Are Progressive and Conservative Christianity Different Faiths? Yes!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- Have progressive Christianity and conservative Christianity drifted so far that they can be considered different faiths? How greatly do they differ politically, theologically, and culturally? In this interview, I talk with sociologist George Yancey about his ground-breaking book One Faith No Longer. We discuss differences in how they view Jesus, politics, and other faiths.
READ: One Faith No Longer, George Yancey (amzn.to/3lQBXFr)
WATCH: Progressive vs. Evangelical: A Dialogue for Clarity ( • Progressive vs. Evange... )
This channel is brought to you by the Apologetics program at Talbot School of Theology (Biola University):
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell
Website: seanmcdowell.org
I don’t understand someone calling themselves Christian when they no longer believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven.
They are NOT.
"I don't understand..." isn't an argument for or against anything. It only proves one thing: that the person saying it is ignorant in some way. (I don't say that as a slight. I literally mean that you simply don't know something.)
@@MatthewDistefano Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life, not man comes to the Father except through me”. Not by our good works, not by following another god, only by humbly bowing before cross of Jesus Christ and confessing He is Lord.
@@smmcb647 as an educated person, I'm aware of that passage lol
The real question is: "Do you WANT to understand? If so, I'd be happy to explain it to you, from scripture. But if you're not seriously curious there's no point going down this road.
Dr. McDowell - Fantastic! “Tear down strongholds in high places”!
Thx David!
@@SeanMcDowell "Tear down strongholds in high places"! If you mean the leaders of the Gospel Coalition, or John Piper who promote that they and ONLY THEY are correct on all theological and moral issues, - then I agree completely. Have you ever counted the number of posts that dictate that 'Christians should stay away from this person's thinking, or that person's pastoral responses, or that person's view, because they must be exposed as wrong, wrong, wrong, as well as 'DANGEROUS'?????
2 Timothy 3.
K @Dr. Sean McDowell loK @Dr. Sean McDowell loK @Dr. Sean McDowell loK @Dr. Sean MK @Dr. Sean McDowell loK @Dr. Sean McDowell locDowell loK @Dr. Sean McDowell loK @Dr. Sean McDowell lo
Thanks for doing this: I am unable to offer specifics here but this video has helped me. Keep up the great work Dr. Sean and Dr. George. I was a religion major in college, much of what was discussed here is familiar to me, but I really appreciate the conversation here.
Really solid interview. I appreciate your channel so much and how you demonstrate the love of Jesus while tackling difficult subjects. Thank you!!
You bet…thank You!
it isn't solid because it was not subject to critical thought - look, this stuff is really important and it deserves a great deal of careful examination not only of the subject itself but in the methods followed to uncover the data, those used in analyzing it and those used in interpreting it. It is worrisome to me that Sean so easily stepped into sympathy with what was presented and bothers me even more that there wasn't anyone present to provide critical thought to anything at all in the interview. I have a doctorate myself and was in academics for a time and I can tell you the greatest threats to good research are bias and a person's conflict of interest between the truth and being correct in his assertions based on the data he collected.
I feel like I question the way he chose to label a progressive Christian. I think there are a lot of Christians who would label themselves as progressive but who also believe that Jesus is the son of God and the only way to make it to heaven.
Yes, me included... also many many evangelicals in other parts of the world would be labeled "progressive" by american christians, but as you say, they would believe in the inspiration of Scripture, believe in all the traditional points about Jesus (conception, death, resurrection) etc... and so they ARE Christians... yet many conservative american christians would denounce them because they might not be young-earth creationists, they might not love guns like american christians do, they might be ok with forms of socialism in gov/society etc or think christians should legislate from the top down moral issues like homosexuality or abortion (at least if they're a tiny minority of a given society) So I would be cautious about dividing christians up into just these two camps, as a way to write off one group... it might work here in the usa, but probably not anywhere outside. (I think the binary setup is problematic here as well... there's lot's of diversity within 'conservative' and 'progressive' even here.
He covered that. Those who are progressive like those who are conservative are a sliding scale with all different levels of biblical understanding and interpretation. The main differences he found was in leaning on scripture as moral authority, leaning on scripture in conversations ie not budging from scripture when making decisions. When you hold all scripture in highest esteem above all things vs holding scripture somewhere maybe at the top but not going to it first or leaning only on some parts of it. I think he expresses that clearly. Conservative Christian’s can do this also but it’s more widely a trend he found in his research on the progressive leaning groups.
@@gso1279 I mean that doesn’t really have anything to do with my point. I would say that it is likely that this holds true for other definitions of progressive, but we don’t have that research, at least not in this video. Obviously people who don’t agree with arguably the fundamental tenet of Christianity are much less likely to hold scripture as high as those who do. I’m just interested in his definition of progressive as I feel like a lot of people would consider less extreme views to also be progressive, so I feel like where he decided to draw the line in his research likely pushes his results to a more extreme conclusion.
The definition of tolerance has become changed. Tolerance is not historically a virtue. If i told my mother in law I could tolerate her I do not think she would be very happy. Progressivism has warped the definition of tolerance to mean love an acceptance. We cannot even have a discussion about it unless we can agree on a definition.
Very good observation....so true.
Its the "nice," christians verses the "mean," christians.
I'm definitely interested in this book. It's been my understanding for sometime. Years ago, I predicted that it would be over the issue of homosexuality that would make or break Christianity in this generation. It has proven to serve as a reliable litmus test.
I think most thought it would be the sins of the clergy and priesthood that has made or broken those that call themselves Christian - the rape of children, the unmitigated greed. it's why those antiquated apologists are doing what every other religious faith has done when their coffers are threatened, they ramp up the fear and disinformation.
Theologically, the false dogmas of the past have been discredited for generations, but inquisitions and burning at the stake are as frowned on as lynchings and slavery (that was supported by those antiquated churches as well).
An astute analysis of current Christian orientations but near total misunderstanding of Buddhism, that is, of the analogy used (Hindu/Buddhist opposition) to understand the primary issue of the liberal/conservative divide.
Wow. Thanks for the great interview. I appreciate Sean's great questions and real conversations without getting into heated debates. I think this is the only way to go, but I actually don't see it as a possibility as people in general seem to grow up with lower and lower EQ which makes it impossible to have sober and loving debates. The only real surprise for me in this interview was to hear that the number of progressives is shrinking. It would be interesting to hear why that is. Thanks again. I really enjoy these interviews. A wonderful way to learn and grow.
I wonder if one answer is that progressive Christianity is the gateway to the nonreligious, agnosticism, and atheism. Progressive Churches have severe drops in membership possibly because there is no distinction at all between them and nominal Christian or American ppl seeking to "just do the right thing."
@@kstevenson3504 yeah, perhaps all who needed to deconstruct have done it and the rest identify as they truly are. Interesting topic.
Except that's not the case, as is evidenced by this kind of apologism. This brand of Christianity is an outgrowth and evolution of corrupted systems, and has always happened.
Church attendance is down, and progressive Christianity is up - this is a rock and a hard place for traditionalists, but pretending it's not true doesn't help anyone.
Progressive Christianity is a gateway to removing the corruption of systems like Catholicism and the evangelical movements who have become anything BUT Christ-centric with their dogma and scandals. Of course you are going to see laypeople find this hypocrisy untenable and will of course search for something that makes more sense that isn't based in hate (which most of the sects of Christianity and religion overall have been historically).
The need to create an "other" is a trait of cult-like thinking. The idea that only x dogma is the right dogma breaks, in my mind, Christ's commandments, which ironically puts most who claim to be Christian on the other side of the issue (from Christ). But even Christ pointed this out when he was approached by folks who said "but did we not do all this in your name" and HE said - get thee away from me evildoers, ye never knew me!"
So what is the moral of that passage? Claiming to be Christian isn't enough. Pretending that the magical thinking and then attributing it to Christ isn't enough. If you're not following His ministry (in your dogma and behavior as regards His simple 2 commandments), then by definition you cannot be Christian.
That's not to imply that people's beliefs aren't valid for THEM, but if we have to create buckets based on a reasonable standard, just claiming to believe in Jesus is lazy. One has to have something that ties them to His ministry and if you contradict that in any way, cannot be considered a Christian.
I'm a traditional Catholic who converted from a conservative Baptist / Church of Christ (Restoration) background. I listened all the way to the end and appreciate the conversation you are having. The same issues you talked about are present in the Catholic Church. The classic (2000 yr) Catholic position is that the Holy Scriptures (written) and Tradition (unwritten) are the sources of Faith and that of course Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. However it seems that quite a few Catholics (including our President Biden) are what you would define as "progressive". For me and others, this is a sad situation in the Holy Catholic Church b/c it makes it very difficult to evangelize when prominent Catholic progressives go against the very clear teachings of the Bible and the clear Tradition that has been handed down for centuries. It feels just like you say: There are two different religions.
