Posted on 03/08/2019 12:01:28 PM PST by Gamecock
“At the very root of the modern liberal movement is the loss of the consciousness of sin.” –J. Gresham Machen (p.64)
I’ve been working my way through a new series entitled “The 10 Commandments of Progressive Christianity.” It’s an examination of 10 core tenets of progressive (or liberal) Christianity offered by Richard Rohr, but really based on the book by Philip Gulley.
We come now to the second of these tenets: “Affirming people’s potential is more important than reminding them of their brokenness.”
The core issue in this second tenet is the issue of sin. Are people sinners? If so, how big of a deal is it? And, more than that, how important is that people know they are sinners? Should we tell them? And how we do balance people’s sinfulness with their potential as God’s image bearers?
There are few issues that divide progressive Christianity from historic Christianity more than this issue of sin. Indeed, as the above quote from Machen indicates, it is the loss, downplaying, ignoring, or sometimes even the outright rejection of sin that fundamentally defines progressive Christianity.
Balancing Sin and Human Potential
Of course, we should acknowledge from the outset that this second tenet is partially true. The Christian message is not only about our sin and our brokenness. “You are a sinner,” is not all that can, or should, be said. Christ saves us from our sin, yes, but then he begins a renewing work inside each believer. And that renewing work begins to restore the beauty of God’s image within us.
And, in that sense, we can really say that people have “potential.” And that potential should be affirmed and celebrated. But, it is potential wrought only by the saving grace of God and the death of Christ which conquered our sin. Apart from that, any affirmation of human potential quickly devolves into a version of humanistic moralism.
Put differently, we must affirm both our deep depravity and also the amazing potential we have as God’s image bearers. The two belong together.
But, this is precisely the problems with the progressive message. They are eager to accept the latter, but hesitant about the former. They have, again, separated what the Bible joins.
Rejecting the Bible’s Teaching on Sin
Now one might object that not all progressives deny the sinfulness of humanity. Some progressives, it could be argued, are quite willing to affirm both of these truths.
But, if we consider at least Philip Gulley’s book–which is the basis of Rohr’s list–then we quickly discover that he does not. In fact, he is quite adamant that the historical Christian teaching about sin is fundamentally mistaken. Consider the following:
Gulley argues that churches that regularly teach people are sinners are guilty of “spiritual abuse” (40) and “mistreatment” of their people (p.30). Gulley states, plainly, “I had grown up in a tradition that emphasized sin and the need for salvation, hadn’t found it helpful, and had resolved to leave it behind” (33). Gulley denies original sin on the grounds Adam and Eve were not real people, the stories are just religious “myths” (37-38, 40). Moreover, the creation stories cannot be trusted anyway because they’re contradictory and inconsistent (39-40). Gulley argues that we should stop “viewing ourselves as wretched sinners, deserving of damnation” (44). He even laments hymns like Amazing Grace that speak of God saving sinners (43). Rejecting the Saving Work of Christ
Rejecting the biblical teaching on sin is one thing. But lurking behind it is the rejection of an even more fundamental Christian truth, namely that the purpose of Jesus’ death was to save us from our sins.
If one rejects the doctrine of sin, and downplays it seriousness, then one must find a different reason for why Christ died. For progressives (at least those like Gulley), Jesus couldn’t be dying on the cross to pay for sins because that would imply sin is a big deal. No, Christ must be dying for some other reason.
Thus, we come to another major tenet of progressive Christianity: the rejection of the substitutionary atonement.
Gulley states:
The church has typically understood salvation as being rescued from sin and going to heaven when we die. But what if we believed salvation was our lifelong journey toward maturity, love, and wholeness? Were that the case, Jesus would not be the one who saves humanity by his sacrifice of blood, but the one who exemplifies this maturity, love and wholeness, the one to whom Christian can look and say…’we can be like him!'” (44, emphasis mine).
In other words, this version of progressive Christianity does not just reject the doctrine of sin. It also rejects the saving work of Christ on the cross. And thus (like we saw in my prior post in this series) Christianity is once again reduced to moralism.
Progressive Christianity (or at least this version) is Not Christianity
After one has jettisoned the doctrine of original sin, and also rejected the idea that we are therefore sinners in need of salvation, and also denied that Jesus died on the cross for sins, then what is left of historical, biblical Christianity?
Not much. Indeed, Machen would argue that we are left with something that is not Christianity. It is something else altogether.
We would do better to trust the simple and clear message of the apostle Paul: “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost” (1Tim 1:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).
#10 Is Saving the Earth More Important than Saving Souls?
#9 How Our Culture Justifies Its Sexual Freedom
(Note, the author did not comment on numbers 7 and 8 because those chapters in Gulley’s book were decidedly not progressive. Indeed, I agreed with many things in those chapters and found them helpful.
8. Peacemaking is more important than power.
7. Meeting actual needs is more important than maintaining institutions.
6. The 10 Commandments of Progressive Christianity #6: Is Christianity Just about Being on a Spiritual “Journey”?
5. The 10 Commandments of Progressive Christianity #5: Are Questions More Important than Answers?
4. The 10 Commandments of Progressive Christianity #4: Is Behavior More Important than Doctrine?
3. The 10 Commandments of Progressive Christianity #3: Are Christians Too Judgmental?
Ping
Isn't this what we are seeing played out in the UMC?
Beginning in the late 1900's, those who self-described as "liberals" (more recently, identifying themselves as "progressive") called for "changes" which have been, in fact, regressive, in that they have carried America back to Old World ideas which limit freedom, opportunity, creativity, and plenty--just as they did in 1776.
Should any person who reads this doubt that such was the "progressive" agenda, read the following:
"Withdraw from Christendom the Bible, the Church with its sacraments and ministry, and Christian morality and hopes, and aspirations for time and eternity; repeal all the laws that are founded in the Christian Scriptures; remove the Christian humanities in the form of hospitals and asylums, and reformatories and institutions of mercy utterly unknown to unchristian countries; destroy the literature, the culture, the institutions of learning, the art, the refinement, the place of woman in her home and in society, which owe their origin and power to Christianity; blot out all faith in Divine Providence, love, and righteousness; turn back every believer in Christ to his former state; remove all thought or hope of the forgiveness of sins by a just but gracious God; erase the name of Christ from every register it sanctifies—in a word annihilate all the legitimate and logical effects of Christianity in Christendom—just accomplish in fact what multitudes of gifted and learned minds are wishing and trying to accomplish by their science, philosophy, and criticism, and what multitudes of the common people desire and seek, and not only would all progress toward and unto perfection cease, but not one of the shining lights of infidelity would shine much longer. Yes, the bitterest enemies of this holy and blessed religion, owe their ability to be enemies to its sacred revelations - to the inspiration and sublimity of that faith which reflects its glories on their hostile natures. They live in the strength of that which they would destroy. They are raised to their seats of opportunity and power by the grace of Him they would crucify afresh; and is it to be thought that they are stronger than that which gives them strength? Can it be supposed that a religion which civilizes and subdues, and elevates and blesses will succumb to the enmities it may arouse and quicken in its onward march? Are we to tremble for the ark of God when God is its upholder, and protector, and preserver?” - Dr. Benjaming W. Arnett, St. Paul A.M.E. Church, Urbana, Ohio, Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon, November 1876. Arnett's "Sermon" is available in the "Library of Congress - Historical Collections" - "African-American Pamphlets from the Daniel A. P. Murray Collection," 1820-1920; American Memory, Washington, DC.Finally, in yet another section of that Sermon, Dr. Arnett warned of a movement then under way among what we would call "academics" which, if successful, would destroy the nation. Below is a relatively small excerpt from that Sermon's conclusion. In it, Rev. Arnett warned about a movement among "liberals" to remove the ideas underlying America's founding documents. See if you don't recognize those ideas in what you have observed in recent years:
"The Danger to our Country."Now we must not think that we have nothing to do in this great work," Bishop/Legislator Arnett said, "for the men who are at the head of this movement are men of culture and intelligence, and many of them are men of influence. They are led by that thinker and scholar, F. E. Abbott, than whom I know but few men who has a smoother pen, or who is his equal on the battle-field of thought.""Now that our national glory and grandeur is principally derived from the position the fathers took on the great questions of right and wrong, and the career of this nation has been unparalleled in the history of the past, now there are those who are demanding the tearing down the strength of our national fabric. They may not intend to tear it down, but just as sure as they have their way, just that sure will they undermine our superstructure and cause the greatest calamity of the age. What are the demands of this party of men? Just look at it and examine it for yourselves, and see if you are willing that they shall have their way; or will you still assist in keeping the ship of state in the hands of the same crew and run her by the old gospel chart! But ye men who think there is no danger listen to the demands of the Liberals as they choose to call themselves:
"'Organize! Liberals of America! The hour for action has arrived. The cause of freedom calls upon us to combine our strength, our zeal, our efforts. These are The Demands of Liberalism:"'1. We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall no longer be exempt from just taxation.
"'2. We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in State Legislatures, in the navy and militia, and in prisons, asylums, and all other institutions supported by public money, shall be discontinued.
