Progressives and Conservatives - In the Same Ball Park?

The Consultation, a coalition of 13 or so "Progressive" groups in ECUSA, recently published their platform for General Convention, 2009. One aspect of Progressive thinking that was both openly advocated and was also an assumption for several planks in the platform is the idea that humanity is inherently good. We do sin, but our sins are errors due to ignorance, faulty judgment, difficult upbringing, etc, etc. Sin is "falling short of the mark," but it is not an inborn part of human nature. If God pronounced all creation, including humankind, "very good," then human beings are indeed "very good."

I made a comment in Susan Russell's blog about Genesis 3 being overlooked in the thinking of Progressives. We may have been "very good" at creation, but we turned away from God early on, and became rebels. Our sin is a refusal to trust, and thus to obey, the living God. My comment engendered several others, criticizing me for being so negative, and so encouraging a low and wretched view of humanity, which keeps us prisoners of gloom and doom.

I later wrote a note on how the ideas of original sin and of total depravity are helpful to a positive attitude and to hope for the future. That comment (made to a posting on Original Blessing, a day or so later than the one on the platform) is posted below.

As I reflect on this still further, however, I am sure that the difference of opinion has its roots in a difference of assumptions. Conservative and Progressives do theology from an entirely different set of presuppositions. I argued for one major meaning to a passage of Scripture, if words are useful for communicating at all. But, Progressives believe (on the whole) two different things about Scripture and about interpreting Scripture.

For conservatives, Scripture is revealed by God. We believe that God spoke by the Holy Spirit through the authors of the Bible. The authors have their own perspective, style, etc, but the Spirit coordinated them all to produce the message he wanted. Conservatives also believe that God, who created the world by his power, also can act within this world miraculously, so that the miracles recorded were actual events. When we interpret Scripture, we do so convinced that our task is possible, for God has a meaning that he intended, and we can, through careful reading, ascertain that reading with a reasonable conviction of accuracy. We also believe that the task of theology is to take what Scripture says in various places and to produce a coherent, logical systematic of the Scriptural teachings of the books of the Bible. The Bible, God’s Word, deals with subjects that are larger than the mind can comprehend, so we are not going to be able to understand God completely, nor will we get answers to all our questions, but since God inspired the human authors to tell us what we need to know about how to relate to God and how we are to live, we will have a clear understanding of many things, or at the very least, a range with boundaries.

Progressives, on the other hand, do not think that the Bible is inspired, at least not in the sense that what the words say was directed by God. From the Progressive point of view, ancient people had spiritual experiences, reflected on them, and then wrote about them. Their encounter with the divine was real, but their interpretation of what that experience meant is not necessarily connected to what God intended. The Bible is to be respected and to be used to develop ideas, for it 1) has primacy in time, and 2) it has been used by the Church since it began. For most Progressives, the Bible also must be respected because it contains the words and teachings of Jesus (although some would say that not all of these are genuine, but many are). Some Progressives consider the miracles to be mere legend, others consider them to have a kernel of truth, but with a much more science-based understanding that can explain the event. On the whole, the supernatural is ruled out and even when it is not, it is minimized.

Since the Bible is not reliably from God, we do not need to take all parts of it seriously. We can take what is useful, or find major concepts and themes, and then develop those concepts without needing to heed what the rest of Scripture says. In addition, thoughts from later times may also be incorporated. In her first sermon as Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori spoke of “our mother Jesus,” using the words of a 12th (?) century mystic. She and other Progressives were astonished that conservatives were horrified at the use of such terms – the mystic had had her own experience of God, as authentic as any prophet, so why were her insights not as valuable? (Or so I think the thinking goes.)

In addition, there seems to be a different understanding of who God is. To conservatives, God is a personal being, incapable od being fully understood, but still knowable because he has revealed himself in creation and in history, and especially in his Word and in his incarnate Son. To Progressives, God is beyond knowing, and all religions have touched upon, somehow, the Divine, and each has its own perspective. Progressives vary on whether Christianity may be more true than other religions, but no Progressive seems willing to say that a particular religion is wrong or that it cannot be a way to truly know (insofar as any religion can be) the divinity.

I do not know exactly what the methodology of Progressive theology is, but it seems to be far more philosophically based than conservative theology. Most of the recent schools of theology (Liberation, feminist, womanist, etc, etc) seem to be theology done from a particular philosophical basis, or at least heavily influenced by a philosophy; Liberation theology draws heavily from a Marxist understanding of history and from “Process Theology.”