George, THANK YOU
I read the book also, and I am still completely stumped on how people who do not believe in the Jesus described in the Bible are defined here as Christians. Perhaps it is due to living in an age where people think they can "self-identify" as anything regardless of meeting definitonal criteria.
Brother Ed, maybe they DO believe in that Jesus and you're the one who's got him wrong. Maybe YOUR self-identifying criteria (to use your words) is not really a New Covenant one. Perhaps not everything is as it seems, and the Lord judges the secrets of the heart!
@@michaelsilveradventure5712 Brother Michael, thanks for that metaphorical reply. The two covenants I suppose may be likened to different "games" according to your analogy, and with different "rules." Certainly the first covenant of law had many rules.
The second, however, is somewhat different in that there is no up-front playbook. There are principles and those principles are cosmic, eternal, unchangeable, and all according to the character of God. But we're no longer "under" a law of moral parameters by which to govern behavior.
Instead, two deaths have taken place, the first being of course Christ, who is the lawgiver himself. But the other dead man is us, the believer, and so we are free, like a woman whose husband has died, to marry another man. This is Paul's analogy in Romans 7.
So that righteousness can come through the simple faculty of believing and not through obedience to regulation requires the overturning of the Mosaic system. This wasn't easy to accomplish. In fact, it would have been easier for "heaven and earth to disappear" (Luke 16:17) as Jesus says, than for any tiniest of pen strokes to fall out of the Law. But we are told that heaven and earth WILL disappear (Revelation 21:1, Isaiah 65:17, 2 Peter 3:10)) And while the Law did not fail, it WAS FULFILLED. (Romans 10:4, Matthew 5:17)
The purpose of the Law was to make "sin utterly sinful" (Romans 7:13). Paul has so many things to say on the subject. Here's just a few:
1. "The law brings wrath (God's anger, displeasure). Where there is no law there is no transgression." (Romans 4:15).
2. Sin is imputed by law, and where no law is, there is no sin imputed "recorded" or "held in account" (Romans 5:13)
3. Sin "takes opportunity by the commandment." There is a paradoxical INCREASE in temptation where there is a prohibition. This is found in Romans 7:7-8 with the example of the tenth of the 10 commandments: "I would not have known covetousness except the law said, "Thou shalt not covet."
3. The "strength of sin is the law." (1 Corinthians 15:56). This is found in a different epistle, but further connects sin with the law in an astonishing way.
4. Paul goes so far as to say, again in another place, even more emphatically than in Romans: "You who seek to be justified by law are CUT OFF from Christ, you are FALLEN FROM GRACE" (Galatians 5:4).
5. So to accomplish this new system of righteousness (right standing with God and obedience to his will) and new force enters the scene, that of the Spirit:
"There is now therefore no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh but according TO THE SPIRIT" (Romans 8:1).
So, everything now hinges on having the Spirit of Christ within:
"If anyone has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Romans 8:9).
To summarize, we have a death of the Lawgiver himself, God in the form of his Son. This death frees ALL parties from the previous legal arrangement:
1. God is free to leave Israel, his first beloved, (who was not faithful to him by the way), and go after the Gentiles
2. The believer, if a Jew is free from the law of Moses and all that it implies
3. The Gentile believer is free from his estrangement to God to enter into covenant with God
To accomplish this new economy, this new deal, there has to be a new thing present on earth. And that is the Holy Spirit. At Pentecost the Church is born. (Acts 2). This is the start of a body of believers in the RISEN Christ, not the physically present Jesus, as he said:
"It is expedient that I go away. For if I do not go away, the Comforter will not come to you" (John 16:7).
So I hope this clarifies my position somewhat. I eagerly await your reply. What are your thoughts?
They "believe in him," they just define him in different terms. Like Yancey said, they consider him a "role model" or whatever.
@@sharoncorrell9801 Sister Sharon, that's not true for the most part. Very much a straw-man in fact, last time I checked the doctrinal statements of all the liberal churches in my area. They are making a comeback, but with more sound theology than before. This is making Conservatives (political ones!) scared.
There are exceptions. Unitarianism, and it's like have been around a long time. There are several Christ-consciousness guys still around, the Catholic Priest (defrocked?) the little gnome of a man, I forget his name, somewhere out West.
So, it's nothing new if its heresy. What is new is the willingness to hold to the orthodox faith while allowing the person in the pew to make up their own mind at their own pace. This is certainly problematic, as "No one knows the minute nor the hour."
And even this is nothing new. It was practiced in the pietist tradition for hundreds of years. It can go Universalist very quickly, a la the Quakers. It's certainly innovative in these divided political times.
You know, St. Paul said "I have become all things to all men that I might win some..." Maybe this "progressive" branch is a needed thing. We shall see...
@@carlosreira413 Son, I think you're not actually listening and instead have a dogma to share, but let's not confuse your particular perspective with anything beyond your own perspective. You don't hold the authority in how people perceive Christ, at the end of the day merely your own.
There is as much logic to any sect of Christianity, and the history has clearly shown that the apologists like yourself have always tried to be exclusionary. It is at the end of the day how most faith buttresses itself, by being the only "faith" in town that is "true". The early mystical Christian cults that sprang up define this, the split between the Eastern and Western traditions, the literal HUNDREDS of sects of Christianity - some of whom don't believe in the same ecclesiastical foundations - but all can call themself Christian.
To wit, those who quote Paul, who never actually met Christ, and imbue him with any authority are doing so as a matter of dogma, not because Christ imposed any authority in Paul. Christ's message that the progressives get perfect is what the "conservative Christian" fears of course - that their dogma(s) have been built up by fallible men with agendas. Even Jesus points out to test by the fruits - even Jesus points out that he is without sin cast the first stone, even He points out the method is to worry about the log in thine own eye. Even Jesus leaves us with 2 Commandments that cover how we should recognize dogma - if it attempts to be the sole authority on ANYTHING it breaks the 1st. If it conflates judgement or dogma for love, it breaks the 2nd.
If I were you, son, and I'll be more than happy to work with you to understand the projection of "heresy" as being a standard you do to exclude being teachable, I would affix the same attempts to misunderstand the value of what progressive Christianity offers as a truer representation of Christ's ministry, and stop acting out of dogmatic fear and lack of rational perspective.
But we can work on it, and you.
What amazing scholars! If there is a group we could call “elite”, in the good sense, these two men are in that group. I so appreciate their teaching.
So unity equals uniformity? Oh the joy of feeling that THEY are wrong and WE are right!
pretty collectivist, eh? ;) - what will the fake-conservatives and fake-Christians do to reconcile?
This drives me crazy! All of us are wrong-in our wretched flesh!
‘They will know us by our love’, sorry don’t have the verse.
The saddest or most uneasy part of all this is as we glorify ourselves in our need to be right, we will only alienate those that are lost, tormented and suffering.
Aaah to trust rely and rest in the saving power of Christ.
To know that the Father WILL work out HIS perfect will in our lives.
Romans 10-9
Eph 2:8-9
Phi 2:13
Really appreciated Dr. Yancey's objectivity, i.e., giving really "nuanced"--to use one of Dr. McDowell's favorite words--definitions of "progressive Christianity" and "conservative Christianity." His descriptions appeared wide-ranging. And I liked that he seemed to challenge the assertion that the U.S. is a "Christian nation," which I think is anachronistic at best. Please, Dr. M, ask Dr. Yancey back when he completes his book on racism in the U.S, especially as regards claims of systematic racism. Blessings to you both.
I will definitely have him back! Thanks.
Thank you for tackling the topic of Progressive Christianity! For some reason I feel it is such an important issue right now. I think it's because of how it undermines the truth of the Gospel and pulls believers away.
Interesting in that I've found that Conservative Christianity is much more toxic (particularly when it comes to the involvement of religion in politics) to the point of pushing people away from Christ, whereas Progressive Christianity seems to be growing and lingering due to the fact that it's more palatable to people and more consistent with modern values and many of the teachings of Christ.
@Brycearonee I'm afraid that while progressive Christianity is getting more favorable media coverage it is not growing. Rather their congregations are shrinking. As to politics being "toxic", doesn't that view reinforce the idea that progressive Christians shape their theological beliefs to fit their political veiws rather than vice versa?
Wish there were a more functional way to discuss these things than be forced to use overly simplified lables (conservative, progressives, etc)
it really hurts to watch people paint with way to broad a brush in these issues - there is a fringe element to progressive christianity and then there others who aren't fringe, just as there are really scary christians on the right who might more properly be described as cultural nazis. Be careful!
