The Problems with Progressive Christianity

1 x

Is Progressive Christianity “Another Gospel”? with Alisa Childers

How We Got Here: A History of Progressive Christianity

Editor’s Note:

Every week there seems to be a new headline on social media about a Christian pastor, author, blogger, musician, worship leader, or YouTube celebrity de-converting from Christianity or re-inventing historic Christian doctrines. The common thread in many of these stories is Progressive Christianity. But what is progressive Christianity? Where did it come from? Why is it growing in popularity? And most importantly, is Progressive Christianity consistent with the Gospel and Scripture? These are just a few of the questions that our special guest writer, Alisa Childers, will be addressing in this series of articles on Progressive Christianity.

Alisa has a powerful story of walking through significant doubts on the way to a stronger faith and she cares deeply about preparing students with the truth, so they are not taken in by the subtle lies packaged within Progressive Christianity. A compelling speaker and author, Alisa teaches on this vital topic to our Impact 360 students both during the summer at Propel and Immersion, but also during our 9-month Christian Gap Year, Impact 360 Fellows. We are committed to cultivating leaders who follow Jesus in the next generation and this is an undercurrent that needs to be addressed. I’ve seen Alisa’s powerful message firsthand and am so glad that we can learn together in this important series.

Jonathan Morrow, Director of Cultural Engagement and Student Discipleship, Impact 360 Institute

Part 1- How We Got Here: A History of Progressive Christianity

A few hundred years after Jesus’ resurrection, a man named Augustine found himself sucked into a cult called the Manichaeans, who believed in Jesus, used Scripture to support their doctrines, and claimed their founder was the “Spirit of truth” Jesus promised would come after He ascended into heaven. Although Augustine was raised by a devout Christian mother, he became dazzled by the new and exciting promises that put a fresh spin on the Christianity he grew up with. It probably didn’t hurt that their beliefs permitted him to sleep with his girlfriend while pursuing his theological studies and perfecting his spiritual mind. As a philosopher, perpetual deep thinker, (and smartest guy in the room), Augustine had many questions that left his local Manichaean leaders scratching their heads.

They promised that if he could just meet a guy named Faustus, all his questions would be answered. Faustus was famous for being the most knowledgeable, acute, and brilliant defender of Manichaean beliefs. When Augustine was finally able to meet him, he found him to be the brilliant orator everyone said he was. He observed Faustus’ charm and charisma. Outside of those personality traits, however, Augustine found little to be impressed by. Faustus was not able to answer his questions, which caused Augustine to doubt his newfound belief system and eventually led him to become a true Christian.

The Manichaeans believed that the teachings of Jesus were incomplete and that they had revelations that would usher in true religion for everyone. In this way, they believed religion could progress beyond what was revealed in Scripture. In order to defend these ideas, Faustus wrote against the reliability of the Bible. He would twist, re-interpret, or omit the parts of Scripture that didn’t line up with Manichaean thought. After Augustine’s conversion to Christianity, he wrote a fairly comprehensive response to Faustus’ attack on the authorship of the gospels. He wrote: “You ought to say plainly that you do not believe the gospel of Christ. For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves and not the gospel.”[I]

“You ought to say plainly that you do not believe the gospel of Christ. For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves and not the gospel”

– St. Augustine

Saint Augustine- Public Domain

Augustine put his finger on a timeless truth. Christianity is not progressive…and those who try to mold it into their own preconceived ideas about who God should be, and what the gospel is should not try and twist Scripture to make their points. And they certainly shouldn’t call it “Christian.” But that is exactly what was happening in Augustine’s time, and it is what is happening today.

There is a growing movement in the church that seeks to re-interpret the Bible, re-assess historic doctrines, and re-define core tenets of the faith. All the while, this movement identifies itself as “Christian,” claims to follow Jesus, and boasts a high view of Scripture. But as we’ll see in this series, they are leading many unsuspecting Christians astray, and confusing the body of Christ about what the Bible is, what Jesus accomplished on the cross, and what the good news of the gospel proclaims.

But we shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. From as early as the New Testament was being written, heresies and false doctrines began finding their way into the church. After all, Jesus was the one who told us this would happen. “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves,” Jesus warned. Jesus not only predicted that Christians would be tempted by these false doctrines but pointed out that these teachings would be peddled by people who claim to be Christians. They would look like sheep, walk like sheep, and talk like sheep. But they would not be sheep—they would be predators looking to feast on the sheep.

Emergent Christianity

Back in the early 2000s, some Christian leaders got together to attempt to adapt Christianity to the post-modern mindset that was beginning to pervade culture. They were re-examining the methods the church had been using to reach the world and questioning some of the more legalistic, hypocritical, and downright cheesy elements of modern evangelicalism. But as the movement began to embrace mysticism and emphasize spirituality over religion, apologists and theologians expressed concern over the lack of a concrete belief statement among those involved. In 2006, Emergent leader Tony Jones published an article written by theologian LeRon Shults on emergentvillage.com (now a home and lifestyle magazine), about why there was no official statement of faith. Shults wrote:

A “statement of faith” tends to stop conversation. . . . Too often they create an environment in which real conversation is avoided out of fear that critical reflection on one or more of the sacred propositions will lead to excommunication from the community.[ii]

As the Emergents distanced themselves from a Christianity defined by beliefs and creeds, this different version of faith gained popularity among those disillusioned and disenfranchised by evangelicalism. This birthed “A New Kind of Christianity,” which titled Brian McLaren’s 2010 book. In it, he argues that the Christian notion of a good creation being marred by original sin, redemption by blood atonement, and the restoration of all things in heaven, to be pagan ideas borrowed from Greco-Roman philosophy.

