The problem here, I think, is that “liberal” or “progressive” can mean at least two fairly distinct things:
- A denial that there is any fixed, dogmatic content to the Christian faith at all. That is to say, in this version of “liberalism,” Christianity is basically a set of attitudes or a way of life and involves no distinctive claims about what happened in history or about any kind of supernatural reality. This is the kind of liberalism that J. Gresham Machen denounced in his early-20th-century Christianity and Liberalism. The most famous recent representative of this is John Shelby Spong (at least in Anglican circles). Arguably (though in a much more nuanced and interesting way) the late Marcus Borg (may he rest in peace) represented the same kind of position.
- A general disposition to stress love over strict adherence to traditional norms, and to be open to new developments in the Christian faith. This does not imply that there are no non-negotiable matters, only that there are relatively few compared to those that more traditional Christians might insist on.
This second category, in my experience, actually covers most of those who would call themselves “progressives,” and it seems clear that on this forum Sy Noe and ComplineSanFran are in this second category. It is insulting and unfair to speak as if all “progressives” are in the first category.
Obviously, in a sense these are just “harder” and “softer” versions of the same general tendency. Or perhaps, given that conservatives tend to view all such positions as “squishy,” a different metaphor will help. I have a very large garden–really larger than I can take care of adequately given my other commitments, especially since my parents (with whom my wife and kids and I live) have been out of the country for a month. Also there’s been a lot of rain. So a bunch of my onions have started rotting in the ground. I just pulled them out. Some of them were soft all through and had to be discarded. In others, only the outer layer had gone squishy–if you peeled off enough layers, there was an inner core that was sound. I think this exemplifies (from a conservative, admittedly pejorative point of view) the difference between these two kinds of “progressive.” (Sorry to our progressive brothers and sisters for comparing them to rotten onions, but I hoped it might mollify some of the more ferociously conservative folks on the thread
)
A final point: pretty much all of us are, in one way or another, “type 2 progressives.” Here are a few positions that are fairly uncontroversial in Catholic circles, because Vatican II and/or recent popes have clearly endorsed or tolerated them (in some cases the acceptance goes back much further), but which would seem “squishy” to some conservative Christians (including hardline Catholic traditionalists):
- “The doors of hell are locked on the inside”
- People who are not explicitly Christian in this life may be saved
- NFP is an acceptable practice, and even one that should be promoted as virtuous
- Evolution is, in principle, compatible with Christian faith
- Genesis 1 and other similar passages are not necessarily historical narratives or accounts that convey scientifically accurate information
Edwin