Yancey asks, "How interested are Progressive Christians in dialog?" and I would say VERY INTERESTED, and yet Alisa Childers, and Sean and Mike Winger, etc. would rather post endless videos demonizing Progressives than talking with us. I've asked several times for each of these people to speak with me and they have all refused, or just ignored my requests. Who is NOT interested in dialog? The ones slinging the mud, apparently.
I'm not really a progressive Christian or a conservative Christian, but your reaction here seems strange to me, but somewhat in line with James Lindsay's analysis of woke-ism in general. You must see yourself as a victim, because this video did not demonize progressive Christians. Mentioning flaws that are really there--and I personally witnessed a progressive Christian preacher pour out hate towards evangelicals from the pulpit--is not demonization. You also provide no specific facts for your allegations. In what for example, does the 'slinging mud' in this video consist?
@@givebirthathome387 His suggestion that there be dialogue is victimhood? THAT is the interesting reaction. Why are you so afraid to have a dialogue - at the end of the day the reason that conservative Christianity fears dialogue of other points of view (as it has always done) is that it weakens the corrupt dogma that is inherent in systems created by people. Religion is no different than any other hierarchy in that way.
And of course religious sects are created when the "faithful" defend such obvious contradictions - look at Catholicism and the kid-raping, for instance. Or the Quakers and their opposition to slavery - all have their dogma. But a dogma that is afraid to engage in meaningful dialogue with folks who can actually TEACH a perspective that is worthy of consideration is abject fear on the traditionalists. Nothing more.
You personally witnessed someone who pointed out a hateful evangelical Trump worshipper? SO have I. Thank God for that progressive Christian.
He did offer facts - that he has reached out and been rebuffed. However YOU haven't offered any facts, just a claim without any real detail or objectivity (your perspective "feels" that critique is hateful, why do you act like the victim if your dogma is so powerful?)
"Mentioning flaws that are really there" - sounds like you're not willing to listen to the flaws that are really there in YOUR system of belief, eh?
It would have been good to touch on the "seeker-sensitive" movement.
Are Progressives Seeker-Sensitive? Are there conservative or Evangelical Churches that are Seeker-Sensitive?
I would label myself as an evangelical Christian and yet am left leaning since I do not agree with the majority of the takes of the Republican party, and highly disagree with how they are doing things overall right now. I also highly disagree with some of the LGBTQ takes that have started to erode society as well and how the Democrat party is bowing to them. I'd love to have more than two parties.
If Sean is so interested in open dialog between Progressive Christians and Conservative Christians, why does he refuse to talk to me, or to Matthew Distefano, or Thomas J. Oord, or Brian Zahnd, or Brad Jersak, or Bruxy Cavey, or Baxter Kruger, or Paul Young, etc.? Also, maybe it would help to stop demonizing Progressives and stop trying to argue that they're not really Christians. Just a thought.
Thank you... this is helpful!
You cannot be a Christian if you believe Jesus is not the only way to heaven. Are we really having this debate right now? Is this how far we've come? Next you'll be telling me atheists are Christians too, just with a difference of opinion.
You could go do far as to say that each denomination is a separate religion
Excellent conversation
This was a VERY interesting, valuable conversation. I was so impressed with Dr. Yancey's clear, careful, thoughtful research and presentation here. I love the way you lead your interviews, Sean...
So glad to hear!
The line from "In Christ Alone" is "'Til on that cross, as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisfied." The Presbyterian Church USA asked the songwriters for permission to change the reference to Jesus satisfying the wrath of God for their hymnal. The songwriters refused to allow the change, so the Presbyterians left the song out of their hymnal.
Well if the wrath of God WAS satisfied, no harm no foul, amen?
That was FASCINATING! I'm a brand new Christian and I'm pretty open-minded and lean progressive. I think these differences just come out of people having different brains and different ways of understanding spirituality. I'm not sure I could force myself to be conservative and I guess conservatives couldn't force themselves to be progressive. I take his point on intolerance and maybe being naïve and thinking humanity can perfect itself, those are useful points. Weird thing about what he was saying about progressives being more anti conservative than conservatives being anti progressive is that I observe on YT in the comments when things like this are discussed they are full of conservatives gatekeeping progressives. I haven't seen it the other way around... But I might see it more as time goes on :)
Funny, I was more progressive and then became more conservative and found the opposite in progressives being the gate keepers. I guess it just depends on where you look, you know?
I appreciate Dr. Yancey's tone and approach and I'll be glad to peruse his book. Just as a first impression, his methodological choices make me think this kind of project (his book) would be most fruitful if it were done in collaboration with another scholar who identifies as a progressive Christian. I can imagine that someone even moderately more progressive might have strengthened the project's ecumenical reach by grounding it in questions derived more from Biblical Studies than theology.
That's not to say that theological diagnostics don't have a place in this kind of study, only that they come with loads of methodological baggage that Biblical Studies doesn't have to deal with-or rather deals with up front (i.e., proper exegesis and transparent accountability for hermeneutics). That said, I hope Dr. Yancey addresses some of those issues in the book!
Qualitative studies always have methodological baggage. I agree, may have strengthen the results with collaboration.
Interesting interesting stuff. Great analysis of this question in terms of investigating this divide and helping us unpack what it means and it's implications.
Love Dr Yancey. But please ANNUNCIATE! I had to rewind it 200x just figure if he said "progressive" or "conservative" Christian.
Do you have a transcript?
Same here, my friend. "Enunciate". Can't help it. Vocabulary freak here. God bless.
There would be NO SPLIT if Christians relied on scripture in its meaning as written, rather than what some Christians want to believe.
Once we impose our human preferences or desires on scripture then apostasy happens.
It isn't that easy though. Some people read the Bible without any concept of the context of when the texts were written. This can easily lead to incorrect understandings. Darby did this when he started teaching a pretribulation rapture which really took foothold in some American denominations at the turn of the 20th century.
@@Chomper750 I think if a christian spends time reading the bible and not just listening to a sermon on Sunday, he/she will gain knowledge. There are also some excellent study series. As Christians mature in their faith they learn who to listen to and who not.
For instance early in my faith I listened to Tim Keller but as I read and studied I learned that what he was teaching was not scripture as written. Thats the Holy Spirit guiding my knowledge.
You have a point though, many Christians seem to know little about history, context and customs of the times.
@@Chomper750 Your statement suggests a lack of faith in God. There is no leader that will lead us to truth or AWAY from truth if we go directly to God with a request for truth. When we do that the Holy Spirit will supply the discernment to know WHO are the liars and who are the truth tellers.
You fear Christians will be led astray by false teachers. Yes some will, because they rely on man. But not those who seek truth DIRECTLY from God. In the core of my soul, I know God provides truth to those who seek it from God.
You are right that "It isn't that easy," because we are flesh and easily distracted and seduced by the ways of the world. But it gets easier the more we ask for direction from the Lord, and stop trying to do it on our own.
@@sheilasmith7779 The majority of Christians know nothing about the Bible. Ask the majority of Christians why God forbid idols and why there were no carved idols within the tabernacle/temple and they'll give some vague cause God said so reason, which doesn't answer the simple question.
@@Chomper750 I have no evidence to either support or deny your claim, but agree many do not know simple truths laid out in scripture.
There are many who basically want the "cliff notes," of scripture.
Thanks for this conversation. Most Christians that care to do some dialogue between progressive and conservative Xians right now (and not just yelling) want to focus on technique. That is a temporary fix. The heart of this will be to continue the deeper work within Xian theology because these two tribes are basically the surface manifestation of far deeper tensions at play over many centuries within the Xian tradition.
The question I wish George Yancey had answered is: What in the world IS an "progressive evangelical"??? That's a contradiction of terms, IMO.
It's really not, we have to study the terms.
Evangelism itself is a term of a behavior that has been taken on as a "sect". All evangelism is is spreading the version of the religion you are following. SO you have evangelists in other Christian sects, other religions and outside of religion at all (there are business evangelists, cause evangelists, etc).
And in this sense, progressive has to do with the view of Christ where the "progressive" isn't subjecting them to what they consider "failed", "human" dogmas - the Catholic church is an obvious target in terms of the papacy (vs other sects who see that as idol worship).
And so progressive Christianity is merely focused on the teaching of Jesus, where I think fundamentalism/charismatic (evangelical) believers tend to concentrate on the magical aspects (inerrancy, divinity, miracles) as the central guiding principle.
And so you can have an evangelical who is progressive in this sense, but I'd argue that all Christians should be "progressive" in this way. There is no contradiction in listening and focusing in on the teachings of Jesus, regardless of the various dogmas/positions on the "magical" elements, which I would argue have nothing to do with salvation. Salvation is in listening and practicing the words of Christ, not in the beliefs which are as many as there are grains of sand.
