The Gospel According to Progressive Christianity #2: Creation and Fall

​​"I've got bad news and good news."

I'll never forget sitting in the dentist's office awaiting "the news." For the record, I am an utter wimp when it comes to my teeth. Sure, I gave birth to two babies with nothing more than a stick to bite on, but threaten me with a dental drill and I'm out the door faster than you can say, "laughing gas"— if I don't pass out first. Just hearing the phrase "dental pulp" makes me want to crawl under a rock the size of Wisconsin.

"The bad news? You need a root canal. The good news? We can sedate you so you won't feel a thing. "

Sedation. The good news—the transcendent glory of this invention of modern medicine would be lost on me if I didn't first understand the bad news—that I needed a root canal. But once I knew "dental pulp" would be involved, sedation suddenly became the best. News. Ever. ​  

​It's the same with the gospel, isn't it? It's a case of bad news and good news. In fact, the word gospel literally means “good news.” But if we don't understand what’s wrong with the world (the bad news), we won’t understand the beauty of how things will be made right again (the good news).  

Greg Koukl describes four things every worldview must explain: Creation (How things got started), Fall (How things got broken), Redemption (How things will get fixed), and Restoration (How things will look once they are fixed.) In my last post, I explained that many Progressives disagree with the historic Christian answers to these questions and have an entirely different understanding of the gospel.

In this post, we’ll zoom in for a closer look at how progressive Christianity differs from historic Christianity when it comes to Creation and Fall. In my next post, we’ll talk about Redemption and Restoration.

Creation

God created the world and called it "good." This is something most historic and progressive Christians can agree on. High five. But before we get too excited, we must realize this is about all we have in common. (Cue Debbie Downer.)

Historic view

Historically, Christians have believed that God created the universe out of nothing (ex-nihilo). This means He is entirely distinct from and independent of His creation. The Bible teaches that God is also omnipresent—everywhere at the same time. He is present everywhere because He isn't contained by any particular object or location. In other words, He is not a part of this fallen world, but remains active and present in it.

Progressive view

Many Progressives adopt a view of creation called panentheism. This is not to be confused with a more prominent belief in Eastern religions and the New Age called pantheism.

Pantheism teaches that God is all. (Think Mother Earth, the Force in Star Wars, and the movie Avatar.)

Panentheism teaches that God is in all and all is in God—but that God also goes beyond the universe. According to this view, God inhabits the universe much like a soul indwells a body. Panentheism denies that God created the universe ex-nihilo and sees the world as part of God that is constantly in process and changing. Philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli noted that in panentheism, God “cannot concretely exist except as vitalizing the world, nor can the world exist except as vitalized by God. Each needs the other.” (1)

​Progressive leaders like Rob Bell hint at this by comparing the Spirit of God to a "life force," and "creative energy," and "unending divine vitality." (2) Franciscan Friar and Progressive favorite Richard Rohr affirms it openly. He teaches that we should recognize Jesus' presence in all things, including in other people and the elements of the earth. He refers to the universe as the "body of God."  He writes:

This is not pantheism (God is everything), but panentheism (God is in everything!). Such a central message of cosmic incarnation was never seriously taught in the Western, overly individualistic church, except by a few…

Not only does Rohr candidly admit his panentheism, but he rightly points out that it was never seriously taught in the Western church.

In their comprehensive survey of Progressive Christianity, Progressive authors David Felten and Jeff Procter-Murphy esteem panentheism as a good and "sacramental embrace of creation." (3)

Clearing the mud

​
Some see panentheism as an attempt to find middle ground between the classic view of God and pantheism. But is it biblical? 

The Bible teaches that God created the world out of nothing, is distinct from it, and unchanging.

Panentheism sees (at least a part of) God as being in a process of change and not entirely distinct from His creation. It denies that God created the universe out of nothing, which makes Him, essentially, interdependent with it.

Panentheism also finds parallels in an ancient heresy called gnosticism. In the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quoted as saying:

It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.

​Bottom line: What the Bible teaches about God's interaction with creation is totally unique among other religions. We can all agree that God made the world and called it good, but Progressive Christians tend to view creation through the lens of panentheism which contradicts historic Christianity.

Fall

After God created the world and called it good, something went terribly wrong. This next part is all about the bad news.

Historic view

Sin entered the world when Adam and Eve made that fateful choice to disobey God in Eden. As our first parents, they passed that inclination to sin on to us. You and me? We’re sinners by nature. If you don't believe me, just observe any two-year-old for more than five minutes.

Have you ever wondered why you have to teach kids to tell the truth, but they seem to be experts at lying from the second they can talk? How you have to constantly nag them to share their toys, but somehow they pop out of the womb ready to give a master class in manipulation? In theological circles, this is called the doctrine of Original Sin.

Progressive view

Typically, Progressive Christians reject the doctrine of Original Sin. In his book, A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren concludes that whenever we talk about "the Fall," and "Original Sin," we're smuggling foreign ideas and philosophies into the biblical narrative. (4) He views this as part of the "Greco Roman six-line narrative" I wrote about in my last post.