McLaren claims that the true gospel can be known by reading the Jesus story through a Jewish lens. According to McLaren, this means it’s not really about who is “in or out,” or who goes to heaven or hell when they die. He describes Jesus as a “liberator King” who came to offer a kingdom that has “room for many religious traditions within it.”[iii] This type of kingdom champions causes like health care reform, green energy, climate change, and a “regenerative economy.”[iv]

With its denials of original sin and the blood atonement of Jesus, and emphasis on social justice, this new kind of Christianity was largely opposed by Evangelical church leaders. To this day, many think the Emergent movement just sort of fizzled out. However, in a 2012 blog post, Brian McLaren wrote that although they don’t still call it “Emergent,” it is actually stronger than ever. While it’s true the movement was driven underground, the conversation continued, the movement grew in boldness and in numbers, and essentially re-emerged as “progressive Christianity.”

The difference between Emergent Christianity and Progressive Christianity is location. While the Emergents were on the fringes of Christian culture, the progressives now seem to be driving it. With progressive Christian leaders penning best-selling books, garnering millions of followers on social media platforms, and producing podcasts that are regularly found in the top 10 of iTunes religion and spirituality category, their influence is incalculable.

St. Ignatius – Public Domain

But a careful eye to church history will demonstrate that every generation of Christians have had false doctrines, aberrant movements, and wolves in sheep’s clothing to deal with. Around the turn of the first century, church father Ignatius was writing against the heretics of his day, the gnostics. His words carry a familiar ring:

“For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death… For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection.”[v]

These words could be written about the progressive movement today. As we’ll see in the next post, progressive Christians tend to pit Jesus against the God of the Old Testament, declare the atonement to be “cosmic child abuse,” and emphasize the resurrection as illuminating a helpful metaphor over being a historical fact. By using many of the same words, and maintaining the title “Christian,” they mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison.

But like Augustine confronting Faustus and Ignatius opposing the gnostics, we can be encouraged to know that the historic gospel of Jesus Christ is still true, despite the many attacks against it. It’s our turn to speak truth in the lies, and we have the faithful witness of the historic church rooted in the reality of the resurrection and inspired Scripture to give us the courage to do just that.

It’s our turn to speak truth in the lies, and we have the faithful witness of the historic church rooted in the reality of the resurrection and inspired Scripture to give us the courage to do just that. @alisachilders

[i] Augustine, “Contra Faustum, Book XVII,” in The Church Fathers, loc. 248970, Kindle.

[ii] From statement by LeRon Shults in “Doctrinal Statement(?),” Emergent Village, May 4, 2006, https://emergent-us.typepad.com/ emergentus/2006/05/doctrinal_state.html.

[iii] Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2010), 139, Kindle.

[iv] Ibid., 63

[v] The Church Fathers. The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection: 3 Series, 37 Volumes, 65 Authors, 1,000 Books, 18,000 Chapters, 16 Million Words . Catholic Way Publishing. Kindle location: 3447

SUBSCRIBE HERE for email updates with new content weekly

Go Deeper:

How Can I Engage with My Progressive Christian Friends? | Alisa Childers

What is Progressive Christianity? | Alisa Childers

What are the Cultural Signs of Progressive Christianity?

What are the Cultural Signs of Progressive Christianity? Have you ever picked up a popular book at your local Christian bookstore, only to be confused when you read statements like, “The Bible is primarily a human book”? Or perhaps you’ve listened to a prominent Christian speaker only to be stopped in your tracks by their ambiguity regarding biblical sexuality and same-sex relationships. Maybe you’ve read a blog post written by a Christian pastor who portrayed the doctrine of substitutionary atonement as immoral and abusive. Maybe you’ve come across a tweet that claimed we need to “decolonize” our interpretations of Scripture. These are common ideas promoted within progressive Christianity.

Progressive Christianity can be a bit difficult to spot because typically speaking, progressive Christians aren’t united around an official creed or set of beliefs. In fact, progressive Christianity emphasizes action over belief; what you do over who you place your faith in. They use much of the same vocabulary as historic Christians, practice many of the same sacraments—like baptism and communion—and may even sing hymns and recite ancient creeds and liturgies. However, for progressive Christians, these words, phrases, sacraments, and traditions take on a whole new meaning. This is why it can be confusing and frustrating to identify their ideas in popular books, blogs, podcasts, and sermons. However, there are some very concrete beliefs and assumptions that undergird this growing movement, even if they aren’t recorded in an official creed. Moreover, there are certain warning signs to look for that can be cultural or theological in nature. In this post, we’ll look at the cultural signs.

