Tyson Zahner
My last post about James Talarico's progressive Christian theology generated hundreds of conversations. The most interesting ones were with progressive Christians themselves… sincere, thoughtful people who love Jesus and genuinely believe they're following Him more faithfully than the traditional church has.
After engaging in several of these conversations, I noticed a pattern underneath every progressive argument… a shared worldview that produces them. And I think understanding that worldview is more important than debating any single issue, because until you see the operating system, you'll keep getting lost in the apps.
So this isn't an attack on progressive Christians. It's an honest attempt to describe what I think their worldview gets wrong.
I'll start with their core move…
Every conversation came back to some version of this: "Jesus summarized everything as love God and love your neighbor, and that overrides the harder moral teachings."
But I see two problems here.
One is simply a breakdown in what we mean by "love".
Progressive Christians tend to hear that word and translate it into merely compassion, empathy, and understanding… which then becomes affirmation, tolerance, and acceptance. By that definition, any moral boundary starts to feel unloving.
But that's not the biblical definition. Thomas Aquinas defined love (agape) not as mere emotion, but as a conscious decision to "will the good of the other" which sometimes means saying the hard thing, not the comfortable thing.
For example, no one would look at an 80-pound anorexic girl who believes she's overweight and say the loving thing is to affirm her. We all understand that sometimes the most loving thing you can do is refuse to affirm what someone genuinely believes about themselves because affirming it might destroy them.
Even Jesus in His most intimate, final moment demonstrated this while hanging next to two thieves in agony.
Jesus didn't remove their suffering or tell them their choices didn't matter. He offered truth. And one of the thieves accepted it, but only after saying, "we are receiving the due reward of our deeds" (Luke 23:41). Repentance came before redemption. That's what love looked like from Jesus when it mattered most.
The other problem is that this worldview ignores where Jesus said all the Law and the Prophets "hang" on these two commandments (Matthew 22:40). That word "hang" matters.
The law hangs on love the way a picture hangs on a nail. The nail holds up the picture, but it doesn't replace it. Remove the nail and the picture falls. But remove the picture and you just have a nail in the wall.
In other words, love and obedience aren't in tension. They're inseparable. Jesus Himself said: "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15).
And then there's the question no one could answer…
Several people told me their faith is grounded in experiencing Jesus in their hearts… that a personal relationship with God supersedes strict adherence to a text.
I don't dismiss that the Holy Spirit works in believers' hearts.
But here's the question I kept asking, and no one could answer:
(well, they tried, but every answer relied on the same circular reasoning the question was designed to expose)
If what you feel in your heart can override what the text says, doesn’t that make Christianity infinitely malleable? In other words, how do you ever know when you're wrong?
For example, slaveholders in the antebellum South believed God ordained their way of life. They felt it in their hearts. They were wrong even though they were sincere.
The text was the corrective that eventually dismantled their position. Abolitionists didn't win by saying "I feel in my heart that slavery is wrong." They won by showing, from Scripture, that the trajectory of the biblical narrative demanded liberation. They appealed to the text, not away from it.
If feelings had been the final authority, slavery might never have been abolished… because the slaveholders' hearts told them they were right, too.
And here's why it's so hard to argue with progressive Christianity…
In my previous post I mentioned Jonathan Haidt (a social psychologist who is not religious, not conservative, and has described his own political leanings as liberal).
Haidt wrote The Righteous Mind about why good people are divided by politics. His research isn't about theology. But it explains why progressive Christianity is so effective and so persuasive to so many.
His core finding was this: conservatives draw from a broader moral palette including care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Progressives weight care and fairness far above the others.
In chapter 12, Haidt himself wrote: "When I speak to liberal audiences about the three 'binding' foundations — Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity — I find that many in the audience don't just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia."
Progressive Christianity does the same thing theologically. It elevates the care and fairness dimensions of Jesus's teaching above everything else… then treats anyone who draws from the other moral foundations as a Pharisee.
The result sounds like pure love. But it's a narrowed moral vision that has quietly set aside half the palette and declared the remaining half to be the whole gospel.
In one of my conversations, a self-described progressive Christian told me plainly: "The vast majority of progressive Christians aren't against border enforcement, traditional marriage, or institutional order. The difference is we don't see those as moral issues."
That's not underweighting those foundations. That's removing them from the moral category entirely which is exactly the pattern Haidt describes.
Ultimately, I don't doubt the sincerity of the progressive Christians I spoke with this week. But sincerity isn't the same as accuracy.
