It is problematic not only in content, but even more so in the rhetoric used to make its argument. Sadly, it is an approach that I have used in the past, sometimes consciously, but probably most of the time, unconsciously. The latter may be also true for the author of this TGC article. Nonetheless, it is an approach that puts those with whom we disagree on the defensive, backs them into a corner and forces them to choose to fight back, remain silent or leave the field of battle in defeat. It is an either/or, dualistic approach to theological argumentation that leaves most non-Christians feeling justified in their rejection of the Christian religion. Why? Because it is an approach that lacks humility, compassion, curiosity and respectful engagement toward those with whom we disagree.
Essentially, this article makes the case for the inevitable erosion of one's faith, when one steps outside the camp of conservative evangelical/fundamentalist doctrine. It paints the picture of such a step (or misstep) which conscious or unconsciously is likely to lead ultimately to the complete loss of faith and to a life of secular humanism. This logically false rhetorical device, known as "slippery slope," forms the foundation of the argument.
The article, as the title suggests, lists and briefly elaborates on 3 beliefs that "some" progressive Christians share with atheists: 1) a belief that the Bible is unreliable; 2) a belief that the problem of evil is unresolvable; 3) a belief in a culture-adapting morality. The problem of slippery slope is that as soon as one or more of these beliefs is embraced the person who does so is ultimately doomed to become an atheist, probably sooner rather than later, unless at some point he/she comes back to safe and secure nest of fundamentalist/conservative evangelical doctrine.
As Peter Enns points out in his response, The Gospel Coalition Doesn't Really Get Progressive Christianity and Atheism (https://peteenns.com/the-tgc-doesnt-really-get-progressive-christianity-and-atheism/), the argument is based on some very problematic premises: 1) that there is a proven and inevitable trajectory from progressive Christianity to atheism; 2) that fundamentalism accurately and completely represents historic Christianity; and 3) that evangelical faith is intellectually robust; that is, tried and found true by all intellectually honest truth seekers. Enns does a really thorough job of dismantling the article as he exposes its weaknesses, misunderstandings and misrepresentations. I would encourage you to listen to the podcast or read the transcript. All I can say is that I wholeheartedly agree.
As much as there is an pretence of compassion towards those who reject fundamentalist theology, it is only that, pretence. There is no substance. Why do I say that? How can I make such a strong claim? Here is the introduction and the concluding statements in the author's own words (emphasis is mine):
"These are the words former Christian minister Bart Campolo recalls speaking to his famous evangelist father, Tony Campolo, after leaving the faith of his youth. He explained that his journey to secular humanism was a 30-year process of passing through every stage of heresy. In other words, his theology “progressed” from conservative to liberal to entirely secular."
"After all, the contemporary views that many people call “progressive” aren’t progressive anyway: they’re very old, echoes of that primordial question, “Did God really say?” (Gen. 3:1), signs of the most wicked rebellion imaginable. And we all know where that ends up."
The introduction equates the progression of conservative to liberal (i.e., progressive) with "stages of heresy." The conclusion is even more strongly stated, that "progressive" isn't progressive, but rather it is kin to the serpent's lie in the garden of Eden, and it is the "most wicked rebellion imaginable." And, of course, "we all know where that ends up." It is very clear that this author and the TGC, is intolerant of anything that isn't pure fundamentalist "truth." They believe fundamentalism replicates "historic Christianity" and thus any deviation from their definition of "narrow road" is one small, but certain, step on the way to hell.
What is completely lacking in this article is any hint of respectful curiosity and/or compassion for those with whom the author disagrees. It's not the disagreement that's the problem. True "historic Christianity" was actually quite diverse, characterized by much disagreement. So maybe, just maybe, progressive Christians have what they believe to be very good reasons for rejecting fundamentalist doctrine. Instead, throughout the article, what is implied or even stated is that progressive motivation is one of comfort, ease, peace of mind and/or weakness of faith. Secondly, there is no hint of self-evaluation or acceptance of any responsibility. Thus the article lacks any sense of humility. But perhaps, just perhaps, fundamentalism itself might be at least part of the reason why people chose to leave.
The lessons to be learned from this article, however, are not just for the author and TGC to learn, but for all of us to take heed of. Every one of us needs to be more
compassionate and curious, even if in the end we don’t agree. We need to stop
labelling, pigeon-holing, attacking and condemning. Rather, we are called to do to others what we would want them
to do to us. That's the Jesus way! We need to love other, not in word or in speech, but in deed and in truth. As the author correctly states, we should create safe places for people to bring up their doubts, questions, concerns, etc. However, that is not the same thing as actually creating that space through the practice of compassionate, humble curiosity and respectful dialogue. And in fact, the author, by means of this article, does the exact opposite – she creates a danger zone!
No one individual, no one group, no one denomination, has the corner on truth. If the Bible is, in any sense, the word of God, then it runs deep and challenges our human intellects to stay open to the leading of God's Spirit, through prayerful study, and respectful dialogue. It is the challenge of the Bible for us to live out and teach our convictions, but at the same time to acknowledge that not any of us is master theologian or an expert in Christian discipleship. Rather, we are each life-long students who are always trying to better understand God's will and more consistently, but yet imperfectly, put it into practice in our lives.
But don't take my word for it. These are my conclusions. Read the article. Then listen to Peter Enns' podcast (or read the transcript) and come to your own conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment