On not knowing whether or not I am progressive
One of my favorite blogs is Levellers, not because I always agree with Michael, but because he usually makes me think. Although Michael has used the term "progressive" many times on his blog, I'm not sure if he has ever defined the term. Clearly, it is an important category for him. (Forgive me, Michael, if you've defined the term and I just can't remember). I think there is a problem with the way some of my Methodist friends use the term "progressive." It's almost as if "progressive" is a more determinative category than "faithful Christian." It's like they define 'progressive' on non-theological grounds first, and then try to show that Christianity can also fit into that more important category. It strikes me as backwards. It also strikes me as a horrible mistake to define the term "conservative" on non-theological grounds and then try to show that Christianity qualifies for that honorific title. I suppose I try to discern what it means to practice faithful Christian discipleship, and then later let other people worry about what labels they want to attach to it. They will sometimes call me conservative, sometimes progressive, but I don't particulary care.
In the past few weeks and months, there has been a lot of blogging about torture. I have blogged about this topic several times in the past, and I have spoken in my church about the reasons that torture cannot be reconciled with Christian belief or practice (It is a denial of the imago dei in each person, and it flatly contradicts Christ's teaching on love of enemies). Recently there have been attempts to link the issues of abortion and torture, and most of those attempted links have been poorly done. They sound like angry, immature rants. (not that I am above that!). But one exception to that observation is this blog post by my friend Ken. Ken challenges us to re-think our assumptions about torture and abortion, but Ken does it with grace and wisdom, not shrill, empty rhetoric. I don't know if Ken is being progressive or conservative, but it sure sounds faithful to me.
5 comments:
Interesting question.
I'm American and have lived in the UK for 20 years. I'm also a Methodist. I only recall having heard the term 'progressive' from American Christian in the last 10 or so years (I might be wrong but that's my personal experience). I don't really know what it means but I have the sense of 'not fundamentalist but not an out and out modernist liberal either.'
I don't personally believe that Christianity is about the 'progressive Christian march toward holiness that will bring in the Kingdom' so I worry about the term.
But it seems to me that 'faithful Christian' gets used on the internet by people who just want to beat me up if I can't answer the question 'Do you really believe all the minutae of the creeds in a factual, modernist way and can you express your faith to my personal satisfaction.?' (n.b. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, just that this is the connotation the phrase throws up for me.)
So I think I want to neither be 'progressive' nor do I want to throw around the phrase 'faithful Christian' lest someone misunderstand me. I want to be a disciple of Jesus.
I'm a methodist and spend my life working on used engines. I don't understand computers well, but my son turned me onto this blog. You have spent some very long hours and thoughts on this blog. After a long day of working on engines, it's nice to have something of such value to read when I get home. Thanks for the great stuff.
I haven't defined "progressive" because, like so many useful words, no definition seems adequate. I use it as a political term, not a theological one. I use it to refer to people who believe in participatory democracy, economic justice, human rights, and equality for all.
I try to be a faithful Christian, too, but I think that "faithful" is not a label that any Christian should apply to himself or herself. It isn't a question of whether "Christian" is my primary identity or not. Of course it is.
I am a Christian first, a member of the Believers' Church family second, a Baptist third. I'm also a husband, father of two daughters, a former soldier turned pacifist (and, with me, no matter how hard I try otherwise, the "former soldier" still seems inseparable from the "pacifist"), sometimes an educator, sometimes an author, sometimes a peace activist. I'm a registered Democrat, too.
Which parts of my identity I emphasize depends on what I'm writing about at the time. I've written much about U.S. politics lately, so I have emphasized my identity as a "progressive." When I write primarily theological materials, I emphasize other things.
I do sometimes use the term "progressive Christian" as a contrast to "conservative Christian" and Pam is right--it is usually an American thing. I am more comfortable just using the term "Christian" outside the U.S.A.--because it doesn't have rightwing political connotations.
I also don't think there is a "progressive march toward the Rule of God." GOD ALONE brings the Kingdom. But, through grace, God usually uses humans, especially disciples, as the instruments of God's work.
The church changes and develops through the centuries. The Protestant principleiss that some of these changes are unfaithful. Whenever I share that perspective, I am prepared to be as old fashioned and out of date as I can be. Some changes, however, seem to be improvements--involving greater understanding of revelation--like the end of slavery and the equality of the sexes. Whenever this is the case, I would argue for making the changes--whether or not we call it progress.
I think that the word, "progressive" is a secularized term for what we Christians call sanctification, which is founded on eschatology. We find it exemplified in revelation and mission. We are progressing towards perfection in Christ's reign. Of course we would also want to conserve the Christian teaching of original sin which progressives are always in danger of ignoring. Are you a progressive conservative Christian perhaps Jonathon?
Again, Cornelius, "progressive" is a political rather than theological term. I am not sure it can simply be substituted for "sanctification." I don't political orders, no matter how much I agree with them, are being sanctified. They are still fallen remnants of This Age Which is Perishing. They will not belong to the Inbreaking Rule of God.
I would be highly suspicious of any "sanctified politics."
Post a Comment