A worldview that makes your own heart the final authority (above the text, above 2,000 years of consistent teaching) is a worldview that can never be corrected. Every hard teaching gets replaced by "but love." Every moral boundary gets reframed as legalism.
But that's not freedom.
Anyone who's loved an addict knows that removing every boundary doesn't set someone free. It just removes the only things that might have saved them. It's a prison with no walls… a place where you can wander anywhere, but no one can ever tell you you've gone the wrong way.
The deep end of Christianity isn't the version that tells you what you want to hear. It's the one that loves you enough to tell you what you need to hear.
44 comments:
I'd be very interested in a good faith conversation with this fellow. If I did, I'd point out that he's not got a good grasp on progressive Christians.
For instance, when he opines...
Progressive Christians tend to hear that word and translate it into merely compassion, empathy, and understanding… which then becomes affirmation, tolerance, and acceptance. By that definition, any moral boundary starts to feel unloving.
But that's not the biblical definition. Thomas Aquinas defined love (agape) not as mere emotion, but as a conscious decision to "will the good of the other" which sometimes means saying the hard thing, not the comfortable thing.
That certainly doesn't fit my crowd of Christians. As you know, many in my community are in the helping fields and of course that means being blunt and saying hard things to our clients, people we work with and with government agencies and funders. For instance. Of course, in any group, there will be some conservatives, liberals and others with a more timid notion of love. I'm just noting it's not normative in my circles or expanded network of connections.
For starters. I'd bet he could agree that starting out with a bad presumption is not conducive to good understanding.
Dan
To answer a couple of his questions (where he's overlooking a problem in his position, I'd say)...
if what you feel in your heart can override what the text says, doesn’t that make Christianity infinitely malleable?
I don't think so. Jesus said what he said, taught what he taught. It's not inscrutable, I'd tell him.
I would also add, as you likely know, that we ARE fallible humans without an ability to ask Jesus for clarification, but that is true for all readers, followers of Jesus, liberal, conservative and other.
But I'd remind him that Jesus DID offer the Golden Rule measure, and that's not wholly inscrutable. We may question, "is it most loving to welcome an addict into our home to help them heal or is it most loving to say they need to go to a rehab...?" And different circumstances and different people might suggest a different response with no one "right" answer. People of good faith may disagree.
On the other hand, is it loving to beat them half to death to abuse them into giving up their addiction... is it loving to kidnap their child and abuse them to force change? No, not loving.
But in the uncertain questions up to the extremes, we may not objectively know the most loving response. That is why many of us would say Jesus' way is ultimately a way of grace.
In other words, how do you ever know when you're wrong?
We won't always know objectively, perfectly the objectively right answer. Not conservatives, not liberals.
Thus, grace.
And I'd ask him if he thinks he always objectively know the right answer. He'd likely concede, No.
I'd then ask him is there an objectively right subset of moral answers that he DOES objectively know and if he said, Yes, I'd ask him for the list of behaviors he knows perfectly right and he likely wouldn't (maybe, but that hasn't been my experience with conservatives). But if he did, I'd ask him HOW he knows the objectively right answer and IF he answered, he'd probably say some version of, The Bible tells me so.
To which, I'd respond that I'm looking at the Bible and don't share his conclusion. I'd then ask, how do we know which person has the right of it and based on what... a rubric, a pope?
And THAT is what I'd love for him to answer.
Dan
I'm sure you would.
It's interesting that you start by projecting your perception of what your small crowd might think, onto all progressive christians. I suspect that your projection is problematic, but whatever. I suspect that you place too much weight on your personal experience as well.
Given that you feel confident making broad, sweeping, generalizations on progressive christians based on your personal experience, I guess that means that I can do the same and you'll accept my personal experience as equal in validity to yours. This just from my immediate circle of friends/acquaintances, without taking into account what those I read and am exposed to beyond my circle.
My personal circle consists of many more progressive christians (and in my world, even "conservative" Christians lean progressive), and based on what they tell me, I believe that he's closer to the mark than you might think.
I'm not sure that advising your clients to conform to the requirements of others is really demonstrating the self sacrificial love outlined by Jesus and Paul.
But, yes starting out with bad presumptions is unlikely to lead to good understanding. Especially in cases where one with bad presumptions is resistant to opening up to different positions.
In this case, you'd need to start by demonstrating that your hunch does, in fact, represent progressive christians outside of your small crowd.
Well, if you "don't think so" then the discussion is concluded. Contradicting the plain meaning of the text makes perfect sense, right?
