Jambalaya is a treat for me. Chicken, shrimp and Andouille sausage, celery, onion, green bell peppers, Cajun seasoning, jalapeño and garlic, thyme, crushed tomatoes, white rice … and if my ‘home banker' gives me the thumbs up — add mussels and clams. A little salt and pepper and I’m ready. Put it all on pasta and we have a seriously decadent meal. Some things just go together!
Some things do not get along very well, and in my line of work, culture and religion is one of them. The fancy word for this is ‘syncretism’ – where another world view is harmonized, even assimilated, into another – producing a revised system and changing the nature of both. In religion, theology has always been fertile ground for novel approaches to other ideas, ideologies or culture. Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Pelagianism, Animism, Marcionism, Pluralism or Christian gay groups – nothing new here.
When Western missionaries arrived on distant shores without language skills and facing cultural barriers, they moved into remote areas with the Gospel, searching to contextualize it in a way that honored the cultural framework. As they worked, most missionaries were able to bridge the gap between their world and the one God had called them to – and most did so without down-playing core elements of the Gospel. In response, converts ceased paying homage to ancestral spirits and burned their books on magic, not unlike the Ephesians (Acts 19) as proof of their allegiance to the new faith. Some things do not belong together.
It seems clear from the record of the early church, that the Good News is translatable, able to transcend language, race, even cultural divides. Why?
Because Gospel truth is always relevant!
In his meeting of the Areopagus, an aristocratic council of ancient Athens, Paul declared “I see that in every way you are very religious” (Acts 17:22), which seems like a fairly good opening gambit on which to make an immediate connection to some religious folks. While the phrase “very religious” (δεισιδαιμονέστερος) can be used in a positive (religious) or a negative (superstitious) way, it seems best to understand its use here in a negative sense given verse 16 (NIV “greatly distressed; ESV “provoked”) and later, Acts 25:19.
Addressing their idiosyncratic practice of finding God in human-made objects like statues, figurines and altars, he invites the Athenians to see God in human existence and the natural order – even quoting a couple of Greek poets as evidence of this truth: first the Cretan philosopher, Epimenides (6th century): “In Him we live and move and have our being,” followed by the Cilician stoic philosopher, Aratus (3rd century): “For we too are His offspring” (v. 28).
Paul’s approach seems to be …
1st. Look for common ground.
2nd. Leverage that common ground to bring truth.
Paul exploits, by referencing an altar’s inscription: “To an Unknown God”, and moving their search for truth to the reality of the Gospel. Contextually sensitive to the culture of his day – sure, but he does not dumb down the revelation in order to reach his culture. Not for a moment! Paul, the straight-shooter, is unambiguous, no matter the culture or context, that the nature and character of his gospel message is exclusive. Without hesitation he says: “… you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you” (v. 23). I hear a lot of talk about doing things the ‘New Testament way,’ but I wonder if Paul’s New Testament abruptness here would meet with much approval these days?
Romans 3:1 reminds us that “there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.” So, when is comes to an unbeliever truly seeking God on his own, it does not exist. Furthermore, since they are dead in their sin (Ephesians 2:1), they are unable to seek God because they do not recognize their need of Him. We should not be surprised then that the Athenians did exactly as would be expected – they “… exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.” (Romans 1:23) and by knowingly suppressing all that they know – they become subject to God’s wrath …. and, as Paul says “He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice” (Acts 17:31) – something you will never hear from a seeker-sensitive church pulpit. I find Paul cutting right to the chase refreshingly New Testament. No generic God to win people over; just evangelizing an unbelieving worldview. I think that is the genius of Paul!
The Apostle Paul seems not to care if he is thought to be bigoted for telling non-believers that they are wrong. Instead, he understands that it is far wiser to witness to the morally accountable, the ‘truth’ of Jesus Christ.
Paul’s example here has led me to the conclusion that the modern church has confused the difference between fixity and flexibility, terms I first encountered in the context of a discussion between Charter Rights framers (fixed, top-down methodology) and Common Law (fluid, bottom-up methodology) amenders who interpret, modify, or reformulate.
