Heres another excerpt of the ongoing conversation with Roger Wolsey. I found it clarifying to write and engage this, and though it is again a bit lengthy it may be helpful to those struggling with the guise of what progressive Christianity presents. BrotherRog • 6 days ago Progressive Christianity stands in contrast to both conservative evangelicalism and fundamentalism. Agreed, both of those are novel and marginal relative to the history of the Church. The problem is, few people know that, and both of those have come to hijack and monopolize the faith. Hence, the need for progressive Christianity. Brian Kornelis • 3 days ago Help me understand what you mean by hijack and monopolize the faith. You are saying that both fundamentalism and evanglicalism have done this? Am I right to interpret you as implying that evangelicalism has absolutized and dogmatized a certain understanding of the faith? If so, though correct me if Ive misread you, progressive Christianity doesnt escape its own charge. I would heartily contend that progressive Christianity has simply absolutized and dogmatized a different understanding of the faith. You may respond that progressive Christianity is obviously more open and inclusive, and in a sense of course it is. I agree. But, that claim to openness and inclusivity can be meant in two senses. The content of what is believed in progressive Christianity is certainly more open and inclusive in a way i.e. its more universalist tendencies and epistemic reservedness. But, progressive Christianity is just as insistent, absolutist and dogmatic that these principles of multiple paths to the divine and greater epistemic caution are the right ones. The principles you hold may be more open but you hold them with an equally closed fist. You still hold a dogmatic conception of God, i.e. a conception of God that is the right one, even if that conception says that God is less knowable, or easily accepts anyone apart from a penal substitutionary atonement ect. It doesnt matter whether your theology is apophatic or cataphatic it is equally dogmatic. In response to a fundementalist preaching a God who obtains an attribtrute of wrath would you not categorically object on your premise that God is simply not that kind of God? Or would you concede that just maybe wrath, for example, is a demonstrable and exercised attribute of God? If not on what grounds would you reject such a claim? I think we can look at this another way. I dont presume to know your own personal philosophy of revelation, or that of progressive Christianity in general - if there is one. But, am I right to presume that you accept the concept of revelation in general? - that God has made himself somehow knowable, if not in a fully inerrent book, then in history, art, nature, experience and tradition. At least I would think it hard to have much of any kind of religion without the presupposition of revelation of some kind. My point is this, if you work from the premise of divine revelation of any kind or in any medium it follows that the content of that revelation is delimited somehow. If God has shown anything of himself it follows by the law of non-contradiction that he has also shown what he is not. In however progressive Christianity concieves of divine revelation, however much more vast the content of that revelation might be it is still by its nature delimited. Progressive Christianity still has a conception of what/who God is and what/who God is not. So, in the end I think its still dishonest to present your tradition as freeing the church from all constraint over against the old orthodoxy that unduly constrains. If people wish to leave the long strand of orthodoxy so be it. But, lets be honest, when they run to progressive Christianity they run to a new orthodoxy, a new orthopraxy, a new dogma and even new constraints. Lets both champion our different faiths and contrast them where appropriate. But, lets not dishonestly disparage evangelicalism as the only dogmatic religion. BrotherRog • 19 hours ago Respectfully, youre positing false equivalents. Fundamentalists, by definition, have 5 fundamentals. Progressive Christianity doesnt. We do emphasize certain things more than others (intentionally), but we dont have fundamentals or an orthodoxy. Brian Kornelis • 8 hours ago Im sorry, but youre either just playing semantics or youve fooled yourself as well. Dont call it fundamentals, dont call it orthodoxy - thats fine. But, you certainly have grounded principles, you have a certain worldview and epistemology with limits and boundaries. You may deny this formally using language that deflects the issue, but you just cant deny this materially or substantively. The very article from which stems this discussion sets forth principles of hermeneutics some of which are definitional and minimally necessary to carry the label progressive Christianity. You herald progressive Christianity as a thoughtful, self-aware, intentional movement with concerted effort, vision, aims and goals for transforming lives, communities and societal structures, and challenging traditional religion. And, so it is. I agree. But, you cant say all that and then turn and say you have no fundamentals or orthodoxy. Im afraid youre just talking out two sides of your mouth. I know you dont like those words. Again, find synonyms if you need to. This is the subtle dishonesty Im at pains to point out. You at least know well, and eagerly want others to know, that you are not a fundamentalist. The reason is that from within your worldview fundamentalism is wrong. It is heterodox.
Posted on: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 21:13:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015