and doctrine are all fair game, because all pass through the hands of flawed humanity."
Progressive Christians are often open to re-defining and re-interpreting the Bible on hot-button moral issues like homosexuality and abortion, and also cardinal doctrines such as the virgin conception and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The only sacred cow is "no sacred cows." 

Comments you might hear:
  • The resurrection of Jesus doesn't have to be factual to speak truth....
  • The church's historic position on sexuality is archaic and needs to be updated within a modern framework...
  • The idea of a literal hell is offensive to non-Christians and needs to be re-interpreted....​


​4. Historic terms are re-defined

There are some Progressive Christians who say they affirm doctrines like biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and authority, but they have to do linguistic gymnastics to make those words mean what they want them to mean. I remember asking a Pastor, "Do you believe the Bible is divinely inspired?" He answered confidently, "Yes, of course!" However, 
I mistakenly assumed that when using the word "inspired," we both meant the same thing. He clarified months later what he meant—that the Bible is inspired in the same way and on the same level as many other Christian books, songs, and sermons. This, of course, is not how Christians have historically understood the doctrine of divine inspiration.

Another word that tends to get a Progressive make-over is the word "love." When plucked out of its biblical context, it becomes a catch-all term for everything non-confrontative, pleasant, and affirming.

Comments you might hear:
  • God wouldn't punish sinners—He is love....
  • Sure, the Bible is authoritative—but we've misunderstood it for the first 2,000 years of church history...
  • It's not our job to talk to anyone about sin—it's our job to just love them....


​5.  The heart of the gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social justice

There is no doubt that the Bible commands us to take care of the unfortunate and defend those who are oppressed. This is a very real and profoundly important part of what it means to live out our Christian faith. However, the core message of Christianity—the gospel—is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and resurrected, and thereby reconciled us to God. This is the message that will truly bring freedom to the oppressed. 

Many Progressive Christians today find the concept of God willing His Son to die on the cross to be embarrassing or even appalling. Sometimes referred to as "cosmic child abuse," the idea of blood atonement is de-emphasized or denied altogether, with social justice and good works enthroned in its place.


Comments you might hear:
  • Sin doesn't separate us from God—we are made in His image and He called us good....
  • God didn't actually require a sacrifice for our sins—the first Christians picked up on the pagan practice of animal sacrifice and told the Jesus story in similar terms....
  • We don't really need to preach the gospel—we just need to show love by bringing justice to the oppressed and provision to the needy...

​
Conclusion:

Identifying the signs is not always obvious—sometimes they are subtle and mixed with a lot of truth. Progressive Christianity can be persuasive and enticing, but carried out to its logical end, it is an assault on the foundational framework of Christianity, leaving it disarmed of its saving power.

We shouldn’t be surprised to find some of these ideas infiltrating our churches. Jesus warned us, “Watch out for false prophets” who “come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:15). So if you spot any of these 5 danger signs in your place of worship, it might be time to pray about finding fellowship in a more biblically faithful church community.

​
​If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe to have my weekly blog posts delivered directly to your inbox.


Tammie
5/8/2017 08:08:19 am

Excellent. Always thankful to know there is hope among Christians who hold to orthodoxy and that we are not alone. Jesus brought love, but he also brought a cross.

Johnny
5/10/2017 10:28:10 pm

Thanks Tammie. I like the part of the cross that you mentioned - i guess many have forgotten that the cross is not only love, but it was also Holiness!

David Burgher
5/11/2017 03:10:22 pm

Wolves in sheep's clothing has been around for centuries. Back to the basics of Christianity should be fundamental in a Biblical Church. A diluted gospel Waters down the blood becoming totally ineffective. Be wary of counterfeit churches.

B.Boogaloo
5/14/2017 09:31:33 am

Although the author has mischaracterized some of it, Progressive Christianity sounds like something I can live with. I left Christianity because I can follow Jesus better without your politics. Your brand of Christianity impedes following the Sermon On The Mount.

MikeL
6/28/2017 11:43:25 am

There it is! I recognize it! The author totally nailed it. There are also those who "left", are ardant athiests, or agnostics who still refer to the Bible, which they think is an oppressive and offensive fairy tale about the a narcicistic spagetti monster. Yet they continue to quote it as a defense. Why refer to a book you don't like from a God you don't believe?

V. Randall
7/30/2017 04:29:56 pm

Please do explore it, B. The author is more than a little narrow in her thinking. Progressive Christianity is a broad movement, which would include some more theologically liberal churches such as she is describing, but also a growing number of evangelical churches with a high view of Scripture and of the gospel. Many of us evangelicals recognize in Christ's teaching a call to compassion and courageous witness to justice and to stand with the vulnerable and marginalized. "Progressive" is not a dirty word! I hope you will explore further. God bless you as you search!

CCulver
8/1/2017 01:38:47 am

I agree but have found that simply asking God what he would have me believe will open your eyes to truth. There are still many who believe that God didn't want Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit. Think about that! He has given us a Savior before the world was formed. He placed a highly desirable fruit in the middle of Eden. This talking serpent just happens to be in the right place at the right time to persuade Eve to partake of the fruit and oh yes, God created us with a weakened spirit. Eve sinned three times before she ate the fruit. She lusted with her flesh, lusted with the pride of life (she wanted to be like God) and lusted with her eyes.

KK
8/1/2017 11:09:23 am

Firs: You never "left"Christianity if you still follow Jesus. Second: There are no politics in the original doctrine, that is, the TRUE word of God. Either you live you life in the word of God as it has been told for the last 2,000 years, or you fit the word of God around your lifestyle to suit yourself which is the current popular trend, and NOT how it was intended. To understand the Sermon On The Mount or any of the books of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (those who spoke to the masses directly on the instruction of God's laws) you also need to understand who they were speaking to, and the roles each particular audience had in society at that time. The history of that time is crucial to understanding how the same words apply today. You cannot simply read the bible and, presto, you understand everything. It is not only a study of God's word and Christ's ministry, but a study of the life and time of the people and culture.

Gloria link
8/1/2017 11:36:12 am

I am glad to see you accept comments that oppose your point of view. Very glad.

J Torode
8/1/2017 07:52:40 pm

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one more easily traveled, And that made no difference."

Mike Visaggio
8/1/2017 08:03:39 pm

Here is the problem, Boogaloo. Christianity is not "progressive" or "conservative" as we understand these words today. Christianity, IS, however, about the INDIVIDUAL. Once you start in with injecting a progressive worldview into it, you make it about the collective, and from there, it is but a short step to getting left-wing political and trying to make the State the instrument of the Kingdom, with the result that the Kingdom becomes an instrument of the State. Whereas, Jesus never told his followers to do it that way. It was always "YOU remember the poor." "YOU cast out the devils." This is not hard to understand. The whole idea was that it is a believer who speaks the Word that reconciles people to God. It not, in any way, about establishing a government to take care of anybody. It isn't about redistributing anyone's resources by force of law. It's about YOU doing it yourself out of love.

Chas
8/2/2017 04:35:21 am

The sermon on the mount is but one piece of God's Word.

2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV)

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

We must study, embrace, and defend ALL of it.

Tom Getchell-Lacey
8/2/2017 09:49:00 pm

Right you are, B. Boogaloo. American Christianity has almost nothing to do with Jesus.

Daniel Skognes link
7/31/2017 07:44:32 am

We are in the last days. 2 Timothy 4:3New International Version (NIV)

3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

Sandra
8/1/2017 02:55:42 am

Well, maybe your doctrine is not sound and mine is. Who knows.... #judgeandbejudged

Ana
8/2/2017 01:36:50 pm

Amen Daniel

Richard
8/1/2017 11:48:11 am

Progressive Christianity can be understood by this story: Two children, noticing flames in the basement, started shouting to their mother, "Mom the house is on fire, the house is on fire." The mother replied,"Be quiet kids, or you'll wake up your father!"
That so-called church is more interested in acceptance by the lost than the salvation of the lost. Sometimes the truth will offend before it can set the captive free. In the last days they will not endure sound doctrine but will gather around teachers who will tickle ears. These are those times in America.

Delina McPhaull link
5/8/2017 10:30:28 am

Has your church ever stopped to ask its members how they are participants in systems of oppression and injustice? Does the Gospel speak to that? Or is that not one of the sins that Jesus died for?

Alisa Childers
5/8/2017 11:03:47 am

Hi Delina, thanks for your comments. If you read my post again, you'll see that I agree that defending the oppressed and helping the needy is an integral part of living out our Christian faith. Have Christians always lived that out perfectly? Of course not. But this is what makes the gospel so beautiful and important—there is forgiveness and new life for all who repent and put their faith in Jesus. The early Christians certainly faced being a part of "systems of oppression and injustice," with 90% of the Roman Empire being slaves. The Bible didn't command them to overthrow the government and bring social justice to the Empire. The gospel had to do with hearts—declaring that in Christ, all people were free and equal. This radically counter-cultural teaching began to play out in history and would eventually inspire people like John Wesley and William Wilberforce to oppose modern slavery and support abolition.

vikki randall
7/30/2017 04:31:59 pm

Alisa, Wesley was (gasp) a progressive, as were most evangelicals up until the fundamentalist-modernist debate. Today there is a growing number of progressive evangelicals with a high view of Scripture and the centrality of the cross. So, while your blog was well-meaning, I feel it missed the mark by characterizing all of progressive Christianity by a single sample.

Kevin
5/11/2017 07:48:20 am

"Participants" seems intended to blur the line of culpability. What oppression and injustices do you think the members of her church are responsible for, Delina?

John Crofford
8/1/2017 09:14:07 am

I don't beat child-slaves personally, but I do have a cell-phone that uses rare minerals that may have been mined by such children. I don't lock women in flammable factories, but I buy clothes that may have been made by such women.

It would be grossly inaccurate to say that I am personally responsible for the existence of child slavery or the deaths of women in garment factories, but it is also inaccurate to say that I bear no responsibility. That is why we talk about being "participants in systems of oppression".

Scott link
5/12/2017 04:29:58 pm

Christians have always sought to obey the commands of Scripture regarding the weak, poor, powerless, and oppressed. What makes it seem that Bible-believing Christians aren't doing so is that we do not do so using Marxist categories, and liberal/progressive Christians do. When we speak of liberation, we must do so as God does, and not as Marxist Liberation Theology.

Christians who believe Scripture generally believe that God expects us to respond by acting with our own time and money, and not advocating that the government do so with someone else's.

MATTHEW CAILES link
5/15/2017 03:34:27 am

That is why the church must learn how to prosper in a godly way, so that it is in a financial position to do much of the welfare type work that governments currently do. Helping people in need was never meant to be the job of governments, it is supposed to be the churches job.

Andy
6/18/2017 01:40:19 am

I disagree vehemently with your premise that God expects us to only act within our own circles. Such exclusivity creates instances in which organizations 'select' who they help based on if they adhere to bibilical doctrine, which is not what Jesus did.

Alisa Childers
6/18/2017 09:24:22 am

Hi Andy, is your comment for Matthew or for me? Thanks

Tom Getchell-Lacey
8/2/2017 09:45:40 pm

When it comes to these sorts of discussions, I always think of Tony Campolo's critique of the Southern Baptist Church, which goes something like this--"I love you Southern Baptists--you are more concerned about what people believe about the Bible than with actually doing what it says."

Kevin Wesselink
8/3/2017 08:19:48 pm

Actually, Andy, that is what Jesus did. Matt. 15:24ff. It wasn't until there was a humble acknowledgment of who Jesus was (a clear doctrine of Scriptures) with a statement of anticipated faith that He extended grace to those outside of the house of Israel.

Louie Nicaruagua
5/8/2017 11:14:36 am

Good article overall.

I agree that to dismiss parts of the Bible simply because they are no longer culturally palatable is wrong. In the long run, it eventually paves the way for atheism since the end result is just a value system that is no different than basic humanism. Eventually, the Bible and Christianity would be seen as irrelevant religious overhead. The churches that embrace "progressive" Christianity don't seem to realize they are dooming themselves to eventual irrelevance. I think it's, in part, the result of traditional churches not fully exploring these issues or the Bible. Even the church I go to basically preaches the same sermon every week - look at how God did XYZ in the Bible, so that means that God is going to miraculously come through for you. Then there is the occasional - we are all going to heaven. The pacifist escapism is increasingly irritating.

However, Christ's command that we love our neighbor as ourselves and fight for the oppressed is not in competition with the reality of Him dying for our sins. The Bible says they will know we are followers of Christ by our love for each other. You can't love God who you don't see, and be apathetic to the poverty and suffering we do see. Social justice only matters because Christ, who died for us, made it clear that we should help those in need. Can you imagine a Christian parent saying I don't have time to tend to my child's pain and challenges because I believe that salvation is what matters?

If we loved God with all our heart, then we would love our neighbors as ourselves. The fact that we fall short on either is why we need a savior.

Alisa Childers
5/8/2017 11:46:20 am

Hi Louie, I totally agree that the ideas of loving our neighbor as ourselves and the reality of Christ dying for our sins are not in competition with each other (as long as "love" is defined correctly). But my point is that that among Progressive Christians, the latter is often de-emphasized or taken away completely, which changes the definition of the first, turning it into a subjective and even shallow "social justice."

Louie Nicaragua
5/8/2017 11:56:36 am

I see what you are saying and agree.

To emphasize social justice without Christ is useless and does make it shallow. Without Christ there is no basis objective basis for social justice. Ultimately, what we need and long for is eternal justice which is only to be found when God returns, and that we can enjoy through Christ. Only God can settle accounts once and for all.

As always you are doing a great work and I enjoy reading your blog. We sorely need a more thoughtful approach to Christianity that is grounded in the Bible as God's word. I was surprised to see in what you wrote that some people (who say they are Christian) are simply saying they disagree with scripture - as if that is an option for the Christian. I pray we weather the storms as a church.

vikki randall
7/30/2017 04:33:32 pm

based on what? What is your basis for defining "progressive Christianity" so narrowly? It seems to be based entirely on a single sample.

Alisa Childers
7/30/2017 04:40:17 pm

Hi Vickie. My definition of Progressive Christianity is based on a broad range of sources within the Progressive movement that have offered their own definitions, and by my own observations of reading the books and blogs of many prominent Progressive Christian leaders. You can learn more in my podcast, "What is Progressive Christianity?" found here: http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/podcast-1-what-is-progressive-christianity

Carolyn
5/11/2017 07:17:57 pm

I'm curious. Where would I find Christ's commands to "fight for the oppressed"?

Thanks

Alisa Childers
5/11/2017 09:40:43 pm

Hi Carolyn, well this is a good question! For clarity, I didn’t say that “Christ” commands us to “fight for the oppressed.” I wrote, “The Bible commands us to *defend* those who are oppressed.” Of course, I believe all of Scripture is God’s Word, so technically, “Christ” works for my statement as well. But your question makes a good point. I can’t find an actual definitive “command” (at least in the New Testament) to "defend the oppressed." However, a consistent theme throughout The Bible is that we are not to oppress others, and an equally consistent theme is that God Himself will free the oppressed from their oppression— referring to both natural and spiritual oppression.

In Isaiah 1:17 God commanded the Israelites to “seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.” Zechariah 7:10 says, “Do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor.” In Malachi 3:5, we learn that God will judge those who “oppress the hired worker in his wages.” There are New Testament references as well. James 1:27 talks about a pure and undefiled religion including visiting the orphans and widows in their distress, and then there’s the whole “least of these” section of Matthew 25. As followers of Christ, doing what we can to help the oppressed is an important part of living out our faith, but it’s an outworking of our faith—not the saving part of our faith, which was the point I was trying to make.

Shanna link
8/3/2017 07:46:56 pm

In addition to what Alisa said - It's often overlooked that in just about every reference Jesus makes to the afterlife, the determining factor between heaven and hell isn't usually faith in Christ, but action in this life. The most obvious example is the story of the Sheep and Goats, Mat. 25, where one group (sheep) is allowed to remain in God's presence, and the other group has to leave God's presence. In the story, both groups appear to recognize Christ, which indicates both groups are believers. The determining factor in their fate has to do with whether they "fed the hungry" "clothed the naked" etc.

Another potent example is the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 1). During life, the rich man ignored the plight of Lazarus, the beggar who sat on his doorstep. In death, Lazarus ends up at peace, while the rich man finds himself in torment. Why does the rich man end up in torment? Because he failed to care for Lazarus.

In addition to the afterlife stories, there's the fact that most of Jesus' dealings are with social outcasts. The "good people" of his time are constantly grumbling about his association with "tax collectors a sinners" (and "sinners" here often means people like the woman at the well (John 4) who exist on the margins of society and are forced to do things to survive that aren't considered proper in polite society). Most of Jesus's miracles are healing miracles. His one recorded violent act is driving people who were taking advantage of, probably poor, worshipers out of the temple. And the only people who Jesus ever seems to have a real problem with are the wealthy and powerful leaders of his own religion (The Pharisees and Sadducees).