"'3. We demand that all public appropriations for sectarian educational and charitable institutions shall cease.
"'4. We demand that all religious services now sustained by the government shall be abolished; and especially that the use of the Bible in the public schools, whether ostensibly as a text-book or avowedly as a book of religious worship, shall be prohibited.
"'5. We demand that the appointment, by the President of the United States or by the Governors of the various States, of all religious festivals and fasts shall wholly cease.
"'6. We demand that the judicial oath in the courts and in all other departments of the government shall be abolished, and that simple affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury shall be established in its stead.
"'7. We demand that all laws directly or indirectly enforcing the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath shall be repealed.
"'8. We demand that all laws looking to the enforcement of “Christian” morality shall be abrogated, and that all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of natural morality, equal rights, and impartial liberty.
"'9. We demand that not only in the Constitution of the United States and of the several States, but also in the practical administration of the same, no privilege or advantage shall be conceded to Christianity or any other special religion; that our entire political system shall be founded and administered on a purely secular basis; and that whatever changes shall prove necessary to this end shall be consistently, unflinchingly, and promptly made.'
"'Let us boldly and with high purpose meet the duty of the hour.'
"He acknowledges that this is a religious nation and wants all men to assist him in eliminating the grand old granite principles from the framework of our national union. Will you do it freeman; will we sell the temple reared at the cost of so much precious blood and treasure? These men would have us turn back the hands on the clock of our national progress, and stay the shadow on the dial plate of our christian civilization; they would have us call a retreat to the soldiers in the army of Christ; the banner of the cross they would have us haul down, and reverse the engines of war against sin and crime; the songs of Zion they would turn into discord, and for the harmony and the melody of the sons of God, they would give us general confusion; they would have us chain the forces of virtue and unloose the elements of vice; they would have the nation loose its moorings from the Lord of truth and experience and commit interest, morally, socially; religiously and politically to the unsafe and unreliable human reason; they would discharge God and his crew and run the ship of State by the light of reason, which has always been but a dim taper in the world, and all the foot-prints it has left are marked with the blood of men, women and children. No nation is safe when left alone with reason.
"But we have no notion of giving up the contest without a struggle or a battle. We are aware that there is a great commotion in the world of thought. Religion and science are at arms length contending with all their forces for the mastery. Faith and unbelief are fighting their old battles over again, everything that can be shaken is shaking. The foundations of belief are assaulted by the army of science and men are changing their opinions. New and starting theories are promulgated to the world; old truths are putting on new garbs. Error is dressing in the latest style, wrong is secured by the unholy alliances, changes in men and things, revolution in church and state, Empires are crumbling, Kingdoms tottering; everywhere the change is seen. In the social circle, in the school house, in the pulpit and in the pews. But amid all the changes and revolutions there are some things that are unchangeable, unmovable and enduring. The forces that underline the vital power of Christianity are the same yesterday, to-day, to-morrow and forever more. They are like their God, who is omnipotent, immovable and eternal, and everywhere truth has marched it has left its moccasin tracks.
"The Conclusion of the Whole Matter.We have patiently tried to examine the record of the nations of antiquity and learn the cause of their decay and decline, their fall, why their early death; and why so many implements of destruction around and about their tombs, and everywhere, in the silent streets, mouldering ruins, tottering columns, mouldy and moist rooms, and the united voice from the sepulcher of the dead past is, "sin is a reproach to any people." We see it written on the tombs of the Kings, and engraven on the pages of time, "sin is a reproach to any people." These are the principles of governments, Right and wrong; and the people who are the advocates of Right have bound themselves together and by their united effort they have brought light out of darkness and forced strength out of weakness.
"We as a nation have a grand and glorious future before us. The sun of our nation is just arising above the horizon and is now sending his golden rays of peace from one end of the land to the other. The utmost extremities of the members of the body politic are warm and in motion by the commercial and financial activities of the land. Her face is destined to blush with beauty when peace and justice shall be enthroned. The grand march of progress shall mark her in her onward advancement in moral strength, intellectual brilliancy, and political power. Then we can say that we give to every man, woman and child the benefit of our free institutions, giving all the benefits of our common school and the freedom to worship God under their own vine and fig tree. Then will we see written, on the banner of our free, redeemed and disenthralled country, the sublime words written, not in the blood of men, but in the sun-light of truth, that "Righteousness exalteth a nation." It will fall like the morning dew on the lowly; it will descend like the showers of May on the poor; and like the sun it will shine on the good and bad, dispensing from the hand of plenty the blessings of a government founded on the principle of justice and equality.