Actually, Jesus technically didn't "offer the Golden Rule", in the sense I suspect you mean. Rather Jesus reminded those He was speaking to that the Golden Rule originated in Deuteronomy, and was grounded first in loving YHWH with one's whole being.
The problem comes with how you define love.
To use your example, is it "loving" to provide an addict with unlimited drugs or alcohol to prevent the pain of withdrawal? What shows more love to an addict, enabling his addiction or pushing then to go through the pain of withdrawal with the end goal of being sober and healthy?
Fortunately, you have the opportunity to actually ask him yourself rather than argue with yourself here. He's active on social media, I found him with a brief Google search.
My suggestion is that you find him yourself and tell him that you don't share his conclusion and that you think he's wrong. On what basis you'd think that I can't fathom, but go find him and bring your best arguments.
What I find interesting about your response is that it doesn’t actually respond to the case he made. He was referencing Talarico”s comments and the nationwide narrative around those comments.
The unanswered question that is left is, “Given the fact that you’re merely expressing an opinion based on yourself and your desire to speak for your “crowd” and that you are expressly denying that you are right, why should anyone care what you think? Let alone why should anyone feel compelled to respond?”.
Those are rhetorical questions. No answer needed.
"I don't think so. Jesus said what he said, taught what he taught. It's not inscrutable, I'd tell him."
This seems incredibly contradictory given Dan's constant demand that we prove how we know what we defend as true. But when Dan reads Scripture, apparently, HIS position is Jesus's teachings aren't impossible to understand. Dan pretends he counts himself among infallible humans and then says the teachings of Christ are not inscrutable (little Danny learned a new word today). To whom? To Dan's progressive circle of pretend Christians. "Fallibility" only comes up when analyzing the understanding of actual Christians and those who strive to be among them.
I don’t disagree with your conclusion. But I think it’s important to note that Dan and the author are on two different tracks. The author seems more interested in the fact that Talarico has been elevated to some sort of authority among progressive christians and in noting the pitfalls of this elevation. The author seems to be addressing the meta narrative, Dan seems focused on himself and pushing his personal narrative.
I look forward to seeing Dan actually asking these questions to the author, as he seems to be pretty accessible.
That the whole FCC aspect of the Talarico interview has been lied about is another thing entirely.
Craig:
I suspect that your projection is problematic, but whatever. I suspect that you place too much weight on your personal experience as well.
The dude Craig is citing:
After engaging in
several of these conversations,
I noticed a pattern underneath every progressive argument… a shared worldview that produces them.
So, I've been in what you would consider the progressive Christian world since I was at least thirty... more than half of my life. I know, of course, myself and my progressive family, but also the progressive (ish) church I attended when I was thirty and the wildly liberal church I've attended since then - this is hundreds of people, as time has passed and people have come and gone. Beyond that, I am associated with groups like Baptist Peacemakers, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, PCUSA and PAM (Presbyterian musicians/worship planning group), a variety of nature and community-connected Christians and spiritual thinkers, the fans of Thomas Merton, Wendell Berry, Ken Sehested, Bret Hesla, Ched Myers and countless other progressive-minded thinkers, CLOUT and the DART network of progressive-minded churches, my family's connections with Volunteers of America (a national progressive social service agency), etc, etc... literally thousands of other progressive people and groups spread around the US and around the globe. I'm IN this world, daily, hourly. We meet, plan, support one another, organize, worship and otherwise are part of a common Beloved Community, again, to the tune of thousands of progressive-minded Christians.
Meanwhile, this guy has had "several conversations" according to him, as he cites "hundreds of comments" he's read.
And yet, YOU are concerned that MY sampling is too small... while this guy, you're willing to cite as perhaps making a good point about liberal Christians because he's had several conversations.
Which is it? Is "only" having hundreds of close connections and thousands of extended but significant connections to small a sample to speak authoritatively about what progressive Christians tend to believe... but "a few conversations" is sufficient to make you think this guy knows what he's talking about?
Do you see your rational flaw and the flaw in your grace?
Craig continued digging a hole:
Given that you feel confident making broad, sweeping, generalizations on progressive christians based on your personal experience, I guess that means that I can do the same and you'll accept my personal experience as equal in validity to yours
They are broad generalizations about hundreds/thousands of people and many groups deeply involved in the work of progressive Christian thinking. Is your experience as deep as that? Are they involving close personal relationships or casual acquaintances?