Honestly, if I had more time, I could probably go on, but this comment is already long enough. Suffice it to say that if you take what Jesus says and does throughout the Gospels as a whole, the mandate to care for the poor and oppressed is pretty clear.

Bob McMahan
5/8/2017 06:44:17 pm

One hears that sometimes there is some compulsion involved as progressives take over churches. Congregations might consider fighting back. Surrender is not an effective tactic.

Ken Rury
5/8/2017 11:59:55 pm

I am glad that you recognize the difference because you should follow what you believe. It doesn't make their path wrong, just different than yours. Even the Catholic church since Vatican II recognized the bible as a book of faith and not of science or history. I am surprised that you still trust men who chose a collection of stories and then called it Inspired makes it so. There wasn't anything divine about that effort. The younger generation is going to look at things more objectively and not just believe what they are told to believe. Those that hold to the bible as literal will only drive the faithful away. Eventually, they will move beyond the faith of their fathers and recognize it all as mythology and appreciate it for what it is. The myth is that those that don't believe like you don't have as much moral values, but they seem to have more.

I appreciate the path you are on and wish you well.

Alisa Childers
5/9/2017 11:31:34 am

Hi Ken, thanks for your comment. "The younger generation is going to look at things more objectively and not just believe what they are told to believe." - I hope you are right about this! If so, they will reject the illogical and self-contradictory religious pluralism and philosophical relativism that they are "told to believe" by their culture. If they follow the evidence, they will discover that Christianity is historically true, and indeed not mythological.

I would also encourage you to discover what Christians really believe before describing us with such caricatures. For example, on reading the Bible literally: http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/01/dont-take-bible-literally-neither-anyone-else/

Kris
5/10/2017 08:02:37 am

The first part of your comment is interesting. When you feel the need to make the Bible some magical, clean cut source of ultimate divinity it makes you wonder what it was before everything was canonized. It makes the canonization almost as important as the resurrection.

Larry Waddell
7/12/2017 09:44:13 am

Prior to the Bible being canonized Paul said to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, All scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the servant of God may be throughly equipped for every good work.We see that prior to cononizatin the Scriptures, where held in high esteem and believed to have been inspired by God.

Your strawman argument: "The first part of your comment is interesting. When you feel the need to make the Bible some magical, clean cut source of ultimate divinity it makes you wonder what it was before everything was canonized." Holds no water, no one, other than perhaps yourself, believes the Bible is a magical source of ultimate divinity. Christians believe the Bible to be inspired by God making true in respect to everything it affirms regarding God, salvation, doctrine and Christian living.

Bob
7/31/2017 04:58:07 pm

To Kris
Before it was canonized, it was scrolls that believers were killed for owning. Many died for what they believed and held them because they saw it as Truth

MATTHEW CAILES link
5/15/2017 03:40:07 am

Any Christian that reads the Bible daily and believes that it is the Word of God would recognise progressive teaching as being wrong and start seeking God for a new church if it began being preached. The reason churches can teach unbiblical nonsense is because of Christians not knowing their Bibles, or thinking that those Bibles are open to numerous interpretations.

Angie Moseley
7/31/2017 12:09:22 pm

Excellent Matthew! So true! Too many churches are producing biblically illiterate Christians. Stick to the Word from the pulpit and in our daily lives.

John Crofford
8/1/2017 09:22:33 am

If the Bible is not open to multiple interpretations, then everybody who has studied it extensively and disagrees with your interpretation must be operating in bad faith. To be a part of the only denomination to have ever interpreted the Bible correctly must be a heavy burden to bear.

Gene harrison
8/1/2017 11:30:31 pm

Matthew, I was thinking almost the same exact thing! Only someone not reading and studying the Bible on a regular personal basis would be easily misled by progressive teaching and "theology". It would be easily identified as error.

Tinus van der Merwe
5/9/2017 03:03:44 am

Thank you for this post Alisa.

Your blog posts are easy to access and nice and quick to read. And I agree with one of the previous comments, that robust and intellegent discussion about the issues you address are very necessary. Thank you for that.

I think one of the main reasons why some dodgy ideas infiltrate the church is because so many of us in the body of Christ live according to the flesh, and not the Spirit. We often judge things at face value, in the natural, we don't see the way God sees, and the 'way that seems right to a man' becomes our point of reference, instead of the wisdom of God (which will seems foolish to the world). We often fear man more than we fear God, which makes us prone to accommodate worldly sentiments in our understanding of the Gospel.

And like you emphasized, social justice and the world's need to hear the true Gospel is not mutually exclusive. Because Jesus is my Lord and Master, I obey Him by taking care of the widow and the orphan, holding up the cause of the weak and the fatherless, because He loves the world. But there's an eternal reality that the Gospel addresses, that we definitely should not lose sight of. We need to understand how God defines 'sin', to understand the power and value of the cross, and why it was necessary.

The only thing that concerns me in your post is that it seems as if you encourage us to leave our church community if these 'progressive' ideas come in the picture, where it might be God's will for us to stick around, pray for that community, and possibly be an answer to those prayers by having difficult discussions like these, with humility, and trusting God to bring truth in all hearts concerned. I think we sometimes trust our ability to be decieved more than we trust God's ability to keep us in His truth.

We need God-reality more than anything (I include myself here), and a personal, intimate relationship with His Spirit - He will guide us with, and ground us in His Word. Running to another church might not be what God wants, because loving one another in church makes us His disciples. And it might be unloving for me to leave my brothers and sisters because they have a wrong understanding of the Gospel, and to not in some way, once again with love and humility, raise my concerns and talk about it.

Alisa Childers
5/9/2017 08:29:40 am

Hi Tinus, thanks for your thoughtful comment. I tried to word the last sentence of my post intentionally- "might be time to pray about" leaving was by way of not being too dogmatic about what God might lead a believer to do. Sometimes the signs are just starting to bubble up, and God might certainly call a mature believer to stay, pray, and bring some of the issues to light. However, if outright heresy is being preached from the pulpit, or the Word of God is being denied, I can't think of any biblical reason to stay.

Tinus van der Merwe
5/9/2017 08:33:58 am

Thank you Alisa, that makes sense.

Diane Woerner link
5/9/2017 09:10:12 am

Hello Tinus,

You have raised a central question: whether to stay or leave when false doctrines begin to infiltrate a church. There aren't always easy answers--especially if you've been attending your church for a very long time.

If the false teachings are coming regularly from senior church leadership, and if attempts to engage them in conversation fail, then to continue to support that church with your presence, service and tithes may be wrong.

When the leadership is unresponsive, I believe conversations with other faithful believers in the congregation are appropriate--even if it results in church division. In my understanding, Scripture holds unity to be a result, not a goal. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 that divisions within a church are necessary "in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized."

The deceptions are intense (and possibly even God-sent, if 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 applies in our day). As you noted, living "according to the flesh" is not an option for those who desire to safely navigate the present spiritual waters.




Robert Grice
5/9/2017 05:43:08 am

I believe we are talking about what Paul described as another gospel about another Jesus

Tom Getchell-Lacey
8/2/2017 10:12:59 pm

Well then. Given that Paul never actually met the earthly Jesus, and that he seems to have had only passing awareness of what Jesus actually taught (e.g. he almost never quotes Jesus public teachings in his epistles), one might well ask whether it was Paul who offered another gospel. According to the Gospels (which were compiled after Paul was writing), the primary theme of Jesus' preaching was the Kingdom of God, which, again, barely appears in Paul's writings. I'm not trying to entirely discredit Paul, but I do wonder about what appears to be a discontinuity between his teachings and Jesus'. I also find that evangelicals seem to be much more influenced by Paul's interpretation of Jesus than by Jesus himself. I find it more helpful to see Paul through the lens of Jesus rather than seeing Jesus through the lens of Paul.

Don
5/9/2017 12:57:51 pm

While reading this post, I felt the "comments you might hear" sections contained gross mischaracterizations of what progressive christians would themselves say for each issue.

Posts like this serve only to scare people into a faith structured around circling the wagons against "attacks" from people who challenge their beliefs. The fact is, people struggle with many of the areas you present above. I'm happy there are people in the faith (label them progressive christians or however else you like) who have the audacity to confront their doubts head on, and adapt as need be, as has been happening since the time of Acts.

Disagree with people all you like, but encouraging others to plug their ears and go "LALALALALA" when they hear something new is, at the very least, not helpful. If hearing something new causes a person to doubt a certain area of their faith - that is wonderful! Contend through it, struggle with it, face it head on. If the belief was correct, it should stand up to all scrutiny, right?

Alisa Childers
5/9/2017 01:40:40 pm

Hi Don, I appreciate the perspective you've brought to this post, and I'm glad you commented. You bring up some points that are worth discussing. When I read your critique of the "comments you might hear" section, I went back and re-read them. I can honestly say that I haven't written one line that I haven't heard a Progressive Christian express in person (many of the comments are direct quotes from Pastors), and some of them I copied and pasted directly off Progressive Christian blog posts. Sadly, I can confidently say that they are not gross mischaracterizations at all.

In regard to "hearing something new," none of this is new. These are all age old heresies that just take on new clothing—a new veneer. This is Gnosticism, and the liberalism of the early 20th century all dressed up in skinny jeans and glasses. There's nothing new about it ideologically— what's new about it is it's wide acceptance. When these ideas have bubbled up before in church history, they were largely rejected by most Christians. But due to biblical illiteracy and the relativistic post-modern philosophy that rules our culture, people are falling for it en masse.

"Contend through it, struggle with it, face it head on. If the belief was correct, it should stand up to all scrutiny, right?" - Couldn't have put it better myself! The whole point of my blog is to help Christians walk through their doubts, and learn the evidence for and truth about the historic claims of Christianity. But the word "Christianity" means something—if someone wrestles through an essential issue and decides that Christianity is false, they should just admit that, rather than try to re-define a 2,000 year old faith to mean something else.

Don
5/9/2017 02:20:33 pm

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

While I don't doubt that some (many, most, all, doesn't matter) of the comments you posted were taken directly from things you've seen/heard, there are still major issues. First, you are likely quoting from a wide array of people who may or may not agree with each other on a number of issues, but are putting them all in one bucket and giving it a label. This is a problem because it just encourages people, many of whom are afraid to confront their doubts, to retreat to their own echo chambers for fear of coming across something they can't handle. Second, you are stripping the comments of any and all context, and are likely painting them with a brush they never intended. You are cherry picking sentences and interpreting them for everyone without ever giving the author a chance to express the full idea. It would be better to include sources and let people draw their own conclusions.

You may or may not be right about no idea being truly "new," but it may be new to the person hearing it for the first time, which means they will have to contend through it on their own. That said, some things ARE new, such as society's unprecedented, historic, widespread acceptance of homosexuality, or advances in scientific understanding of cosmology and evolution. Those issues (among others) need to be wrestled with head on, not hidden from. "Beware the skinny jean wearing hipster liberals!" Is the opposite.

Thankfully, the word "Christianity," in all its rich meaning and history, does NOT mean only ONE thing. It isn't all-or-nothing. I'll grant that you said on an "essential" issue, though I'm sure you would agree the definition of "essential" is a moving target depending on who you ask. Whether or not you think they're right or wrong is an entirely different issue :).

I would suggest, if you haven't already (maybe you have, this isn't an accusation) - and this applies to anyone reading this - that you pick up a few books by authors that you strongly disagree with, and read them in a way other than looking flaws in their ideas. With an open mind. If you're more "progressive," maybe pick up a book by John Piper or Timothy Keller. Or, if you're more conservative, don't take Alisa's word for it - go and read some Pete Enns, Mike McHargue, or Richard Rohr. Or maybe challenge yourself to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and really think about it. If that idea makes you (anyone, not just Alisa) uncomfortable - thats good! Discomfort is growth!




Alisa Childers
5/9/2017 02:30:11 pm

I just wanted to clarify one thing I wrote above, "These are all age old heresies that just take on new clothing—a new veneer." I don't mean to say that every one of the points on my post are "heresy." Some are certainly heterodox, but not heresy.

Denise
5/13/2017 10:54:04 am

Alisa,
Thank you for bringing in even more clarity to your "statements that you might hear", section. You are 100 percent correct. These are just age old heresays that have come into the preaching of the gospel since it was first heard. If one studies Christian history we can see the progression of the watering down of truth. They move into doctrines of demons as have occurred in some of the cult religions we have in the Christian churches. I think we can all identify with idol worship as one them, and the snake handling and adorations of holding them with out being killed by their venom, just a couple examples to put out there.
My husband and I have just had to confront our church leaders on the "social justice" issues platform. They created a skit and brought the issue of mothers loosing there sons to unjust killings. They brought in Rizpath from Old Testament, one of King Sauls concubines. Rose Kenndeys sons and two black women from 1999 and the 1950s I don't remember their names sorry. But they gave great deal of info regarding the unjust killings of the two black sons, and vague details to the other two. Then they brought Mary the mother of Jesus into the seen and they compared Jesus to these 5 young men. They brought his life down to a human level, like he was one of the good ole boys. In the end they brought out a couple of the miracles he did and in the most degrading terms said "he was hung high and spread wide". And his side was periced. They white washed his death burial and resurrection like it was a matter of goodness. They asked me to play Mary but I said only if I could change up some of what they said about Jesus. They said yes at first. But when I read my part and how I brought the truth of the gospel and painted the true picture of his birth, death, burial and resurrection, the directors wife went nuts on me. She was so mad. " we don't need all that detail about Jesus' life. Everyone knows it. We need to stay with the theme and it's called " Injustice". When I brought out the point of Jesus who willing came to become injustice so we could have and receive justice for our sins and pains, she was angry and turned away from me and refused to talk to me from that moment on. When I read my part that I rewrote the convicting power of Holy Spirit fell, but no one moved. They were speechless. So instead of doing it for Easter, they decided to move it to Mothers Day, but.... we had to use the old script exactly as it was written. I respectfully stepped back and told them I will not part take of or speak a watering down of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They were shocked and again speechless. My heart was completely broken for them. Again a test was given and they choose their agenda over the truth. Needless to say after reading this article to my husband he finally got it reguarding our church and the direction it's going, further and further from the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their agenda of "social justice" is so much more important then the truth of Jesus' life, death, burial, and resurrection. It's becoming more and more defined in this hour.
Angain, thank you.

Timothy Jerry link
5/9/2017 03:27:00 pm

We need a radical and revolutionary message. No message is more radical or revolutionary than that which stands in direct opposition to the world spirit of our age. The Bible answers for us all of our deepest questions,
questions of purpose, origins, history, morality, sociology, and spirituality. It gives context for the search for truth and touches upon all of reality. Unfortunately, evangelical accommodation has been all one way. The culture has not accommodated at all~it continues its slide into moral rela-
tivism and its logical conclusions. We need a new eneration of evangelicals who are willing to stand against the culture, to take a truly radical position, and proclaim the truth of God’s word. More than this, they must be willing to stand against those within the church who would silence the Christian voice through compromise. They must firmly and lovingly reject such accommodation, confront those in error, and oppose falsehood within the
church and the culture. Francis Scaeffer - The Great Evangelical Disaster

Miranda
5/9/2017 03:58:47 pm

It seems like progressive isn't the most accurate word for what you're describing. Some of this is classic theological liberalism, which comes to us via 19th century German theologians and took root in some mainline denominations in the early 20th century. Other elements are basic post-modernism, with its emphasis on subjectivism and the death of absolute truth or metanarratives. I know many Christians and churches that might use the term "progressive" in order to connote concern for issues of social justice alongside the claims of historic orthodoxy, and to differentiate themselves from fundamentalism with its strong negative connotations. Terms are always problematic. I appreciate the content of the warnings, but maybe instead of assigning a label they could be signs that a church is losing sight of historic Christian orthodoxy.

Alisa Childers
5/9/2017 04:10:47 pm

Hi Miranda, I agree with you- Progressive Christianity is a bit tricky to define, and my interaction with it has been what could be described as a blend of the ideologies you've described above. I haven't heard of any churches that describe themselves as "Progressive" who also hold to historic orthodoxy, but if there are, they may find themselves isolated from that group as it becomes more defined from within. There are several high-profile progressive churches and websites actively doing that now, one of which I linked above from John Pavlovitz on point #3.

Bill Woods
5/9/2017 05:51:47 pm

Good article, and serious warning. Thankful to report that our church scored 0/5.

Jac
5/9/2017 09:29:00 pm

I was just reading Richard Rohr's saying that we can only see with our "available eyes." What you've been taught about the Bible/church/God is all you CAN know about it unless something shocks you into radically re-thinking it.

I remember Robert Farrar Capon's explanation of why Jesus healed on the Sabbath... It was the man with the withered hand--not a life-threatening condition; Jesus could easily have waited till sundown, Sabbath would have been over, and everyone could have rejoiced in this man's healing! But no, Jesus went out of his way to rub the noses of the religious authorities in his flaunting of the law! And why?