Does that help clarify what isn't an actual contradiction but difference in perspective? That's why George made the distinction that it's not a different arm of Christianity (progressivism), but a branch in Christianity that has always existed - it's what broke the original Roman Catholic from Eastern Orthodox, it's what created Protestantism vs teh Catholics in the West, etc. Progressivism is called heresy by the branch that is broken off from. Old as religion itself, of which Christianity is (and Islam is) a breaking off of Judaism, and Judaism a breaking off of religions it absorbed during Jewish slavery in that part of the world.
As someone who would probably get lumped in the progressive camp, I would articulate this important distinction (at least for me)--
Conservative Christianity is more destination focused: believing the right things in order to get to a place (heaven).
Progressive Christianity (at least for me) is incarnational: living out the way of Jesus and thereby incarnating God through our lives.
So, what seems to drive Conservative Christianity is death anxiety or the fear of death. While what drives Progressive Christianity is this sense that through living more selflessly and peacefully, we can bring the life of heaven here. Also, I think there is much less focus on "what happens when you die" in Progressive Christianity because Progressives don't really think that is what Jesus and the early church were concerned with. Progressives also have a view of God's judgement that is more restorative than punitive. This, I think, also lessens the fear of death.
Is the narrow way confessing Christ or living like Christ?
Is good works enough?
Is personal righteousness more important than by faith only?
@@willmcgee5137 the narrow way is following the way of Christ. I think if you read the preceding verses in Matthew, this is pretty clear.
Regarding faith vs works, I think you have to understand the Bible in its historical and narrative context. So when Paul speaks of works, he is talking about the Law, not simply doing good things. His main focus in Romans is about how to accommodate the gentiles into this new Jewish movement rather than telling us how to go to heaven when we die. At this point in the narrative Paul is trying to begin this new community and working through how the gentiles fit in. This was 2000 years ago though so I think we make a mistake when we just try to lump ourselves into what Paul was doing back then. I think you also have to ask what Paul met by being “saved.” Was he talking about going to heaven after one dies or something else? Paul believed there was a coming judgment that was going to happen in a very short time. What that judgement was is, of course, a question of eschatology.
All that to say, I think we’ve made a lot of poor assumptions when we’ve equated salvation with going to heaven or works with doing good things or judgement as going to hell or Romans with a tract. I’m still working through this stuff myself so I’m not saying I have all the answers.
@Yvonne M I think you’re misunderstanding my point. I agree that most conservative evangelicals don’t live in fear of death. But fear of death/hell is the whole motivation for becoming a Christian from the perspective of conservative evangelicals. Following Jesus’ teachings is often an afterthought. I could provide numerous examples of this. Just think of all the billboards or tracts you’ve seen with something like “do you know where you’ll spend eternity?” Or consider that if anyone dares question the traditional view of hell they will often be labeled as “dangerous.”
@@willmcgee5137 Narrow way is believing that Christ died for our sins and that we can do nothing to save ourselves. Romans 10-9 Eph 2:8-9
This current state of the world is big on labeling and dividing others... (at least in the progressive viewpoint). We can see how those that hold to a more classical Biblical worldview are now labeled often as "radical fundamentalists".... it's really something when Conservative Christians get compared congruently to the Taliban. It's crazy how fast a minority thought can gain steam and then flip the culture to actually discriminate against a previously majority viewpoint. I think it will not be long now until conservative christianity starts to really tangibly see that in the US.
Yes, I see progressives (as influenced by postmodern multiculturalism) to be intent on not only labeling groups and subgroups, but also encouraging everyone, once placed in those groups, to "stay in your lane." (Thus the idea that people can find their own way/salvation by just being faithful to the religious traditions of their communities.) Additionally, progressives are intent on action, even if misguided; conservative Christians are intent on right doctrine, which precedes and dictates the shape of their action, which unfortunately too often defaults to an inactive analysis paralysis. Great interview, Dr. Sean and Dr. George.
Wow! This is great stuff. I got to the part where you discuss how conservative Christians view progressive Christians and I think I can provide some insight. I think conservative Christians are blind when it comes to progressives. Someone who could be put into the conservative box would simply look at a progressive and miss all the theological differences. To be honest, I didn't even know the term progressive Christian existed until about a month ago. I only use those terms when talking politics, not theology. One thing is for sure, nothing has changed in 2000 years. Paul was talking about this stuff way back then.
I think a large part of this discussion is linked to the term Progressive 'Christian'. To me, that term is not accurate to the progressive group, that the word 'Christian' is no longer applicable.
That's exactly the sort of conclusion they want you to come to. Like any Pharisee would, or the Devil for that matter. No, brother Anthony, we must affirm that all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
@@carlosreira413 that's the thing. Some of them don't call on the name of the Lord, many just see Jesus as a good role model. Some don't think he died on the cross to pay for our sins, some don't even think he was God.
This isn't being pharasaical, it's seeing the reality that past a certain point, a belief system is no longer Christianity.
@@carlosreira413 “Not everyone who says to me “Lord Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21
@@carlosreira413 …because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, & believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Matt 10:9
@@anthonywhitney634 Brother Anthony, then WHO gets to decide where that line is drawn in the individual's life? Rather, we first affirm THE EXISTENCE of the Christian Faith, though the historical boundaries have been fuzzy, and let the Lord decide WHO is truly his.
In this way, such things as WHO Christ was and WHAT he did are matters of historical fact AND Faith. We affirm that it has been always maintained that He was both God and man and that he did in fact die and rise again, and that there are many implications of this death and resurrection, primarily the salvation of sinners. All this is good to do.
It becomes PHARISAICAL when we put ourselves in the position of judging an individual's heart, especially UP FRONT. Rather, we affirm that ALL ARE WELCOME at the table of the Lord and that his grace is sufficient and that there is a PROCESS of growth in that grace.
In this way, the path BECOMES narrower as one progresses in Christ. The higher one goes, the more CONSTRICTED is his walk.
In think this is a better model, than the usual Calvinistic one, which is to make the gate narrow and the application process more stringent.
A great foundational work to read is “Christianity and Liberalism” by J. Gresham Machen. He was making much the same points in 1923 as this discussion in 2021. He saw this issue as the phenomenon as de facto two different religions.
I'm dealing with this as a LDS member (mormon). There are a variety of viewpoints which are fragmenting the church. One example is the LGBTQ community. There are LDS, ex-LDS, and never LDS people who are critical of the church's stance on the family, which is opposite to the views of those sympathetic to LGBTQ. I understand other denominations among the evangelical Christian community are also dealing with these progressive ideas. Others we are dealing with is what to do with concepts of CRT, SJWs, postmodernists, and feminists. These are not only found in the church, but in church-sponsored religious colleges like BYU. I would imagine evangelical Christian religious colleges are experiences something similar.
and of course other christians are sure that the LDS aren't Christians at all, no matter if you share their bigotry or not.
@@velkyn1 Yes, Christians would have to decide if Mormons worship a different Jesus, a different gospel, and a different spirit. Galatians 1, and 2 Corinthians 11 comes to mind, and compare that with LDS doctrine. That's why I'm a former Mormon! There is no bigotry involved, just biblical truth!
Blessings to you!
You've got bigger issues than dealing with Progressives, you need to repent of your blasphemous false religion and come to Christ. You're in a cult, just like Progressives.
@@c.m.granger6870 and one cultist attacks another one. and neither have any evidence for their nonsense.
@@paulwiley777 Yep, all of you claim you and only you have the "truth" and not one can show it. You just make up your god in your image.
Dr Yancey was difficult to understand, kind of quick and fuzzy sound making it hard to differentiate between his words. Shame because this is informative and I only understood about 95 % of his points
Depends on how progressive, but those who call themselves progressive Christians tend to deny the Gospels, which means they are not Christians.
This was a great interview! Next time the guest should speak a little slower tho
The "Word of God' is not the Bible, it's Christ [according to the Bible, btw]
And how do we know Christ? Through the Bible. And what does Christ say about the Bible? That it's the word of God. "Have you not read what was said to you by God" (Matt. 22:31). And what does the Bible say about itself? That it's breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16), and that "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). And the NT is identified as scripture as well; 2 Peter 3:15-16 identifies Paul's writings as scripture, and Paul cites Like 10:7 as scripture in 1 Tim 5:18--so the authors of well over half of the NT are identified as writing scripture.
@@danbrown586 Here's what Christ says about the Bible: "There is no life in the Bible. Come to me to find life."
@@KeithGiles (citation needed)
@@danbrown586 John 5:40
@@danbrown586 John 5:39-40 [correction]
I recall reading about this, a progressive denomination wanted to include the song "In Christ Alone" in the hymn book but wanted to change the line "And on the Cross, where Jesus died, the Wrath of God was satisfied" to "And on the Cross where Jesus died, the Love of God was magnified". The author of the song refused to allow the change.
