Contra Progressive Christianity
Contra Progressive Christianity
By Paul Copan and Melissa Cain Travis | Bulletin Roundtable
In this month’s Roundtable, two of our contributors, Paul Copan and Melissa Cain Travis, address the topic of “progressive Christianity.”
Semper ubique et ab omnibus,
Christopher Reese
Editor-in-Chief
Progressivism: Some Recent Experiences
By Paul Copan
My University
One of my Worldview Bulletin colleagues, Paul Gould, is also my colleague at Palm Beach Atlantic University (in our M.A. Philosophy of Religion program). Our school is committed to biblical standards concerning sexuality, and this is reflected in our student handbook, the Navigator. Last year, I—along with a couple of other faculty in the School of Ministry—worked on updating this handbook to clarify and reinforce our stance on sexuality. In a day when certain Christian universities have capitulated on their sexuality standards to become more “affirming,” I’m grateful to be at a university that holds the line on the biblical/traditional view of marriage. Marriage is to be “between a man and a woman”; the “marital relationship” is to be between a “biological male and female”; and “sexual relations outside of marriage are strictly forbidden.” In addition, we don’t include our view on human sexuality within a section on “diversity.”
Our diversity statement—which comes under the section “Seek Unity”—reflects the commitment to “loving and respecting all people, as well as celebrating the divine tapestry of our diverse ethnic, racial, cultural, socio-economic, and national backgrounds because Christ-exalting diversity celebrates the fact that we are all fearfully and wonderfully made in his image.” This, of course, connects to the issue of race, which has brought about tension and suspicion and division across our nation, even on Christian university campuses.
Now this doesn’t mean that all of our students are committed to these values. We have open enrollment at PBA. I’ve had some students who are atheists, skeptics, Muslims, Mormons, and “progressive Christians.” Even so, all students—whether they agree or disagree with these basic Christian values—are required to sign a statement that they agree to live by the standards of the Navigator.
My Christian Values Biblical Faith Classes
This past semester I taught two sections of a senior capstone class—Christian Values Biblical Faith. Here’s a quick overview of what the class covers. It (a) explores the Christian worldview; (b) contrasts the Christian worldview with alternative worldviews like naturalism (that nature is all the reality there is), deism (God winds up the universe and lets it go), Eastern philosophy/religion, etc.; (c) shows how the Christian faith has greater explanatory power and has greater resources for addressing the key worldview questions than the alternatives (understanding reality; having genuine knowledge; accounting for objective morality; grounding human nature; etc.); and (d) the implications and applications of the Christian faith to law, politics, the arts, science, marriage and sexuality, and so on.
When we hit the marriage and sexuality issues—including a writing project on the topic of sexuality—I was encouraged by the fact that most of my students affirmed the biblical/traditional understanding of marriage. A few students were tentative, wishing to affirm the biblical view but not knowing how to go about it. I’d say that about six in each class (out of about 30) disagreed with the biblical view, though this disagreement came out more in the papers than in the class discussion.
Some Reflections on the Sexuality Discussion
Here are a few odds-and-ends reflections on this discussion with the more progressive students in my class:
1) A couple of dissenters wondered how they ended up at a university that held to the traditional view of marriage. One student wrote: “This assignment makes me question why I've been attending PBA in the first place. I was under the impression that God gave us the freedom to live our lives with the body and mind he provided for us.” This was my reply:
Did you actually read the student handbook before you signed it? PBA is very clear on its stance on sexuality issues, and you pledged that you would abide by those standards while at PBA. Did you actually take that pledge seriously? And if you read the handbook and disagreed, you could have simply gone elsewhere. Presumably, you weren't compelled to come to PBA.
2) A common argument from dissenting students was that “people should be able to love anyone they choose.” I replied that marriage should certainly include love, but something more is required. After all, what about a “loving” incestuous relationship between two consenting adults—for example, Columbia University professor Joseph Epstein and his adult daughter? Couldn’t they love whomever they choose?
3) One student—a professing Christian—talked about the importance of “staying true to our own values.” No doubt, she could have worded this differently. After all, Hitler was “staying true to his own values.” I reminded her that of central importance is staying true to what Christ values (Matthew 16:24-26). I reminded her of Proverbs 14:12: “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” One can stay true to one's own values and forfeit life.