To shock them into seeing God's purposes in a new way! To show them the scandalous nature of grace. To demonstrate how his new wine was bound to burst old wine skins.

If you some day get such a shock to the system that you can no longer see a loving God in the one you've been taught sentences most people to hell, polices all bedrooms, and demanded the blood of his own son because he just couldn't let a single bad deed go unpunished...Maybe you will be able to see with new eyes what your progressive friends were trying to say...

Not that Jesus isn't the way, the truth and the life...but that he is all that and more, for everyone, for every creature, for now on this earth and for always everywhere.

Alisa Childers
5/9/2017 09:59:23 pm

Hi Jac. You wrote, “What you've been taught about the Bible/church/God is all you CAN know about it unless something shocks you into radically re-thinking it.” I can’t say I disagree, and this is exactly what happened to me in the Progressive community. It shocked me into radically re-thinking literally *everything* I believed. It was a long journey - I deconstructed and reconstructed. And I discovered that the historical claims of Christianity are true. I’m always stunned when Progressives assume that Traditional Christians like me believe what we do simply because we haven’t had a “shock to the system.” Why do you assume that being shocked into re-thinking would result in progressive theology?

Paul
5/10/2017 01:27:51 pm

Excellent response!

Jac
5/12/2017 09:52:13 am

Because it never occurred to me that anyone who had faced such a shock--in the form of deep suffering or great love--would go down into the grave with Jesus and not arise with an inclusive understanding of the love of Christ who is all in all. I stand corrected.

And fwiw I think you need to define the "historical claims of Christianity" which you believe progressives deny? While they're not a homogeneous group, they do call themselves Christians because they believe in Christ--so it's a bit disingenuous to say, "I deconstructed and came to the conclusion the historical claims are true" as if progressives have somehow rejected Truth.

Sus
8/1/2017 11:26:27 am

Excellent comments, Jac.

Robert
5/9/2017 09:55:22 pm

The term "Progressive Christianity" seems to me to be an oxymoron. The work of Christianity is done - Jesus himself proclaimed "It is finished". So who are we to change or progress it? The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Nothing more, nothing less. What is there to progress? We seem to want to make it applicable to our day and time instead of transforming our lives in compliance with scripture. It is finished. Believe it, accept it, proclaim it till the day He returns or calls you home.

Alisa Childers
5/12/2017 09:19:06 pm

Jac, by "historical claims of Christianity," I'm referring to the essential claims that Christians have affirmed from the beginning. Here's an example: "That Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures." This is found in 1 Corinthians 15, and it's considered by scholars (even very liberal ones) to be one of the earliest creeds (if not the earliest) of the Christian church, dating to 3-7 years after Jesus' resurrection. Paul said this was of "first importance." These are beliefs that have been upheld by Christians for 2,000 years. As I point out in my article, progressives tend to be open to denying the "for our sins" part (point #5), the bodily resurrection part (point #3), and the "in accordance with the scriptures" part (point #1). If you think I'm exaggerating, here is an article by a children's pastor in a progressive church here in town. One of their pastors was touted by prominent progressive Brian McLaren as being "One of America's best new preachers," so this isn't some backwoods church with no influence. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistparenting/2017/04/trouble-easter-not-talk-kids-easter/

Kris
5/9/2017 10:57:33 pm

When I read articles like this, I sense such a desperate reach to hold on to and defend the familiar. Psychological principles of consistency in our worldviews can be overwhelmingly strong to the point that we slap the faith label on and stop exploring. I am truly envious of those who can live this life. I shake my fist at God and ask why can't I be like that. But modern Western Christianity has been so dismissive of some progressive ideas that warrant serious evaluation. To just laugh those concerns off as coming from false prophets is way more human that spiritual.

Alisa Childers
5/9/2017 11:01:55 pm

Hi Kris— I understand where you're coming from. I'm curious.... what is it in this post that makes you think I've "stopped exploring," and am "laughing off those concerns" rather than evaluating them seriously? Have you read any of my other blog posts?

Kris
5/9/2017 11:31:27 pm

Hey...no, I am new to your work. I also wasn't insinuating anything on you personally. But pieces like this don't seem interested in exploring the heart of the progressive movement. I think Modern Christianity suffers from survival bias and does not adequately deal with those that fall through the cracks. I can look in the mirror and say that I have been an honest and diligent seeker of Christ yet your recent tweet from the Psalms does not ring true for me. The God I used to be so sure of has indeed forsaken me as much as I wish I could convince myself otherwise.

If this piece is meant to confirm existing beliefs from the evangelical crowd, then it doesn't need further explanation on some of the specific questions brought up since the reader already knows what they are reading for. But for some in the progressive camp, it may feel dismissive.

Alisa Childers
5/10/2017 08:25:55 am

Thanks for sharing that, Kris. It certainly is difficult to address all sides of an issue in a 1,000-ish word blog piece for sure, and you’re right about the point of this post. It’s not about exploring the heart of the Progressive movement—it’s about helping people who are being confused and hurt by it.

You bring up a good point—I hope to write a piece in the future that addresses those who have fallen through the cracks. Jesus' heart on that is so clear—he would leave the 99 to go retrieve the one lost lamb, and there are lost lambs on both sides. I personally know many people who have been disillusioned, abused, and burned by the Progressive church.

I understand where you’re coming from with the Psalm—this is why objective truth is so freeing and beautiful to me. Let’s look at it this way: If Jesus really was raised from the dead….If the Bible is truthful….If the historic claims of Christianity are true…then we have something very solid to stand on, whether or not we *feel* like it’s there. It’s like oxygen… I can’t touch it, smell it, or see it, but I know it’s there because of the evidence of it’s existence and purpose. There is SO MUCH solid evidence (historical, scientific, philosophical, etc…) for the truthfulness of the claims of Christianity—it’s what my blog is all about. It may seem dismissive to Progressives, but if someone came along and said, “You don’t really need oxygen to survive—that’s just an archaic idea,” I would absolutely dismiss that… and I would make sure my friends knew the truth about oxygen so that they could live and thrive.

Kris, I’m so glad you’re here and I hope you will stick around and keep seeking…

Kris
5/10/2017 10:03:11 pm

You are very respectful and courteous, thank you for that.

I do not consider myself a progressive. I just think about all of this differently. Traditional Western Christianity is embedded with Greek, linear thought, blended with the American Dream, and so all of this "objective truth" might be accurate - but it's the lens through which it is understood is sinfully unrecognized.

Little things like not understanding how collectivist ancient cultures were, so verses like Jer. 29:11 get tattoed on youth pastors who think God has a marvelous plan for every life when in reality that verse would have applied to the Isrealities as a whole. That is a notorious pop-christianity belief that is dangerous as soon as a tragedy happens in someone's life. A person falls away from faith and we never hear about it.

I know it seems kinda simple. Like I said, it used to all make sense and I felt close to God. Then it started making less sense the deeper I went and I feel closer to God. And I'm tired of trying to explain it and justify it.

Anyway, props to you recognizing a lot of these "modern" claims as being regurgitated trash from a few centuries ago. But, there are new arguments as well. The church has been bleeding members since the 70's, yet more people are feeling connected "to something" than ever before. I think it's a language issue and a marketing issue before it is spiritual. Articles that push ideas away seem noble but I just wonder why I keep seeing them when the church is dying. We need a rebrand. Unless that happens, "traditionals" will keep becoming progressive because they don't know where else to turn.

Enough rambling. Feel free to not approve this as it will take up space on the comments and lead to a scrolling disaster. I'm happy to keep discussing over email if you are interested (kris.asleson@gmail.com)

Alisa Childers
5/10/2017 10:16:55 pm

I'd love that, Kris. Please email me from my contact page and fill me in on your story. Let's talk more....

Eric
5/9/2017 10:59:52 pm

I must say that i am frustrated by your description of the gospel message. You left out the most important piece, that Jesus became man. If not for Christmas, the taking on of the human form and being subject to human frailty and human temptation, his death and resurrection would mean nothing.

Kris
5/9/2017 11:37:14 pm

Nothing? Just think for a second how amazing the story of Jesus would be if he didn't rise from the dead. All of your disciples die for you and the most powerful movement in history starts. Just think about it, if Jesus was just a regular guy and all of that happened. Most days I believe in an actual physical resurrection. But the days I doubt are almost just as fascinating. Who was this Jesus then?! I'm not trying to rock the boat, it's just crazy to think about and for me at least, the resurrection isn't needed to acknowledge that something phenomenal happened 2000 years ago with this dude born in a manger.

Eric
5/10/2017 09:31:33 am

Kris,

You misunderstand. Death and resurrection were necessary. But they would have been meaningless had Jesus not been man. Dying and being resurrected is a fun Friday night for a god. For man, it is a miracle beyond comprehension. Becoming man was step 1, not just a trivial fact.

Timothy McPherson link
5/10/2017 03:17:40 pm

The Christianity of the 21st Century has evolved and changed, especially from the 1st Century. We no longer have slaves. We actually had a war against slavery although Paul stated that slaves should be obedient to their masters. Even you, as a woman, enjoy the freedom of Christ where you speak and teach other men through this blog, which many conservative evangelicals would consider heresy.

The fact of the matter is that we need to be open to the moving of the Spirit. Who knows? Are we stifling the Spirit by saying that we alone hold the Truth of the Gospel? Are we so arrogant that we think we know all of the truth of God?

Perhaps we should take Origen's advice, the Third Century Church Father, and realize that love is the main focus of Jesus' message. Love does not cast out or ostracizes others, especially those in the LGBT community.

Peace to you.

Mike Moguin
5/10/2017 11:13:04 pm

I'm glad to see someone warning about Progressive Christianity. Like you say, "it is an assault on the foundational framework of Christianity." I've come across many people, both in person and online, who adhere to the views you describe. It is imperative that true followers of Christ stand up against this movement.

scott phillips link
5/11/2017 07:18:23 am

Well written article.

I would suggest that this direction is what produced many doctrines in "historical" christianity.

Faith Alone is a doctrine that is a product of a long past generation of progressives.

The only scripture that contains those two words together communicate the exact opposite truth.

The de emphasis on baptism.
The ignoring the the truths found in Jesus' parables.
The forgetting of concepts of modesty and seperation from the world.

Historical Christianity is a nice buzz word today.

Truth be told the whole concept of absolute truth being the domain of Christianity has long been abandoned. Most of those in historical christianity value Historical Christianity far and away above the actual text of scripture.

When there is an inconsistantcy with the doctrine of preferred tradition, a defense of the doctrine will be "historical christianity."

Which part of historical ... it's an a la carte. menu.

The pope is historical christianity. Purgatory, Calvinism, Luthernism, All of the extra biblical authors and concepts.

What I advocate for all those who are weary with the sentimentality of the modern version of progressive christianity, become someone focused on original christianity.

The Non Denominational appeal is all of the weird, unbibilical traditions found in mainline denominations.

Error.

They trade that error for another error. They reject traditional sentimentality for modern sentimentality.

...

Great article and observations. My summarized point is, don't look to deeply in the scriptural foundation of historical christianity. It's just another house of cards, older cards of course.

https://www.facebook.com/springridgechurch/videos/761609020663337/

Cameron Mcadam
5/11/2017 05:05:38 pm

The only thing hurting Christianity is this kind of self-righteous certainty. I love that you think Christianity needs a defender of orthodoxy, like God needs defending. So there are diverse views within Christian faith, there are diverse views within evangelicalism. It is time Christians started looking for what they have in common and stopped putting each other down. John 17: 20-23

Tim Boone
5/13/2017 05:23:28 am

Cameron, I agree, although I would not say the only thing.
The addiction to certainty in the fundamentalist conservative churches seems to e a root cause of much oppression rather than freedom in many churches.

I suggest that you and Alisa carefully read "Raising Hell" by Julie Ferwerda. And follow her links to the original languages to explore many of the poor translations in our modern bibles. If nothing else it will be a breath of fresh air to help you clarify your own convictions. Labels divide...best leave them to the politicians.

Alisa Childers
5/13/2017 08:18:21 am

Hi Tim, thanks for your comment, but it just serves to prove my point #2, "Feelings are emphasized over facts." I'm sure Jule Ferwerda is a very nice person, and I have nothing against her, but she doesn't speak Greek or Hebrew. In regard to Bible translations, you are asking me to take the word of someone who based her conclusion on a revelation she received in her car over the word of the collaborative effort of distinguished scholars who are experts in the original languages? Her word over the many peer-reviewed articles and books written on hermeneutics and the subject of hell?

Here's a quote from her book, in regard to "Bible study tools online": “Through these resources, practically anyone can learn basic study of Hebrew and Greek Scripture in order to begin identifying problematic translation issues and correcting them on their own. In fact, learning how to identify and improve many translation errors is so simple, a little kid could do it”

I truly don't intend to sound flippant, but her quote is laughable. I study Kione Greek, and I can tell you that in translating Greek there are so many factors—case endings, declension, gender, lexical form, etc... It is incredibly complicated—an art, and one has to be proficient in Greek grammar to do so.

Again, nothing against her. It seems she grew up in a very legalistic and suffocating environment, and I have found that many people who drift into the progressive church have a similar story. I pray they will find the true freedom that Christ has to offer instead of turning to a different gospel. This is my heart, and why I write articles like these. Truly.

B.BOOGALOO
5/14/2017 09:37:12 am

Thank you, Cameron! Well said.

Rick Lucas
5/12/2017 06:54:51 am

My wife and I have grown weary of trying to find a balanced and Bible following church. The Emergent Church and the Apostolic Movements have infiltrated the church and it is increasingly difficult for us to find a place we can plant our roots in. We were forced to leave several churches because of infidelity on the part of the pastors. Yet being a "lone ranger" is not an option. Thank you for this article as it shows me that I am not alone, nor am I going crazy....

Charlie West
5/12/2017 08:58:05 am

I loved when George Carlin reduced the 10 commandments down to 3:

1. Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nooky, and

2. Thou shalt reeeeaaaal hard to not kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man in the sky than you do.

3. And lastly, Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself!

A. Perry
5/12/2017 10:44:38 am

Excellent article. Relevant examples. Good focus on authority of Scripture. Thank you.

JC
5/12/2017 03:00:14 pm

Thank you Alisa. I think some of the responses to your article exemplify what you are identifying in your article - an attempt to self-justify or reason through a mixture of experiences, feelings, failures, rejections, self-expressed morals, ever-changing cultural norms, backgrounds and other variables and hopefully put faith somewhere in the middle of it so that it "makes sense to me" kind of religion.

No doubt that humanity is seeking truth of some sort, but we keep moving from truth to truth to another truth to something else to another version of whatever interpretation of the "nth" edition of someone else's views that centered on something from the past that a church leader grabs as being a "new" revelation or a "new" message for the modern Christian, and it is so confusing to Christians from all churches and backgrounds and relationships. They are mentally and emotionally tired of it all. I don't blame them. Lots of mixed messages in today's environment from TV, radio, books, internet...Christians (and others) lug all that around and they are looking for what feels right for them.

The Bible's effectiveness (or God's character even) is not based upon our judgement of it being right or wrong for our culture, because our culture will change, and it has. And it is not dependent on our acceptance of it - either historically, or now, or in the future. The Bible will always be here, asking for people to read it and make a decision about it. I am convinced, that if a person is seeking to know Jesus, and if they read - they will find him. Not a "version" of him, but Him - truly Jesus 100%. No fancy theology required, just a desire to know Jesus. They will also find who they are, and then they can sort through the noise of the terms and definitions and theology out there to find a faith-based, group of people of like mind and character, who want to follow Jesus, disciple each other, worship together, and serve others above serving themselves. These places and people do exist, call them Christians, call them radicals, fundamentalists, apologists - it doesn't matter. It is people who are followers of Jesus.

But Alisa is right to identify problematic teaching. Christian discipleship and knowledge of God is not found in the teaching of one popular teacher or another, nor is it found in solely watching videos or reading books, but rather in the Word of God itself. The saying goes: If you want to know what a counterfeit $100 bill looks like, you study the real deal then the fakes are easy to spot. Individual Christians allow faulty teaching to flourish because we don't know what we should know based on faith through reading of the Word. We like what "feels good" based on our experiences in life. Rather, the Bible says we should conform ourselves and we don't. We should lose our life to gain it and we don't. It's a human problem, not a Bible problem, nor a God problem.

Valerie
5/13/2017 03:28:59 am

As touching what I am hearing more and more,"Jesus said not to judge others. In fact, His only command was to love everyone. After all, Jesus dined with prostitutes, etc." (Progressive Christianity 101) When I see someone hitting a dog, and call them an animal abuser, I am NOT judging them. I am simply stating what they are...someone who tells lies is a liar, and so on. And while it IS true that Jesus dined with sinners, there is not a single instance in which He said, "It doesn't matter what you do. I love you and you will live with me in Heaven no matter how you live, because I love you." (Which is the Progress view.) NO! To the contrary, Jesus ALWAYS said, "Go. AND SIN NO MORE!" (Emphasis added) God never SENDS anyone to Hell, they have chosen that route themselves by rejecting the TRUTH.