Perhaps the “Living Tree” metaphor will help here. First introduced by Lord John Sankey in 1930 in Edwards v. Attorney General of Canada, it imagines the Constitution as like a tree - fixed and stable (entrenched, written) but its branches also capable of organic growth and expansion (amendable, re-written), adapting to new contemporary circumstances or evolving normative beliefs – though only able to expand within its natural limits. Think of fixity and flexibility as two competing worlds – in tension with each other. This has become the chief problem for legal thinkers: how to reconcile the idea of a fixed body of law, affording little flexibility for individual willfulness. It is this same struggle working its way through the fabric of Christianity, for just as the principles of justice are fixed – true in some standard way … can we say that the principles set out by God are fixed as well – though true in every way? Not so quick, say some Christians.
A good example of Bible fixity jettisoned for flexibility can be found in the writing of Rob Bell, author of “Love Wins’ and “The Velvet Elvis”– two books which struggle to embrace core Biblical values. Consider Bell’s treatment of heaven. While he pretty much mentions every verse on heaven he can locate, when it comes to hell (or judgment), he is highly selective. Consider:
“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46 NASB). Sounds straight forward, but apparently not. Here is Bell’s spin: “‘aion of kolazo’ gets translated as ‘eternal punishment,’ which many read to mean ‘punishment forever,’ as in never going to end. But ‘forever’ is not really a category the Biblical writers used” (Love Wins. p. 91-92).
Bell is clearly confused, because actually, Jesus uses the same words to describe both hell and heaven here – Κόλασίν αίωνίον – punishment eternal and ζωην αίωνίον – life eternal. So – both are eternal! Either Bell is confused … OR Jesus is wrong here and heaven is merely temporary as well.
I am tempted to believe no one in their right Christological mind thinks Jesus came to affirm our feelings and sense of justice, not rescue us from our bondage to sin. But I would be fooling myself.
There has been a seismic shift away from the historic truths of the Christian faith happening within Christianity and it is evidenced in the growing wave of Progressive Christians like Rob Bell – and his progressive colleagues like Richard Rohr, Jen Hatmaker, Brian McLaren, Brian Zahnd, Greg Boyd, Peter Enns, David Hayward (aka nakedpastor.com) and Glennon Doyle – each whom take core truths in Scripture – and see them ‘differently,’ substituting long-held and clearly articulated fixity doctrines … for ‘speculative flexibility’ doctrines.
Cognitive contamination has so softened
Conservative Christian thinking that it seems
unaware of the core theological differences between themselves and Progressive Christians.
Admittedly, some stuff that passes for Bible truth is too crazy to possibly believe (e.g. Joyce Meiers: “Jesus was the first person born again.”, or Kenneth Copeland: God is "very much like you and me …. a being that stands somewhere around 6'2," 6'3," that weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds” and “Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was God manifested in the flesh.” [1] But with Progressive Christianity, there is a subtly to their message in that they use the same language but load it with different meaning and half-truths – making much of what they say so dangerously appealing – and yet so spiritually deadly!
Returning to the subject of wrath, Brian Zahnd, the lead pastor Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri could be the poster boy for Progressive Christianity when it comes to the subject of hell and its de-emphasis on salvation. For most progressives, hell is simply a human construct intended to create fear. The ‘real’ hell for them is the present injustices marginalized folks experience each day. Listen to how Zahnd sells his social gospel in his book, Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God.