In addition, most Progressive theology written recently seems to be highly topical. Maybe someone has written a systematic theology from a Progressive perspective, but I have not heard of one (although that would not be surprising, as I am not an academic). Conservatives seek to have a consistent, coherent theology. Progressives seem to write things that back up a change they want to make, and do not worry about having consistency or even (it appears to me) coherence.

I also think that that many Progressives hold to a “deconstructionist” view of writing, which means that the reader brings all the meaning to the reading event, and the intent of the author has no bearing at all. Such a view means that multiple, conflicting understandings of the text are to be expected – so the Bible is merely a source of ideas. (I have often wondered why anyone who believes in deconstructionism would write anything, since the intent of the author is worthless – I could read something by the most rabid deconstuctionist and say that I was glad to hear that he upheld the idea of strict, logical interpretation. How could such a writer prove me wrong? He would have to admit that he intended a particular message and that I had gotten it wrong, thereby defeating his own thesis.)

Conservatives and Progressives come at the Bible and theology from an entirely different set of presuppositions and perspectives. We use a lot of the same words, but we do not mean the same thing. We refer to the same Bible, but understand its nature quite differently. We understand who Jesus is completely differently. It is no wonder that the Episcopal Church is fracturing, and it will be no surprise when other mainline denominations undergo the process in the next decade or so. We live in houses divided, and we cannot stand.

Post to “An Inch at a Time” on 21 March 09

Usually it is conservatives who say “either-or” and progressives who say “both-and,” but I will vary things a bit by saying we are both beloved and broken. I sometimes use an illustration: humanity is like a Rolls-Royce that has had a bad accident, where the car still runs, but the frame has been bent, the radiator pierced, the wheels are out of alignment, and so forth. You can take one look and know that it is a fine and valuable car – but you will have lots of trouble as you drive it, for many things do not work as they should.

We were formed by God in creation, and he called us “very good.” We were deformed in the Fall, so that we do not trust God to do what is right and good for us, and seek instead to live by our own lights. Those who come to Christ are transformed, so that we once again fully reflect the image of God, and come to trust him completely as we were intended to do at creation.

I am going to cite five passages of Scripture that give me hope and direction. (These are from the English Standard Version)
Mt 6:31-33, Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
This gives us our priorities, the same priorities assigned to Adam and Eve: the Kingdom of God, and a trusting confidence that God will supply what is needed, when it is needed.

Rom 5:8, but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Gal 2:20, I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

These two verses show me how deeply God loves me, and how far his grace goes. They mean that I have the freedom to explore the depths of my heart, and whatever I find there, no matter how dreadful, is covered by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. He already knew the worst about me, and still he chose to die for me. There is nothing I can discover about myself that will cause him to run in terror and say, “That is more than I can forgive!” Thus, I can know the worst, and not fear. And it is when you are willing to know the worst and accept it as a part of yourself that you will also discover the best about yourself, for when we put a barrier over our hearts in order not to see and admit the worst, we also place a barrier in the way of seeing the best. In addition, since evil is not a thing in itself, but rather deformed goodness, whatever ill I discover can be forgiven and its source transformed into a source of good. In my teens I was very sarcastic – but the same ability I had to “read” people and see their weaknesses and then lambast them with pointed words can now be used to understand and to offer words of acceptance, consolation, and direction.

1 Jn 1:8-9, If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

As we recognize our sins, confess them, and offer ourselves to God for transformation, we are cleansed and we become what the Father has called us in Christ: “righteous.” This is something that is recognized in Eucharistic Prayer B: “In him, you have delivered us from evil, and made us worthy to stand before you. In him, you have brought us out of error into truth, out of sin into righteousness, out of death into life.”

Finally, Phil 1:6, And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

There is no need to prettify ourselves and acknowledge and recognize only the good. We can see ourselves whole, and offer it all to Jesus for the sake of his Kingdom. Luther said it very succinctly: “simul justus et peccator.” Those who believe in Christ are at one and the same time justified and sinners. And the day will come when we will be fully transformed, rescued from the penalty, the power, and the presence of sin, in God’s perfect Kingdom. The process of transformation will be complete. All who belong to Jesus Christ will fully reflect his image and will be what God had intended at creation.