Cultural Signs

From their refusal to offer a pinch of incense in worship of Caesar to their views on marriage and abortion from the first century until now, Christians have been marked by their refusal to capitulate to the false ideas of culture. However, one of the hallmarks of progressive Christianity is its tendency to flow with societal norms.

“Christians have been marked by their refusal to capitulate to the false ideas of culture. However, one of the hallmarks of progressive Christianity is its tendency to flow with societal norms.” @alisachilders

Sexuality – Biblical boundaries are removed

In early 2019, progressive Lutheran minister Nadia Bolz-Weber wrote a book about sexuality called, Shameless: A Sexual Reformation. In it, she argued that the idea that sex should be between one man and one woman within the covenant of marriage for life was not just incorrect, but harmful. She recommended reinventing the Christian sexual ethic to allow Christians to pursue sexual fulfillment as defined by the World Health Organization as being grounded in consent and mutuality. With the biblical boundaries for sex removed, she writes, “Whatever sexual flourishing looks like for you, that’s what I would love to see happen in your life” (p. 60) With this redefinition of sexual flourishing, Bolz-Weber approves of sex outside of marriage (even one-night stands), homosexual sex, and moderate use of pornography. And she isn’t a lone voice in the wilderness. Shameless was endorsed and promoted by many other prominent progressive Christian leaders such as Rachel Held Evans, Glennon Doyle, Sarah Bessey, Richard Rohr, and Austin Channing Brown. With prominent progressive Christian personalities like Jen Hatmaker, Sarah Bessey, Rob Bell, and Jim Wallis all speaking out in favor of same-sex marriage within the last couple of decades, one of the key goals of progressive Christianity is to change the church’s mind on this hot-button issue.

Relativism – What’s true for you is true for you

Relativism essentially claims that truth cannot be discovered, known, or argued for. In other words, no one can claim to understand reality, which you might hear more commonly summarized in the mantra, “what’s true for you is true for you and what’s true for me is true for me.” The problem is that Christianity doesn’t give us the option to be relativists. Christianity is a belief system that is deeply rooted in absolute truth. In fact, it stands or falls based on a historical event being true…or false. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, “And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” If Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, we might as well pack it up and call it a day.

Generally speaking, the progressive Christian mindset has largely accepted a relativistic view of reality, which is why we often see progressive Christians refer to the resurrection as a non-literal metaphor and Old Testament historical narratives as mythical stories from which we can learn good moral lessons.

Critical Theory – A Social Gospel in Disguise

One cultural trend that has become more and more accepted in the progressive Christian movement is a philosophical concept called critical theory. Critical theory sees the world as a struggle between oppressed groups and their oppressors and seeks to recalibrate power in favor of the marginalized. (This power is understood along the lines of race, gender, ethnicity, class, sexuality, and many other factors.) It downplays the idea that truth can be determined by rational thought and prioritizes “lived experience” and identity. In other words, those who have experienced greater oppression have a greater ability to discern truth than those who are more privileged.

Recently, progressive leader Jen Hatmaker wrote a post on Facebook illustrating views which seem to be informed by critical theory. She wrote, “When white, mostly male, straight married, able-bodied people with a certain threshold of money and power are at the center of the narrative, we will never correctly identify good fruit…privilege is a reliable enemy of discernment.” Interestingly, Hatmaker is in all of those categories except for one, which according to her statement, identifies her as highly privileged. However, this post displays the logical incoherence of critical theory. According to her own statement, we should doubt her discernment.

Aside from its logical inconsistency, critical theory stands in opposition to the gospel at several points. It functions as a worldview that sees our identity as being how we relate to other groups defined by our race, class, and gender, rather than as being image-bearers of God. According to critical theory, sin isn’t what is wrong with the world, but oppression, which is fixed by activism, raised awareness, and the overthrow of oppressive systems, rather than the blood atonement of Christ.

“According to critical theory, sin isn’t what is wrong with the world, but oppression, which is fixed by activism, raised awareness, and the overthrow of oppressive systems, rather than the blood atonement of Christ.” @alisachilders

We can all look around and see that something is terribly wrong with the world. As Christians, we observe the brokenness around us and are rightly grieved by things like racism, poverty, exploitation, and systematic oppression. This is why utilizing critical theory can be an attractive option to solve some of these problems. It can seem like the loving and just thing to do. However, critical theory isn’t just a list of things we can do to make the world better. It isn’t simply a philosophy that gives us practical tools for standing up to injustice as we fulfill the great commission. Critical theory actually functions as a worldview, and when you lay it side by side with the Christian worldview, it stands in opposition at several points. Consider some questions every worldview accounts for and compare those to the answers given by the Christian worldview:

Who are we? According to the Christian worldview, human beings are a special creation made in the image of God Himself. According to critical theory, our identity is not found in who we were created to be, but in how we relate to other groups as defined by our class, gender, and sexual preference etc.
What is wrong with the world? According to the Christian worldview, God created a good world that has become marred by sin. Critical theory sees oppression, rather than sin as the core of what’s wrong in the world.
How is this problem fixed? According to the Christian worldview, the problem of sin is cured by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross to pay for our sins, reconcile us to God, and secure victory over the powers of sin and death. According to critical theory, the problem of oppression is fixed by activism, raised awareness, and the overthrow of oppressive systems and their power.
What is the meaning of life? The Christian worldview teaches that the meaning of life is to glorify God, whereas critical theory teaches it’s to free groups from oppression.