“You have nothing to fear from God. God is not mad at you. God has never been mad at you. God is never going to be mad at you … The monster god has faded away, and today I preach the beauty of God revealed in the face of Christ. But that doesn’t mean there are no monsters. The monsters of war, violence, greed, exploitation, oppression, racism, genocide, and every other form of antihuman abuse continues to inflict our species with unimaginable suffering …. Viewing the cross as payment to God for our personal debt of sin ignores the deep problem of systematic sin.” (Brian Zahnd, Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God, 2017, 20-22, 106)
Did you see what he did? He created a wedge between the Bible … and the Bible. Wow! Sorry, but this “monster god” he sees in the Older Testament does not exist. Marcion, that notorious heretic of the 2nd century tried to categorize God in the same way – and did not get away with it. Nor should Zahnd and his demonstrated “spirit of Marcion.” He should be called out for his contemporary heresy! Still … given Zahnd’s full rejection of substitutionary atonement and his redefining of the wrath of God as self-inflicted suffering for “going against the grain of love” (his words; p. 16), I am not surprised to see him projecting his failed theological experience on others – with its false dichotomies and misrepresentations. My response to Zahnd is best reflected in the words of Johnathan Edwards himself, who said “How dieth the wise man? As a fool!” (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, July 8, 1741).
So that no one be offended by ‘fundamentalist’ beliefs, the values of our world fight for a place in the
public voice of the church … and the church responds
to these demands for conformity by – conforming.
This is the ‘New Gospel.’
In their book, One Faith No Longer (NYU Press, 2021), George Yancy and Ashlee Quosigk argue that the divisions between Conservative and Progressive Christians have indeed become so broad that they are best thought of as two separate religions – with fundamentally different belief systems and core values. In fact, “… the social enmity between them can be as strong as ̶ or perhaps stronger than – social enmity between Christians and non-Christians.” (p. 3). A work of scholarly sociology, they draw on both quantitative data and interviews to make a convincing case that these two groups are intractably in opposition to each other. The book deserves more than a cursory reading, but here are a few tidbits from the book:
“The humanist approach to faith that is characteristic of Progressive Christians is often seen to be similar to the epistemological understandings of secularists (Metzger, 2013). Consequently, Progressive Christians could find more in common with atheists who reject Christianity’s theology, but who share similar social values of social justice than they do with conservative Christians.” (p. 12)
“Given their relative desire for progress toward certain political goals, political agreement can be more important for Progressive Christians than theological agreement … political alliance is likely more important than religious identity…” (p.32)
“This contrast of moral authorities is evident in the differences in reasoning often found between progressives and conservatives, with progressives often appealing to personal experience and using a humanistic ethic of social justice to view scripture and conservatives often appealing to historical doctrines …” (p. 87)
Progressive Christians emphasize “a humanistic ethic of social justice …. They aspire to live a life based on personal fulfillment and individual values. They believe the understanding of truth and best practices is on an upward trajectory and more flexible …” (p. 142)
Sorry, but Jesus is not a cultural bobble-head
that agrees with everything we are obsessive
with – even if it is social injustice.
“The humanistic principle of valuing all humans as they are … dissuades Progressive Christians from viewing themselves as ‘fallen’ or as needing to be converted to become acceptable in God’s eyes.” (p. 147)
“Progressive Christians clearly hold Jesus in high esteem, seeing Him as important to talk about, but not necessarily for the purpose of eternal salvation.” (p. 149)
The pithy, but non-sensical mush of Progressive David Hayward (aka Nakedpastor.com, who deconstructed from the church) helps us understand how flexible progressive theology is when compared to Christian conservatives. He writes, “The difference between me and you is, you use scripture to determine what love means and I use love to determine what scripture means.” So cute!
Another popular Christian Progressive, Glennon Doyle, has over two million followers on Instagram. Leaving her husband of 14 years in 2016 for a lesbian relationship with soccer god Abby Wambach, she wrote “Untamed,” her story of unlearning everything she was taught about family, gender, sex, faith, God and Christianity – so that she could create her own happiness. Doyle’s theology advocates for emancipating oneself from categories of right or wrong and putting yourself and your desires first. “I now take orders only from my own Knowing,” the preacher boasts! No Bible for her! Nope! Just plain self-trust chasing unrealized ambition.
Referencing the example of Eve in Genesis 3, she writes, “Maybe Eve was never meant to be our warning. Maybe she was meant to be our model. Own your wanting. Eat the apple.”
