In other words, he’s a really good United Methodist . . . he just doesn’t know it yet.
And because of a recent post, he’s my newest cyber hero.
On February 7, Olson wrote Why I Am Not A Liberal Christian which, I believe, is a substantive critique of where modern-day Protestant Liberalism comes from and where it leads. And because Olson is not limited by any kind of “Top Five Tuesday,” he lists at least six reasons for his beliefs. He also has a provocative follow up: Why I Am Not A Fundamentalist.
Anyway, all that got me inspired and set me to thinking: why I am not in the progressive wing of the United Methodist Church?
Why is it that I don’t belong to the Methodist Federation For Social Action? Why haven’t I asked Good Shepherd to join the Reconciling Ministries Network? And why do I look with suspicion at the majority of statements emerging from the General Board of Church & Society?
Well, here goes. Five reasons why I am not a United Methodist progressive.
(Actually, before I do, two quick caveats: 1) I am speaking in terms of theology, not politics. While I don’t make my voting record public, just know that on some political issues I’m conservative and on others, not at all; 2) this theological conservative/progressive divide also does not refer to worship style. Many would say that Good Shepherd’s approach to worship is progressive, yet we hope that the modern format is harnessed to ancient, orthodox theology.)
So, with that in mind, here goes:
1. I don’t believe that progressive Christianity holds exclusive rights to the longstanding goals of what we used to call the “social gospel” —
a vital engagement with the poor;
a radical commitment to ethnic diversity;
a continual reminder to the comfortably Christian that Jesus came to make their lives deeply uncomfortable —
because I have seen all those goals come to life within the community of an unabashedly conservative and evangelical church. And Good Shepherd is not at all unique. Throughout our connection there are congregations who are able to live out many of liberalism’s aims while remaining moored to historic teaching. Check here and here and here for examples of multi-ethnic and missionally-engaged churches who stay traditional in their doctrine.
2. I believe that heaven and hell are real and that Jesus will actually return to earth one day to judge the quick and the dead. Progressive Christianity has a strong vein of universal salvation that runs through it. And while I would like to believe in universalism, the consistent witness of the New Testament along with the specific words of Jesus prevent me from doing that.
3. I choose an ancient understanding of authority over a modern one. For Olson, the conservative / progressive divide comes down to differing sources of authority. Here’s how he says it: However, when I read [a three volume] history of liberal theology in America I discern that all these theologians have one thing in common—recognition of the authority of “modern thought” alongside or above Scripture and tradition. According to Olson, what is current and/or personal becomes authoritative in progressive theology. I am of the mind that newer is almost never better when it comes to doctrine. That’s why in the case of homosexual practice, conservative United Methodists believe that 2000 years of the church’s understanding of sexual holiness (celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in heterosexual marriage) takes precedence over newer interpretations that have developed in the last 40 years. So there is a reason why part of our “liturgy” at Good Shepherd includes lifting the bible — not because we worship it but because we choose to surrender to its authority to the best of our ability and understanding.
4. I hope and pray to embrace the heart of the Wesleyan movement — a passionate belief in free will, a celebration of the assurance of salvation, and a promise to spread scriptural holiness — without a particular attachment to its contemporary forms. That’s why in our congregation we have plenty of women’s LifeGroups — but no United Methodist Women’s circles. It’s why we have children and students lead us in worship — but no acolyte ministry. And it’s why, yes, we built our church to include space for a baptismal pool — so that we as a congregation can share in the celebration of new believers going public by getting wet.
5. I don’t read the bible literally. I don’t read the bible symbolically. I read it literarily. Like we say at Good Shepherd, “the bible is not a book; it’s a library.” And libraries by definition have differing styles of literature on their shelves. So it is with Scripture — and you interpret the books according to the style of writing they represent. That’s why the best of evangelical scholarship can read a chapter like Genesis 1 and know at once that it is not pretending to be a scientific essay but is intead a glorious hymn of creation. At the other end of the library, we can read Revelation and know that it can’t mean to us (modern readers) something it never meant to them (the first audience of, hello!, the seven churches). In reading the bible literarily, I come to believe in the miracles of Christ that many in the progressive wing jettisoned long ago — chief among them, his virgin conception and his literal, bodily resurrection from the dead.