Nice one Sean - George is great! His explanations about race, CRT, white priv from a non white Christian lens have been a great blessing
Is he conservative?
@@leonardu6094 yeah but not so much on the political side. He kind of falls between Drew Hart and Rasool Berry. I’ve learnt a lot from these even though they differ slightly in these issues.
@@trevorcummings2192 Lol what is "between" Drew hart & Rasool berry? They're both raging leftists!
@@leonardu6094 apologies you’re right - I’m on nightfeeds atm so you’ll have to give me some Grace - I meant to say Rasool would fall in between Drew and George. In their debate on Unbelievable there was some consensus at the beginning between George and Drew but of the two George would be able to get more people on board especially Christians as he comes across as less influenced politically and by secular ideas/vocabulary. Rasool may lean way left politically but if you read his Critical ‘Grace’ theory article there’s a fair bit to agree with. All three I believe are genuine people of faith so even though I may not agree with everything they stand for I learned a lot about the spectrum of ideas view within the Christian community - much more valuable than anything gained from the spectrum of views that you get/ don’t get to hear on MSM.
@@leonardu6094 Hopefully he is not conservative. That’s not biblical. 😉
Wow. Seriously interesting and seriously helpful.
Great. Got a few more coming up in this topic soon!
Excellent, thought-provoking conversation!!
Absolutely different faiths, they ("Progressives") should shed the label Christian.
Correct. I typically call them “religious Progressives. “
But look- to them "that believe on his name" gave He "the POWER to become SONS of God." That's Bible too.
The progressives are more Christ-centered than the "conservatives" who worship man's dogma, and avoid the red-letters.
@@desnock Lol, LilyJoe, never skip the red letters!
@@desnock The Progressives are not Christ centered, they're not Christians at all.
*Orthodox* Christian scholars translated *Greek philosophy* works in their Christian libraries into *Arabic* for *Muslim* scholars. They did not have to be forced. Christian is Eastern, not Western. *Majorities of Christians* lived *East of Constantinople* into the *14th century.*
Positive discussion. CSW are a good organisation because not only do they speak up and aim to help persecuted Christians, but also people of other faiths and human rights protestors.
I'm sure they would also speak up for people who want a kinder better world in a way that doesn't value Christian denominational differences as the most important factor.
"The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.”
― Malcolm Muggeridge
If there are competing models for a crime, who is and isn't guilty, should one not hear out both sides before coming to a final conclusion, at the very least?
You might be very biased as I might be as well; all may be; mirrors and reflection, to see the imperfection, through what also might not be perfect, but nonetheless gives a clearer view... Individuals have muddied lens'/bias; there is no reasonable way to deny it. Mob mentality, sheep, buffalo, herds, going along with the flow, easier...
The wolf directing/leading the "sheep"(we C's are sheep too, but we have a shepherd lol)...
Free speech, Capitalism, and Vaccine decisions; what makes free speech and Cap better than the alternative? It >accepts< imperfection as a part of reality, yet offers a way to push >through< it, gives a field for the possibility to see light IN the darkness, rather than claiming one is already IN the light; it lets imperfection exist, >so that< something better can go further than what the alternative would do(stasis, hindering free thought, seeing the imperfections of the current-accepted system/truth claims)
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
― Ayn Rand
"I've always thought of capitalism as better than socialism, but have jokingly, and seriously, said, >just< that it's better than communism/socialism and so on. Man has fallen; ANY system we try to make, will be imperfect, will not be optimal, has the ability for corruption at any given moment. The reason I think capitalism, 'least so far, seems better, is that it uses selfishness, and turns it into something better. The problem I see with socialism/communism is basically that of a bi-plane as opposed to a fighter jet; sure, one makes things easier, better, in the moment, but if whoever has the ability to steer wants something evil... The more power any system has, the more evil any system/entity can do, at any given moment. I have some pretty radical views on a government for imperfect people lol, that I readily accept may not be "optimal" like many people unified may be, however I think it would be kinda like a USA 2.0, having systems in place similar to capitalism, that while are far from perfect... Idk, in the end it's an agreement between people who live in the system, agree to go by the rules. It appears the world is going in a different direction, and The Bible teaches that it will, one world order, mark of the beast, buy, sell, etc.
Our goal as Christian in this life is not to be happy or even healthy(as #1 priority); it's about pointing people to The Truth/him.
Microsoft patent
WO2020060606 - CRYPTOCURRENCY SYSTEM USING BODY ACTIVITY DATA
patentscope2.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606
“There are no shortcuts to any place worth going.”
~Beverly Sills
“Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth."
J. F. Kennedy
"Another well known contribution by Plato is the theory of Forms. The quote "Opinion is the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires no accountability, no understanding. The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world."
"A lie fears being questioned, The Truth does not"
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
“Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.”
-Robert Heinlein
"P J
“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.
The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.
It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent.” -J. Edgar Hoover
(and yeah, I'm no fan of Hoover either, “Yet a true statement is true even when the source is 'impure,' while falsehoods do not become true when stated by good men.” -Albert Camus) "
"A lie get's halfway around the world while the truth is just getting it's shoes on" - Mark Twain
“No one is hated more than those who tell the truth” - Plato
"Does The Bible(Job 40) Describe A Sauropod Dinosaur(Behemoth)?" 🦕🌿✨✝ th-cam.com/video/mEJENaCgq70/w-d-xo.html
"LGBTQ Love" th-cam.com/video/bCe__-OcvsM/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/HTn8FiiO7v4/w-d-xo.html
music th-cam.com/video/JohTK6DeazA/w-d-xo.html
"How Eternity Changes The problem Of Evil" 4:01 th-cam.com/video/Dj2HujbTu8E/w-d-xo.html
Under 10 mins, interesting video, please watch th-cam.com/video/mA4h2cE6_zA/w-d-xo.html
You have quoted several famous Atheists here, and heretics at that.
@@carlosreira413 “Yet a true statement is true even when the source is 'impure,' while falsehoods do not become true when stated by good men.” -Albert Camus
@@huh2275 Brother Sam, "Why is there the price in the hand of the fool to purchase knowledge, seeing he has not the stomach for it?"
@@carlosreira413 I don't understand, could you elaborate a little?
@@huh2275 It's a proverb. It means, "What good is it for someone to strive to have wisdom if they don't know what the use of wisdom really is, which is to know God and do his will?" This is the foolishness of the Gospel, that by believing in a dead and resurrected Roman Era Jew we can have life eternal and all the wisdom in the world to boot! Camus didn't have that!
Roman Catholics are entirely different. Progressive Christianity are entirely different. It's not just thinking from a different angle, it's a different religion.
Try this... one can read the Bible and become a Christian. One cannot read the Bible and become a Progressive or Roman Catholic.
There really are only two religions in the world... Biblical Christianity, and everything else. Everything else... Roman Catholicism, the occult, Mormonism, Hinduism, New Age etc..
Interesting to me is the idea that 'conservative' thinking is becoming more and more radical because of the teachings from wildly bad teaching from places like Hillsong, Bethel, etc., the Charismatic Movement, and now sadly even those of the Methodist denomination are signing-up to not believing the Bible.
So, this all gets labelled conservative or fundamental - often in a bad way, which is unfair.
on the cross where jesus died the wrath of god was satisfied
Yeah, that was the line!
@@SeanMcDowell Some don't like the doctrine of penal substitution and those folks want the line changed (Songwriters: Keith Getty / Stuart Townend refused to do that)
@Pedro Cavalcanti I am very fond of that verse! SInce, without Christ dying (penal) in my place (substitution), I would have to face the penalty, which is death. God is rightly wrathful at my sin and justified in requiring the ultimate punishment, yet Christ took that upon himself, completely satisfying God's wrath.
@Pedro Cavalcanti The cross is a reminder that our sin demanded God's justice. Without penal substitutionary atonement you have an impotent "gospel."
@Pedro Cavalcanti how do you get around the fact that these lyrics are reflecting what the Bible says? NT Wright also has a Christus Victor view, yet he also says PSA is aligned with Scripture, and does not reject that view/
I see this as a both/and rather than either/or.
The lack of effective critical thought and the ease with which some Christians step into agreement with one side or another in serious issues facing the Church is deeply disquieting.
We as Christians may be in serious trouble simply by not exercising due diligence in our problem solving, in our discourses with each other, in studying Scripture and in taking Christ's example, teachings and commandments seriously enough. We also need to walk away from being simplistic using disrespectful terms like "woke".