As Christians, we are called to do good works. There’s no question about it. In fact, James 2:26 tells us that “faith without works is dead.” But when someone begins to adopt the ideas of critical theory, it can slowly start to erode their Christian worldview by taking their eyes off the eternal truths of who God is and what He has done in the world. For example, critical theory classifies the biblical definition of sexuality as oppressive—a problem to be solved. This has confused many an unsuspecting Christian and even caused many to slowly slide into progressive Christianity, which exchanges a grace-based gospel for a works-based gospel.

As you can see, progressive Christian beliefs regarding culture are heavily influenced by secular thought rather than biblical revelation. When biblical teachings become socially unacceptable, progressive Christianity tends to ebb and flow with culture, rather than following the historic Christian tradition of upholding biblical truth. In our next post, we’ll look at some theological signs and how those points fail to align with historic Christianity.

SUBSCRIBE HERE for email updates with new content weekly

Go Deeper:

How to Recognize Progressive Christianity Through Theology

Theology matters because beliefs are connected with behavior. In addition to this fact, one’s theology also reveals the true source of authority serving as the ultimate foundation. Am I going to be faithful to Scripture or conform to what is culturally comfortable? A recent example of this is the book, Untamed, by Glennon Doyle, which is #1 on Amazon’s “Christian self-help” category and currently #1 on the New York Times best-seller list. It is written from a loosely Christian perspective, utilizes Scripture, and speaks about God, faith, Christianity, and morality. It also teaches that you can find God within yourself, promotes moral relativism, teaches that sexuality and gender are fluid, and blames the Bible for creating a culture that oppresses women.

My hunch is that the average Christian might read that first paragraph with a bit of surprise and shock. How can someone who is accepted within a “Christian” paradigm believe and teach these things? The answer to that question can be found by understanding progressive Christianity. Progressives are not just a group of Christians who are changing their minds on social issues and politics. According to their most prominent thought leaders, authors, and speakers, they often deny core essential doctrines of the faith, which leads them to preach an entirely different gospel. As I have researched their books, blogs, and podcasts, I have discovered some theological signs to look for when trying to identify this movement.

“Progressives are not just a group of Christians who are changing their minds on social issues and politics…they often deny core essential doctrines of the faith, which leads them to preach an entirely different gospel.” @alisachilders

Theological Signs

The Bible – An ancient spiritual travel journal?

Progressive Christians view the Bible as a record of what people believed about God in the times and places in which they lived, rather than the inspired and authoritative Word of God. It’s not uncommon for a progressive Christian to express disagreement with a biblical writer, or to reject the passages they find unhelpful. In fact, progressive leader Richard Rohr encourages Christians to ignore, deny, and even openly oppose Scriptures that are “imperialistic, punitive, exclusionary, or tribal.” [i]

This matters because if we give ourselves permission to deny or ignore the Scriptures that don’t fit into our preconceived ideas about who God is and how he acts in the world, we will have effectively transferred the authority for truth from the Bible to our own thoughts, feelings, and preferences.

The Atonement – Cosmic Child Abuse?

Progressive Christians generally reject the doctrine of original sin, trading it for a concept called “Original Blessing” or “Original Goodness.”[ii] If we aren’t inherently sinful and separated from God by our sin, Jesus’ death becomes more of an example of love and forgiveness to follow than an atoning sacrifice that reconciles us to the Father. There are various atonement theories that are based on Scripture and help us have a complete picture of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Christus Victor helps us understand that Jesus came to defeat the powers of sin, death, and the devil. The Bible uses language of “ransom” to describe a price being paid. The Moral Influence theory gives us Jesus as an example of love and forgiveness to follow. Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory illustrates how Jesus took the punishment of our sins upon himself and satisfied the wrath of God we should have received. All of these theories come together to give us a complete picture of what Jesus accomplished on the cross.

In progressive circles, however, the idea that God would require the blood sacrifice of his only Son makes God the Father out to be some kind of divine child abuser. Thus, they often deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Michael Gungor, musician and host of The Liturgists Podcast, wrote, “I would love to hear more artists who sing to God and fewer who include a Father murdering a son in that endeavor.”[iii] And, “. . . that God needed to be appeased with blood is not beautiful. It’s horrific.”[iv]

This shift matters because, without the substitutionary atonement of Christ, there is no mechanism for the individual to be reconciled to God. In the progressive view, Jesus defeats the power of sin and death and gives us an example to follow but gives us no solution for the sins we actually commit.

Resurrection – Historical event or helpful metaphor?

With a lowered view of the Bible and a rejection of the atonement, the next domino to fall will naturally be the resurrection. If sin doesn’t separate us from God and Jesus didn’t really need to die to reconcile us to the Father, his physical resurrection becomes a bit of a moot point. To be sure, not every progressive Christian denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus. However, as we learned in the last post of this series, action is emphasized over belief. So, what one actually believes about the resurrection becomes of less importance.