"Standing on the threshold of the second century of the nation's life, with the experience of the past lying at our feet, we are saluted by the shout of triumph from the millions who left their homes and business and attended the Great Exposition of the skill and genius of the world, collected at Philadelphia. We were permitted to receive the greetings from the oldest to the youngest nation of the earth. Egypt and the United States clasped hands over the waste of 5,000 years, and lay their treasures at the feet of our civilization. The material, intellectual and mechanical deterioration of the one, and the unprecedented progress of the other, stand in great contrast; in all that makes the nation great,—morally, religiously and socially, the young nation is ahead.
"Following the tracks of righteousness throughout the centuries and along the way of nations, we are prepared to recommend it to all and assert without a shadow of doubt, that "Righteousness exalted a nation"; but on the other hand following the foot-prints of sin amid the ruins of Empires and remains of cities, we will say that "sin is a reproach to any people."
2 “What do you mean by using this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying,
‘The fathers eat the sour grapes,
But the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
3 As I live,” declares the Lord God, “you are surely not going to use this proverb in Israel anymore. 4 Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine. The soul who sins will die. (Emphasis added.)
Here’s an article appearing just today in a “progressive” religious blog:
“Who worships a God who rejects gays for being how he made them?
A troubling post in the Church for Men blog opines that even though the influential United Methodist Church (UMC) organization this week voted to bar gay weddings and clergy, the church is still somehow being Christ-like.
If anyone seriously believes Jesus Christ — the loving, merciful God/man prophet portrayed in the New Testament — would ever have rejected homosexuals for their sexuality, I’d like to meet that person.
It’s absurd to even contemplate such an alien Christ.
In his post titled “Conservative Methodists gracious in victory,” blogger David Murrow congratulated the UMC right wing for its graciousness allowing more liberal wings of the church who disagree with the new mandate to retain ownership of their church buildings if they now choose to leave the fold.
“By allowing liberal UMC congregations to take their property with them, conservatives are demonstrating the grace of Jesus to those with whom they disagree,” Murrow wrote. “They’re showing what true diversity looks like.”
Considering UMC’s pointed exclusion of gays, it’s difficult to see he “diversity” part of the new rules, unless allowing an inhumane policy to shatter the church into hundreds of (diverse) pieces counts as a kind of inclusiveness through exclusivity.
How the largest mainline protestant denomination, with some 12 million members, can rationally justify such a callous, un-Christly, discriminatory policy, is unfathomable. The only possible available justification would be theological, in that the Bible purportedly denigrates homosexuality, but in the real world of actuality and evidence, its contemptable and prejudicial.
Homosexuality is not a human aberration, its one among many naturally and universally occurring expressions of sexuality along Homo sapiens’ broad spectrum. Gays, with U.S. Supreme Court backing, are afforded the same exact rights and privileges as every other citizen in America, gay, straight or otherwise, including the right to marry.
To shun and reject a class of citizens because of what may be written in an ancient book by ancient, biology-ignorant writers, is appallingly un-Christian in the particular ways that Christianity has long been respected: generosity of spirit, love, kindness and acceptance.
There is no place in the modern world for disrespecting and denouncing people simply because “it is written.”
The bigotry of this new UMC policy is not surprising in that it echoes the anti-LGBT bias ascendant in current American Republicanism. But it’s still despicable and intellectually hollow. Murrow’s header for his blog displays a firearm crosshairs, indicating a certain kind of right-wing, gun-rights sensibility, and his bio says he’s a trainer for Promise Keepers, an uber-conservative evangelical organization whose members are “committed to specific promises about how we will commit to applying the Bible in our lives.” Practicing “sexual purity” — resisting temptation — is among the seven key promises.
Murrow’s blog is published in an evangelical hub, so its tenor is consistent with this online space, but it’s important to call out things even from afar that are morally reprehensible, like institutionally discriminating against a certain legally protected class of people simply because a very old book seems to allow it.
If this is Christ-like, who could worship such a cruel deity?”
It’s amazing how we seem to so much up the simple, when it comes to our God and Creator - and his free gift.
You can’t get to heaven through works and you can’t block yourself from heaven through works. Works can affect your reward in heaven (beyond eternal life itself), and can affect the quality of your life while occupying your human meat. That’s the whole point.
Meanwhile, the whole “progressive” label is way over used today and too broadly, I might add. Some call me a progressive Christian simply because I believe in CI rather than ECT. But I certainly don’t agree with the commandments I’ve seen here.
BTW, the links don’t work.
How can someone be born into sin, does your God hate babies?