James
5/13/2017 02:27:09 pm

Hey Alisa,
Your blog here is very good. The characteristics that you list are the same ones found in early 20th century theological liberalism, sometimes called modernism. The genesis of that movement, which reeked havoc among Protestant churches and denominations, was the work of German scholars and Charles Darwin.
One of the things that I learned about progressive Christianity after doing some research is that they believe in the progressive revelation of the Bible (as do I), but they do not hold to a closed canon of scripture. In other words, they believe that God is still revealing things to the church after the completion of the canon of the New Testament. This is one way they can hold positions that are completely opposed to the clear reading of scripture; they simply declare that it is a new revelation for the church since God continues to progressively reveal His truth. There are lots of problems with that way of thinking, but it was helpful to me to understand that part of their theology and methodology.
Thanks for writing. Blessings to you.

Ed
5/13/2017 05:11:51 pm

I have seen some of the commenters make the point that I thought of while reading this, but still-- my two cents, for what they are worth. You include in what you may hear at a progressive church this "quote"--"Sure, the Bible is authoritative—but we've misunderstood it for the first 2,000 years of church history..." Having grown up in an evangelical slipping into fundamentalist denomination, I would never hear this quote, but I would most certainly hear cherished and central evangelical beliefs espoused , to which, had the espouser known anything about the history of Christian doctrine, or been self-aware and honest, this quote could certainly have been applied.

In other places in this, for instance, there is an insistence on the doctrine of the "substitutionary atonement" as essential to "true" Christian belief, but almost without fail in my experience of evangelical Christianity, this takes the form of the "penal" theory, and is taught as "what the Bible plainly says" though it did not begin to plainly say this until the Middle Ages and more properly in Calvinism.

How are those End Times going to play out again? Since the "Biblical" teaching most popular among evangelicals wasn't discovered in the Bible until the 1830s in England, we must have gotten it wrong for almost 2000 years. Or how about something really basic-- what are the books in the Old Testament? Somehow, for 1500 years or so, the vast majority of Christians got this wrong, on the evangelical account.

There is much that might be said about this topic, and much that can be said about the others that you raise in your "warning" against progressivism in Christianity, and the ways in which you find it wanting. I'm not going to go all the way down that rabbit hole. I will just say that for each of your five points where progressive Christianity misses the mark, evangelicalism has its own particular version of that fault. At root, evangelicals should be very circumspect about raising the criticism that some view or other has left "historical Christianity" since particularly the American versions of evangelicalcism are hothouses of theological innovation but incapable of recognizing that what they believe is most decidedly not what has always been believed everywhere by everyone. It may be okay that American evangelicalcism fails the historic test of catholicity, but when they attack others for doing so-- well when you point the finger at someone, there are four pointing back at you.

Alisa Childers
5/13/2017 08:05:46 pm

Hi Ed, thanks for offering your thoughts here. Your comment opens some “worm cans” that this post didn’t directly speak to, particularly eschatology, which isn’t a test for orthodoxy, and substitutionary atonement, which is a slightly different animal than penal satisfaction, which Anselm refined in the middle ages. I’m not sure what the word “evangelical” even means anymore, so I don’t necessarily disagree with your assessment of many “evangelical” churches. I have opinions on these things, but it isn’t the point of this particular post.

It seems progressives are doing something qualitatively different even than evangelicals though. Progressives are eroding the uniqueness of Christianity and the radical claims Scripture makes about human fallenness/separation from God—these are not peripheral issues.

With that said, the point of my post is that there are certain things at the heart of Christianity, in which Christians have put their hope in from the beginning—certain things that have defined Christianity for 2,000 years. To name a few: the death of Jesus for our sins, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the deity of Jesus. I am a student of church history, and despite the different denominations and labels, the church at large has always affirmed these things. Sure there were always heretics—but they were identified as such. Many (not all) progressives are putting their own opinions above the Bible, and re-interpreting *core* historic doctrines, which is a direct result of the post-modern ideology in which they are encapsulated. Of course, some try to argue within the framework of the Bible, as I stated in the article, but many more have abandoned inspiration and authority—which has never been an accepted method of doing theology in all of church history. (Even the Catholic church, which puts tradition and Scripture on the same level doesn’t abandon biblical authority altogether.) The Nicene creed is a good example of these core doctrines that progressives are currently questioning and abandoning. Can you not see the difference between this—and quibbling over whether or not the millennium is a literal thousand years?

Mark
5/13/2017 08:26:19 pm

I grew up in a fundamentalist church, and when I went through my high school and college years the church could not answer the questions I had. So I rejected it.

I came back to Christ through the Methodist church, which affirmed the basic Christian theological creeds, but also left room to agree to disagree on other matters. It was open to different points of view, and it was more open minded with a message of living out your faith. I bring this up because literalist views of the Bible - as one example - can be a stumbling block to many who desire and hunger for the truth that can only be found in Christ. I praise God for the ministry of those fundamentalist churches, but that kind of church is not for me, and I would not be comfortable there. The way I choose to live out my Christian walk is through a mainline, centerfield faith tradition. And if we insist on some kind of theological litmus test for becoming a "real" Christian, we will turn many people who are hungry for truth away.

Alisa Childers
5/13/2017 08:44:28 pm

Thanks for sharing your story, Mark—I get where you're coming from. I'm curious.... do you think there is any theological litmus test for becoming a real Christian? Anything at all?

Mark
5/15/2017 08:18:22 pm

Hi Alisa, yes, of course, Personally I think that to be a Christian there has to be an affirmation of foundational beliefs centered around the Apostle's Creed, but with some room for interpretation, Just as important, I think we have to live out our faith: how we live our faith matters just as much as what we believe. I'm not comfortable definitively defining who's "in"and who is "out"....everyone who does that always starts out with the supposition that they're in.
For me, being a Christian means affirming and claiming the vows that I took when I rededicated my life and joined my church as an adult. Namely, It means rejecting this world, repenting of your sin, and confessing Jesus as Lord and savior and putting your whole trust in his grace as a gift, not something you earn, It means believing in a triune God and in Christ's death and resurrection as the way that we can repair the relationship to God. And it means believing the Bible contains the truth that is sufficient for our salvation..,,I don't believe that the Bible is inerrant or that it should always be read literally. But you can't be a Christian without the Bible. think it is the foundation of our faith and is inspired by God in a unique way. Thank you for this interesting blog!

Kaitie
5/14/2017 07:56:38 am

Alicia, I understand and appreciate your article. I agree that the teachings you have listed above are shocking and insidious to say the least, thankfully I have never come across them in a church, but I believe you that they are being taught.
I think a missing piece of the puzzle of why people might be attracted to such progressive ideas are the equally extreme and unbiblical teachings of some fundamental churches. I spent 7 years in an IFB church, and while solid on doctrine, there were so many teachings and tacked on "standards" that I remained confused and conflicted for most of my time there. A few things I heard directly from the pulpit or strongly insinuated through teaching:

" America went downhill as soon as women got the right to vote. This is because women are too emotional to make such a decision. Men are the logical ones and should be in charge of all politics." ( and everything else except cooking and childbearing)

" there is nothing more disgusting to God that a woman wearing pants!"
( instead of a long skirt, this is a direct quote)

Women who date instead of "court" through the church are "whores."

If you have depression or another mental illness, it is because you are "self-centered ".

If a woman is attacked, she should fight to the death rather than let herself be raped ( you see, her "purity" is more important than her survival)

If one of your family members dies unsaved it's probably your fault they are in hell. God must not have heard your prayers for them because if your sin.

If you aren't in church " every time the doors are open" (4 days a week) then you are in sin and God will not answer your prayers.

If you are not convicted about something preached about, then you might want to check your salvation, because if you were really saved, God would convict you about everything the man of God says.

Those are just a few. I realize that the Bible talks about gender roles and modestly, but these the way these things were emphasized more than other Biblical principles, and with very harsh and shaming language, is not edifying.
And these are not isolated comments, they were taught weekly. Sadly, this is not just one church either.

In this way, the fundamental church maintains control of people and locks them in a fear/ shame/ compliance cycle, rather than teaching people to love, serve, and worship God. I learned about the Bible and salvation there, but It wasn't until I finally left that I realized that I had been trusting in my compliance of the churches many standards rather than in the grace of God. I now go to a nondenominational church that is devoid of such ridiculous and repressive teachings. Sure, I don't love that the music is not traditional hymns, and I thought it might be too "progressive " for me at first, but i have never heard any of the teachings you described. I will take it any day over an IFB church.

I Just thought I would offer my thoughts to the conversation as I think it is important to point out that negative experiences with the far far right can catapult people to the far far left. Looking back on how confused and hurt I was when I finally left, I can see how someone could end up in a church that teaches the things you listed.

I have encountered resistance from people when trying to talk about my experience with IFB churches, but I think it needs to be acknowledged and talked about rather than be shoved under the rug by Christians who would rather not talk about it. However, I have also come across many people who have similar experiences with IFB churches to mine; some much worse. It's not an attack on people in IFB churches, but rather a call for discourse about an issue that is spirituality derailing people.


Alisa Childers
5/14/2017 09:27:15 am

Hi Kaitie. First of all, thank you SO much for your comment. This is an important perspective that is not unsignificant. You wrote, "I think a missing piece of the puzzle of why people might be attracted to such progressive ideas are the equally extreme and unbiblical teachings of some fundamental churches." I totally agree with you, and this was a very common theme when I was involved in the progressive church.

Just as the inception of the IFB church was a knee-jerk reaction to the liberalism of the early 20th century, I have no doubt that progressivism is, in part, a knee-jerk reaction to the rigid fundamentalism of denominations like the IFB. Vicious circle. Many progressives I know came out of religious environments like this and have "thrown the baby out with the bathwater," for lack of a better term.

I know a few people with a story similar to yours, and I am thankful that you were able to get out of that spiritually toxic and unbiblical environment. Thanks for adding your voice here....



MATTHEW CAILES link
5/14/2017 12:27:47 pm

I completely agree with you and this is exactly the type of 'christianity' (I used a small 'c' on purpose!) on some places where I sometimes post my blog. And people are so convinced that they are right and often have very clever sounding arguments to defend their foolishness.

Of course once you take away the Bible being the Word of God, you have nothing to base what you believe on and so you can pretty much make up whatever you want.

Stephen
5/14/2017 02:07:47 pm

John 1 says Jesus is the Word of God (capital "w").

When Paul refers to the scriptures he uses lower case.

Word = Christ
word = Bible

Becareful not to make the same mistake as the Pharisees, whom Jesus often criticized and even called vipers, by idolizing the law. Which Paul says leads to death.

Clark link
5/14/2017 03:31:56 pm

Stephen,

I'm a little puzzled by your statement. When you say John referred to Jesus as the Word with a capital "w" are you saying that John capitalised the word in Greek?

It might help you to know that Paul rarely uses the same Greek word as John when referring to the Bible or even the word of Christ. Different theological emphases call for different grammar.

Stephen
5/15/2017 12:04:18 am

Hey Clark!

Thanks for the help. I am not a Greek scholar!

My poorly explained point that I will now phrase as a question is...

Are you saying the Bible is God?

I'm trying to understand the authority you ascribe to scripture and how you understand its relationship to God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and humanity.

I imagine you will say the Bible is not God but that it is God's spoken words to be obeyed unquestionably. If so, how is the Bible as God's Word any different from the Bible as God? The Bible speaks for God, as God, and you obey? But, it isn't actually God or equal to God in your view? But, its words are God's Word(s), so they are the same? The line between how you view God and how you view the Bible seems a little blurry to me right now.

I appreciate your help!

MATTHEW CAILES link
5/15/2017 03:28:39 am

The capital or lowercase letters were added by the translators - don't read anything into what is and isn't capitalised.

The Bible is the written Word of God, Jesus is the Word of God manifest in the flesh, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us". Gabriel spoke God's Word to Mary, Mary received that Word by faith and the Word became flesh. The point being the Bible is God's Word and should be the foundation our lives are built on.

Stephen link
5/15/2017 08:08:42 am

There is a very large distinction between the Bible being God's word and being God himself.

As you were trying to point out, the Word is used by John of Jesus. This was to bring to mind to John's readers how the God used his word throughout the OT. It was through his word that all things were created, that prophet's were raised up, and it was his word that would always achieve it's goal.

However, when the NT authors spoke of Scripture they rarely referred to it as God's word, but as the Writings. The difference is that the Writings (Bible) were inspired by God to communicate to us. They are communicated through the style and prose of various humans. They are not God's person or essence but His will related by those who knew the Lord and were moved by him to write.

To confuse the Bible with God and worship it is a form of idolatry, but because it is the words communicated by God, to ignore it or subordinate it to something else is to place something that is not God above His will. Which is also idolatry.

This is the essence of Sola Scriptura: the Bible and the Bible alone is the sole infallible source for Christian instruction and guidance.

Stephen
5/14/2017 02:16:04 pm

I am disappointed in articles like this one that desire to bring the faithful back into line by name calling and blaming. The ends do not justify the means and is a clear giveaway of pride over relationship.

I would also encourage you to refer to John 1 about what (who) the Word of God is and to also not make the mistake of the Pharisees by idolizing the law in holy scripture. If they are not allowed to idolize scripture over or equal to Christ, then neither are we.

Lastly, which version of historic Christianity should we roll the clock back to? Crusades, pro Slavery, Nazi genocide, women in quiet submission to me, levirate marriage contracts, or how adulterly is only an unfaithful married woman and not a sin a man can commit? Know your historical context before you set the clock back.

Alisa Childers
5/14/2017 03:13:05 pm

Hi Stephen, thanks for your comment. Can you show me where in this article I've indulged in name-calling? And in regard to what I mean by historic Christianity, I'll refer you to previous comments as I've answered it a couple of times already.

Stephen
5/14/2017 11:35:18 pm

Hey Alisa, I reread my original comment and it was harsher than I intended. Sorry about that!

To continue respectful conversation... by name-calling I was first referring to the use of the term "Progressive" as a label. Let's call it labeling rather than name-calling.

You use "Progressive" to describe a large group of individuals, churches, and denominations. You lumped a large group of diverse people together and defined them in your terms, not theirs. Then you proceeded to speak for them with your quotes. (Some of the statements I've heard from individuals, others seemed a little too easy to setup and knock down to further your point.) I can understand that you are labeling for the sake of simplicity. But in the context of complex divisions it is more divisive than usual unless it is intended only for a particular echo chamber to find unity in a common enemy.

Sure, the church who calls itself "Progressive Christian Community" and who probably has it's "Core Values" or "What We Believe" on its website can certainly be labeled such and dissected. But there are lots of faithful Christians who fall into your categorization, many of whom probably straddle the spectrum depending on the various beliefs attributed to each camp.

You also make several references that imply harm: "Off the rails" in the intro, "danger signs to watch for" then quote possible people in congregations, "assault on the foundational framework of Christianity, leaving it disarmed of its saving power." These speak to the people you've labeled, even in just one place where they disagree with you as: off the rails (crazy / out of control?), dangerous, attacking Christianity, and perverting Christianity to the point of nullifying Christ. Perhaps this is your intent / belief. If so, we may move from labeling back to name-calling. ;)

It is also about what you name in opposition to the "Progressives." For instance, when you juxtapose "progressive Christianity" against "historic Christianity" it implies the "progressives" do not give credence to the history of faith. This is certainly not a fair statement as many who may affirm one or two of the quotes above but still hold to many of the historic doctrines.

I have a larger question that I would appreciate your community input / help with that I'll post as a reply to the article. Thanks for the dialogue!

Clark link
5/14/2017 03:36:10 pm

Stephen,

You say that Alisa should know her historical context but I have to question whether you do?

I noticed you only brought up issues that are either clearly opposed in scripture or things like levirate marriage that was a practice of really Judaism, not Christianity.

I believe if you read her article fairly or are familiar with her work, you'd recognize that she is speaking of the orthodox Christianity founded by the apostles from the teachings of Christ. In essence, while she might not say it like this, the Sola Scriptura faith.

Stephen
5/14/2017 11:55:34 pm

Hey Clark!

I understand your view on my comments. In each of my examples scripture was used as a justification. The obvious one being slavery...

Ephesians 6:5 (NRSV) "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;"

Titus 2:9 (NRSV) "Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back,"

1 Corinthians 7:21 (NRSV) "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever."

You can say that the whole of scripture stands against such atrocities as slavery, but the historical truth is that Americans (and others) used the Bible, these verses in particular, to justify owning slaves, demanding obedience, and not letting slaves have their freedom. It's why the Baptist and the Methodist both split in two.