A few years ago, a popular progressive blogger published a post written by a progressive Children’s pastor about how to talk to your kids about Easter. In it, she wrote, “the point of the Easter story isn’t whether or not Jesus LITERALLY rose from the dead. We’re missing the point if we’re fighting over the historical accuracy of a bodily resurrection.” She went on to advise parents to tell their kids that “stories don’t have to be factual to speak truth.” Often the emphasis is shifted from it being a historical reality to the lessons we can learn from the story.

This matters because the Apostle Paul wrote, “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is in vain and so is your faith … And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.” (1 Cor. 15: 14,17) The truth of Christianity stands or falls based on the resurrection of Jesus being an actual historical event. Scripture tells us that if it didn’t happen, then we have no hope for salvation.

“The truth of Christianity stands or falls based on the resurrection of Jesus being an actual historical event. Scripture tells us that if it didn’t happen, then we have no hope for salvation.” @alisachilders

Heaven, Hell, and Final Judgment

Let’s look at progressive Christian theology like a set of building blocks. Without sin, atonement, and resurrection, there’s nowhere for the Heaven and Hell block to stand. If we were never separated from God in the first place, what would be the purpose of separating people out into Heaven and Hell for eternity? This is why many progressive Christians affirm some form of universalism, the idea that all humans (and, in some cases, all of creation and even fallen angels) will be saved and spend eternity with God. Nadia Bolz-Weber said, “I confess that I am a Christo-centric universalist. What that means to me is that whatever God was accomplishing, especially on the cross, that Christological event, was for the restoration and redemption and reconciliation of all things and all people and all Creation—everyone.”[v]

One of the most popular Christian books of all time is The Shack, which has sold over 20 million copies to date, and spent 136 weeks on the New York Times Best-seller list.[vi] Its theological influence on the Evangelical church is incalculable. A few years ago, its author, William Paul Young, wrote a book called Lies We Believe About God, which illuminated the theology that informed The Shack. In it, he wrote that he believes everyone will be saved, and calls this view “universal salvation.” [vii]

This matters because hell is God’s way of quarantining evil forever. Essentially, God’s promise to make all things new, and wipe every tear from our eyes is based upon the fact that he will deal with evil once and for all. Heaven is the pinnacle of God’s great rescue plan—one that he offers everyone. It’s a place where those who have put their trust in Jesus will spend eternity with the God they love. Everyone is invited, but he cannot let anyone bring their sin. If he did, he would essentially be standing in solidarity with us but be impotent to save us. As J. Gresham Machen wrote, “Such a God may deliver us from the fear of hell. But His heaven, if He has any, is full of sin.”[viii]

As you can see, progressive Christian theological beliefs are not simply secondary issues we can agree to disagree about. The progressive Christian movement is promoting a Bible that is not authoritative, a Jesus who didn’t die for you, and a God who cannot save you. Put simply, it’s another gospel— and not the good news that truly sets us free for life as God intended.

In our next post, we’ll take a look at what is underpinning much of the cultural and theological assumptions underneath progressive Christian beliefs. We’ll ask the question, “What is good?” and discuss the definition of good, and how it informs our beliefs about who we are, who God is, and how he reveals himself in the world.

[i] Richard Rohr, The Divine Dance (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2016), Kindle loc. 2827–2828

[ii] See Felten, David. Living the Questions . HarperOne. Kindle Edition, location 1822 of 5012

[iii] Michael Gungor (@Michael Gungor), Twitter, February 25, 2017, 9:57 am, https://twitter.com/michaelgungor/status/835549384079093760.

[iv] Michael Gungor (@Michael Gungor), Twitter, February 26, 2017, 4:31 pm, https://twitter.com/michaelgungor/status/836010890566725632?lang=en

[v] Jesse James DeConto, “For All the Sinners and Saints: An Interview with Nadia Bolz-Weber,” Religion & Politics, July 28, 2015, https://religionandpolitics.org/2015/07/28/for-all-the-sinners-and-saints-an-interview-with-nadia-bolz-weber/.

[vi] Larry Getlen, “This Man Wrote a Small Book for His Family—and It Became a Best-Seller,” New York Post, December 25, 2016, https://nypost.com/2016/12/25/this-man-wrote-a-small-book-for-his-family-and-it-became-a-best-seller/.

[vii] William Paul Young, Lies We Believe about God (New York: Atria Books, 2017), 118.

[viii] Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. Kindle Edition location 1813 of 2451.

Go Deeper:

How to Reach our Progressive Friends

Several years ago, I went through an intense time of doubt after my faith was rocked in a class led by a pastor who admitted he was an agnostic, and who would later identify himself as a “progressive Christian.” At the time, I had never heard of progressive Christianity. Our class was just a dozen or so sincere Christians who wanted to think deeper about our faith. But as the class progressed, my discomfort with what was being taught grew deeper. Historic doctrines were picked apart and discarded while biblical teachings were discredited. New doctrines and beliefs were put in their place. I watched with sadness as many of my classmates became beguiled by this new kind of Christianity.

These were smart and earnest people. They invested countless hours each week reading, studying, and preparing for the next class discussion. They were deeply persuaded that the church had gotten Christianity wrong and that it needed to be re-framed for a modern context. Many of them began to share the reasons they were changing their minds about key defining factors of Christianity.