4) Some professing Christians attempted to justify same-sex sexual relationships from the Bible, even though it is steadfastly negative towards them—and any other sexual relationship outside of marriage between a man and a woman. I pointed out to my class that lots of liberal theologians, who would love to affirm that the Bible is “affirming,” recognize that this just isn’t the case (e.g., Dan O. Via, Walter Wink, Luke Timothy Johnson, and lots more). The Bible says the opposite. I raised this question with one of my students who wanted to Bible to say the opposite of what it does:
I wonder: would it make a difference to you if the Bible really did reject same-sex sexual relationships? Or does that ultimately matter? What if the Lordship of Christ (who affirmed the male-female created order of Genesis 1-2 in Matthew 19:4-6) calls us to embrace an idea that isn't approved by a lot of people in society? Also, a lot of liberal theologians [we discussed in class] simply rejected the biblical sexual ethic, insisting that, instead, we must move past it to affirm same-sex sexual relationships based on experience. We shouldn't take that observation lightly.
If you want to look at an expert handling of the relevant biblical texts, see Robert Gagnon’s excellent website. Even those who have disagreed with Gagnon (e.g., Via, Wink) have acknowledged that Gagnon has masterfully and compellingly dealt with the biblical texts, which uniformly and unequivocally oppose sex outside of traditional male-female marriage.
5) A couple of students assumed that the Bible spoke against same-sex attraction instead of the real concern—namely, same-sex sexual acts. Of course, in the ancient world, same-sex attraction wasn’t a category. I am presently writing this piece from Oxford, England, and the rector at St. Ebbe’s Church (our church home while in Oxford in previous years) is Vaughan Roberts, who is same-sex attracted but holds to the biblical view of marriage and sexuality. Same-sex attraction is part of the brokenness of the world in which we find ourselves, and Roberts offers comments on this point.
6) A number of students talked about how Jesus was so accepting of others, non-judgmental, and so on. But a lot of churches engage in rejection and treating gay people like modern-day lepers. I noted that while the latter has unfortunately been the case, and Jesus welcomed all who came to him, this was not unconditional. The rich young man (Matthew 19) couldn’t follow Jesus because he loved his money too much, and so this man walked away sad, because he had many possessions.
One of my students cited David Gushee, who “changed his mind” about homosexuality. I pointed her to a charitable, thoroughly biblical response by New Testament scholar George Guthrie, who had been a former colleague of Gushee’s.
7) One young woman—a self-professing bisexual—said that she doesn’t go to church because “people like me” get rejected by the Christian community. Another student told me about her lesbian relative, who had the perception that God hated her. These are sad stories—a reminder that the church needs to do a better job of showing the love of Christ, even in the face of disagreement and actions they find wrong. However, our understanding of compassion cannot mean “accepting everyone.” Jesus spoke of rendering proper judgments (John 7:24), and he himself laid out the basics for carrying out church discipline in Matthew 18. Jesus loves us as we are, but he loves us too much to leave us as we are.
— Paul Copan is the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University. Learn more about Paul and his work at paulcopan.com.
“Who Gets to Decide?” Progressive Christianity and the Objectivity of the Biblical Worldview
by Melissa Cain Travis
So-called “progressive Christianity” is nothing new, but its ideological tentacles continue to spread far and wide, eroding the worldviews of many who still consider themselves Christians. Recently, the Barna Group released their conclusions from a study on the prevalence of the biblical worldview. The survey by which data was gathered consisted of the following questions:
1. Do absolute moral truths exist?
2. Is absolute truth defined by the Bible?
3. Did Jesus Christ live a sinless life?
4. Is God the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe, and does He still rule it today?
5. Is salvation a gift from God that cannot be earned?
6. Is Satan real?
7. Does a Christian have a responsibility to share his or her faith in Christ with other people?
8. Is the Bible accurate in all of its teachings?
Only 9 percent of respondents who described themselves as “born-again Christians” said yes to all eight questions. What this tells me is that we are reaping the blighted harvest of decades of intellectual apathy in the church. Not nearly enough is being done to disciple believers in orthodox doctrine and how it informs our overall worldview.
As a public philosopher, I feel an urgency to do what I can to mitigate some of the prevalent ignorance and irresponsibility that has contributed to this alarming state of affairs. A few weeks ago, when I posted the Barna study results on social media, there was a bit of a backlash; some self-described Christians were angered by the stated criteria. Over and over again the question was posed: “Who gets to decide what a biblical worldview is?” This question is rooted in a widespread flavor of relativism—the idea that any general consensus on what constitutes a “biblical worldview” is impossible, so we each must decide for ourselves what is true about God, human nature, and God’s special revelation to us.