I hear my friends who ascribe to inerrancy state that a plain account reading of scripture is all that's necessary. "God said. I believe it. That settles it." is a mantra I've heard.

What are we to conclude from the plain account readings from history that perpetuated things we now believe to not be so plainly evident in scripture?

Clark link
5/15/2017 08:13:06 am

Stephen,

The misuse of Scripture by fallen mankind to perpetuate sin does not negate Scripture but remind us of the sinful heart of humanity. Satan himself misused Scripture to tempt Jesus.

The verses you cite do not support Western slavery and this has been responded to in multiple places.

The alternative,as you seem to suggest, would be to say that God's Word must be amended or rejected because humans can use it improperly. I hope you realize how disconnected that is.

Stephen
5/15/2017 08:32:30 am

Hey Clark!

I do not think the misuse of scripture by some negates the authority of scripture.

I also do not think God's word should be amended or rejected.

I would contend that understanding the Truth of scripture requires more than the plain account, surface level quoting of scripture as the irrefutable final say on a topic.

You stayed that scripture has been and can be misused.

What means do we use to discern between plain account truth and truth that requires a broader or deeper understanding of scripture?

Stephen
5/15/2017 01:11:55 am

Hey Alisa & Friends!

Great discussion on here and congrats on the traffic!

As I've reread the post and comments, there seem to be different weights of authority placed on scripture based on how we perceive its inspiration, authorship, and canonization. I can't help but focus in on how the various sides named here interpret scripture differently. I could use your help understanding your views as it applies to our convo around progressive v. orthodox, if you're feeling so gracious.

When you say the Bible is inerrant, what do you do with seeming contradictions? For instance...

James 2:24 (ESV) "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV) "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

Or...

John 1:18 (ESV) "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."

Exodus 33:11 (ESV) "Thus the Lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend..."

Or...

In Genesis 1, the garden and vegetation are created before humanity, but in Genesis 2 the garden and vegetation are created after humanity.


Also, does inerrancy make all scripture edicts from God?

How do I live "eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek?"

How do I honor father & mother in Ex. 20 and hate them in Jesus words (Luke 14)?

Can I quote the serpent in Genesis and say, "God said..."? Can I quote Job's friends as "God said..."?

If I can't quote all the words as God's words then who decides which ones are God's words? If all the words aren't God's literal words, then how can we call the whole of it "God's Word?" Are only some of the words "God's Word(s)?"

Lastly, if God's Word is complete and authoritative are you living it as such? Do you stone disrespectful children? Do you hate your parents? Do you stay single except to not sin? Do you cut your beards or sideburns? Do you allow women to wear jewelry and speak in church?

If not, how do you decide what scriptures to obey and which ones not to? Do you interpret them differently in our modern context or dismiss them because they are superseded by greater commands or biblical themes? Can God's Word supersede itself?

I'm genuinely curious. Thanks in advance!

Alisa Childers
5/15/2017 09:45:25 am

Stephen, you are introducing a lot of topics that are not specifically relevant to my post. But for clarity, the opposite of "orthodox" is not "progressive." The opposite of "orthodox" is "unorthodox" or "heresy." I'm sure there are many people who would call themselves "progressive" who still hold to orthodox beliefs. I don't believe that rejecting inerrancy is heresy, but I do think it's a sign that someone's church might be heading in a dangerous direction. Christianity is true whether or not the Bible is inerrant—although I also believe that it is inerrant. Rejecting the deity of Christ, however, is heresy. But to stay on point—the main focus of my article isn't to decide what is and isn't heresy- it's to help Christians spot the signs that their church might be heading in a "progressive" direction.

Your Bible questions seem to reveal a confusion about biblical interpretation—most of which won't be answered sufficiently in one blog comment. But if you are honestly interested in the answers, these things have been written about ad nauseum and I can point you to some helpful resources, beginning with my post, "How to Interpret Difficult Bible Verses"—> http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/how-to-interpret-difficult-bible-verses

Some of your questions can be answered by understanding that in the Old Testament there was civil, ceremonial, and judicial aspect of the law which were part of the Mosaic covenant made with Israel. This "old covenant" was fulfilled in Christ and replaced by a "new covenant" (This is why we don't stone children)

When interpreting the Bible, one must realize that the Bible is not one book- it's a collection of books, each with it's own genre and cultural context. One must recognize figures of speech and other literary devices.

"Does inerrancy make all scripture edicts from God?" Of course not - some of the biblical books are history, and they record things that happened, that God doesn't approve of. The Bible also records evil people saying evil things - common sense tells you that this isn't a command from God.

Diane Woerner link
5/15/2017 10:01:20 am

Hello Stephen,

Your questions have been asked across the centuries, in one form or another. There are answers to most of them, but quite possibly not answers that will completely satisfy the rational mind.

Scripture's authority, for a believer, comes with our understanding that it is God's primary means of revelation. While it is not God, it reveals Him--just as nature is not God, but reveals Him. That said, the revelation is intentionally veiled. We who have chosen to submit our lives and wills to God did not do so because all our questions were sufficiently answered. If God were to require of Himself that we be rationally satisfied, that would effectively make Him subject to us.

One image that has been used is that reading Scripture is like eating fish. There are bones we can't digest--but we simply set them aside. We don't stop eating fish. Because we have encountered the nature of God--not only through the Scriptures but also through His indwelling Spirit--we are content to realize that it will all "make sense" in eternity.

God didn't intend following Him to be easy now. If you read the Scriptures honestly, there is great sacrifice required--mentally, physically and socially. What we have learned is that the benefit infinitely outweighs any cost. We also have come to realize that ANY alternate worldview is far more oppressive and far less satisfying.

So yes, the conversation will and should continue. The apologist deeply desires to remove the removable objects from the path of an honest seeker. But we have no inner compulsion to win arguments or "justify the ways of God to man." In the final count we are content, knowing He is a God entirely worthy of our worship, and that one day He will stand in far stricter judgment of us than any of us are attempting now to impose on Him.

Yvonne
5/20/2017 09:49:27 am

I get you Alisa. You are just not ready for a "faith shift". You have not had the necessary events in your life for this to happen. I have, and all I can say is that I thank God for my shift into progressive theology. Your day may come. And we in the progressive community will welcome you, just as Jesus welcomed the rebels of his day. Peace.

Alisa Childers
5/20/2017 03:27:45 pm

Hi Yvonne, thanks for your comment. "Necessary events" is kind of vague, so I'm not sure which events in your life you are referring to. But I can tell you that my experience in the Progressive church didn’t offer me anything even remotely as deep, hopeful, helpful in times of trial, or satisfying— as the relationship I have with the Triune God of Scripture. Out of curiosity, which rebels are you referring to that Jesus welcomed? 

Fernando Villegas
5/22/2017 03:35:01 pm

I understand the difficulty of offering a definition of the term "progressive" ("even now it is difficult to pin down what actually qualifies someone as a Progressive Christian, due to the diversity of beliefs that fall under that designation").

Having said that, defining the terms an author uses, as they themselves use them, is one of the keys to understanding and ultimately evaluating an author's argument. If Ms. Childers does not make the effort to clarify her terms, if she makes no attempt to define what she herself means when she writes about "Progressive Christianity," then I am afraid her argument cannot be adequately evaluated and her article is of limited value.

After all, how can we know that "there are signs...that seem to be consistent in Progressive circles" if we don't even know what "Progressive circles" are? The article is reduced merely to a critique of certain attitudes towards the Bible and Christianity. Many of these attitudes merit critique, to be sure. But the article has little to do with Progressive Christianity itself.

Dolphy link
7/11/2017 04:42:35 pm

Hey! Heard you today with joey on bad Christian podcast. I think you rather conclusively steamrolled him on nearly every front. But I think that speaks more to joeys lack of study and research, than it does to any inherent strength in your arguments.

I don't belong to a progressive church -- so I don't have dog in that hunt, so to speak--but I do take issue with several of your points.

Re: the emphasis on feelings-- I think we would agree that an inordinate emphasis on emotional reasoning is generally unhealthy, especially when defining basic morality and ethics. However, Christian revulsion or disgust over the homosexual act is in fact another form of emotional reasoning. Prohibition of homosexuality, is an ancient purity code taken right from Mosaic law and the divine commands of Yahweh to Moses. Churches have every right to enforce that purity code on their adherents. But the conundrum that Christians face, is that while that purity code is enforced with very strident, emotional language in holy text, our human reasoning tells us that such acts do not entail issues of basic human morality. In other words, we know objectively, that precisely HOW consensual adults touch their private parts in the bedroom does not in any sense inherently violate what we know of basic human morality-- I.e. It does not
1) violate innate concepts of fairness, equity or justice or 2) directly cause personal injury to innocent parties (or violate our innate sense of harm reduction).

And so Christians are stuck in an emotional tug of war with ancient text. I think understanding that scripture gives endorsement or tacit approval to many things we KNOW already to be immoral, might be beneficial in helping people reason thru the gay issue. Yahweh himself endorsed slavery, provided rules by divine revelation about beating your slaves and throughout Mosaic law, regarded slaves as a man's chattel. We know these things to be plainly delineated in the language of scripture and we know that if one were to obey what Yahweh commanded in the Old Testament today, would make one an immoral human being. So the issue, ultimately is whether the Bible is a reliable guide for morality and ethics today and whether it was intended to be. On the first statement, I think we can all deliver an objective "no". But this doesn't mean that Christians necessarily need to be "liberal" or that we should throw away scripture. If anything, such understanding exponentially strengthens Christianity in the world.

Regarding your view of the centrality of eternal conscious torment to the gospel, your u run into A reverse conundrum. You advocate something that is quite clearly, universally regarded as immoral -- I.e. Sadism and/or the physical torture of human beings as a means of retribution. Such a concept is not only immoral, its wicked-- and every human being with the ability to reason, knows this instinctively (which is one reason why so few evangelicals EVER systematically or earnestly preach it)




Alisa Childers
7/11/2017 04:55:09 pm

Hi Dolphy, thanks for your comment and welcome to the blog. I'll go ahead and post the link to the Bad Christian Podcast so that readers can see if they agree that I steamrolled Joey: https://soundcloud.com/bcpod/295-alisa-childers-explains

And I also recommend reading my article about Old Testament slavery that might be helpful. http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/does-the-old-testament-expect-us-to-keep-slaves

Dolphy
7/11/2017 07:09:25 pm

Thanks ! BTW! steamrolled was the wrong word-- perhaps "owned" would be better. Lol

Alisa Childers
7/11/2017 07:38:33 pm

Oh... gotcha. Thanks then. :) (Although my goal is never to own anyone, but I get what you're saying.)

Eric
7/11/2017 06:47:05 pm

I enjoyed your conversation on the bad christian podcast. I am no scholar or theologian, but by your definition I guess I am a progressive. While I disagree with you on most of your points, I think this kind of dialogue is very important. The most baffling thing to me in the interview was when you said "If you view scripture like the church historically has, they are all red letters." I sure hope that is not true! What is your view on
1Tim 2:12?
I am not sure it's even appropriate to call the bible the "word of God". I have changed to saying "the scriptures"
Jesus is the word of God, the scriptures point us to him.

Alisa Childers
7/11/2017 07:36:15 pm

Hi Eric, thanks for your comment. My view on 1 Timothy 2:12, is that in the context of the church assembly, women are not supposed to teach doctrine or have authority over men. When taken in context of the rest of Scripture, Paul clearly allowed women to pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:5) which clarifies the 1 Timothy passage. (Obviously he didn't mean women had to be silent all the time.) In fact, Paul expounds this idea even more in 1 Cor. 14, where the context is the assembling together of Christians as a congregation (church services). The church in Corinth was in chaos, and women weren't the only people Paul told to be silent. He also told certain prophets and tongue-speakers to be silent for specific reasons. The prohibition of women speaking seems to have to do with authority—a woman shouldn't do anything in church that places her in authority over a man.

This is why I decline offers to teach men, and why I would not accept an offer to preach from the pulpit on a Sunday morning. (I think there are some circumstances in a non-authoritative situation in which it would be appropriate for a woman to share, sing, pray, etc..)

C.S. Lewis deals with this issue brilliantly in "Mere Christianity." I recommend reading him on this.

As far as calling the Scriptures the "Word of God," I call them that because that's what Jesus called them. Here is a two-part series I wrote about how Jesus' viewed the Scriptures. I hope you find it helpful.

http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/8-things-jesus-believed-about-scripture-part-1
http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/8-things-jesus-believed-about-scripture-part-2

Eric
7/13/2017 12:15:21 am

Alisa,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I am surprised that you take such a strong complimenarian position. I respect your view. It it one I used to hold. I have however been convinced of the egalitarian position.
http://juniaproject.com/



I liked your articles 8 things Jesus believed about scripture. It was helpful, but can you explain why Jesus said (6 times that I know of) "You have hear it said, but I tell you....." and then changed what the scriptures said. It seems to suggest that what he said was more authoritative than the scriptures. Also, can you explain why he so often blatantly disobeyed the law by doing things like telling the man he healed to pick up his mat and walk on the sabath witch was specifically prohibited, or not washing his hands or not agreeing to stone the woman caught in adultery or touching lepers etc....
Jesus also said "No one has seen God at any time, but the son of man who is in the bosom of the father, he has made him known."
These things tell me that I should prioritize what Jesus said (the red letters) over everything else in the bible.
Jesus is what God has to say to us.

Alisa Childers
7/13/2017 12:55:51 pm

Thanks Eric.

When Jesus said, "You have heard it said, but I say.." He wasn't saying that the Old Testament commands were wrong. They were right.. in fact, so right that He took them even a step further. Adultery was condemned in the OT, and Jesus basically said, "Hey guess what... even if you even think lustfully about a woman in your heart you are guilty of breaking that command." (My paraphrase.) So He wasn't changing the command... He was making it more difficult to obey.

Regarding Jesus disobeying the law.. He never did. He kept the law perfectly. What he broke was the extra-biblical traditions and rules that the Pharisees had added to the law. If Jesus had broken the law, He wouldn't be sinless, and the cross would be meaningless.

In my view, there is no contradiction between Jesus being the "Word of God" and the Bible being the "Word of God." God has spoken in many ways: Creation (Psalm 19:1), through prophets (Hebrews 1:1), the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), Scripture (Hebrews 4:12), and of course through the person of Jesus Christ. There are two Greek words for "Word," and they have slightly nuanced meanings. There is the totally of the message of God's Word (Jesus), and the actual spoken or written Words of God (rhema). (Although sometimes "logos" can mean the written Word as well.) God speaks in many ways, and none of them contradict each other—they live in perfect harmony.

If Jesus is God, and the Bible is God's Word, then they are all red letters. (That's what I meant by that.)

Eric
7/18/2017 05:42:33 pm

Alisa, Thanks for responding again. I have though alot about it over the last several days. Respectfully, I don't think you answered my question. I get how Jesus made the law more difficult to obey by saying even if you think lust filled thoughts you have comitted adultery in your heart. What I get from this is that sin is not just actions, but sin starts in our hearts. I think you would agree that actually comitting adultery is worse than just thinking about it. My question was about what Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery. If Jesus were to follow the law of Moses he should have said "Go get the man as well and put them both to death" (leviticus 20:10) That's not what he did.
Jeremiah 17:21 could not be more explicit:
"Thus says the Lord, do not carry any load on the sabath" Jesus tells the man to pick up his mat and walk on the sabath.
The first point in you article is that progressives have a lowered view of the bible, but I wonder if you have elevated it higher than it shoud be, like a fourth member of the Godhead.
Jesus said "You search the scriptures because you THINK in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about me" John5:39
Thanks, God bless.

Alisa Childers
7/20/2017 12:21:31 am

Thanks Eric. Regarding the story of the woman being caught in the act of adultery—this story is a textual variant, but I do believe it is historical. So according to Jewish law, the witnesses/accusers had to carry out the sentence of execution with their own hands. When Jesus asked, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," they were no longer willing to do so. Jesus didn't break any law—the law wouldn't have allowed Him to carry out her execution even if He wanted to.

Regarding Jesus telling the man to pick up his mat—He didn't break the law.. he broke the Pharisees unbiblical traditions. In fact, He defends this very action a couple chapters later in John 7. His basic argument is this:

The law of Moses says that a male child must be circumcised on the 8th day, even if the 8th day falls on the Sabbath. Jesus then argued that this meant it was equally legal to heal on the Sabbath. He was telling them outright that He didn't break the law.

Besides, we know from Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 that the Mosaic law was never meant to be permanent. The book of Hebrews confirms this as well. The purpose of the law was fulfilled in Christ.

I don't believe I have said or written anything that suggests that I think the Bible is like the fourth member of the godhead. What I do believe is that God cannot err, and the Bible is His Word. This means the Bible cannot err. It is the way God has chosen to communicate with us, and it's a wholly trustworthy, reliable, and truthful gift from God.

