vivianhallow - Tumblr blog

vivianhallow · 9 months ago

Note

I have this theory that progressive Christianity and liberal Christianity are different, and I'm putting in this ask to get the opinion of a progressive Christian on the issue.

The way I'd define it is that progressive Christianity is the belief that Christianity should be aligned with progressive social movements, while liberal Christianity is the belief that the Bible, while a book about God, was not inspired by God.

For example, I've heard that Side A Christians in Evangelicalism will argue that the Bible doesn't condemn same-sex relationships (at least not as we have them), while Side A Christians in mainline churches often think that the Bible does condemn same-sex relationships and the Bible is wrong about this.

The thought came to me thinking about the theologians who supported Nazism (here's a good resource on them); they were clearly liberal theologians - they thought that Christianity should move on from the Old Testament - but self-evidently not progressive theologians.

How interesting! And I will respond to your other one too - just gathering my thoughts.

I'd tend to agree with you on your definition - as a self-proclaimed progressive Christian, I believe that Christianity (should be) a liberation theology. 'Even' in the OT/HB, if Christians move away from that, the focus is on the liberation of a persecuted and abused people, and this message is made more personal and clearer in the NT with Jesus and his rejection of religious establishments that weren't so hot on this idea of loving everyone. We can see so many examples in history of this conflict between Christianity used as justification for an oppressive regime (eg slavery) and recognition in its true form as a liberation theology (eg Black theology, notably in apartheid South Africa, and women's role in this - here's a really interesting article by Isabel Phiri on this.)

I'm inclined to your definition of liberal too. It's never been a word I've really associated myself with. Personally, I believe that the Bible is inspired by God, and infallible, but that we have to remember that it was written by real people in a real time in a different society with its own concerns that were likely very different from ours, and these influences will and do show through. We can see this even in differences between accounts - what different gospels emphasise and pay attention to, even completely disagreeing at points. A great example of this is the writing and interpretation of the well-known 'clobber verses' under Roman rule. I think I've mentioned this before, and I still haven't found the article I'm talking about, but if I do I'll edit, but essentially the author argues that as Christianity found its feet in being a religion of equality and love and doing the right thing, it was undoubtedly influenced by Roman persecution, and Romans, as well as persecuting them, were also doing things like men sexually abusing boy slaves, and worshipping other gods, the sects of which often incidentally contained a lot of (gay) cult sex, and therefore early Christians and apostles etc writing their book on what is right, went wow. These Romans who abuse us also abuse their slaves like that, and also worship other gods like that? That's not right, let's write that down. Anyway that's a very bad summary but this isn't the post for the detail on that - my point is, inspired by God, but not immune to the world.

'For example, I've heard that Side A Christians in Evangelicalism will argue that the Bible doesn't condemn same-sex relationships (at least not as we have them), while Side A Christians in mainline churches often think that the Bible does condemn same-sex relationships and the Bible is wrong about this.'

This bit is super interesting to me! So as everyone knows by now I'm ⋆｡°✩ anglocatholic ⋆｡°✩ so this is completely the opposite of what I'd believe (Side A, more? mainline church (not evangelical at least), and I believe that the Bible doesn't condemn same-sex relationships as we have them - great specification on your part). I can't really speak on this because I'll assume? that based on the word Evangelicalism this is more US focused, and, although I'm learning, I really don't know that much about US Christianity. Also for me, the Bible cannot be wrong. Idk I just think that's fundamental.

'The thought came to me thinking about the theologians who supported Nazism (here's a good resource on them); they were clearly liberal theologians - they thought that Christianity should move on from the Old Testament - but self-evidently not progressive theologians.'

Yes! This comes back to my above point about abuse and use of Christianity as a force for oppression and liberation. Really enjoyed the video you linked, would recommend too. Completely agree again, this fits totally in your definition of liberal vs progressive - taking the text liberally but without socially progressive views. Again personally I am the exact opposite, I tend to lean towards socially progressive views while maintaining a less liberal view of the Bible and liturgy etc.

Overall, I love your argument and think it's very well supported in terms of there being a difference, and your choice of words to describe each side fits very well imo. The thing I would say is that I think that it's a difficult theory to support further in this terminology. We can make a distinction between those who take the Bible as not inspired by God (and we can call them liberal) and those who hold socially progressive views (and we can call them progressive), but I'd suggest it's more a definition than a theory, if that makes sense? Because language is so subjective, I think it's difficult to theorise on the basis of two linked and often confused words, especially in the even more subjective field of personal religion. Do you know what I mean?

But, in conclusion, yes! Agree! Love it!

24 notes · View notes