Ten Beliefs of (some) Progressive Christians
John Shuck (Shuck and Jive) found this list here, and as I’m teaching a Sunday School class this morning precisely on who will be saved and how, I find it rather interesting.
I would suggest that a group has to have something substantial that is both distinctive and held in common to be cohesive and effective. At the same time, one need not try to force everyone else into one’s own category; “outside the group” doesn’t have to mean “consigned to hell.”
I have to confess that while I find this list intriguing, if it constituted my full list of beliefs, I would probably not bother to call myself a Christian. I might reference Jesus amongst many others, but there would be no particular and direct connection, and thus I would wonder why “Christian,” indicating a more direct connection with Jesus, rather than a connection with any other religious teacher.
I have written about this before in posts on Unity, Diversity, and Confusion, and Exclusion, Inclusion, and Vague Boundaries.
The first reason I have a problem with the list would be precisely that vagueness. This list is possibly a good list to define something, but it doesn’t define a Christian or a follower of Jesus to me. Don’t misinterpret this as a desire to poor contempt on Rev. John Schuck, nor to deny him the label “Christian.” That is not my business. I accept his description, accepted by his congregation and denomination.
But my second reason for having a problem with the list is more personal, and that is the fact that despite being called liberal by many, I am much more of a true believer. I believe I have encountered the living Jesus. If the disciples were deluded, then so am I. The call of Jesus that I heard was not to a particular social agenda, but rather to trust and obedience, founded on a realization that I couldn’t manage it myself. I do believe that a social agenda does result from that call, but it is a fruit of it. It is not the call itself.
So for me, at least, intriguing as it is, this list is far from adequate. My list starts with “… and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
iAllison would fit right in at the church that I attend. Many (most?) of the most active members – the ones who do more than come to church on Sunday and then leave – share a lot of her beliefs.
The primary call, as I see it, is “follow me”. The social agenda, to me, is at the heart of the call, as I see it, because the call was toward a change in relationships – relationships with the Divine, and relationships with other people. And to follow Jesus is to change our relationships. But, as iAllison said, the way I see Jesus reflects the way I see the world. To me, that seems like a very important realisation no matter what you believe. Certainly something I really need to keep in mind…
Hey Henry, thanks for the link and the thoughtful comment.
Allison, I think, represents a large and growing group in America. She reminds me of my nieces and daughter (as well as most of the folks who come to my church).
They have had enough of beliefs, the power plays associated with them, and claims that do not resonate with their experience. They are energized and nourished when they find communities that are open enough to let them express what they think without being told what they must think.
I am amazed these folks are connected with the church in any form at all, and actually most are not.
My hope is that those who are comfortable with traditional language and beliefs won’t further tighten the wagon circle. But they probably will. The loss will be for the church as much if not more than for these folks. T
I think you are missing the point with what sounds like a dismissive phrase, “social agenda.”
It is a life agenda.
John and Ian – there is much more I should say here in response to your comments, but I want to clarify one thing. I do not regard “social agenda” as dismissive. If it sounds that way, perhaps I need to find another way to say it. I too have a social agenda, and in that part of the list I don’t differ that much.
I think a social agenda is an essential element of the gospel, without which the gospel would be dead. It is just not the starting point for me. Can it be the starting point for someone else? In my experience, definitely yes.
Also, I do not mean to disparage those who might believe those same points and decide not to call themselves Christians. The label is a convenience, not an essential.