Nathaniel
7/12/2017 08:13:22 am

I guess I'm wondering:

1. Who is Alisa Childers and what gives her the authority to determine what the authoritative form of Christianity looks like?

2. What kind of training does Childers have in formal biblical studies? Has she learned Hebrew, Greek, etc. or is she a musician who thinks she understands how to read the Bible?

3. Does she think she has a claim to objectivity? If she does, how? (Hint: she doesn't and can't.)

Alisa Childers
7/12/2017 08:52:13 am

Hi Nathaniel. Your comment is a perfect example of "argumentum ad-hominem," which is a logical fallacy in which an argument is directed at a person, rather than the person’s ideas. If you’d like to interact with any specific point I’ve made in the post, I’m happy to do that. Otherwise, we can all learn from this exchange about how to spot faulty logic.

Nathaniel
7/12/2017 09:23:12 am

Well aware of ad hominem, Alisa. Let's take a look at some of your personal blind spots you expose as you rail against progressive Christianity. You state:

"Historically, Christians have viewed the Bible as the Word of God and authoritative for our lives. Progressive Christianity generally abandons these terms, emphasizing personal belief over biblical mandate."

Yet you cite no evidence from Christian antiquity, cite nothing from the Rabbis, Josephus, Origen, Aquinas, etc. From a legitimately historical perspective, there exists a panoply of views of the biblical text and the view you espouse is actually in the minority. Yet here, you attempt to cast your views as normative, essential, and objective--none of which is actually the case. For, we must remember, the biblical text does not belong only to Christians. So the question of authoritative interpretation is a prescient one.


You state: "In Progressive churches, personal experiences, feelings, and opinions tend to be valued above objective truth. As the Bible ceases to be viewed as God’s definitive word..."

This is a partial quote for a significant reason--notions of inerrancy and infallibility as they pertain to hermeneutics. The notion that the biblical text is inerrant and/or infallible was only developed in the 1980s (cf. the Chicago definition of inerrancy) and is based primarily on one verse in Timothy (2 Tim 3:16-17). Yet, those who adhere to such a view of the text consistently fail to realize that not only are the Pastoral Epistles (i.e., 1-2 Timothy and Titus) deutero-Pauline, but the verses cited above apply only to the text of the Hebrew Bible and, further, the description of scripture in 2 Timothy does NOT say that scripture cannot be disagreed with. So, there's a content issue with your stance on the Bible. I can't imagine you support abortion, so how do you feel about Psalm 137 ("Happy are those who dash the babies' heads against the rocks.")?

You state: "Progressive Christians are often open to re-defining and re-interpreting the Bible on hot-button moral issues like homosexuality and abortion, and also cardinal doctrines such as the virgin conception and the bodily resurrection of Jesus."

So let's situate your understanding of "Progressive Christians" in a broader historical context. Surprise, surprise! These kinds of reads on scripture are not new and, in fact, they have been around for centuries. So, again, I must ask you about authority. The question is not a function of ad hominem. You suggest that only a normative and essentialist form of Christianity is acceptable yet appear not to be familiar with the history of these hermeneutical issues.

Again, concerning interpreting the word "inspired," you state: "This, of course, is not how Christians have historically understood the doctrine of divine inspiration."

But this is blatantly incorrect from a historian's perspective. Your post here reeks of historical myopia, lack of engagement with real sources of history, church fathers, early Christian interpreters, even early Jewish interpreters. The history of interpretation of the biblical text is an academic field unto itself. You cannot make blanket statements like the one you've made here about how "Christians have historically understood" anything without actually citing and engaging the historical primary source material. By doing this, you've shown how unaware you are about the vibrant interpretive lives these texts have lived over the course of the past 2k+ years.

And all of this is not even to broach your problematic couching of "social justice" in seemingly negative terms. Social justice plays a significant role throughout the prophetic works of the Hebrew Bible (cf. Amos 5, as just *one* example). Jesus, of course, walked in the prophetic tradition. Regardless, are the teachings of Jesus in, say, the Sermon on the Mount to be ignored while we obsess over Golgotha?

So, Alisa, you have interpretive problems. You have historical amnesia problems. You have citation problems. There's an Ancient Christian Commentary series you could get into, which would begin to provide you with some of the breadth of interpretive possibilities for the biblical text. Alternatively, you could read the work of James Kugel, which would help to break you free from the shackles of the hardline Evangelicalism you espouse here. All I'm saying is you shouldn't be railing on "progressive Christians" when their positions are oftentimes more grounded in historical Christianity than you own.

Alisa Childers
7/12/2017 11:39:18 am

Part 1

I tried to post this comment before, but it got cut off so I’m re-posting in two parts.

Thanks Nathaniel. As a general observation, I think you may be missing the main point of my post, which is not to “rail on Progressive Christians,” but to help people recognize the signs that their churches might be heading toward that particular worldview. Do you think I’ve unfairly characterized Progressive Christianity? Here’s a podcast I recorded that further dives into the definition of the phrase that might be helpful: http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/podcast-1-what-is-progressive-christianity

In regard to viewing the Bible as the “Word of God,” and the historical view of inerrancy (even though there wasn’t a word for it until later,) this tradition goes back to Jesus Himself. See my two-part series on what Jesus believed about Scripture here:

http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/8-things-jesus-believed-about-scripture-part-1
http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/8-things-jesus-believed-about-scripture-part-2

You seem to be disagreeing with my view of inerrancy and inspiration, even though I didn’t define my view of their historical definitions in my post. I regularly read the church fathers, and I’ll let them speak for me. (I’m only using a few so my comment doesn’t get too long, but consult “The Complete Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection”—their views of these doctrines are all over the place):

Clement of Rome: “Let us act accordingly to that which is written (for the Holy Spirit saith, “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom”) (Jer. 9:23) (First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians p. 13). and “For He Himself by the Holy Ghost thus addresses us: “Come, ye children, hearken unto me” (Ps. 34:11). “Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit.“(Ibid., p.
45).

Justin Martyr: “But when you hear the utterances of the prophets spoken as it were personally, you must not suppose that they are spoken by the inspired men themselves but by the divine Word who moves them” (First Apology, p. 36). To him [Moses] did God communicate that divine and prophetic gift which in those days descended upon the holy men, and him also did He first furnish that he might be our teacher in religion, and then after him the rest of the prophets, who both obtained the same gift as he, and taught us the same doctrines concerning the same subjects. These we assert to have been our teachers, who use nothing from their own human conception, but from the gift vouchsafed to them by God alone.” (Justin’s Hortatory Oration to the Greeks, p. 8).

Iranaeus: “The Scriptures are indeed perfect, since they were spoken by the Word of God [Christ] and His Spirit; but we, inasmuch as we are inferior to, and later in existence than, the Word of God and is Spirit, are on that very account destitute of the knowledge of His mysteries.” (Against Heresies 2.28.2).

Tertullian: “Apostles have the Holy Spirit properly, who have Him fully, in the operations of prophecy. . . . Thus he attached the Holy Spirit’s authority to that form [of advice] to which he willed us rather to attend; and forthwith it became not an advice of the Holy Spirit, but, in consideration of His majesty, a precept.” (On Exhortation to Chastity 4, Italics his).

Clement of Alexandria: “But we, who have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men, rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life and believe God through His voice.” (Stromata, 2.4). and “Those are slothful who, having it in their own power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures.” (Ibid., 7.16). and “For those who make the greatest attempts must fail in things of the highest importance; unless, receiving the truth itself the rule of the truth, they cleave to the truth. But such people, in consequence of falling away from the right path, err in most individual points; as you might expect from not having the faculty for judging of what is true and false, strictly trained to select what is essential. For if they had, they would have obeyed the Scriptures.” (Ibid.).

Alisa Childers
7/12/2017 11:41:51 am

Part 2:

Augustine: “This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.” (Confessions, xi, 3). and “Therefore, whatever He [Christ] wanted us to read concerning His words and deeds, He commanded the disciples, His hands, to write. Hence, one cannot but receiAugustine: “This Mediator, having spoken what He judged sufficient first by the prophets, then by His own lips, and afterwards by the apostles, has besides produced the Scripture which is called canonical, which has paramount authority, and to which we yield assent in all matters of which we ought not to be ignorant, and yet cannot know of ourselves.” (Confessions, xi, 3). and “Therefore, whatever He [Christ] wanted us to read concerning His words and deeds, He commanded the disciples, His hands, to write. Hence, one cannot but receive what he reads in the Gospels, though written by the disciples, as though it were written by the very hand of the Lord Himself (Harmony of the Gospels, 1.35.54). and “The authority of these books has come down to us from the Apostles . . . and from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind (Against Faustus, 11.5). and “Even though both quotations were not from the writings of one apostle—though one were from Paul and the other from Peter, or Isaiah, or any other apostle or prophet— such is the equality of canonical authority that it would not be allowable to doubt either. (Against Faustus, 11.5) and For it seems to me that most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say, that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false.” and “For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, and under a sense of duty, the author declared what was not true.” (Letters, 23.3.3).

In regard to social justice, I have written a post that goes into more detail about that (the historical definition, Jesus’ definition etc…) that will be up soon so stay tuned….

In regard to the Pastoral Epistles being deutero-Pauline, I’ll refer you to my friend and New Testament scholar Clark Bates’ series on New Testament authorship: http://exejesus.com/who-wrote-the-new-testament/

In regard to my view of Psalm 137, surely you, as someone who appealed to hermeneutics, understands that this is an Imprecatory Psalm, which has to do with justice toward God’s enemies. This particular Psalm is written in the context of Babylonian captivity, and the destruction of Babylon is predicted in Isaiah 13:16. The Psalmist is expressing that the person who carries out God’s will in this situation will be happy doing it. (As you know, the Babylonian captivity was quite horrific.) The Psalms often express intense emotion—and this one is crying out for God’s justice and for Him to keep His covenant with the Israelites. Plus, we are under the New Covenant now (Romans 12:17-19.) This Psalm is not a permission slip to go out and kill babies….

Regarding authority—I don’t have any. That’s kind of my whole point. I appeal to the authority of Scripture, along with 2,000 years of Christian tradition (with renewed emphasis since the Reformation), and the long line of Church Fathers and Christians who have gone before me.

Also, I’m curious.. which specific “shackles of hardline Evangelicalism” did I espouse in my post?

Nathaniel
7/12/2017 01:00:18 pm

Replying here because for some reason I can't reply below.

So, there are a litany of problems with just about everything you posted (both in the "how Jesus viewed scripture" blog posts and in your additional comments in response to me). A full response deserves a blog post of its own, and that's not something I'm interested in wasting my time on. I'll make a few final remarks here, though. I should show more of my hand, Alisa. I hold a BA in Biblical Studies, an MDiv in Hebrew Bible, an MA in Hebrew and Semitic Studies, and am nearing completion of a PhD in Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies. I access these texts in their original languages at a professional level.

One of the immediate problems is that the patristics quotes you've provided here do not actually support infallibility nor do they support inerrancy. Even words like "perfect" usually don't mean what English readers presume them to mean. "Perfect" does not mean without blemish or without error; rather, it means "complete, whole." "Scripture" can be "perfect" and still contain factual, philosophical, historical (etc.) errors. It can, therefore, also be disagreed with. This isn't even a "progressive" notion, because there are plenty of examples of disagreeing with scripture in scripture itself (just compare Chronicles with Samuel--or even Samuel with Samuel [e.g., 1 Samuel 17; 2 Sam 21:19; 1 Chronicles 20:5]). Quite frankly, I think Paul got a lot of things wrong. I think Jesus had himself at least one rather racist moment (Matt 15:26) and had his fair share of theological "bad hair days" (Mark 15:34). This is not to mention the problems with suggesting that Jesus assumed various things in the Hebrew Bible were historical (e.g., the flood, various personages, etc. Luke 11:50-51 does not accomplish what you think it does).

Your breakdown of your understanding of Jesus' perception of scripture is an exercise in forced and belabored readings of the text. I'll note that, since the apologetics crowd for some reason adores the Latin terms employed in logic, your _Ausgangspunkt_ (German, of course) for the entire two part blog post is _circulus in probando_ (circular reasoning). It begins with the assumption that what you're citing is the Word of God and proceeds, in circular fashion, right back to that same conclusion.

You state, "Whenever Jesus said, "It is written," He was also appealing to inspiration." Except, no. That's not what the text says. This has more to do with what Jesus and Jews of the 1st c. CE thought to be authoritative textually. It has nothing to do with inspiration. Which, oddly enough, that's the point you make in #3. So, that's pretty darn strange in and of itself. This is not even to broach the huge problem of canonicity, canon development, and things like Jude 14-15:

It was also about these that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “See, the Lord is coming with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all, and to convict everyone of all the deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”

Jude is here quoting 1 Enoch--but 1 Enoch isn't in your Bible, is it? Jude thought 1 Enoch was scripture. Jude, by your standards, was inspired. So is 1 Enoch inspired, too? If so, why isn't it in the Bible? Can 1 Enoch be "inspired" and also not in the Bible? Alternatively, can an "uninspired" text appear in the Bible and all of a sudden gain "inspired status"? What about the pluriformity of textual traditions at Qumran, evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls? Which version of Jeremiah is inspired? The Greek or the Hebrew?

(For the record, Daniel was never a prophet. He's not once called a prophet (נביא) in the Hebrew Bible. He is an interpreter of dreams, a wise man, etc., but he was not a prophet. Daniel isn't even included in the Nebi'im in the TaNaK--it's included in the Ketubim. This, of course, is not even to mention the various historical-critical problems with the book of Daniel [his age, the sudden inaccuracy of predictions after the death of Antiochus IV in 164 BCE, etc.].)

"Plus we're under the New Covenant now..."

But Jesus said that not a single jot or tittle shall pass away from the law, Alisa. Not to mention the fact that you're advocating for NOT disagreeing with the Bible and yet here you are disagreeing with the Bible. After all, Jesus commanded his followers to love enemies and pray for persecutors. So, the Bible doesn't even agree with itself on that front.

And you're right, you didn't outrightly state things about inerrancy and infallibility -- but there is a strong subtext in several of your points above. And why list off "warning signs" about Progressive Christianity if you're not tacitly railing against it? The inference is clear here, Alisa. You don't like so-called "progressive Christianity" so you're warning your readers about wh

Alisa Childers
7/12/2017 05:58:16 pm

Nathaniel, just as you have a litany of problems with my points, I have a litany of problems with yours. Your credentials are impressive, and certainly you know that many people with credentials that are just as impressive as yours, disagree with your points as well. We aren’t going to agree on much, but for the sake of the readers, I’ll make a couple final remarks as well.

Again, I still haven’t defined my view of inerrancy, inspiration, and authority and yet you are insisting that I misunderstand the quotes I cited—based on your own assumption of my view.



Jude quoting Enoch doesn’t make it Scripture, and it doesn’t imply that Jude thought it was Scripture. It just means that the part he quoted is true and part of the canon. Plus… just because someone quotes an extra-biblical book in Scripture, doesn’t automatically make the source they quoted on par with Scripture. Paul quoted Greek philosophers, but he didn’t consider all of their words to be canonical.

Yes not a jot or tittle shall pass away from the law. There were different covenants throughout Scripture, each with different conditions and expectations. The Bible says we are now under the New Covenant… Not sure how that is “disagreeing with the Bible.”

Yes you are right that I am warning my readers about Progressive Christianity. On that we agree.

Nathaniel, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Thanks for the interaction.

Clark
7/12/2017 02:07:27 pm

Nathaniel,

I'm curious, you're clearly touting your education (albeit anonymously) as a form of superiority to the post, but is it possible for you to present your position without the cowardly ridicule? If I didin't know better, I'd say you were nothing but a bully. Surely if you are as educated as you claim, you have the ability to engage in discourse over positions rather than personal ridicule.

I fail to see how you being able to read Hebrew has anything to do with canonical development of the New Testament. You cite your education in Ancient Eastern Studies as your validation, yet nothing in the OP is relevant to the book of Daniel or even being able to read Hebrew.

I hope that your studies do you well, but a small piece of advice that I hope you take to heart is this, your arrogance will lose every debate you engage in, regardless of how great your knowledge may be.

Blessings brother and thank you for your input.

Debra Seiling link
7/14/2017 04:43:45 pm

I included a link to 5 Signs Your Church May be Leading Toward Progressive Christianity on my blog post scheduled to come out on July 27. I had read your post earlier and felt led to write a post on Christian-Overeaters.blogspot.com about: Choosing a Facsimile Instead of the Real Thing! I wanted to make sure you don't mind me linking to it. I feel it can help enlighten readers, because I only touch on it briefly. Also, I am listening to your Podcast on this topic while I'm writing this, to make sure that my comments are aligned. Thanks!

