What
is this New Progressive Theology?
By Rev. Tom Lambrecht
Episcopalian
Bishop John S. Spong is the prominent spokesperson for the theological approach
of the “Progressive Christian” movement.
In fact, one workshop leader called Spong “the Martin Luther King of
Progressive Christianity.” What
does Bishop Spong believe? Where is
he striving to lead the “Progressive Christian” movement?
In a
watershed 1998 article posted on the Internet and published in several
magazines, Bishop Spong calls for a new reformation for the church.
“The very heart and soul of Christianity will be the content of this
reformation.” Spong sees the need
for this reformation in a dying mainline church.
“Between these two poles of mindless fundamentalism and empty
secularism are found the mainline churches of Christendom, both Catholic and
Protestant. They are declining numerically, seem lost theologically, are
concerned more about unity than truth, and are wondering why boredom is what
people experience inside church walls. The renewal of Christianity will not come
from fundamentalism, secularism or the irrelevant mainline tradition.”
“My
sense is that history has come to a point where only one thing will save this
venerable faith tradition at this critical time in Christian history, and that
is a new Reformation far more radical than Christianity has ever before known
and that this Reformation must deal with the very substance of that faith. This
Reformation will recognize that the pre-modern concepts in which Christianity
has traditionally been carried will never again speak to the post-modern world
we now inhabit. This Reformation will be about the very life and death of
Christianity. Because it goes to the heart of how Christianity is to be
understood, it will dwarf in intensity the Reformation of the 16th century. It
will not be concerned about authority, ecclesiastical polity, valid ordinations
and valid sacraments. It will be rather a Reformation that will examine the very
nature of the Christian faith itself. It will ask whether or not this ancient
religious system can be refocused and re-articulated so as to continue living in
this increasingly non-religious world.”
What
will this new reformation look like? Spong
sets forth twelve “theses” or statements of belief describing his position.
However, they are mostly about what he denies, rather than about what he
affirms. These twelve theses are
very instructive on how the “Progressive Christian” movement would like to
dismantle traditional Christian doctrine and theology.
“1.
Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today
meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2.
Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical
to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the
Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3.
The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings
fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4.
The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ's divinity, as
traditionally understood, impossible.
5.
The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a
post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6.
The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian
idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7.
Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It
therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8.
The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not
capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9.
There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on
tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10.
Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a
particular way.
11.
The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior
control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore,
its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12.
All human beings bear God's image and must be respected for what each person is.
Therefore, no external description of one's being, whether based on race,
ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for
either rejection or discrimination.”
The
first eleven statements deny some aspect of Christian faith.
Only the twelfth is a positive statement, namely the inclusion of all
persons, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation.
Thus, it is no accident that “inclusiveness” or “fighting
exclusion” becomes the rallying cry of the progressive movement.
It is really the only faith statement that all progressives can agree to!
The
rest of progressive spirituality degenerates into personal experience alone
(even when experienced corporately with others) because no one can articulate or
explain another person’s experience of God.
Experience thus becomes primary, able to supersede Scripture, tradition,
reason, and even the Book of Discipline.
If
“Progressive Christianity” denies the transcendence of God, original sin,
the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, Christ’s atoning death on the cross,
his bodily resurrection and ascension, miracles, prayer, and the authority of
Scripture, one must ask what of “Christianity” is left?
Indeed, “Progressive Christianity” is not Christianity at all.
They may acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, but in stripping
out all orthodox teachings about Jesus Christ, they make that statement
meaningless. It is certainly not
the biblical Jesus whom they acknowledge. They
see no need for salvation. And they
do not acknowledge his authority, only the autonomy of personal experience.
“Progressive
Christianity” is certainly not new. In
fact, most of Spong’s criticisms of orthodox Christianity are rooted in 19th
century deconstructionist ideas. Indeed,
a 1998 statement by 50 Episcopalian bishops notes, “The ‘challenges’ he
proposes are not new. They have been argued - and well refuted - in nearly every
age since the Resurrection of our Lord. Indeed, they are challenges with which
most thinking believers have had to wrestle before making a mature commitment to
the Christian Faith.”
This
“Declaration to the Church” goes on to make some very telling comments about
Bishop Spong’s theology. “We respect John Spong's right to his personal opinions,
but we declare they are clearly outside the realm of Christian discourse, and we
deplore his use of the office of bishop to propound them.
A bishop of the Episcopal Church vows to guard and defend exactly the
truths John Spong now denies. As a
bishop he requires those he confirms and those he ordains to confess beliefs he
himself now repudiates. Such
self-contradiction is morally fraudulent and spiritually bankrupt.”
These
50 bishops state, “We the undersigned bishops of the Episcopal Church in the
United States of America do hereby publicly disassociate ourselves from these
"Twelve Theses" of Bishop Spong. In no way do they represent the
doctrine, discipline, or worship of the Episcopal Church - or any other branch
of orthodox Christianity.”
Unfortunately,
the Episcopal Church of the USA has taken no formal action against Bishop Spong
for his heretical teachings. Instead,
it was reported that the church made a large payment to Bishop Spong to
facilitate his early retirement from the Diocese of Newark.
Some
United Methodist bishops face a real dilemma.
They agree with Spong’s theology (or at least with his theological
approach), but they cannot publicly declare themselves, due to the risk of
losing their position in the church. Retired
bishops speak a little more freely, but even they carefully couch their language
to avoid putting themselves in danger of formal charges of failing to uphold the
Doctrine and Discipline of the United Methodist Church.
The
most likely scenario is that the “Progressive Christianity” movement will
not “reform” the United Methodist Church, but will instead become a
breakaway movement with its own unique theology and social stances.
All such attempts at doctrinal “reformation” in the UMC run up
against the “restrictive rules” in our church constitution that forbid the
changing of our doctrines or doctrinal standards.
Our church should always have the leverage to protect its doctrinal
integrity—if we choose to use it.
