Progressive Christianity isn’t a cut-and-dry thing. It has varying degrees, with some Christians or churches only embracing very specific parts of it, while others identify with every aspect of it. As I discuss Progressive Christianity, I’m speaking to the extreme ends of it, and I do that with a specific purpose.
There is a certain inevitability for those who commit to any form of Progressivism. Most Christians and churches will often start with making social justice (as defined by modern standards) a focal point of their ministry. But as soon as we make the gospel and the sanctification of believers share a stage with modern issues, we have no choice but to slowly make more compromises. The measurement of church “success” changes, our purpose in life and the world shifts, and our sources of truth and means of interpretation must adapt to keep up with everything else.
So, yes, there are churches or Christians who may identify as “Progressive” without adhering to everything I’ll discuss. Yet. But if they don’t change trajectory, whether in this generation or the next, they can only follow in the compromised footsteps of all those who have come before.
Ray, I appreciate that you are evidently considering my comments, as unappealing as they are, and coming from a stranger. I recognize that this cannot be fun for you.
Unfortunately, as before, this post is far too general to be of much help. If you are speaking only to “extreme ends,” then you are speaking of a very small group, comparable to the “extreme ends” of traditionalists (KJV only, women should not speak in church or work outside the home, movies and dancing are sinful, etc.).
One major problem is that even a post about how you “define” Progressive Christianity does not have a definition! If we use Webster to define “Progressive,” it is very easy to see that the “traditional” modern church came into being as a result of regular Progressivism. In every age of the church the gospel shared the stage with modern (for them) issues; in every age the church made compromises with modernity. As I noted before, you yourself wrote a long, mostly positive, post about Black Lives Matter, which solidly meets the definition of a modern social justice issue. Many Christians would say that that post put you on a dangerous trajectory. But I think that you and I still agree that, per the Bible, God wanted you to speak out as you did.
It’s inconsistent to insist that talking about modern issues is bad today, but that it was fine, even good, for churches to talk about democracy, translating the Bible into English, abolition, civil rights, women’s suffrage, and so on in the past. Even single one of those issues was Progressive at some point, and considered characteristic of “extreme ends” by “traditionalist” Christians who did not approve of them. I am 100% certain that despite the warning of your final sentence, most modern Christians, whether Progressive, traditionalist, or other, agree that God wants us to follow in those compromised footsteps (including me, and probably including you!)
I hope that you try to come up with clear, concise, consistent definitions of “Progressivism” and “Traditionalism” (or whatever term you prefer for the correct type of Christianity) that you can rigorously apply. We all know that you are gifted with the capacity for hard, rational thinking and lucid communication, so I would love to see the result.