Tom Franklin link
7/29/2017 05:12:36 pm

I 100% agree with your counsel here Alisa. Progressivism is a man centered worldview rather than a Biblical Worldview. It has no place in a Local New Testament Church. In a church context there are many offshoots of progressivism - but overall it SLIDES the Church away from a Biblical worldview. In light of that Wikipedia is correct - Progressivism is the support for or advocacy of social reform (a movement that aims to make gradual change in certain aspects of society, rather than rapid or fundamental changes). As a philosophy, it is based on the idea of progress, which asserts that advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition. Note: Jesus does not want us to "Reform" he wants us to be "Born Again" (New Creatures). There is no reforming DEAD people. James 1:13-15 is like a mathematical equation. Lust births sin, sin births death (interestingly there are no stillbirths when it comes to sin). Lust is going to bring forth something. An evil desire, an evil thought etc. and when that is joined to outward temptation, there is a birth -- a birth of the act, a birth of sin. And sin brings death. Death (Thanatos) in James 1:15 means “separation”. Dead in Ephesians 2:1-2 has a different greek word (Nekros) but still means: departed or one whose soul is in Hell. YIKES - that is permanent separation. But even if your not into Greek (thats ok :)) the Bible defines Dead in Ephesians 2:1-2 “While we walked (thats alive and kicking as we say in Texas) according to the course of this world” we were “dead in our trespasses and sins”. This is the Bible's definition of death - it is separation from God - its not being in a coffin six feet down. Why do we become separated (Dead)? Because of our own rebellion (resisting Him) - just like the prodigal son in Luke 15 was separated from his father because of his filthy living. You must be "BORN AGAIN". (John 3) All men need to be made alive (reconciled) by FAITH by putting our trust in Jesus Christ and admitting we are living in bondage (coming out of the pig pen in the prodigal son’s case) and REPENTING of our sin. This is the central theme of the BIBLE and is "how to be born again" forever into the family of God.. Those who are on the broad path and have not followed God’s plan of salvation do not have the one mediator between God and man. God loved us (all of us) and sent His Son to be the propitiation (appeasement of God’s wrath) for our sins; and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world” (1st John 2:2). The choice, will, decision, belief (chose your action word - I like Whosoever believeth - John 3:16) to go the narrow way is completely ours to make! God will not make us believe on Christ when it is our own decision to do so. If we refuse to be in Christ (resisting), then we are still in our sins “and the wrath of God abideth on us”. (John 3:36) Then (and only then) because we are "in Christ" and have a personal relationship with Him we need to be about the "Father's business" of making Disciples in and through the local church. This is the churches mission (By Grace through Faith) - not social reform (Works - Yuck). #DR4Christ #WhosoeverWill #StandintheGap #ThePowerofBiblicalThinking

Tony Crago
7/29/2017 08:26:44 pm

So I am assuming the author seeks to vilify progressive politics - but my question to the "Christians" is how do you square your boy Donnie Trump's groping, multiple wives, kids out of wedlock, bragging about STDs, sexism, rape allegations and admitted groping? Are all those things cool because he put an (R) by his name? Did your Jesus tell you that you could let THAT slide? Sorry I don't think Christianity as its practiced today is anything I want a part of.

Alisa Childers
7/29/2017 08:47:06 pm

Hi Tony, thanks for your comment. I'm curious....what is it about my post that would lead you to think I supported or voted for Donald Trump?

Jon Miller
8/1/2017 04:59:27 pm

Did you?

Alisa Childers
8/1/2017 05:36:33 pm

Jon, This post is not political and I don't endorse any political candidate or party. I also don't publicly state who I vote for but I'm comfortable telling you that I did not support or vote for Donald Trump.

Tom Franklin link
7/29/2017 11:16:28 pm

Dear Tony You asked "I am assuming the author seeks to vilify progressive politics - but my question to the "Christians" is how do you square your boy Donnie Trump's groping, multiple wives, kids out of wedlock, bragging about STDs, sexism, rape allegations and admitted groping? Are all those things cool because he put an (R) by his name?"

Alisa's post was not about progressive politics nor was it about Donald Trump. You need to stop looking or judging Trump (We all come short of the glory of God - myself included) and look at yourself. Tony may I ask how you reconcile your own sin? I stated in my previous post that the Bible teaches in James 1:13-15 a mathematical equation. Lust births sin, sin births death (interestingly there are no stillbirths when it comes to sin). Lust is going to bring forth something. An evil desire, an evil thought etc. and when that is joined to outward temptation, there is a birth -- a birth of the act, a birth of sin. And sin brings death. Tony do you believe the Bible and recognize that sin exists? The natural propensity of mankind is to blame others - especially God for our own fumbles, all of our own faults and failures. From the very beginning, since Adam and Eve fell from the Garden of Eden, this has been true. There are many reasons for blaming others, God or the Devil or even temptation itself - but if we are going to point a finger - Biblically - it should come back to our own selves. Who is responsible when we are drawn away to do evil? Who is responsible when we yield to evil temptation? Others are not responsible. God is not responsible. The Devil is not responsible. Temptation is not responsible (sin is not conceived until the thought is carried out into action). We are totally responsible for our own sin which brings death and only by choosing freely Jesus Christ as Savior, (not saving ourself - this is a work of Christ) can a sinner be redeemed from an eternity in hell. Your sin or President Donald Trump's sin (He is a sinner) can not be "squared" by any human means. Having a (R) by your name or a (D) or (I) doesn't make sin "cool". Sin brings death. Choosing to be in a relationship with Christ is our Biblical responsibility and the very reason God created us in His image (THAT'S COOL) - He desires that all would choose to be in a relationship with Him. That choice is up to each individual and while the Holy Spirit does convict, illuminate etc. it is still each persons decision, choice, belief, will (choose your way to word the action) that births a relationship with God. The Bible teaches that your sin, my sin, Alisa's sin and Donald Trump's sin is for God to judge - even vengeance belongs to God. The Bible says in Hebrews 10:

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Tony are you in God's hands? Today many factions in the “evangelical” world desire (for many different reasons) to confuse, warp or get rid of completely the Biblical teaching on a “literal hell” and embrace a position similar to universal reconciliation. Hell (a convenient place for individuals like Hitler or Stalin but not so much a convenient place for those we love) is indeed a real place of eternal torment that exists (Rev 14:11) and the place of separation (Death) according to the Bible. You might be inclined to entertain John Lennon’s idea that there was “no hell below us” if there was no sin in the world. However, sin, death and hell are all covered more in the Bible than the subject of Heaven. I believe it is at this point where many atheists stumble - they are enamored with some of God’s attributes (Ex: Love) but do not accept God’s other attributes of righteousness, justice and holiness because of their own sin. Its easier to declare “there is no God “ thus making hell, death and sin completely irrelevant. Thats the easy way out. :) Sin, death and hell are very relevant and there is no excuse for a person to stay in unbelief. The key as I stated above is FAITH and REPENTANCE. Thats God's plan as found in the Bible - not mans.

You asked - Did your Jesus tell you that you could let THAT slide? No - any man made world view leads New Testament Church's away from a Biblical Worldview - including Progressivism. Again - Alisa was not making any references to Politics or Donald Trump. I believe you are hurting inside and focusing to much on current events rather than God's plan to redeem mankind. (

Tom Franklin link
7/29/2017 11:41:15 pm

redeem mankind. (. . . .continuing . . . . (A Biblical Worldview) His plan is to do that through preaching (from the Bible) in a New Testament Church which is evident Alisa loves very much.

You said - Sorry I don't think Christianity as its practiced today is anything I want a part of. That makes me very sad Tony and I would beg you to reconsider. Jesus died for us all with His atoning work on the cross. His blood is not limited to just to saved people (thats kind of selfish and pretentious), there is power in the blood for everyone (including you Tony). The Bible has provisionally balanced all this in scripture with “whosoever will” as found in Mark 8:34, Luke 9:24, Rev 22:17 (its no coincidence this term appears at the very end of Scripture) because there is no universal reconciliation which Alisa's article also refers to. We can try and deal with sin in a MILLION ways (penance, purgatory, ritual confession- all works). We can make excuses (shift the blame to others) or define it differently so as to be “polite to others”, “conform” so we “don’t offend” etc. We can rationalize our bad tempers. We can rationalize gossip. We can rationalize and redefine polite sins, and we can even rationalize and redefine gross immorality (which is happening at an astonishing rate); But as I heard from my mentors many times. “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - ITS A DUCK.” No matter how far the rabbit hole goes - the Bible calls it all sin. If we are in unbelief - we are a unbeliever. A unbeliever can not believe in one whom they have not heard. They can not fulfill the demands of the law. They can not reconcile themselves with Christ’s shed blood. They can not clothe themselves in His righteousness. They can acknowledge what they know of God to be true but they still deserve condemnation for their sin because we are all sinners. Faith and Repentance Tony is your choice. God knew from the foundation of the world (Foreknowledge) who would voluntarily (of their own free will) repent and choose by faith to believe. Omniscience, Sovereignty are attributes, determinism is not. He did not immutably determine everything forever before creation began (making us some type of robot) but He did glorify His love toward us in providing for the elect (this is a word repeatedly used in Scripture) a place together with Him in heaven for all eternity and a real literal place called hell for those who do not. The elect are not some special type of people Tony - simply - they are sinners who have been saved by His grace. They are eternally secure and should continue to grow in their relationship with Christ and produce fruit because they have been forgiven of their sins and have accepted Christ by grace through faith.

Every man deserves an answer. I pray this makes things clear to you and it is received in the Spirit it was given - lots of love. :) Have a wonderful night.

Rick Dack link
7/30/2017 06:45:49 pm

This is a great blog topic. One of the biggest problems is that the clergy has dropped the ball on addressing these issues on a regular basis. I watched Alisa's video and that is why she struggled against an Agnostic Pastor. The Agnostic knew Christians are weak yet why he continued to Pastor is beyond me. He taught, in his eyes, nonsense for a paycheck.

Aaron Desforge
7/30/2017 11:25:56 pm

Thank you for your article. I see a clear disreguard by many to all of what acts 10 teaches us all. Our fellow gentile, the 1st gentile to be saved. Let's see what kind of guy he was. Acts 10:1-2 KJV
There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band , [2] A devout man , and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Now with a reputation like that he would sure go to heaven by alot of many of today's standards in churches but yet he is is told he needs something more

Acts 10:5-6 KJV
And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter: [6] He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

Peter recounts the matter in acts 11

Acts 11:11-14 KJV
And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me. [12] And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house: [13] And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; [14] Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.


If we follow this story it will show us ALL how to be saved.

Jim Moss
7/31/2017 12:20:04 pm

This article lacks awareness of the breadth and diversity of the Christian religion. Why must evangelicals believe that their particular way of understanding the faith is the only acceptable one?

Michael Mornard
7/31/2017 12:40:00 pm

"Progressive Christians are often open to re-defining and re-interpreting the Bible on hot-button moral issues like homosexuality and abortion"

Or how about, you know, SLAVERY? Or are you saying slavery should be brought back?

Or how about Deuteronomy 21 18-21 where it says your rebellious son should be killed?

This is just another example of "What I don't like must be wrong."

Michael Mornard
General Theological Seminary of the Episcopal Church
Class of 2012

Tom Franklin link
8/1/2017 02:26:48 pm

Dear Michael

Michael the Bible is very clear. Homosexuality is sin. Abortion is sin. You asked "Should slavery be brought back?" Michael, Slavery has never left - it still exists (maybe not on your street) but there are many people enslaved (yes it may look a little different than the 1500's) - it still oppresses the same, persecutes the same and causes suffering and death. I have lived in Cuba and Haiti and I can assure you - it exists and is horrible. It still fails to compare though to the spiritual bondage of sin.

You asked: "Or how about Deuteronomy 21 18-21 where it says your rebellious son should be killed?" Michael you know better than to ask this - you know we are not under the OT law. We are under grace and must be "BORN AGAIN". (John 3) All men need to be made alive (reconciled) by FAITH by putting our trust in Jesus Christ and admitting we are living in bondage (coming out of the pig pen in the prodigal son’s case) and REPENTING of our sin. You are inventing an argument by using the O.T. law and then warping it's application to the present.

This is just another example of "What I don't like must be wrong."

I disagree - Alisa was not saying that. She was exposing a man made worldview that has crept its way into the Church. The problem is sin. Alisa didn't define sin and come up with a plan on how to deal with it. God's Word did. Sin leads to death (Separation) James 1:13-15. Sin is Sin - A Duck is a Duck (See my previous posts on this thread to Tony on that subject).

Michael - Alisa in my opinion (I don't want to put words in her mouth - this is her blog) doesn't want the church to be the friend of the world. Progressivism is a man centered worldview. That is what I took from the article. Every Christian should love the Church as Christ loved His bride. What in the world is wrong with any believer writing an article that wakes or alerts or states (choose your action word) how they intrepret truth as applied to Christ's bride? Do you really think Alisa doesn't love the Church? Michael if there was someone in your church that had convictions similar to Alisa's would you seek to oppress them because you were the one that graduated from the General Theological Seminary of the Episcopal Church? Nooo - that would be pretentious you would love them and seek to show them in the Bible where they are wrong - right???

Your post leads me to believe that it is you that has the problem - Not Alisa. Rarely is the problem really the problem. Are there elements of sin, death and hell presented in the post that has pricked your heart? Something seems to have ruffled your feathers in how you see God? I submit that was truth - and not Alisa.

Tom Franklin

Daniel Hawkins
7/31/2017 05:48:56 pm

While I agree with some of these things, such as that feelings are often overemphasized in many evangelical circles, and the misguided re-interpretation of core Christian doctrines, what I find troubling is the blog post's desire to pick and choose what "has been historically believed."

Case in point is the blog post's discussion of inspiration and what that means and has meant. The ironic thing is that the view espoused in the article as heretical by the pastor, is actually a view shared by early Christians. The patristic fathers (such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine to name a few [prior to the formation of the NT canon as we know it]) essentially viewed inspiration as the equivalent of orthodoxy; ie if something was orthodox in the views it expressed, it was inspired. More recently, the view of inspiration has shifted to what I can only assume is similar to the author of this blog post's view is: the definition of inspiration is equal to the bible in its original autographs, or as it was first written (whatever that means, but I would prefer not to get into that). While a seemingly safe statement for many evangelicals (inspired = the Bible), what was meant to be a reaction to early 20th century liberalism (putting the authority of the bible in a realm that cannot be questioned [i.e. inspired in the original autographs, none of which we have]), became a view that actually began to choke the life out of scripture.

Firstly, it reduces the role of the Holy Spirit in the process of canonization and interpretation. It doesn't really explain why the bible is authoritative, save by pulling out the so called "faith-card," (although there are great reasons why it is authoritative, if you are interested, I recommend "A High View of Scripture?" by Dr. Craig Allert, which discusses the canonization process of the NT and why the books we have were considered authoritative) and as a result, puts the bible on par with other sacred scriptures that other religions' followers would also claim are divinely inspired. Finally, a shortcoming of this view that resonates with the first point addressed by this article is that simply equating inspiration with the bible without further reasoning and treating it as a book dropped from heaven fails to recognize God's very deliberate choice to use humans in the process of writing scripture. That God chose to speak to us on our level should not give us reasons to doubt scripture, but to love the God who speaks through it all the more.

I suppose the last thing i will touch on in the blog post is the final exhortation to "pray about finding fellowship in a more biblically faithful church community." To me this is advice from what is an equally poisonous consumer culture that infiltrated the North American evangelical church long ago. If you don't agree with what is going on, simply leave and find somewhere you can be comfortable, without the hardship of committing to walking through life with a group of people and ask each other the tough questions about faith and life, because there is always somewhere else to go. Perhaps instead of advocating for increasing the schismatic tendency of the body of Christ, the author could have prayed the prayer of Christ for all believers: "I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me." (John 17:20-21 ESV) Of all the things that Jesus could have prayed, he prayed for unity, and he almost, almost makes it seem like the world's likelihood of believing who Jesus is is in some way tied to the unity of the body of Christ, something we should all strive for.

Paul
7/31/2017 05:55:06 pm

Many churches are "Surrendering" to the Lord.
The word "surrender" never appears in the King James Bible! Instead, the word "submit" is used in its place. We surrender to our enemies, but we submit to our King!

kwill
7/31/2017 08:40:47 pm

You say this:

"There is no doubt that the Bible commands us to take care of the unfortunate and defend those who are oppressed. This is a very real and profoundly important part of what it means to live out our Christian faith. However, the core message of Christianity—the gospel—is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and resurrected, and thereby reconciled us to God."

It's good to have the core disagreement stated so baldly. The message of Jesus himself was almost completely about the first bit: love one another. The message of substitutionary atonement came later, and not from Jesus' mouth.

For some people, the idea that the core message of Christianity was never delivered by Christ is problematic. Progressive Christians just might be the ones getting closer to what Jesus had in mind.

