5 Signs Your Church Might be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity

​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-definedThere 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 justiceThere 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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

“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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.”

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.

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.”

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Thank you Alisa, that makes sense.

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.

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

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.

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?

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Excellent response!

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.

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/

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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

Thank you, Cameron! Well said.

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….

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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,

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 gra