As I read the reactions of those who are clearly progressive Christians—some of whom I didn’t realize were in that camp—I kept thinking of that moment in Pontius Pilate’s interrogation of Jesus, just before the crucifixion. In John 18:37, Jesus makes the proclamation: “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate responds: “What is truth?” That statement seems to be the ancient Roman equivalent of “Who gets to decide?”
The huge problem here is that the phrase “biblical worldview” becomes entirely meaningless once it’s untethered from a fundamental set of objective truths. Is the Barna question list too short? Maybe. But if we take into consideration the Christian church’s incredibly rich interpretive and philosophical tradition, I believe we can say with a high degree of confidence that the list is not too long.
With that said, perhaps the worst sticking point with progressives is question #8, since they would disagree with historical, orthodox positions on what it is the Bible teaches—particularly concerning Christian exclusivity, the doctrine of hell, the definition of sin, and essential human nature (which includes gender, sexuality, and marriage). If they are to maintain their stated positions on such issues, they must carry out unprecedented interpretive contortions or even delete entire passages of Scripture. As some progressive clergy are fond of saying, “The church wrote the Bible, so we can, and should, re-write it as we evolve in our understanding of human life.” The logical outworking of this position is that the very concept of “biblical truth” dissolves in the acid of relativism.
For the sake of honesty and coherence, progressives need to simply own the fact that their worldview is decidedly unbiblical. Some of the key leaders in this movement—Richard Rohr, for example—openly acknowledge this, while many of those who have begun espousing various tenets of progressive theology (typically issues surrounding sexuality and Critical Race Theory) aren’t yet willing to submit to the unavoidable implications of their worldview, including the fact that it cannot be harmonized with the historical understanding of biblical Christianity.
For an introductory treatment of “progressive Christianity,” I recommend Alisa Childers’ book, Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity. Another helpful resource is Natasha Crain’s Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture.
—Melissa Cain Travis, PhD, is the author of Science and the Mind of the Maker: What the Conversation Between Faith and Science Reveals About God (Harvest House, 2018) and Thinking God's Thoughts: Johannes Kepler and the Miracle of Cosmic Comprehensibility (forthcoming, Roman Roads Press, 2022). She serves as an Affiliate Faculty at Colorado Christian University.
Win a Lifetime Subscription to The Worldview Bulletin!
In honor of our 3rd anniversary, we’re giving away 3 lifetime subscriptions to The Worldview Bulletin, along with 3 more one-year subscriptions! For a chance to win one of these 6 prizes, visit here to enter.
Advertise in The Worldview Bulletin
Advertising in The Worldview Bulletin is an effective way to promote your product or service to thousands of readers interested in the Christian worldview, apologetics, theology, contemporary culture, and related topics. Visit here to learn more.
A Master Class in the Christian Worldview
Would you like to grow in your knowledge of the Christian worldview and your ability to defend it? Subscribe to The Worldview Bulletin for only $5 per month or $30 per year and learn from world-class Christian scholars and apologists. You’ll receive our free weekly email as well as our subscriber-only monthly newsletter, and gain access to our full archive of scores of past articles. You’ll also enable us to continue producing these resources for a global audience.
To give a gift subscription that a friend, family member, or student will benefit from the whole year, visit here.
Be equipped, informed, and encouraged!
“The Worldview Bulletin is a must-have resource for everyone who’s committed to spreading and defending the faith. It’s timely, always relevant, frequently eye-opening, and it never fails to encourage, inspire, and equip.”
— Lee Strobel, New York Times bestselling author of more than forty books and founding director of the Lee Strobel Center for Evangelism and Applied Apologetics
“Staffed by a very respected and biblically faithful group of Evangelical scholars, The Worldview Bulletin provides all of us with timely, relevant, and Christian-worldview analysis of, and response to, the tough issues of our day. I love these folks and thank God for their work in this effort.”
— JP Moreland, distinguished professor of philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University, author of Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (Crossway)
“I find The Worldview Bulletin very stimulating and would encourage all thinking Christians to read it.”
— John Lennox, emeritus professor of mathematics, University of Oxford, emeritus fellow in mathematics and philosophy of science, Green Templeton College, author of Cosmic Chemistry: Do God and Science Mix? (Lion Books).