Wow, I love this conversation. I am an Exvangelical, tentatively locating myself on the map now as a Progressive Christian. As I've brought theological questions from my Evangelical heritage to my Progressive friends, they've often just looked at me funny. Like why am I hung up on these questions? Why am I concerned with categories like "Truth?" This conversation helped me understand why they have trouble following my questions.
Also, keep in mind that
it's not a new concept to call the two separate religions. J. Gresham Machen was arguing that conservative and progressive Christianities are different religions way back in the early 1900s. His book Christianity_and_Liberalism holds an important place in the Fundamentalist debates a century ago.
@@ryanthomasjones Liberal Christianity isn't the same thing as "progressive Christians". Classic liberal Christianity is a gorgeous, highly intellectual field of thought.
@@jasonspencer8558 be careful, you're implying a lack of thought in folks who have a different focus than you do, but is no less intellectual and in many ways (certainly as it regards laypeople) - progressive Christians tend to be more educated than their less-informed counterparts (which may make them prone to dogmas and cults).
@@jasonspencer8558 Good point. But technically there is also a difference between the Fundamentalists of the 1920s and the Evangelicals of today. Yet the doctrinal categories and disputes are almost exactly the same between that controversy and the one today.
@@ryanthomasjones sectarian controversy has followed this particular religion (as it has in every other religion) since its inception. Remember, that the early church were a bunch of disparate cults with a variety of beliefs (sound familiar?).
The major shift at that time was Rome adopting it as a state religion that bastardized in important ways (and you see a schism even then between Rome and Eastern Orthodox, for instance). Rome was more key in exporting it as a state religion than any particular difference in dogmatic perspectives from any other of the religions of the day which Christianity mirrored (messiah stories were common and the early Christian church borrowed heavily).
Objectively the only real way to determine a Christian would be the actual expression (not just of words and dogma) of Christ's ministry. This of course scares the orthodoxies which have been corrupted and infight more than they express Christ's message. TO each their own, but the fear of corrupted systems ALWAYS brands the people that seek to clean it up "heretics" or "traitors". This faux-intellectualizing of these folks bespeaks a LACK of broad historical or theological perspective that relies MORE on confirmation biases in how they digest fact vs fiction.
Thus I don't think either of the guys in the video are inherently nefarious, they are merely working within their limited perspective. What critiques them and undermines their credibility is their inability to incorporate facts that contradict their beliefs, thus rendering their argument baseless.
Tribal labels have always occurred, and the real question isn't who wants to call who what in whatever frame of reference, but to worry about the log in one's own eye vs the speck in anothers, ESPECIALLY when the argument is that "progressives" listen to "Christ too much". I mean, Dear God! LOL
The line in "In Christ Alone" is most likely the one in the second verse that says "Till on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied." That has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the split between Progressives and conservatives, it has to do with theories of the Atonement.
The line expresses Penal Substitution Atonement. There are several alternative theories of the Atonement which argue that Christ's atonement did not satisfy the wrath of God but addressed some other factor, like the devil's ownership of those who rebelled against God (think of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe). That's called Ransom Theory, but it still recognizes the Atonement and the central role of Christ's sacrifice for our sins.
Now, I can see where Progressives who no longer accept Atonement as a central doctrine of the faith might be over-represented among those who object to the line. But the objection to the line itself is not about Progressivism, nor is it about rejecting Atonement. It's simply a preference for explanations for the Atonement other than Penal Substitution, which include such things as Christus Victor and Random Theory.
And for the record, there's no formal claim that Penal Substitution is the only orthodox theory of the Atonement. Some Calvinists might say that, but they hardly represent all of historic Christianity.
When Yancy says that he doesn’t see it as realistic for unity between the conservative Christians and the Progressive Christians (except he also says that tolerance and humanizing is needed), it makes me think of Francis Chan’s new book on Unity. I haven’t finished it, but I appreciate Chan’s humility. I’m going to have to pick up Yancy’s book. Thank you!
Francis Chan went off the rails a while ago.
YancEy
;)
An ecumenical spirit is the mark of a true man of God. We MUST affirm the unity of the Christian Faith. Let the Lord decide who's in or out, as He is the gate to the sheepfold!
Like it isn't right that Mormons have JESUS CHRIST in their name and on their temples. This
Is using the name of the Lord in vain
Sooooo, the ultimate answer is that each individual will have his own, isolated religion. I see.
39:00, individualism vs. collectivistic views of sin, accountability and responsibility would be a great discussion.
Yes, you are wise to note the difference. A really wise brother will note that BOTH are dealt with by the cross. To be IN Christ is to be one with His Body on Earth, his Church. What did the Lord say as he taught us to pray?
OUR Father...
They are both sin. A good discussion would be that being an apologist makes you just as guilty if the impact is harm of another. SO one can't hide behind a church or dogma or political view if it inherently harms swaths of God's creation.
I don't think that the individualists really think through their POV in their abject misunderstanding of collectivism, especially as they are collectivist in their groupthink.
@@desnock Are you following me, LilyJoe? I got this one.
@@carlosreira413 no, son. just reading the same comments you are. shouldn’t be all that confusing. world doesn’t revolve around you.
take a breath and just concentrate on the topics, that’s more than enough for you to struggle with.
@@desnock Ok, but your words are oppressive enough for one to desire they not tailgate. Correct me then, are you not a wolf in the guise of a sheep? If not, why is confusion the nature of your game? You are the one who speaks esoterically.
I see this a ton in my life and just the overall split between the two sides.
Multiple college friends have now blocked me on social media just for the fact that I would not believe their progressive narrative on social issues. Usually I hear that conservatives are the mean ones bc their bigots or whatever, which I can see this being true bc they get politically driven sometimes but I also now see Yates’s points and findings.
In my life I see only conservative Christians trying to have these conversations and having dialogue or debate.
Really, I disagree. As an ex conservative Christian I found people willing to talk out differences on both sides. Neither were really willing to back down on their views but I did note that some conservative christians are better at separating the views from the person and thus coming across as "kinder". If you want to have a good dialogue let me know, because there are non conservative Christians willing to talk things out. Many of them, in fact
Sorry that your friends blocked you, though. I had a friend stop talking me for my views and it was rough.
I have also been blocked by some dear progressive friends on social media because I espouse a Biblical perspective. It appears that this behavior is largely present in progressive Christianity as well. Fascinating.
I've had zero positive experiences with conservative Christians. Maybe southern Baptists are worse.
Uh, coexist and respect for the progressive; yes, respect because they are, as all people are, made in the image of God. But coexist....this is their eternity that is at stake. I don't want to just coexist with our son and daughter in law; I want to keep pointing them to the true God and Jesus of the Bible. God will change them or not but I am responsible to proclaim the Gospel.
That's a ridiculous theology! Borderline insane actually. How could you believe that God "changes people" but still needs you to proclaim the gospel to them before he can change them? That is a weak, impotent God if he has to rely on sinners like you to spread his word to other sinners before he can change them. If God has the power to change people, he doesn't need you to do work on his behalf. If he does, then he's not Almighty. Either God can change people OR its incumbent on people to change themselves. But for you to think that you have a special role in changing someone else is the height of all arrogance. If humans are all equal and all have fallen short, then you are no more qualified to point someone else in the direction of the true God than anyone else is pointing you to the true God. When you appoint yourself to be "responsible for" someone else knowing God, then you appoint yourself over that person. This is precisely why progressive Christians diverge from this doctrine. Jesus was a radical liberal who not only co-existed with sinners, but embrace them. The teachings attributed to Christ declare that his followers should feed the hungry, care for the poor, and take in immigrants. He condemned the rich and praised the poor. He didn't say anything about homosexuals, nor did he advocate people making laws in his name. These are conservative behaviors that cause division within the community (which is one of the few sins that God hates according to Psalms) and divisions within the church. When you say a progressive Christian is not a real Christian, you're going against Paul's command that there be no divisions among you.
I know many christians (including pastors) who believe Jesus is the only way and at the same time believe gay marriage should be accepted in the church.
Fascinating research!
I think he nails it. Progressive Christianity is a different religion and won’t last. It is a stepping stone for people on their way out of the Christian faith. Much like the emerging church, it really has nothing more to offer than humanism.
It is unclear to me what purpose lies behind this desire for a narrow definition of Christianity. The bigger picture shows that 2000 years of purging people with the "wrong" beliefs has left an awful lot of "thems". Why on earth should someone else's crazy ideas about theology affect mine? The point is to love them not start looking for specks of dust in their eye.
In the video they are not talking about 'specks of dust', but they do talk about 'wolves in sheeps clothes'.
@@JV-jq4dt Well, yes. But I think they are mistaken. Attributing bad motives to someone with whom you disagree is just the usual ad-hominem attack and it edifies no-one. Liberals are just trying their best the same as you are. Everyone falls short. Forgive people their shortcomings as you have been forgiven.