One classmate expressed that despite the fervent prayers of his family and church community, his wife’s chronic and painful physical ailments had never improved. Another classmate shared that he had visited a Buddhist temple in Thailand and observed the sincerity of the monks’ prayers as they lie prostrate. He expressed that he could not believe that God would reject their worship. Still another articulated that he had grown up in a hyper-legalistic sect of Christianity that vilified other denominations and taught that everyone except for their small circle was going to hell. Another explained that she abandoned her beliefs after reading difficult passages in Scripture that challenged her view of God’s character. Others abandoned their prior beliefs because they had come to disagree with the sexual ethics taught in the Bible. Since then, I’ve met people who embraced progressive Christianity after witnessing hypocrisy, surviving abuse, or being taught caricatured versions of core doctrines in their given church settings.

As several of my friends began identifying themselves as progressive Christians, conversations became more difficult. Sometimes we talked past each other and misunderstood each other. After I left the class and went through my own doubt and deconstruction, some Christians in my life reacted in ways that were helpful, others not so helpful. Here are three things I’ve learned about how to have better conversations, especially surrounding topics in which emotions run high.

Three things I’ve learned about how to have better conversations with my progressive friends

Understand the context

It’s commonly said that we should look for the question behind the question. This means that we should not only seek to provide an answer, but we should seek to understand why the person is asking in the first place. For example, often when someone asks a question about the goodness of God or why He might allow suffering in the world, he most likely isn’t making an abstract philosophical inquiry. If a woman has just lost her husband to a car accident involving a drunk driver, she is probably not looking for a dissertation on free-will vs. predestination when she asks, “How could God allow evil?”

In my research, I’ve discovered that one of the main reasons people deconstruct into progressive Christianity is because they have an unresolved answer to the problem of evil. In recent years, former Caedmon’s Call lead singer, Derek Webb, declared atheism after a long association with progressive Christianity. In a podcast episode describing his journey, he expressed that God is either non-existent or he’s evil. (Webb used a much more colorful metaphor).

Lisa Gungor, one half of the Christian musical duo, Gungor, communicated that her deconstruction from a more conservative Christian faith was a result of hitting rock bottom after her cousin’s bout with cancer. There are very real stories, faces, and experiences that inform the types of questions we all ask.

It’s important to be good listeners. James 1:19 says, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.” People can end up talking past each other if they don’t listen deeply to one another’s comments and questions while seeking to understand.

“It’s important to be good listeners…People can end up talking past each other if they don’t listen deeply to one another’s comments and questions while seeking to understand.” @AlisaChilders

Ask good questions

Conversations surrounding progressive Christianity are often emotionally charged. One way to avoid unnecessary conflict and diffuse tension is to ask really good questions. When you don’t make truth claims, you avoid having to defend those truth claims. That’s not to say we shouldn’t ever speak truth. There is a time for that. But rather than trying to hit your progressive friend with an internet-winning zinger, asking a well-placed question is a powerful way to not only better comprehend their belief, but to actually expose its weak points.

The burden of proof is on the one who is making the claim—not the other way around. Once, a progressive friend claimed that Jesus was not judgmental, didn’t exclude anyone, and would never use labels to describe people. My knee-jerk reaction was to point out that according to the Bible, Jesus is actually THE judge of everyone who has ever lived or will live. That he excluded lots of people, including the money changers whose temple tables he flipped, along with “everyone who does not do the will of my Father” (Matthew 7:22-23). And that he actually used labels to describe people all the time. For example, he called the aforementioned money changers “robbers.”

However, I resisted the urge to drop the truth bomb and asked a question instead. “That’s interesting. Where do you get your information about Jesus from?” She blinked in stunned silence for several seconds before speaking hesitantly, “Um. Well, I guess I got it from the Bible when I was younger.” I replied, “So, have you read about what Jesus did in Luke 10 when the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum didn’t repent after they witnessed his miracles?” (Spoiler alert: He condemned them to hell.) “I don’t think so,” she responded. I continued, “In fact, have you read about when Jesus called various people, “Enemies, pagans, dogs, foolish, and cursed?” The look on her face indicated that this was new information. But because I had simply asked questions, she was invited in, rather than rebuffed. She asked me to share some Scriptures with her, and toward the end of our conversation responded, “Okay. I need to think about this some more.”

In my opinion, that’s a successful conversation. And all I did was ask questions! This not only kept the discussion from becoming hostile, but it helped my friend to see her blind spots and swung the door open for more communication. (And for the record, it goes both ways. I’ve had people ask me smart questions that led me to admit where I had been wrong.)

Live out the beauty of the true gospel

In class, I listened to story after story of friends who had inherited a faith that was nothing more than moralism with a distant God. In some cases, it was harsh and unloving. In other cases, compassion for the poor and oppressed was not present.

I am so thankful that my dad was a lost hippie who had searched for God through Eastern philosophies, Buddhism, and psychedelic drugs before he committed his life to Christ. He wasn’t raised as a born-again Christian. He didn’t grow up in a church that majored in pizza parties and minored in theology. He didn’t have any baggage that clouded his view of the gospel. Yet in a little country church in Southern California, he heard the gospel for the first time and was struck by its beauty and simplicity. A sinner saved by grace.