I'm glad to acknowledge your experiences ARE your experiences, coming from a place of open hostility towards Christian progressives. Is that a fair consideration? I have to seriously doubt that your little conservative experiences compare poorly to the daily work and research of people like me who are deeply connected to progressive Christians. Do you agree that this is probably fair?
I mean, again, because of my work in progressive Christian fields, because of my wife and my church's work in progressive Christian fields, because of my beloved community's work in progressive Christian fields... numbering hundreds of hours each week, IF you want to claim you have THAT kind of depth of connection to progressive Christianity... well, I'm going to have to call BS until you support it. But surely you will agree you don't have that kind of depth in terms of time, shared work, worship, life and conversations that I have.
Is that fair?
Craig:
It's interesting that you start by projecting your perception of what your small crowd might think, onto all progressive christians.
Dan:
Of course, in any group, there will be some conservatives, liberals and others with a more timid notion of love. I'm just noting it's not normative in my circles or expanded network of connections.
As I continually point out, NO group (conservative, liberal or otherwise) is a monolith, as I just stated above if you had read it for understanding. There are, of course, conservative religionists who are convinced that "'christian' nationalism" and racism are good "christian" viewpoints. But that doesn't mean that all conservatives think that. Likewise, there are going to be outliers in the progressive Christian world. For starters, while many people will identify as "liberal Christian" or "conservative Christian..." not all are educated or well-informed about what it is they're identifying as who they are. I do not judge all conservative Christians (including myself, once upon a time) based upon the actions and attitudes of the most graceless, hostile, racist, sexist and uneducated conservative Christians. I'd expect the same recognition from you. Not all those commenting in the name of "progressive Christianity" are equally informed on all that means.
No group is a monolith.
Are you willing to grant that much? Do you want to be judged by the worst of conservative Christians?
Craig:
I suspect that your projection is problematic, but whatever. I suspect that you place too much weight on your personal experience as well.
Based on what? Your limited experience with progressive Christians? Why would you do that?
Again, this is a world and group I'm deeply immersed in. My daily and hourly life often revolves around Christian beliefs and connections and attitudes and efforts that you would call "liberal Christian."
As noted, I'm connected with progressive Christians around Louisville, around the US and around the world and in a deep and intimate manner. You aren't suggesting, are you, that you have as much deep connection to progressive Christians as I do, are you?
One of the perspective advantages I have (perhaps, over you... you tell me), is that I have a full 30 years of DEEP indoctrination and connection and daily time spent connected to traditional, ultra-conservative religion in the evangelical Christian tradition AND a fully 33+ years of connection to and daily time spent connected to traditional, ultra-progressive Christian tradition. That gives me some degree of credibility and familiarity with both worlds.
Do you have that kind of deep connection? I have to doubt it.
So, if that's the case, on what basis would you suggest my deep, daily connections to progressive Christianity are less informed than your connections, however deep or regular they may be?
Do you see the problem?
Yes I am concerned that anyone who references literally every position he takes to either himself or his silo is working from a small sample size. I can’t recall an instance where you’ve referenced any position you’ve advocated for to anyone other than yourself or your silo.
No. That you name drop a few names isn’t particularly impressive.
Ahhhhh, we’re into the Dan measuring body parts section of his rant.
I’m not playing.
I’ll note that you’ve already chosen to resort to lies, not a good look. Your “place of open hostility” is simply false. Do I disagree with many of the theological positions of progressive christians, absolutely. Am I “openly hostile” to them, no. That I respond to you in response to your behavior, isn’t representative of how I respond to others,
No, when you make shit up the likelihood that I’ll agree with your made up shit is zero.
No, you jumping to conclusions is not fair in the least. It’s how you roll, but it’s not fair.
When you get the courage to spew this crap at the author directly, I’ll take you seriously. Right now this is just Dan’s pride bragging about how awesome he is in his own mind.
Craig:
“Given the fact that you’re merely expressing an opinion based on yourself and your desire to speak for your “crowd” and that you are expressly denying that you are right, why should anyone care what you think? Let alone why should anyone feel compelled to respond?”.
Those are rhetorical questions. No answer needed.
They may indeed be rhetorical questions as far as you're concerned. But they ARE important questions and worthy of consideration, whatever your personal human opinion may be. And so...
why should anyone care what you think?
Because in our real world, there are people who claim to speak for "God" as defined by conservative religionists. These humans are trying to create policies based upon their religion and their personal hunches about what "god" may think. The important thing here is: THEY do not speak for God. They have their human opinions and God has NOT endorsed their opinions. When religionists try to use and abuse "god" to get their human will done, that is or can be deeply problematic and it is important to clarify that they do NOT speak authoritatively for God. They are offering their human opinions based upon their human traditions. Some of which are rationally and morally deeply flawed.