These days, homosexuality appears to be the dividing line between progressive and conservative United Methodists. Progressives advocate changing the denomination’s official position (which currently states that homosexual intimacy is not compatible with Christian teaching) while conservatives hope to retain it.
But I suggest that the homosexual issue is not the cause of the divide; it is a symptom of a separation that already exists. The more fundamental issues involve authority and eternity and even congrgational flexibility. And on all of those I land alongside those Methodist who call themselves “conservative” or “evangelical.”
Through all of that, I hope that some day I can be as strong a Methodist as my new favorite Baptist professor.
There are 31 comments
Thank you for this list. I saw your blog link on fb via the UM Reporter.
Thanks for taking the time to put down into written word what so many of us feel but don’t take the time to do.
I especially appreciate #5. I understood this in my heart, but you put it so well into words.
Thanks again & blessings to you and your congregation
Thanks Talbot!
Fantastic post, I really enjoyed it and will share it often.
-Rich Jones, Wolfforth UMC
Fantastic Post! Thanks Talbot, I thoroughly enjoyed it and will share it often!
Rich Jones,
Wolfforth UMC
Fantastic Post!
Thanks Talbot, I really enjoyed and will share it often!
Rich Jones, Wolfforth UMC
This is excellent, pastor!
I don’t get this elevation of criticisms of progressive Christianity because these criticisms usually involve establishing certain criteria that I don’t see as correct and then tearing it down and mocking it based on those criteria, usually using a tone of great superiority. I, for one, as a Christian progressive, believe that I can share and reflect with Christians no matter what they call themselves if they embrace and place at the center of their faith the teachings of Jesus Christ, and most Christian progressives I know are the same way. We can discuss and struggle together regarding what those teachings mean and how to implement them in the modern world. There are so many problems with the pastor’s critique on progressive Christianity that I don’t want to take the time to address them all except for what he maintains is the “tradition” of marriage, which if you read the Bible you know was at one time polygamy. I sometimes see the relentless focus on marriage as a form of idolatry, an issue that crowds out all others, including poverty about which the Bible dedicates much, much more text.
Thanks for the well thought out and articulate response. It seems you have narrowed the issues that plague mainline protestant denominations at the moment and that it does indeed rest in “modern thought”. Your one phrase about celibacy outside of marriage and faithfulness in traditional marriage is a very good and succinct way of phrasing a difficult issue. It seems many of my friends want so much to be inclusive they forget the often exclusivity of Christs words. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
FYI: The fact that you distinguish between “progressive” and “conservative” means you are actually adhering to a modern, and not ancient, way of expressing faith.
Ouch! Reading some of the Progressive responses makes me wonder why they interpreted your Top Five for why YOU are not a Progressive Methodist as “criticism”. I certainly didn’t read it that way. Not sure why some people feel defensive when it is the preference to either “be” or “not be” what is labeled a Progressive. For me, I am with you, Pastor Talbot. Not because you are my Pastor, but because I haven’t seen anything in what I have read so far in the Bible or learned in various Bible studies to feel otherwise.
Very well said Talbot! There is a lot of wisdom in your words as well as love and hope. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I have no doubt that many would label me as progressive, although I’ve never thought of myself that way. However, here are a few thoughts to bat around:
Inclusivity: I teach that salvation is always in the hands of God. We can never presume to say who is inside or outside God’s Salvation. I also teach that God’s goal is the salvation of creation. Any other goal is too small for God. Will God fail? I doubt it. How will God accomplish it? I don’t know. My role is to spread the Gospel and seek to live as a part of the Body of Christ. The only sure way to that salvation that I am aware of is through Christ which is why I continue to preach and teach.
“Modern Thought:” Yes, modern thought has always been a problem for the church. Just ask Galileo. Consider that “thought” contrary to church tradition, and apparently contrary to scripture, might be an example of an improved understanding of the nature of the Gospel. After all, we no longer stone the children when they are disobedient.