I am so thankful that my mom had a strong ambition to feed the hungry and clothe the poor. This was the Christianity that was modeled for me. When I encountered intellectual doubt for the first time as an adult, the grief over what I stood to lose was incalculable. This was because of how beautiful I already thought the gospel was.

As simple as it may seem, modeling consistent Bible study, a vibrant prayer life, repentance, acts of service, and genuine care for our neighbor is one of the most powerful tools to draw people to Christ, especially if they’ve been burned by the church.

As Christians, if we really believe the gospel is beautiful, we should live it loudly! As Paul said, “I am not ashamed of the gospel.” Of course, Paul also said that not everyone will think the gospel is so attractive. He wrote that when he and his friends preached the gospel, they were “the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.” (2 Cor. 2:15)

He went on to write that to some, they smelled like life. To others, they smelled like death. The same will be true of genuine followers of Christ. Not everyone will think we (and our message) smells very good. But our job is to seek to understand and share the true gospel no matter who might think it stinks. Because to those whom God is saving, it will be the “fragrance of life to life.”

Go Deeper:

Original Sin or Original Blessing?

Recently, Michael Gungor of the Liturgists Podcast tweeted, “Heaven is not a place where you are made perfect after you die. Heaven is the realization that you’re already perfect as you are now.” With over 63 thousand followers on twitter, many of whom are current and former evangelical Christians, it’s not a stretch to say this idea has become mainstreamed. But there seems to be a major disconnect between this sentiment and the evil and suffering we see all around us every day.

For example, at the time I’m writing this article, the news cycle is inundated with images surrounding racism, rioting, looting, arson and brutality. We see humans enacting evil against other humans every time we turn on the news or check our twitter feeds. We can look around us and rightly recognize that there is something wrong with the world—something wrong with us.

In the wake of the civil unrest in our nation right now, it’s important to acknowledge an ancient core belief of Christianity—the doctrine of Original Sin. Original Sin teaches that because of Adam’s rebellion against God in the garden of Eden, every human is born with sinful desires. As our first parents, Adam and Eve have passed that sin nature on to us.

Original blessing?

Generally speaking, progressive Christians deny that we have a sin nature and that our sin separates us from God. In his book, A New Kind of Christianity, Progressive leader Brian McLaren argues that whenever we use phrases like “the Fall,” and “Original Sin,” we are borrowing from pagan Greco-Roman philosophies, and not accurately reflecting biblical truth. [i] In their comprehensive survey of progressive Christianity, progressive authors David Felten and Jeff Procter-Murphy wrote, “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.” [ii] Rather than affirming Original Sin, they advocate for what they call “Original Blessing” instead.

Often, progressive Christians teach that our sin isn’t what separates us from God, but it’s our shame that makes us feel separated from him. This is what Richard Rohr refers to as the “small self.” He teaches that mature faith is practiced by finding the “True Self,” and learning to “consciously abide in union with the Presence within us.”

According to progressive Christianity, sin doesn’t separate us from God. We just need to understand how loved and good we already are. This idea is antithetical to Scripture and runs contrary to what we experience in our fallen world.

By what standard?

Since the concept of sin has to do with wrongdoing, this brings us to a much bigger question: What is good? For a generous helping of daily moral outrage, all one needs to do is to check their social media newsfeed. Everyone around us assumes there is some standard of goodness that is being violated. And there are things we should rightly be outraged about. But why is that? We need to ask ourselves by what standard can we proclaim one thing evil and another good.

With progressive voices telling Christians to never give up on their dreams, put themselves first, and to trust their own hearts and consciences, it’s no wonder many follow those breadcrumbs on a path that will inevitably end in moral relativism. With the Bible cast aside or radically reinterpreted, this leaves nothing but personal feelings and preferences to adjudicate right from wrong.

To illustrate this point, in 2017, Jen Hatmaker revealed that she no longer viewed homosexual behavior as a sin. In a subsequent interview, she articulated that one of the main reasons she changed her mind was because of Jesus’ analogy of good fruit vs. bad fruit.

This idea was popularized by Matthew Vines in his 2014 book, God and the Gay Christian. Vines appeals to Matthew 7:15-20, in which Jesus says, “You will know them by their fruit.” He argues that appealing to one’s experience of a particular teaching should help determine its interpretation. In other words, if the traditional biblical understanding of homosexuality is perceived to be harmful to gay people, it should be reinterpreted.

Because Hatmaker and Vines misunderstand what Jesus actually meant by “good fruit,” and “bad fruit,” they are actually promoting a type of moral relativism that is based entirely on a person’s individual feelings.

Morality and justice

There is a strong cry in our day for justice—but because many in the progressive Christian movement have walked away from any external (and therefore fixed) moral standard, there is great confusion about what justice looks like. When your view of what is good fruit and bad fruit doesn’t match mine, who chooses between us? Can I demand that you conform to my standards of right and wrong? Without a moral law-giver, there can be no objective moral law. It’s just my opinion vs. yours. Once a common standard for morality is removed, justice is reduced ultimately to a power struggle—which isn’t justice at all.