@@treescape7 orthodoxies and systems have to create heresies to maintain control of their congregations. sorry to kind of take a 50,000 ft view, but that's the reason that the traditionals have always created heretics - since the advent of religion, never mind the first Christian cults.
Hey George!
Jesus said that those who worship God should worship him in Spirit and Truth. Evangelicals talk about having a "personal relationship with Christ", but they seem to have a problem with the "personal" bit. People are different. Everyone has their own experience, level of awareness and ability to think; and being individual may mean that they may understand things differently.
Wow this channel has really been growing in subscribers!
There’s no such thing as progressive Christianity ✝️ it is finished ✝️ there’s only the ongoing fight against false doctrine as Adam and Eve knew, the Apostles new and any Child of God today knows.
Progressive Christianity refers to Christians with a liberal and postmodernism activist view. Christians who embrace social issues as more important than the theology of the church.
@@January14q yeah i get that ) it’s a non starter.
QUESTION- How do you recommend orthodox christians relate to those who identify as progressive christians? What are the key apologetic points?
and every Christian claims that their version is the "orthodox" one.
This discussion may help. I think we need to focus on the essentials and do so graciously: th-cam.com/video/BXjWhEHpxP0/w-d-xo.html
Perhaps the key is not "apologetic points"?
What in the world does the Creator “Christ” have to do with a progressive “christian”…why on Earth would they identify as Christian when He is obviously not their “Way” to the Father, He is obviously not their “Truth” as they see truth everywhere, and not their “Life” as their life is based on being at peace with the world, not at peace with what GOD commands in His WORD. They do not believe in the Trinity. They are actually universalists in so called christian sheep’s clothing.
And on the cross as Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied. I bet that's the line in the song you're talking about. It was changed to love of God.
Progressive sound like the old label libral for those who do not believe the whole Bible is the inherent Word of God.
The more he talks the more it sounds like the conservative liberal arguem e not in the church especially during the 1970's when the Holy Spirit touched so many hearts especially in the traditionally liberal churches.
"Progressive" is what liberals are identifying as now, because they've largely been outed as Marxists.
This reminds me of the debate of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Totally meaningless except to university professors and totally useless.
The denomination who are currently working out the separation between progressives and traditionalists into separate denominations are the United Methodists.
It seems to me that we're seeing this kind of split in several denominations. I suspect this will continue. In the end, conservative Baptists will have much more in common with conservative Lutherans than either do with their progressive counterparts in their own denomination.
People will keep or adopt whatever identities or nomenclature they please to keep or adopt. Making a fuss will only make heels dig in deeper.
Enjoyed this discussion. I dislike the label progressive, though I do use it, because to me it implies that others are “behind” and that seems kind of mean, though I know it’s not the intent. As someone who would use it to describe herself, I wish we could think of something else, but I’m not sure what would best fit.
I think this conversation was very interesting. Dr. Yancey’s point is quite persuasive. I have a feeling that if there ever would be a change of “name,” progressives would tend to choose something like “Followers of The Way,” as that was a term I believe that was used by the early Church, and it encompasses more of the varied beliefs about Jesus himself that exist within progressive circles.
My last comment would be that, to me, all of these differences go back to people’s understanding of the Bible. If modern Biblical scholarship is taken seriously, a literal reading of the vast majority of the Bible is not possible-nor desirable -I would argue. The Bible is a book written with one “through-line”, I think. This long story is the great truth that God loves us and desires to be in relationship with us, therefore God pursues us throughout our lives.
If both groups could agree to that, we might be able to better tolerate each other. But the way Scripture is interpreted would likely prevent one group or the other from accepting it without some addendum.
But reading Scripture with that as my basis helps me to not get hung up on little details or inerrancy issues, but to see the Bible as a book that points us to the One who loves us beyond measure. And allows me to look expectantly for a word for me and for the Church.
I think we must always ask ourselves-are we worshipping God or are we worshipping the Bible? Treasuring the Bible is important, I believe. Worshipping the Bible is to be avoided. It too often leads to the use of the Bible as a weapon.
Again, thanks for this discussion. It is important.
The key divider with the Bible is that progressive view of picking and choosing what you like makes it nothing more than a religion of personal preference.
hey now. ppl during the past 2k years couldnt figure out. somehow pro gre ssive ones figure out. good job. G o d must bend the knee to the culture. haha
@@finnfinn2381 It's not God's fault we humans lose track of God's message. I think it's arrogant to say we've progressed as a human race, Human pride is worst than ever before 0_0 we still have the same moral issues as the past. Even now we need God's guidance more and more.
@@lrspet01 One could just as easily argue conservative Christians do the exact same thing.
Its one of the reasons I find the topic fascinating.
@@jamalamirihamed442 sure they might do it, but that would mean they have a progressive view of scripture, whether they want to admit it or not.
Progressive = salt that has lost its saltiness
I would say definitely a different God. Jesus said as much in Matt. 7:15-23.
This hymn in a way represents the differences in the way. God. is presented in the Bible as the Yawah of the Old Testament or the loving Father of Jesus. See the eighth chapter of John.
I will not be called a conservative Christian. I'm a Christian, the progressives have moved away from Christianity. It's like being called a "chest feeder".
Do what now?
@@losely451 Liberals no longer use the term “breast feeding,” it would imply only woman can breast feed. So they’ve changed it to “chest feeding.”
Okay. Thanks for enlightening me.
I share in N B's sentiments. I'm a new subscriber but I really appreciate how you let love lead. I'm learning a lot. God bless you, Sir. Keep up the good work.
There have always been heretics from the beginning, people who substitute their wisdom and understanding in place of guidance by the Holy Spirit through the word and prayer
Brother Phil, you will note most heretics were guided by their own interpretation of "the Word" and prayed A LOT. Don't disparage "wisdom and understanding." Those VERY things would have prevented every heresy. I don't think you see the irony in your statement.
This was a great podcast to help me distinguish what is happening at our current church. I’ve tried to have many dialogues with our pastor to understand him but I come to the conclusion that he is a wolf in sheep‘s clothing. Which brings me to Paul’s exhortation acts 20 (see below) if we don’t use this description for the progressive movement then what group did Paul use it for and what was their specific set of beliefs that made them wolves where the truth was distorted?
28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, a which he bought with his own blood. b 29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.
“Learn how to tolerate” a “Christian” who doesn’t believe the Bible. I don’t have to tolerate them. I will love them as I would any non Christian.
Let me help. Do you know Scripture is written in Greek? You didn't say anything at all writing "Believe the Bible." *Ta Biblia* is plural. It's many books, not a book. Only inadequate *translation* makes it *falsely appear* as if one writer wrote it. See the error? Now you see! "Believe" is *Pistis* in Greek. In Latin, *Bona Fides,* or En. Good Faith. It's a legal concept as well as a Rhetorical concept in Aristotle's (Greek) writing. It does not refer to mental states. Your mental states can change tomorrow. Pistis is more than that. It's not ephemeral. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistis
@@scottmcloughlin4371 You're blowing smoke either due to ignorance or duplicity. No one said the Bible doesn't have multiple writers, but is inspired by one Author - the Holy Spirit. Also, citing Wikipedia brings your "scholarship" under dire suspicion.
@C. M. Granger You didn't say anything. You are another bitter slandering liar. You are emoting like a little girl, with nothing useful and adult to add. See how obvious the argumentum ad hominem is? I will return your sissy ignorant whining with more useful true words. Working for Harvard Unitarians (right in Emerson's parish house!), I also worked part time for Bishop Desmond Tutu, helping him destroy South Africa's apartheid government. I even met him and shook his hand. Bishop Tutu's global Christian coalition won against colonial South Africa's racist filth without debates, trials, weapons or votes! Praise the Lord! When South Africa's racist government fell apart, newly freed people burned countless racist civilian heretics alive in fires. We made hell fires burning chaff come true. "On earth as it is heaven." Right? *Then Anglicans rewarded Bishop Tutu by promoting him to Archbishop.* All these details are important for understanding God's will at work in history and in our lives. "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of mere words, but a matter of power." - 1 Corinthians. *This is all real life global Christian history within the grasp of other Christians too.* I hope other Christian inheritors of filthy racist colonial governments, rulers, lands, heretics and laws enjoy their own *chances to redeem themselves.* "Be doers of the word and not just hearers, lest ye deceive yourselves." So much is possible when we put God in charge! So too is God's wrath never far from whining babbling racist heretics. So, these are not debates. These events already came to pass decades ago. *Yes, you can read about these historical events on Wikipedia. LOL!* Wise true words of warnings are gifts from God. It is getting late. That will have to do for now. Amen.