Alisa Childers
7/31/2017 09:53:26 pm

Hi Kwill. Thanks for your comment. I have to disagree that the core message of Christianity was never delivered by Christ. In Matthew 26:28 Jesus said that His blood was poured out for the forgiveness of sins. As a Jew, this was directly connected to the sacrificial system set up by God in the Old Testament to atone for sin. (Leviticus 16,17 and 23). Substitutionary atonement is all over the New Testament, and in particular, the letters of Paul. Key elements of SA were also present in some of the earliest Christian writings. (See the Epistle to Diognetus) It's a common claim that this idea didn't come until later, but it is simply not true.

kwill
8/1/2017 04:40:43 pm

I guess we can disagree about that. I know that the ancient traditions -- not just the Jewish ones -- often involved blood sacrifice, so it doesn't seem crazy that early Jewish followers of Jesus latched on to this explanation for the catastrophe in their world that followed his death. They'd been expecting an actual Savior -- one who would end their suffering under the Romans.

Instead they got a man who was punished in a very standard way by the Roman authorities. There was a rebellion, in which they were scattered and their temple was destroyed. The Gospel writers were not contemporaries, and Paul himself never laid eyes on the living person of Jesus ... which is to say that (imo) all of the SA business is after-the-fact rationalization designed to align evolving Christian thought with Old Testament prophecy.

Jesus himself just about vanishes in the process, tho' for my money what remains of him in the text seems to be a guy who was trying hard to get his followers to stop judging their peers by the old laws and get to work comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. The Progressive church may be doing it wrong, but it's hard to argue that they don't have just as much Biblical authority to back themselves up as Evangelicals.

They're not your enemy.

tony howson
8/1/2017 10:11:01 am

In principle I would have to disagree with some things comments that are stated as though what are described in the document as “progressive” churches. For example Martin Luther believed the book of James should be omitted from Scripture. John A T Robinson, a bishop in the Anglican Communion wrote a book “honest to God” in which he effectively denied the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead. For the author of the article, probably for most of his readers, I would be seen as a heretic. I accept the Scriptures for what they are. But how is it, then, that Calvin and Luther – both are paramount part in the Reformation – could disagree theologically to the extent they did? Which one was wrong? Or is it that they were both right in the theological stance? I ask this because I find it potentially arrogant for any one of us to assume we represent the fullness of the truth to the exclusion of anyone else who may disagree. Peter commented that Paul said some hard things, so even he had difficulty in understanding Paul’s theology. I would suggest, indeed, submit, theological arrogance is dangerous, divisive and potentially stems from a theologically hardened heart? Forgive me if you feel have overstepped the mark. I simply want to express that perhaps we need to examine ourselves and our intentions as well as our hearts as to why we write as is our tendency.

Alisa Childers
8/1/2017 01:07:00 pm

Hi Tony, thanks for your thoughtful comment. For clarity, I don't believe that I represent the fullness of the truth to the exclusion of anyone else who may disagree. I'm actually a little stunned that so many commenters believe that I am. I am a huge fan of many scholars and theologians from different denominational traditions and backgrounds. What I advocate for is the core definition of Christianity that has been affirmed by Christians for 2,000 years, despite the theological squabbles we've had along the way. This "core" is what I believe Progressive Christianity is eroding.


You wrote, "Perhaps we need to examine ourselves and our intentions as well as our hearts as to why we write." Very well put and I agree wholeheartedly. This wasn't a post I wrote lightly or blithely. I was actually able to express the heart behind it in this interview on the Bad Christian Podcast. I hope you find it helpful:

http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/the-danger-of-progressive-christian-thought-bad-christian-podcast-interview-with-alisa-childers


Tony
8/3/2017 03:50:50 am

Hi Alisa. I deeply, deeply appreciate your generous reply. On my own journey (now almost 50 years!) I had been through various phases of learning and changing. I was hoping to point out (without being lengthy!) That every Christian movement has had its flaws as well as its revelations. For me it is important that I remain teachable both from the Scriptures, what others are writing/saying and, above all through my relationship with God. I therefore shy away from dogmatic statements that only lead to dispute because there are others who have a different interpretation. I strongly believe that genuine revelation has continued to enlighten God's people. Perhaps in this we would differ: but I honour you, your position and, above all the integrity of your heart. I think we both remain seekers after the truth.

tony howson
8/1/2017 10:13:58 am

my apologies for not including my email address

Thomas
8/1/2017 10:59:58 am

I once thought at you did, that so called progressive Christianity had all of these terrible heresies and rejections of Christianity and, yes, they do exist. However, I have found many progressive Christians who take a high view of Scripture, still believe the basic salvific graces, and yet have no difficulty reconciling that with the social justice that is a major building block of both Old and New Testament theology. Indeed, especially after much study of the Scriptures and the early church fathers and mothers (especially the desert ones), I had to leave evangelical Christianity behind. The narrative of Scripture does include sin and death and punishment and sacrifice. However, it doesn't stop there. The Good News is truly good news! There is resurrection and transformation and hope that comes because of the sacrifice of Christ and we, as Christians or "Christ bearers" are called to not only spread the news of this great gift but to practice mercy, generosity, kindness, and love. Indeed, much of Paul's writings point to the reality that if the fruits of the spirit are not practiced first, then the rest is just baloney (I Corinthians 13). So yes, I am a progressive Christian because I follow Christ, not because of some dogma instilled by human minds. I have been freed from the shackles because I took the next step of accepting not only Christ but the spectacular life He created me for. Unfortunately, I found your blog post to be myopic and, most likely unintentionally, generalized ignorance of a greater movement in Christianity that has existed since Christ Himself walked the earth. Such luminaries in the movement included Augustine, who not only didn't believe in inerrancy but thought people who did were idiots (he didn't mince words); Luther, who didn't believe the canon of Scripture was accurate; Wesley, who felt that the message was for the people and so the message could be told anywhere, including outside of churches; Galileo, Copernicus, and Darwin, who all determined that the truth of science didn't contradict Scripture but added to its wonder (Copernicus was a monk and Darwin was a deacon-I encourage anyone to read his diaries, especially whee he struggles with faith and reason). Francis de Sales treatise on the love of God is brilliant but definitely progressive (he happened to be an inquisitor). Even the first church council in Jerusalem, as noted in the Acts of the Apostles, was progressive because it made a major decision, that the gentiles were accepted as part of the Kingdom. The Acts are chock full of "progressive" ideas of inclusion, social justice, and the sanctification of all things. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

rtgmath
8/1/2017 11:04:45 am

As a Progressive Christian, I have to say that your characterization is skewed. Although you are correct in some ways, you forget that what you consider orthodox was at one point considered heretical.

One thing you may not be aware of is that "inspiration" was never about "inerrancy" until the 1970s and the Chicago Conference. Inspiration meant "God breathed." There were different theories about inspiration. But as a response to scientific advances and the Theory of Evolution, fundamentalists decided that only one theory of inspiration was to be tolerated.

But there is nothing in Scripture to suggest "inerrancy." The Scriptures themselves attest to their human authorship, the human input, the human emotions. Jesus and Paul both witnessed the deficiencies of the Law. (That doesn't sound like inerrancy!)

Jesus said, "By this shall all people know you are my disciples, if you have love toward each other." Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself." When the disciples went out to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, it was that kind of gospel. It was not until the Last Supper that Jesus gave us the understanding of His death as a part of that Gospel. The death of the Lord Jesus does not undo His words. The Life and Words of the Lord Jesus are as important as His Death. He comes as a complete package.

In my progressive church, we celebrate the Lord's Supper every Sunday. We proclaim His death, burial, and resurrection. And we believe in pursuing justice, freedom, and peace. We aren't interested in condemnation. We don't have a culture to fight for. All are welcome. "Liberal" isn't used as a curse word. We believe in following Jesus.

It might actually do you some good to listen to people explain why they don't believe in a literal hell, or why they accept gay people or support gay marriage. The conservative/fundamentalist "Biblical" position is long on letter, short on spirit, mean, vengeful and angry, and is downright unBiblical in its attitude. Jesus never called for the deaths of sinners. Jesus loved those whom religious people despised.

I find it safe to say that those who are the most committed to the current pseudo-Biblical culture wars topics are the least Christlike. I also note that those who are the most zealous about Biblical inerrancy also seem to know the least about the Scriptures themselves! These are the Pharisees of our day, the ones who would accuse Jesus of eating and drinking with sinners, and would call for his crucifixion once again because he would forgive people today's Bible-worshippers find unforgivable.

And perhaps there is the biggest point. Progressive Christians -- at least the ones I am familiar with -- worship Jesus Christ, worship God. They do not worship the Bible.

Alisa Childers
8/1/2017 12:40:26 pm

Hi rtgmath, I'm curious... why do you think I don't "listen to people explain why they don't believe in a literal hell etc...?" I actually spend a lot of my time doing just that.

I completely agree with you that our beliefs should never be delivered in a mean or vengeful spirit. 2 Peter 3:15 calls us to explain our faith with gentleness and respect. Sadly, I believe that some hyper-fundamentalist denominations who have traded the truth of Scripture for legalistic traditions have done much damage to the cause of Christ. Many Progressive Christians I know have come out of denominations like that, and have thrown the baby out with bathwater, in a way. Both extremes are equally out of balance, in my opinion. (And I'm not in any way, claiming that all Christians who call themselves Progressives are heretics...this post is simply attempting to not some of the things that most Progressive Christians agree on.)

In regard to your view that there is nothing in Scripture to suggest inerrancy, I'll point you to my posts about what Jesus believed about Scripture:

http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/8-things-jesus-believed-about-scripture-part-1
http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/8-things-jesus-believed-about-scripture-part-2

I'm also working on a post about what the early church fathers believed about Scripture which will be up soon.

The Greek word for "inspiration," (theopneustos) in the New Testament has implications for inerrancy and the authority of scripture. My friend Clark, a Greek scholar wrote a great article on it that you may find helpful: http://exejesus.com/the-most-important-word-in-all-of-scripture/

I agree that we shouldn't worship the Bible. I actually don't know any Christians who do that, despite the fact that it has become a common assertion.

I'm sad to hear that your experience with those who affirm inerrancy has been disheartening. I know many Christians who affirm inerrancy who are also loving and kind, and have dedicated their lives to caring for orphans and widows, working with the homeless, prostitutes, drug addicts, and underprivileged all around the world. I pray that you might meet some.

Thanks for your comments.

Rachel
8/1/2017 11:09:05 am

This article was disheartening to say the least.

The central message of the Gospel AND of the Prophets has always been social justice.

What you accuse "Progressive Christianity" of doing is the exact opposite of what is happening.

Liberal Christians are finally taking BACK traditional Christianity.

It is not "Progressive Christians" who are distorting the Bible, but fundamentalists who are ignoring huge swaths of it, and pulling out one verse or short passage to prove their non-Biblical points, rather than understanding the entire book in its historical, theological, and literary context.

It is not "Progressive Christians" who are putting emotions before facts, but fundamentalists who are putting their petty dogma before the PEOPLE that Jesus told us to love.

For thousands of years before Jesus, the Jews understood Scripture not literally but as allegory. This is how it was taught to Jesus, and how he taught it. This is what the Christian Church taught for most of history. And we know this because the documents teaching us about it are still there. It wasn't until the late 19th Century that a few backwards, uneducated American preachers thought they could separate themselves from TRADITIONAL Christianity and fundamentalism was born. Fortunately, a few stalwart Churches (catholicism and mainline protestant churches) have continued to teach Scripture interpretation properly, and we're starting to win out again. What you see as "Progressive Christianity" is simply traditional Christianity coming back into right teaching.

So go ahead and pat yourselves on the back for ignoring Christ's message, for pointing out others' sins while ignoring their needs. Jesus was very clear about what happens to people like you.

Alisa Childers
8/1/2017 12:02:36 pm

Hi Rachel, you may find my post on Social Justice and the gospel helpful. It further clarifies my view: http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/is-social-justice-hijacking-the-gospel

rtgmath
8/1/2017 11:33:09 am

I find it interesting that this article is written by a woman. Hard core fundamentalists would never accept this, saying that this author was trying to teach men, contrary to Scripture.

Progressive believers, however, have no trouble with women teaching and preaching.

Andy Hopkins
8/1/2017 01:29:15 pm

I would think any rational person, whether fundamental or not, would accept truth as truth no matter the gender of the person speaking the truth. Do you have specific "hard core fundamentalists" in mind or are you just speaking generically? If a woman in your "hard core fundamentalist" group learned truth from her church, is she not allowed to pass that truth on to anyone outside of the church? Is it just inside the church that she is not allowed to teach?

Jeff
8/1/2017 12:35:00 pm

I was attending a church that had this exact thing happen to it. We used to read Leviticus and Deuteronomy every fall...suddenly the pastor was reading the gospels as often as the Old Testament. We had worked with the legislature to enact a faithful monument celebrating the 10 commandments. Suddenly the pastor was more interested in the Beatitudes.
It was sad.
Any time a church goes towards inclusion and acceptance of the sinner, and away from the demands of the law, is a sign that you are leaving the faith and becoming progressive.
And don't even get me started on the Holy Spirit!

Alisa Childers
8/1/2017 12:49:19 pm

Hi friends, thanks for all the comments. Many of the objections found in the comments here are answered in these 3 podcasts I've done since the publishing of this article. You can find them here if you're interested:

1. What is Progressive Christianity? (Alisa Childers Podcast) http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/podcast-1-what-is-progressive-christianity

2. Alisa Childers explains the Dangers of Progressive Christian Thought (Bad Christian Podcast) http://www.alisachilders.com/blog/the-danger-of-progressive-christian-thought-bad-christian-podcast-interview-with-alisa-childers

3. Progressive Christianity...And WHY You Need to Understand It (Mama Bear Apologetics Podcast) http://mamabearapologetics.com/progressive-christianity-and-why-understand-it/

Alejandro Rodriguez
8/1/2017 01:53:24 pm

Thank God, I've found a progressive church.

Jeremy
8/1/2017 03:38:55 pm

We can only hope and pray that ALL churches become "progressive" the way religion is supposed to be! God gave us a brain to think and the sense to question. No man should tell another how to believe...

All organized religion has done is to create war, spread mis truths and lies, and to shame people for personal gain. This is NOT what God wants...wake up sheeple!!! Have a personal relationship with God and think for yourself on social and political matters (the way it is supposed to be) stop relying on some person in the pulpit to tell you how to think, feel, speak and vote

Donald Grant
8/2/2017 12:52:24 am

Did you mean to say "condemn" as opposed to condone in point number 1 ? "The Bible condones immorality"

Alisa Childers
8/2/2017 07:51:25 am

Hi Donald, no, sadly I've heard many Progressive Christians accuse the Bible of condoning immorality. There is a lot of confusion regarding some events in the Old Testament. Paul Copan's book "Is God a Moral Monster?" is a great resource to help clarify....

C. Scott
8/2/2017 08:19:11 am

Christine C. Scott The foundational beliefs of the Bible are no longer preached. For example,(1). Hell is a literal place of punishment for those who reject Jesus (2) Salvation is by faith in Jesus and (3) We are all sinners in need of a savior who shed his sinless blood (4) literal creation (5) Return of Jesus could be any day. These are ignored. There are no altar calls; no invitation to get your heart right with God. Just nice little God talks; no sin, no blood, no Hell. Nor is repentance is ever mentioned from the pulpit. Oh there will be a lot of "praise" music, which sounds like any worldly, rock music. I believe that this adulterated music will usher in the anti-Christ. We'll see.

mark uzupan
8/2/2017 10:56:54 am

I loved what you wrote but Please explain this: you say Progressives say The Bible condones immorality, so we are obligated to reject what it says in certain places...

I don't follow the logic of this sentence. please clarify what you said.

Brendt Waters
8/3/2017 02:14:56 am

I have found Signs 1 and 2 to be MUCH more prevalent among "historic" (pretentious much?) Christians than progressive Christians. But that doesn't fit the narrative, does it?

L Hepburn
8/5/2017 08:45:20 am

Five signs your church MIGHT...

...it is difficult to pin down what qualifies someone as a Progressive Christian, due to the diversity of beliefs...

Comments you MIGHT hear...

Based on the content of their posts, it seems most of those with critical comments have failed to understand the author's point.

Alisa Childers
8/5/2017 08:20:22 pm

Great observation. I also noticed that many of the objections were based on assumptions, rather than what I had actually written.

Joseph Steel
8/8/2017 03:48:16 pm

Seems everybody's got an opinion.

So much for denying yourself by taking the way of the cross.

You know... Kind of the center of the Christian walk/life/living/being.


Comments are closed.
    Picture
    Become a Patron!
    Picture

    RSS Feed

    alisachilders.com
  • Blog
    • Comments Policy
  • Popular Posts
  • alisachilders.com