“Miracles” I don’t think I’ve ever preached one way or another on the Virgin birth. However, I often proclaim that God reached into our reality through the incarnation and that Christ was fully human and fully divine. I see the incarnation as more of a touchstone of our faith than belief in the fine vintage created at Cana.
Scripture: I agree that we live under the authority of scripture. However, I also believe that there is a slippery slope out there and that it is very easy to stop listening for the Living Word that is Christ in favor of worshiping the words of the writers and translators. I don’t lift the bible because it never occurred to me to do so. I do closely follow and explore the words of scripture in my preaching. I suspect some would accuse me of being “progressive” in my use of scripture and some would think me close to a fundamentalist. As I said, I don’t usually find those labels helpful.
There is more that I could say, but it can wait for another time. I’m more curious why you feel the need to proclaim where you stand. I’m also wondering if your positions ever change?
Dennis Meaker, Trinity UMC Franklin, TN
Well said, Dennis. I appreciate your language and your views.
I wrote the post for several reasons: 1) I appreciated what Roger Olson did; 2) I find cyber debate enjoyable; 3) I believe there is a real connection between doctrinal orthodoxy and congregational health. That’s not 100% true of course, but I do believe the most effective local churches recite the Apostles Creed as theology and not as poetry.
I use the Apostles creed every week. I don’t care for some of the others that are included in the hymnal. And, I often remind people that stating these words in public will get them arrested in many countries in the world. I remind them that we speak these words in public and in front of one another to remind ourselves who we are and whose we are. That said, I don’t teach the virgin birth as the touchstone of the faith. Peace
I think I’ll use those words when we next recite the Apostle’s Creed. Thank you for that.
And I’d regard the resurrection as the touchstone of the faith and believe the Virgin Birth to be an essential belief.
Peace your way as well.
Talbot,
You mention you don’t see Genesis 1 as a scientific document. While I understand what you mean by that…do you at the same hold to a 7-Day literal creation?
Scott,
No, I don’t. I think many times we ask questions of Genesis 1 that it is not designed to answer.
We want to know “how” and “when” and Genesis 1 is all about “Who” (Or “Whose”) and “Why.”
You really get to the foundation of the matter when you observe that, regarding liberal theologians, “all these theologians have one thing in common—recognition of the authority of “modern thought” alongside or above Scripture and tradition.”
Besides the arrogance in thinking that we are the most enlightened of all generations, the obvious question is how “new understandings” may continue to evolve. This does bump up against the historical teaching that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
And you are also very insightful by noting that the current flashpoint over homosexuality is really symptomatic of a much larger issue.
Talbot, I disagree in that I believe in a 7 Day creation although I do think there are additional and important points in Genesis, however I appreciate your honesty.
Thanks, Mark.
That good insight is quoted from Professor Olson. I may take a trip to Waco!
Do you believe in a historical Adam and Eve?
Yes I believe they are historical figures.
Here is some “Progressive Christianity” written by Mike Lux, a man who received his theological education from DNC workshops. He has also written a revisionist history of our Founding Fathers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/jesus-vs-the-christians_b_1342613.html
The effort to be civil in our discourse sometimes allows progressives, liberals, includers, whatever moniker we hang on them this season, to confuse issues with much speak. It really is simple, not judgmental or condemning, I believe Jesus Christ taught through scripture inspired by His Holy Spirit that adultery is a sin and that we are not to have in our Christian fellowship UNREPENTANT adulterers. I further think, again, based on scripture, this category includes MOST divorces. The modern take on Christianity blesses serial divorce, and even unmarried cohabitation (fornication). This may be sexist but, guys, our women were never meant to be traded around this way, and it is done in the name of Christ, really!? I also know from the inspired Holy Word that homosexuality is a sin and that we are not to have in our Christian fellowship UNREPENTANT homosexuals, abortion is absolutely the sacrifice of our children at the altar of personal, often immoral, pleasure. There are those in our denomination, many in leadership that disagree with me. I argue that they are leading masses to hell while they try to shame me into silent submission by accusing me of being judgmental.
“that have developed in the last 40 years”
This would be because only in the last 40 years has it become appropriate and acceptable to speak in public about monogamous homosexual unions. When one speaks to tradition, one must also acknowledge culture. Culturally–for 19 centuries–homosexuality was associated with extramarital self-gratification in the public lens. Should we also revert to thinking that the world is flat because the Judeo-Christian tradition? Not only is your rhetoric on the superiority of ideas flawed, but also your understanding of how tradition and orthodoxy is built on the superimposition of new ideas.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The comments on the UM Reporter Facebook page sorta suggest that, don’t they Greg?
Interesting blog. May a comment on your five points?
1. On this I agree, just I believe conservative or evangelical Christians do not have exclusive claim to family values, bold proclamation of the Gospel, and love for tradition. In fact I find all of these present at many self-identified “progressive” or “reconciling” congregations. Congregations that appreciate the difference between image and substance.
2. I also believe in heaven and hell. I see them before me everyday as I do both original sin and prevenient grace. I see hell in its most literal and terrifying reality. The images of an inferno and a beastly devil with horns is only the image we still keep in our minds to fool ourselves into thinking that it’s far away from us, just as the images of clouds and white angels playing harps keep us thinking heaven is always out of reach. But both are very much real and near. Do the Gospels not tell us so?
3. You seem confused. Modern understanding of sexuality isn’t the liberation of sexuality, but the idolization of it. The arrogance of a society that thinks God cares more about finding you a spouse than the fate of widows and orphans. It’s the assumption that every single person who comes to your church needs to join a singles ministry to find someone. It’s way your ministry and talks of “family” leave behind the meaning Jesus gives to “family” in his teachings. It’s the way your obsession with “traditional marriage” as you think of it has made Paul and Augustine’s warnings right. It’s the way you think God only had marriage in mind when He said, “It is not good for man to be alone.” In believing so, all you’ve done is repeating Cain’s timeless, yet rhetorical question, “Am I, my brother’s keeper?” You taint the true beauty of human relationality when you glorify its most carnal aspects above others. You do unjustice to the Gospel when you allow the definition marriage to become a means to destroy families.
4. You got everything right here, except the assurance of salvation. Wesley believed we only receive assurance of faith in this life. Assuration of salvation would remove free will. I would have mentioned the miracle and ongoing presence of God’s grace in world and the circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit, but that’s just me.
5. I read the Bible as a conversation with the Holy Spirit, an invitation for It to draw my soul to truths and testaments overlooked in earlier readings. I never come to any scripture seeing myself as an expert on it. That’s the problem with most sermons, is pastors keep reading the same text expecting to take the same thing from it. They reach a point where they think God ceases to teach. Never. Always hope to be surprised when you read scripture. You also said the text won’t mean something different to us than to its original audience. Really? I think the original audience thought Isaiah 9:6 referred to the birth of King Hezekiah, but we as Christians understand it as a proclamation of Jesus’ coming. Are we wrong?
I am newish to the Methodist denomination, and I appreciate your commentary. Having gone to a Local Pastor licensing with a very progressive teaching staff leading it I became alarmed and thought perhaps I had made a mistake in becoming Methodist. I am still on tenderhooks, but something I am unfamiliar with is the ‘lifting the Bible’. I’ve never seen it. (I was unchurched until 10 yrs ago so I am still getting familiar with church folk stuff). Will you explain what you mean? It sounds like something I would like to bring to the congregation I am leading.
Dear Anonymous,
On most Sundays at GSUMC, just before the sermon begins and we let people know from where in Scripture the message will come, we say something like, “we believe the words in this library are inspired, eternal, and true. And so we lift it up as a sign of saying thank you to God for giving it to us and our willingness to surrender to its authority.” Then I lift it up and so do the people in the church. Those who don’t bring their bibles often lift up their bulletin that has the verses in it, and many people these days lift their mobile devices on which they’ve downloaded Scripture. Then I pray and then the message begins. We probably do it that way 80% of the time, and like I said in the post that’s a form of “liturgy” that seems to fit in this modern church.
You can watch services at http://www.gsumc.org & click “Watch.” That may help you get a picture of it in your mind.
we love our acolytes at Myers Park.
This is cool!