Types of Progressive Christianity

Photo by Debby Hudson on Unsplash

I regularly get asked questions by students about liberal/progressive/revisionist Christianity. Sometimes the question is, “Why are they trying to destroy Christianity?” Or, why do they reject key Christian doctrines, such as incarnation and atonement? Whenever those questions get posed, I always point out a few things.

First, the categories of progressive and conservative are relative and often cultural.

What is considered conservative in one context can be considered liberal in another context. I mean, in some places, the Swiss theologian Karl Barth is considered a conservative, but in other places, Barth is regarded as the epitome of liberal theology. Heck, I’ve been called a fundamentalist and a liberal in the same day by different people. Even among Catholics, there are very concerted debates over Popes Benedict XVI and Francis, with Benedict cast as the conservative and Francis cast as the progressive. But I’d aver that both were progressive, in varied degrees and in different ways, as they both were/are trying to remake the agenda and orientation of post-Vatican II Catholicism. The theology called “old liberalism” was a nineteenth-century type of theology that was attempting to put Christianity “into its right relation to modern intellectual and moral problems” (Charles Gore, Lux Mundi, vii). But that is not quite the same as our conservative/progressive divide that is normally driven by local issues and current cultural debates.

Second, I tell students that progressive/liberal Christianity is not trying to destroy Christianity, much to the contrary, they see themselves as rescuing Christianity from dogmatic and dated doctrines, making Christianity palpable to the modern world, and finding points of contact between Christianity and contemporary culture.

Now, if you use these metrics for liberal Christianity, you might be surprised who qualifies as a liberal theologian. I’d argue that the conservative evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem qualifies as a liberal theologian undertaking a liberal project. I know this will blow some people’s minds but I’d argue that Wayne Grudem’s book God and Politics is exhibit “A” in the American liberal tradition.

Now don’t get me wrong, Grudem is not an “old liberal,” he does not like Karl Barth let alone Friedrich Schleiermacher! In addition, Grudem’s book God and Politics, affirms many things that most Christians could affirm irrespective of whether they are Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. I don’t disagree with everything in the book. But, by and large, Grudem’s volume is trying to reinterpret Christianity to fit with the consumerist, capitalist, individualist nominal Christianity of North America. Grudem’s theology is liberal in that it is an adaptation of Christianity toward culture. Grudem might say, “This is what Christians have always believed and most Christians around the world do believe,” but that would be demonstrably false on manifold issues like gun control and universal healthcare. Grudem doesn’t anchor his theology in ancient tradition or global consensus but is concerned with the utility of Christianity for a certain socio-economic structure in a precise geographical location as part of a particular cultural setting. Grudem’s book God and Politics is what Walter Rauschenbusch would have written if he were a political Reaganite.

But even then, there’s more to liberal/progressive Christianity than affirming culture. Liberal/progressive theologians sometimes see religion as our word about God rather than God’s word to us; they can prioritize experience over tradition; adopt hermeneutics of suspicion towards scripture; prefer religion as a force for social change than projecting all hopes towards the hereafter. Liberal theology is driven by various intellectual currents and forces depending on what period of history we are looking at.

Michael Langford’s The Tradition of Liberal Theology is the best explanation of the history of liberal theology. There is also Theo Hobson’s Reinventing Liberal Christianity which is a call for liberal theology to stop it from dying. The best example of a liberal systematic theology is Douglas Ottati’s A Theology for the Twenty-First Century which is a liberal theology in a more classic sense.

If I had to break down liberal/progressive Christianity further, I’d adopt this taxonomy.

First, the cultural apologists. These are types of Christianity that try to bridge the divide between Christ and culture by using the resources of Christian tradition to affirm the concerns of culture. This type of “liberal” Christianity is engaged in cultural apologetics, speaking to culture, and affirming culture with Christian resources.

Now, that can be done in a traditionalist and orthodox way. For example, you can affirm the Nicene Creed and Westminster Confession, and still be concerned about ecological ethics, climate change, and balancing industry and environmental impact. In fact, there are lots of resources in Christianity for doing this from Genesis 1, to St. Francis, to Francis Schaeffer! But, if you say, the primary mission of Christianity is to save the planet and the churches need to focus more on recycling than redemption, then maybe, you’ve swapped historic Christianity for niche climate change activism.

Second, the trajectory theology. This is the type of liberal Christianity I have the greatest affinity for and sympathy with. Vincent Lerins said that the catholic faith is the “faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all”. Even so, Vincent recognized the possibility of the “improvement in our religion.” That is to say, Christianity does develop, it does change, it does “improve.” You can see that in how the doctrines of the Trinity developed, the Reformation as both retrieval and renovation of doctrine, and also how Christendom came to the conclusion that slavery was always and universally wrong. But, and here is the problem, what’s the difference between organic changes to doctrine as opposed to a radical departure from doctrine?

I’d argue that this is the question we are facing with LGBTIQ+ issues. Is the inclusion and affirmation of non-heterosexual sexual activity an implication of Jesus’s teaching about love for others (Mk 12:28-34), his statements about those who are “eunuchs” for the sake of the kingdom (Matt 19:12), and Paul busting up the binary between male and female (Gal 3:28)? Or, is the current affirmation of all sexual desires and sexual orientations a syncretic blend of Christian care for the outcast combined with pagan worship of sex? That’s the current debate about trajectories of Christianity.

Third, the revisionist theologians. There are those who say Christianity has departed from the pure and simple religion of Jesus, the mistake began with the apostle Paul, and we must undo the mistake that is Christianity and start over. I think of people like the famous liberal episcopalian Jack Spong from whom traditional Christianity was only slightly less bad than extremist Islam. Christianity here is the villain that needs to be executed, its usable organs removed, and we need to create a new god out of the remnants of the old one.

So, there you have it, Wayne Grudem is a liberal, and there are three types of liberal theology.

Otherwise, see my older essay, Why I am Not a Liberal Theologian.

Send me your thoughts, comments, and questions below.