Defending the Indefensible: The Problem of "Progressive" Christianity: Part 2

Finding Ones Footing 

As was noted in the introduction, Randal Rauser, in his book Progressive Christians Love Jesus Too, intends to argue that conservative believers—like Alisa Childers, to whom his book is directly responding—has a “errant notion that Christianity is anchored in doctrine.”[1] He insists that Christianity is “anchored in Christ rather than our doctrines about Christ”.[2]

However, Randal, in his hurried attempt to respond to Childers’ critiques misses the all important question that Jesus himself asked at the pinnacle of his own ministry,

"But who do you say that I am?"[3]

Jesus’ question isn’t one of self-focused existential inquiry but a question of genuine belief about his identity. 

Indeed the question, as it was originally posed, presumes some level of relationship (teacher to disciples), a relationship that was built upon certain beliefs about the nature of such a relationship. If Christianity is truly “anchored in Christ” as Randal asserts—and I affirm as a true statement—such a statement is definitely dependent upon doctrines about who Christ is in order to affirm that the statement is true.

I mean, who is this “Jesus” that these “progressive” Christians supposedly “love”?

Is he just a wise teacher?

Is he merely a social reformer?

Or, is he the incarnate God of very God who has the right to demand and expect our absolute loyalty and obedience to his commands?

Just who one believes Jesus to be seems to determine whether or not they truly “love” him or not, especially since Jesus himself seems to draw the line at receptive total obedience.[4]

However, Randal’s attention is not directed at demonstrating how these “progressive” Christians that allegedly “love Jesus” demonstrate their obedience to Christ’s commands, probably because that would actually involve having to deal with their direct teachings, which often contradict the clear teachings of Scripture along any number of theological trajectories, some of which we will touch upon as we examine the arguments employed by them. Rather, Randal’s energy is directed at defending a very narrow and winding path that threads its way along the edges of orthodoxy but then leads those who would tread it inevitably over a cliff into apostasy and heresy if followed consistently.

First though, we need to address something that was once a positive, that has been turned into a negative. That is the issue of “deconstruction”.

Tearing It All Down

There is no doubt that there are times when an organization or a belief system can become so encumbered by unnecessary or redundant elements that one must necessarily tear it down to the bare bones and build it back up again.

One might could argue that the Protestant Reformation was such an effort as it sought to disentangle what had become a system rife with abuses and ultimately lies. However, it originally began by simply asking one question: what’s up with this idea called “indulgences”?[5]

In simply daring to ask a question, the world which had once seemed so united in a common faith suddenly broke apart. 

Now, there are essentially two reasons why there was such an upheaval: the first is that there was no coherent answer to the question; the second was that no one would like the answer and it would simply expose the falsity of the doctrine. Interestingly, when one looks into the issue of indulgences, one can see that the system was set up to be abused. As such, it needed to be torn down, it needed to be “deconstructed” in order to expose its moving parts and abuses in order to remove a genuine obstacle.

The tool that Luther used to deconstruct indulgences was Scripture. But what happens when you attempt to deconstruct the very tool that you need to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised up against the knowledge of God”?[6]

Let’s suppose for a moment that Luther had not been under the impression that Scripture was authoritative. Could he have made any meaningful argument about the abuses of the Church in his day? Would he have had any basis from which to complain about them?

Now, there are those like Rauser who would argue that there is a tendency to conflate a belief the authority of Scripture with a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture and that one doesn’t necessarily need to hold to the latter in order to confirm the former in order to be a Christian.[7]

And while that is necessarily true that one doesn’t have to affirm the inerrancy of Scripture to be a Christian, one cannot get from the belief in its inspiration to its authority without assuming its inerrancy along the way.

The issue though is that inerrancy, as a necessary belief for establishing the authority of Scripture is often portrayed in a way that is less than flattering and often assumes the shape of a strawman argument, such as asserting that inerrancy entails a belief that, “the human biblical authors are without error in all statements they make including matters of science.”[8]

This is not to say that there are not certain voices in the more conservative and fundamentalist wing of the church that give those who actively believe in the inerrancy Scripture such a public presentation.[9]

Here is where I find myself in some agreement with Rauser in this critique, especially when he writes,

When conservative evangelicals insist that the Bible is written without error with regard to all scientific affirmations, they do not strengthen the credibility and authority of the Bible. On the contrary, they undermine that authority even as they are in danger of distorting the text’s meaning and significance in an effort to make it fit with contemporary understandings of nature.[10]

However, while I find myself in guarded agreement with the sentiment that there are those who attempt to fit various scientific conclusions into the text (BioLogos and Reasons to Believe) or reject certain scientific conclusions outright because they cannot be fit into their biblical interpretation (Answers in Genesis), I find that these battles often lead to other difficulties that pose problems. And these are problems that Rauser appears to gloss over in his discussion and serve as a distraction for matters of genuine importance and concern. 

Tools of the Trade

Rauser wants to equate two kinds “deconstruction”: the positive kind that seeks to disabuse people of conflicting or inadequate beliefs to bring them into coherence with truth and the negative kind that seeks to undermine and uproot faith and replace it with a forgery. 

Here again is where I find that measured agreement with Rauser when he writes,

I would argue that for many the biggest surprise is coming to terms with the process of education itself. You see, students commonly assume that the process of theological learning is all about addition, as if they start the semester with a partially built brick wall of prior understanding,…While education certainly is concerned with adding new understanding rather like placing new bricks on a pre-existing wall, that is only part of the story. The other part of the process is just as critical, and it involves challenging old understandings and thus removing faulty bricks.[11]

This process is, Rauser notes, is called “deconstruction”, however he also notes that this is paired with “construction”.[12] He also notes that this can be painfully difficult for some people and to demonstrate that recounts an incident with a particular student who couldn’t accommodate some of what he was learning in class with what he had learned in church. The end result was that the student withdrew.[13]

Rauser then attempts to draw a parallel between his experience with that student and that of Alisa Childers, of whom his book is a response to, criticizing her for by writing, 

Leaving a four-year process only four months in, which as I said is a mere 8 percent of the total course of study, would’ve exposed Childers to some significant early deconstruction of her understanding but with little time to process these challenges or to begin placing new bricks.[14]

However, Rauser seems to dismiss clear concerns that Childers raises about the new “bricks” that her “pastor” was wanting to lay down.[15]

Rauser’s unwillingness to take Childers seriously should have every conscientious believer wondering, what would someone have to say or do for him to consider them outside of orthodoxy?

What would they have to say or do for him to consider them an enemy of the faith?

Notes

1. Randal Rauser. Progressive Christians Love Jesus Too: A Response to Alisa Childers (and the Heresy Hunters). 2 Cup Press. 2022. p. 11 (Kindle)
2. Ibid.
3. Matthew 16:15, ESV
4. John 14:15, 24
5. While much ink has been spilled over the actual causes and purposes of the Reformation, it essentially came down to asking a question about the issue of so-called papal indulgences along with several other related issues as noted in The 95 Theses of Martin Luther.
6. 2 Corinthians 10:5
7. Rauser, p. 31
8. Ibid, p.32
9. I consider Answers in Genesis to be such a culprit.
10. Rauser, p. 32
11. Ibid, p. 33, emphasis original
12. Ibid, p. 34
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid, p.35
15. In Another Gospel? Childers says that her “pastor” “came out” to her as a “hopeful agnostic”.