It is vital, therefore, to establish some common ground when dealing with such human traditions. The first and perhaps foremost point would be: They can not objectively PROVE they are speaking for God. They are offering human opinions from their human traditions. That is a vital starting point in find common ground for a commonwealth.
Let alone why should anyone feel compelled to respond?”.
For exactly the reasons given above.
FYI: I've asked your source on FB (his blog doesn't allow for questions) and he has begun answering, beginning with, "Well, if that isn't you, then I'm not speaking of you..." to which I responded that, "Well, you were making a blanket statement of progressive Christians... if it doesn't apply to me, then it's not consistently factual, is it?"
Waiting to hear his answers.
Dan
Well, I am very proud of you for your bravery ib finding him to take up your issues with him instead of using me as a proxy.
Given your contentious beginning, and you insistence of using yourself as the measuring standard for all progressive christians, I suspect that you'll probably be disappointed. If some rando popped up o my FB with that attitude, I'd be unlikely to invest a lot of time in the conversation. FYI, you do realize that his general statement (based on his experience) can be True while simultaneously not perfectly fitting you, don't you.
But again, congratulations on your bravery, and embrace grace.
I've never said otherwise. I just don't have enough arrogance to measure any group by myself or my friends.
" Do you want to be judged by the worst of conservative Christians?"
I don't want to, but you and people like you, judge me that way regularly.
"Based on what?"
Based on 10 plus years interacting with you, decades of friendships with progressive christians, based on fairly regular and broad reading/study of progressive christian authors/speakers/influencers. Based on the fact that I've never heard a progressive christian with anything close to your Dan based theology.
I'll note that your whole argument, at this point, is based off of your lived experience being somehow superior to mine. Which is, on it's face. an absurd standard.
"Your limited experience with progressive Christians?"
Given the fact that everyone's experience with anything is "limited", and that there is no one with unlimited experience (including you) this is a manifestly stupid question. But yeah, I do have extensive experience interacting in multiple ways with a significant number of progressive christians.
"Why would you do that?"
Why would I do what? I'll try to guess what you might mean.
Why would I interact with/be friends with a reasonably large number of progressive christians? Because they are literally my friends or family, because I don't exist in a silo and am interested in the beliefs of others, because I seek Truth and am pretty open to where it might be found, or because people recommend things to me.
Why do I draw conclusions about people/groups based on my interactions with those people/groups?
Because that is the only way to do so. Drawing conclusions about people based on superficial criteria (too Calvinist) is simply shallow and stupid.
Oh, if I didn't interact with progressive christians, I'd be excluding a significant portion of people I know and like.
" You aren't suggesting, are you, that you have as much deep connection to progressive Christians as I do, are you?"
As I have no idea how to measure this depth, I have no idea how to answer the question. Further, the implication that the only possible way I can have any knowledge of progressive christianity is if I can be as deep as you are is absurd. Finally, it's not a competition. But your excessive pride in something so shallow is kind of disturbing and graceless.
"You aren't suggesting, are you, that you have as much deep connection to progressive Christians as I do, are you?"
That you think that slightly rewording and repeating the same question in one comment makes you superior, is beyond me. It's not a competition.
I'll note that your excuse for your broad and inaccurate generalizations and claims about conservative Christians are based in your alleged experience in a "conservative" church decades ago, and you simply expect us to accept your "expertise". Double standard, absolutely.
"Do you have that kind of deep connection? I have to doubt it."
No, you don't "HAVE TO DOUBT" anything, you choose to. That you choose pride over grace in some sort of bizarre competition seems contrary to the very beliefs you claim to hold. That you seem to believe that only someone with connections as "deep" as you can evaluate progressive christian theology, belief, and practice, may be one of the stupider and most arrogant things you've ever said.
"So, if that's the case, on what basis would you suggest my deep, daily connections to progressive Christianity are less informed than your connections, however deep or regular they may be?"
I make no suggestions, because I simply don't care.
"Do you see the problem?"
Yes, I do.
I'm going to pick one, relatively contemporary, progressive author/professor/speaker/teacher who I've spent a fair amount of time with and read extensively. A delightful gentleman named Greg Boyd.
I can say that his version of progressive christian theology differs significantly from yours. I'm sure, given your deep immersion in progressive christianity, that you can explain the differences and why you accept or reject open theism.