“Who worships a God who rejects gays for being how he made them?
That’s why we all need his free gift. We are then free to do what we want, knowing that we are saved. And “do what we want” means wanting to please him. And even when we screw up, we know we will not receive condemnation, though we will receive ill effects from what we do, be it impacting our eternal gift (beyond salvation itself) or our life on this planet.
Works won’t get you to heaven and works won’t keep you from heaven. Accepting his free gift gives you eternal life and rejecting it keeps you from eternal life. It’s that simple. All the rest is about knowing God more, based on the relationship you have with him and his guidance (commands).
This is why Christians are the freest people in the world, no matter their condition, physically.
If babies are born into sin, then liberal murdering their babies and calling it “abortion” are simply killing sinners, right?
If babies are born into sin, and sinners goes to Hell, then when a baby is murdered it goes to Hell??
Genesis 5:1-3. (v. 2,3):
“Male and female CREATED he them (Adam and Eve); and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day THEY were CREATED.”
(v.3): “And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and BEGAT a son IN HIS IWN LIKENESS, after his image; and called his name Seth.”
Adam was CREATED in the LIKENESS OF GOD (Gen.1:26-28); men are BEGOTTEN in ADAM’S LIKENESS(Gen.5:3). God’s likeness was PERFECT; Adam’s was IMPERFECT and depraved WITH THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH WORKING IN AND BRINGING IT TO RUIN. (Job 14:4,25:4; Psalm 14:3,51:5; ROMANS 5:12-21; 1Cor.15:39; Eph.2:2,3.
Look here kids just follow Christ that’s all you Gotta do
Ping
Who invents this stuff?
I've never heard of this narrative and it already has 10 commandents. There is no personage associated with Christianity.
2 Timothy 4:3
“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”
The clear biblical teaching is that WE sinned in Adam. Romans 5 could not be more clear.
There is a view (which you have espoused) which is patently unblical and has been rejected by the Church at large at least since Pelagius (vs Augustine in 400 or so AD). This is that we do not sin because we are sinners, but rather we are sinners because we sin. This view was condemned as heresy in one of the earliest church councils (which happened after Chalcedon where the doctrine of the Trinity was confirmed.)
I am not going to proof text you to death (though there are thousands of scriptures which establish this point), but rather say that in ever conversation I have ever had with folk on this issue, the objection is that this position is fatalistic. In fact, Paul himself raises this objection in Romans 9 when he (arguing against the doctrine of election) says “you will say then, why does He (God) still find fault, for who can resist His will?”
Note that if election were not true, the charge that no one can resist God would be silly.
In the end, this is simply an exaltation of man’s reason over the clear revelation of God.
“We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.”
(I John 2:3-6)
No. Rather, a child who dies in infancy, or a person who never develops mentally (like my own grandson) is not saved from eternal death because they are “innocent.” They are saved because God applies the saving work of Christ to them. We are “saved” because we are made new inside, and thus embrace and believe the good news of the gospel, which is that Christ died for sinners and was raised again. That is, being born again PRECEDES faith and is not dependent on cognitive or volitional acts on our part.
This is why some people hear the gospel, believe it, love both it and the God who declares it, and some simply mock and reject it. If you are in the latter camp, then it is just because you are spiritually dead and cannot understand the nature of what is being said, though you may have some degree of logical command of the articulation of the message. Jesus said it better than me in John, chapter 3. You may wish to look at that, if your questions are genuine and not just mocking.
rx, the concept of “Original sin” (sin nature passed down from the seed of Adam) is not universally held but it is almost a moot point. Verse 4 is correct in that “The soul who sins will die.” It is accurate but incomplete. There is nobody sinless (with the possible exception of the unborn or stillbirthed) other than Jesus therefore we all sin and therefore we will all die (in this body).
In the Old Testament, sin was removed by sacrificing the blood of animals to God but it was temporary since man still continued to sin and require more sacrifices. Jesus (aka the “Lamb of God”) was a blood sacrifice once for all time to cover our past, present and future sins so that we might be considered holy and right before God.
If the grace of the Cross was not complete for all time, then Jesus’ death was meaningless. But there is a requirement to have this grace and that is to believe upon Christ for the remediation of sins.
By dismissing the idea that sins need to be confessed and repented before achieving salvation, liberal Christians are conned into believing that they do not need to repent and stop sinning. That becomes the foundation for aberrant behaviors which they believe somehow merit God’s approval even though the Scriptures repeatedly teach against such behavior as sinful.
I believe liberal churches are leading many down the path to destruction by ignoring the teaching of sin and the need for Christ in bringing reconciliation with God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.