@@scottmcloughlin4371 anyone who enjoys watching christian v atheist debates is pretty familiar with the greek-based definition of faith aka pistis. It's even addressed by CS Lewis who helpfully explained it as holding faithfully to that which you have already judged to be true in the face of pressure from the world around you as opposed to a state of mental belief alone.
@@tayh.6235 This is among my favorite topics. I won't debate. We can explore together. Look up "Pistis" (faith) on Wikipedia. Pay attention to the Aristotle part. Then look up "Bona Fides" Latin translation of that term. Pay attention to the legal meaning of that phrase. Put that together with the Aristotle meaning of Pistis. I don't hold to the narrower modern Christian meaning of "faith." I access the long Christians tradition (Orthodox, Catholic parts too) and the pre-Christian Hellenic Philosophy tradition to anchor these terms. But first take a peek for yourself. Then we have to reread parts of Pauline letters. We are finally on the same stage. Let's not throw each other off the stage. LOL. Peace be with you!
Any who seek dialog over truth is already yielding to the "progressive" position. There is light or there is darkness, right or wrong, truth or error, Heaven or Hell. To be almost right is to be completely wrong. Did not Paul himself ask, "What fellowship hath the temple of God with idols?"
Where did Christ engage the Sadducees or Pharisees in a free and open dialog about their differences so that they could live together and understand one another? Did He not castigate and chastise calling them unwashed cups, whited sepulchers, vipers, and ignorant of the Scriptures?
Where was the conversation between Steven and the Sanhedrin? Did he not accuse them of being the murderous descendants of those who shed the blood of the prophets?
Error is not to be tolerated. The propagates of false doctrines are to be exposed and expelled from the church. Doctrinal, spiritual, and moral purity are to be the marks of the Church, not dialoging with the wind and waved tossed who merit the disposition described by Jude for all who teach another "Christ".
Jay: well said. Spot on. Our goal as christians should not be to seek "agreement," but rather to seek biblical "truth."
The Gospel Coalition is the road to "progressive Christianity" (not only them of course).
They went out from us, but they were not of us. If they had been of us, they would have remained with us. But they went out.
I believe that the main difference between conservative and progressive christianity is, that classical or conservative christianity traditionally argues from the authoritative scripture, and aim to apply it in emediet context, while progressive christianity argues from authoritative context and apply it to a non emediet or as often, in their eyes, outdated scriptures.
Dr Yancey is right. It is very difficult for conservatives and progressive Christians to really talk about meaning in our lives
I feel like the definition of progressive and conservative Christians are inaccurate. I feel like the group defined as progressive in the video are really just not Christians for the most part. Whereas the definition of conservative Christian is just what Christianity kind of is by definition. I understand people would disagree with this but I think a better distinction between progressives and conservatives would be a difference of their interpretation on scripture. For example, believing homosexuality is a sin would be conservative, those who don't think homosexuality is a sin would be progressives. Obviously you would need to find an average on how people answer several questions like this.
You don't need to "feel" this way, because what you feel in this case is an objective truth. They're not Christians, they're just unbelievers with Christian window dressing.
This is interesting. I do consider Sean to be a conservative Christian, but kinda just barely and sorta on the fringe of that conservatism. I guess that is all the better that he is drawing a clean and clear line out there in the borderland; so kudos on this video for sure. In fact, I have a friend who is out in those borderlands, so I'll need to send him this in order to help him see that clear line of distinction. He is already starting to see the difference between falsely motivated teachers and honest teachers, so his discernment has been improving; praise God.
EDIT: Nevermind, if "progressive Christianity" is blatant rejection of Christianity, then my friend has that line drawn rather clearly already.
Definitely different ideologically. To people who gravitate to progressive Christianity that I know, we don’t talk about spiritual things. Instead of a shared faith it’s awkward.
Read the comments below and we can see the problem in the Christian church. How quickly the discussion devolves into personal attacks. Christ experienced this petty, nastiness among the followers and we see it today.
Sadly, we don’t always love others as we should.
@@SeanMcDowell We can have vigorous discussions without the personal attacks
These are the folks I like: Paul Washer; Voddie Bacham, David Whitney, John McArthur ( disagree on his view of the "elect, " as predestined, think his interpretation is wrong) Allen Jackson, Stacy Shiflett.
And I love the discussions you have; always learn something.
I cant hardly believe that there are people out there whom call themselves "christian" and do not believe in Christ as the only "savior" for man. Christ = Savior, there is no other interpretation to this. To deny Christ holy birth right as king of earth and king of heaven, host of hosts, king of kings, lord of lords, is to deny the holy spirit. If you do not believe this fundamental truth you are not a christian. You are mistaken in your interpretation and study of Christianity.
Adam was created king of earth, he was YHWHs representative on earth. When he fell from grace, all of the earth fell from grace with him. We are born into sin because we are both imperfect. There is no way to live outside of sin, it's not an action its a state of being. By acknowledging this we recognize that all the earth is imperfect. All things are in a state of sin. This is why Christ was offered as the atonement for all of mankind and all of the earth. When Jesus was alive walking around teaching he was not yet the Christ. When he died he conquers death and is returned to everlasting life. This is the completion of the law and the return to perfection. There is only one way to a restoration to perfection, the sacrifice of Christ.
To refer to yourself as Christian is to openly declare your acceptance of Christ sacrifice and your need of such a sacrifice because you cannot be redeemed of your sin through your actions. Do not be deceived brothers and sisters.
Our human side wants the wide boundaries of inclusiveness, which is dangerous spiritually.
It would seem that "conservative" interprets the world from the bible and "progressive" interprets the bible from their world.
Their world is just another way of saying humanism
As someone who considers myself culturally Christian but neither left nor right theologically this was a very interesting and informative conversation that is quite relevant to our social and political moment.
Yup! Amen! Can't wait to hear what he has to say.
Is Jesus the one way to heaven? What a wonky question. Everything about Jesus, his teaching, and his Way is how his followers are to bring God's Kingdom to Earth. This is why there is a fracturing in Christianity. They are making issues, that had nothing to do with what Jesus was sharing or declaring, as the litmus test of "true" Christianity
The Gospel:
Plain and
Simple
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent
beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your
minds should be corrupted from the simplicity
that is in Christ.” - 2 Corithians 11:3
Ask someone today if they are saved and
you will most likely hear responses like these:
“I have accepted Jesus into my heart.” Or “I
have made him Lord of my life.” “I’ve been
baptized.” “I said a prayer.” Sounds all good
and churchy don’t it; but it is difficult to de-termine whether or not a person actually
knows the gospel that saves them. These useless phrases don’t describe a thing about what
the gospel is and has left a devastating effect
of people not knowing what it is that they are
saved from nor how they are saved; which
leaves a more serious effect of people questioning their salvation.
Let’s not muddy the simplicity of salvation that is in Christ with vague church
sounding phrases that do not communicate
anything. But rather present God’s word with
clarity and assuredness. So here is the gospel:
plain and simple.
Sin was passed upon all men by one man
Adam, and death is a consequence of this sin
(Rom 5:12). Mankind has an eternal destiny of
condemnation and wrath - Hell - because of
this sin (Rom 6:23). No matter what good
works one might do we are still found sinners
in the sight of our Creator God. And all unrighteousness and those who follow get indignation and wrath. We cannot be found
righteous for by God’s law we are found sinners (Rom 3:19-20). If we have broken even
one law we are found guilty.
It is for this reason of not being able to
create our own righteousness and being born
in a sinful flesh that we need a savior (Titus
3:5). Christ is that Savior, God manifested in
the flesh, sinless, died in our place on a cross
2000 years ago. Taking upon him the wrath
and judgement that was intended for us sinners. And it is through his bloodshed, burial,
and resurrection on our behalf that we are
able to have peace with God and forgiveness
of our sins (1 Cor 15:1-4, Col 3:14). This good
news is unto all but only those that believe in
it are made righteous in Christ (Romans
3:22).
It is then after we have heard this good
news of Christ’s righteousness available to us freely, that we are sealed with the Holy Spirit
and we are now part of Christ’s body the
church (Eph 1:13)
There is nothing that we need to do, no
good works that are required, and no bad
works that can separate us from our new position in Christ (Romans 8:35-39).
Faith and belief in this information from
God’s word is the gospel.
The gospel is not accepting Jesus into your
heart. The gospel is not making him lord of
your life, it is not saying a prayer and it is not
being baptized with water.
So next time someone asks you if you are
saved. Give them the clear assured answer
“Yes! And let me tell you why!”
Find more free resources at:
www.graceambassadors.com
You "grace ambassadors" are really parsimonious with your grace in the end. Stingy.
@@carlosreira413
What makes you say that ?
Is it because the gospel is free ?