McLaren questions whether doctrines like Original Sin lead us to "a higher vision of God, a deeper engagement with Christ, a more profound experience of the Holy Spirit." (5)

Progressive authors David Felten and Jeff Procter-Murphy acknowledge human brokenness. But they reject the doctrine of Original Sin in favor of an idea called Original Blessing. They write:

Far from being “fallen” creatures trying to return to a mythical Eden, human beings are “emerging” as a species from more primal and baser instincts to become more responsible and mature beings. (5)

Clearing the mud

We don't even need to open a Bible to know this isn't true, do we? Is humanity moving along a moral arc to greater perfection, maturity, and responsibility? Watch the news or check your Twitter feed and decide for yourself. No, this answer is not sufficient. It doesn't give a satisfying explanation of why the world is so messed up.

Original Sin is taught in Scripture, and Christians have agreed on it for the bulk of church history. The Eastern and Western churches have slight differences in how they explain it, but they both believe that everyone is a sinner and has a sin nature. This is essential to Christianity.
​
Bottom line: Original Sin explains what's broken. Progressive Christianity rejects this understanding but offers no satisfying explanation of its own.

Now that we've looked at the historic vs. progressive views of how things got started and how they got broken, we'll tackle how things will get fixed and how they'll look once they are fixed. Redemption and Restoration coming up in my next post…

This was a good read, and also very well-written. This aptly communicates how the philisophical ideals and theories have crept into the Church over the years, and while at one time she was able to withstand it, those days are gone, in large part because our Church leaders (in America) we're not gurading the gates. Now we have a millennial generation almost completely disconnected from Biblical Truth. Again, well done; you identified the root, the Church in America has lost the meaning of the concept of sin.

This is so helpful! Thank you. x

The Bible does indeed teach creation ex nihilo. Genesis 1:1 is just one example. If you thought that was questionable, there are several other passages that clarify that God created everything, not merely that He shaped preexisting matter.

Exodus 20:11  "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. 

John 1:1-3  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 

Colossians 1:16  For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 

Revelation 4:11  "Worthy are You, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for You created all things, and because of Your will they existed, and were created." 

While God does indeed craft the earth from an initially formless mass of waters, the waters themselves were also created by God. They were not eternal and self-existent. Only God is self-existent. Science also supports this by showing that the universe had to have an absolute beginning and is not eternal.

Curious – scientific evidence supports that our universe had a beginning. Can this evidence be applied to support both ex nihilo and the preexsitence of matter?

Delkin, we agree on something! High five.

Kids lie when they are young because they believe they will get in trouble if they have broken something. They believe they will be punished and they believe that it is not okay if they mess up. They lie to protect their young innocent souls from the reprimand they believe they are about to get. That is why they lie…not because they are born that way. It's their subconscious mind trying to protect them from the consequences of the truth. If us as adults would stop instilling fear into kids then we would see less "original sin."

Man, as a teacher I have to completely disagree with you. Kids raised with more discipline and structure tend to be kids of higher character. This empirical observation would support the idea that there is a natural "brokenness" that needs to be countered.

Also, consider how even very young kids treat each other when adults and consequences aren't even in the picture. They fight, steal, overreact, and generally act selfishly. We all know this to be true which is why we are so impressed when we see kids not acting like this – it's not common. It's the exception, not the rule.

In today's reading in My Utmost for His Highest, Oswald Chambers has this to say about sin:

The Bible does not say that God punished the human race for one man’s sin, but that the disposition of sin, that is, my claim to my right to myself, entered into the human race by one man, and that another Man took on Him the sin of the human race and put it away (Hebrews 9:26) — an infinitely profounder revelation.

The disposition of sin is not immorality and wrong-doing, but the disposition of self-realization — I am my own god. This disposition may work out in decorous morality or in indecorous immorality, but it has the one basis: my claim to my right to myself. When Our Lord faced men with all the forces of evil in them, and men who were clean living and moral and upright, He did not pay any attention to the moral degradation of the one or to the moral attainment of the other. He looked at something we do not see: the disposition.

Sin is a thing I am born with, and I cannot touch it. God touches sin in Redemption….If when I realize Jesus Christ came to deliver me from it, I refuse to let Him do so, from that moment I begin to get the seal of damnation. “And this is the judgment” (the critical moment) “that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light.” (John 3:19)

Diane Woerner, that is good stuff right there. God sees and touches the things we cannot see and touch for ourselves. We are blinded by our own self-realization. To have our eyes opened to the realization that Christ came to deliver us from ourselves and to refuse to let Him do it… because we love ourselves more…we love our own interpretations of sin, our own methods of salvation and our own definitions of truth. It's not progressive at all but regressive.

Hi Alisa,

Thank you for a very interesting article. I'm not 'a progressive' in the way you describe and would definitely concur that God and creation are not co-dependent… all creation is dependent on his energy to sustain it and so in that sense he is in all. However, I would like to raise one point and that is regarding Original Sin. I really don't see how anybody can take that doctrine very seriously, that we are born sinful because Adam & Eve sinned, when in the next chapter (Genesis 4), God clearly says to Cain, sin is at your door and you have a choice whether to let him in or not. That is far from being full of sin and having no choice… unless the Lord was lying to Cain? Love to hear what you think.