Since everyone comes from somewhere, not nowhere, it seems easy to conclude that her push for feminist spirituality and a morally-relative self, deeply influences Doyle’s interpretation of Eve. Alluding to Exodus 3 she asks: “What are you, Glennon?” and replies “I am, I am, I am.” So deep … and counterfeit!
A Christian worldview provides the backdrop
for a biblical concept of human dignity, social justice, liberty and morality. Still, support for these Christian essentials should not exacerbate our confusion between the regenerate and unregenerate. I suspect it has
among some limp-minded evangelicals.
In the end, this Christianized form of Jambalaya might celebrate faith, but it is surely not “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” that Jude (vs 3) speaks of, or what James, his brother, wrote was able to “save souls” (James 1:21). We should not confuse our personal faith and our trusting in Jesus to save us, with the message of how Jesus saves us – through His death and resurrection. Interestingly, Jude is not the only place where the definite article “the” is connected to “faith”.
“a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith” (Acts 6:7)
“… that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” (I Timothy 4:1)
“The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy” (Galatians 1:23)
“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith. Act like men; be strong” (I Corinthians 16:13)
“… I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel …” (Philippians 1:27)
Sometimes Paul will even paraphrase “the faith” by referring to it as “the traditions” (2 Thessalonians 2:15), the “pattern of sound words … and the good deposit” that was passed on to “faithful men, who will be able to teach others” (2 Timothy 1:13-14; 2:2). In each instance, the apostle is not calling believers to hang on to the subjective trust they place in the Lord, but that objective and concrete revelation of God given by the prophets and Apostles and that comes to us in the form of Scripture. This is “the faith” that Progressive Christians bastardize … and which prompts “One Faith No Longer” authors to conclude it best to treat it as a separate religion.
“The faith” has been crystallized into creeds and catechisms, hammered into systematic theologies and occupied a central role in church hymnology. Progressive Christianity has substituted it for the guiding light of personal faith experience and journey.
Some readers might think, “What we have here are simply contrasting expressions of Christianity. Nothing to worry over.” Well, for sure I am not worrying … but when Progressive Christians are driven by a different understanding of morality (e.g. abortion over sanctity of life), the nature of Jesus and whether He is the only path to salvation (Acts 4:12) [2], non-accepting of the Bible as without error … minimize salvation and judgment while maximizing a political, social order that downplays any notion of exclusive truth … challenges the wisdom and core values of scripture to shape our current society …
sees proselytizing as a violation of their progressive Christian values, reinvents rather
than interprets Scripture … and prefers atheists to fellow conservative believers, then
the goals of Progressive and Conservative Christians are not simply ‘different,’’ they are oppositional! [3]
Christian Jambalaya is bad restaurant food. Eat it if you dare, but in the words of 2 Kings (4:39-41), “There is death in the pot.” Still, it shows me just how weird and narcissistic mainstream Christianity has become both here in Canada and among our neighbors to
the south. I foresee that the divide between Progressive and Conservative Christianity within denominations, mine included, will become so wide that ‘loss’ is inevitable. “OnlySaying…”
1. Joyce Meyers, The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make, p. 35, 1991 edition. Kenneth Copeland, Spirit, Soul and Body I, side 1; Copeland, Following the Faith of Abraham I, side 1.
2. Progressive Christians have serious questions over whether people are inherently good or sinful, and reject the notion that Jesus reconciled sinners to God by being their substitute punishment on the cross (Penal Substitutionary Atonement), arguing it “turns Jesus into a magical scapegoat and God into a bookkeeper who wants debts paid.” See https://blog.loukavar.com/2017/04/05/a-progressive-christian-minister-reconsiders-atonement/
3. John Pilppo’s Deconstructing Progressive Christianity (2021), offers a helpful understanding of how it is different from historic Christianity. Finally, if you would like to read the ‘actual thinking’ of a Progressive Christian, then try the following blog: https://marcusjborg.org/posts-by-marcus/a-letter-about-jesus/ Absurd, comes to mind … as the author belittles the humanity/deity (called hypo-static union) of Jesus.
Comments