Nevertheless, most people instinctively realize that things like stealing and lying and murder are wrong for everyone. They also know that bitterness and jealousy and rage can be destructive to a person’s wellbeing. In other words, most people live as if there’s such a thing as sin.

That brings us to the next question: if sin really exists, what should be done about it? Telling people they just need to realize how good and perfect they already are might receive hundreds of “likes” on Twitter, but it will never satisfy the deepest longings of the human soul. Nor will violent displays of anger ever eradicate anger from our world.

To get to the heart of a solution, we need to figure out where sin came from. Was it just an evolutionary misstep? If we view humans as generally good, but just falling a bit short of their potential, we will strive in our own strength to be better and do better. But because we don’t agree on what “better” really means, we will never leave the endless hamster wheel of our own confused and often contradictory efforts.

As noted above, the Bible offers a completely different picture of reality. Scripture teaches that sin originally came about when God’s created beings set their wills against the will of God. Because God’s nature and character is the one true standard for all morality, our failure to meet that standard separates us from Him. The solution to sin would be to restore our unity with him. However, once sin became part of human nature, that restoration was impossible for us to achieve on our own.

In theory, God could have overlooked our sinfulness—but that would make Him unjust. Because justice requires compensation for wrong-doing, a payment for our sin had to be made. The astonishing beauty of the gospel is that God himself, who had no debt to pay, chose to make our payment on our behalf through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.

As a result, instead of any “hamster wheel” solution we might devise, those who admit their helplessness and accept God’s payment find themselves truly able to overcome the effects of original sin. Because we have received mercy and compassion and forgiveness from God, we are able in turn to extend these gifts to others. Because we understand God’s view of morality, we can work to establish the standards of justice and goodness that will actually draw humanity back to what their Creator originally intended.

With its relativistic approach to sin and morality, Progressive Christianity doesn’t offer a right diagnosis, medicine, and cure for the disease of sin. It can only leave you enslaved to the sinful chaos that reigns in every human heart. And that is not good for anyone.

[i] McLaren, Brian D.. A New Kind of Christianity (p. 43). HarperOne. Kindle Edition.

[ii] Felten, David. Living the Questions . HarperOne. Kindle Edition.

Go Deeper:

Moral Relativism is One of the Defining Characteristics of Gen Z

Our new study with the Barna Group revealed that Generation Z, the 69-70 million children and teens born between 1999-2015, is the least Christian and most racially, religiously, and sexually diverse generation in American history.

Gen Z is also very confused about moral and spiritual truth. Relativism is on the rise in the next generation.

The focus groups we conducted with the Barna Group on Gen Z made this clear. Both Christian and non-Christian teenagers were confused when it came to moral truth.

Only 34% of Gen Z Agree Lying is Morally Wrong

Over and over again we heard phrases like:

“I don’t know”
“I am just so confused”
“I am not sure what to think”
“I don’t want to push what I believe on other people.”

Only 34% of Gen Z Agree Lying is Morally Wrong

When we conducted this study, we wanted to get a moral and spiritual baseline of Gen Z. We asked more controversial questions about abortion, same-sex marriage, and marijuana. However, we thought that lying would be a good place to start since we assumed most teenagers would be able to agree with that.

We were wrong.

The surprising result is that only 34% (1/3) of Gen Z could affirm that statement.

Even more surprising is when you see how each generation answered this question. In our Gen Z research study with Barna, we discovered:

61% of Elders could agree that lying is morally wrong
54% of Boomers could agree that lying is morally wrong
50% of Gen X could agree that lying is morally wrong
42%% of Millenials could agree that lying is morally wrong

If a generation doesn’t think moral and spiritual truth exists, then the Gospel won’t make sense to them.

Pay attention to the generational decline and erosion of moral truth.

This is not an encouraging trend and it should serve as a wake-up call for how we think about engaging and equipping the next generation.

The research also revealed that:

24% of Gen Z agrees that What is morally right and wrong changes over time based on society.
21% believe what is morally right and wrong depends on what an individual believes.

Whether we like it or not, we need to recognize that the moral landscape for Gen Z has dramatically shifted.

24% of Gen Z agrees that What is morally right and wrong changes over time based on society.

How Do We Help Gen Z Resist Relativism and Discover Truth?

First, we need to teach truth. Students need to know how to discover and defend truth. Part of that means helping them rediscover what they already know.

“So, when Gentiles, who do not by nature have the law, do what the law demands, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts. Their consciences confirm this. Their competing thoughts either accuse or even excuse them.” – Romans 2:14-15

Second, we need to help them practice talking about truth and relativism with their friends and peers. This takes training, time, and coaching.

Lastly, we need to help teenagers encounter truth. This means helping them know Jesus more deeply who is the way, the truth, and the life and what that means for how they live out their faith.

Here is the bottom line: If a generation doesn’t think moral and spiritual truth exists, then the Gospel won’t make sense to them.

Learn more about the opportunities and challenges facing Gen Z. Get the full-color report!

Go Deeper:

How Can Christians Have Better Conversations About Social Justice?