I'll wait.
Because, of course you are going to demonstrate your pride/arrogance by answering questions that weren't intended to be answered.
"Because in our real world, there are people who claim to speak for "God" as defined by conservative religionists.'
Just like there are people "claiming to speak for 'God" defined by Muslims/Jews/Theistic religions from literally every space along the conservative/liberal continuum. But it's only the ones you define as "conservative religionists" that are the problem, good to know. That you only focus on Christians is also good to know.
"These humans are trying to create policies based upon their religion and their personal hunches about what "god" may think."
As are you, progressive christians engaged in politics and Muslims, so what. Is someones' faith not supposed to inform every aspect of their lives? Every one of my progressive friends and family members are basing their position on immigration law and enforcement on their hunches about "what 'God' thinks", including you. So have about consistency and grace?
"The important thing here is: THEY do not speak for God. They have their human opinions and God has NOT endorsed their opinions."
1. Please provide concrete examples of anyone actually doing this.
2. The equally important point is that neither do you.
3. If their "opinions" actually align with YHWH and His plans, purposes, and commands, then are they still merely opinions?
" When religionists try to use and abuse "god" to get their human will done, that is or can be deeply problematic and it is important to clarify that they do NOT speak authoritatively for God. "
1. The problem is how you define "religionists", as the only people you ever use this term to describe are conservative Christians.
2. Misusing YHWH or Scripture to advance a secular or political agenda is wrong no matter who does it. If an atheist uses the idiotic "Jesus was a refugee" trope, or anything they borrow from Scripture it's equally problematic.
3. Please provide examples of someone who claims to "speak for God", as the reason for advancing a specific political agenda, then prove objectively that they are not speaking for God.
4. Strangely enough Talarico is pretty much doing exactly what you are bitching about in the interview that sparked this whole thing.
5. I assumed, because you claim to be well informed, that you were familiar with the controversy surrounding the Talarico/Colbert interview. Further that you'd be familiar with the lies told about the FCC and the real reason why the interview wasn't aired on CBS.
"They are offering their human opinions based upon their human traditions. Some of which are rationally and morally deeply flawed."
Specifically who are you speaking of and what are the specific, objective, moral flaws?
"I t is vital, therefore, to establish some common ground when dealing with such human traditions. "
Given your starting point as expressed above, I'm not sure what "common ground" you expect to find. I'm also not sure that you can objectively prove how "vital" finding "common ground" based on your predetermined limits is.
"The first and perhaps foremost point would be: They can not objectively PROVE they are speaking for God. They are offering human opinions from their human traditions. That is a vital starting point in find common ground for a commonwealth."
Well, I can see how demanding conformance to one of your unproven human opinions would be "vital" for finding "common ground". "Common ground" is always found when one side makes demands of the other as a condition of even having a conversation.
I can see that your belligerence and hostility will probably not lead to a fruitful conversation with the author, and I suspect that you'll blame his refusal to agree with your demands on him.
If you decide to bitch about any conversations you have with him here, please remember that I will be following the conversation and can draw my own conclusions. I don't need to hear your biased misrepresentations.
Craig:
you insistence of using yourself as the measuring standard for all progressive christians,
1. Don't be obtuse. This is stupidly false and unreasonable.
2. What I AM doing is noting that the suggestion that "liberal Christians" as a group do NOT believe what he suggested. There may be SOME who believe that way (I'm dubious, but there may be some), but he has no data to suggest that it's in any way a common set of beliefs.
3. What I AM doing is noting that, if in MY not tiny circle of progressive Christians, that there are none who would significantly affirm what he says is a "liberal" position, then where is the evidence to suggest that his personal human opinion should be taken as an indication that it is normative.
In other words, IF in my circles of progressive types, there were only 20% who believed what he said liberal Christians believe, that might be one bit of data. But, given that there are functionally none who would affirm what he calls a "liberal belief" or worldview*, that sampling would suggest that it's not a common view.
[* and as a reminder, what he claimed was the problem with liberal Christian thinking: "By that definition, any moral boundary starts to feel unloving.
But that's not the biblical definition. Thomas Aquinas defined love (agape) not as mere emotion, but as a conscious decision to "will the good of the other" which sometimes means saying the hard thing, not the comfortable thing." As if we don't have moral boundaries. It's just a functionally ridiculous claim.]
Again, I'm not talking about just my progressive minded family. I'm not talking about just my progressive church with over 100 connections. I'm not talking about just my sort of progressive previous church with over 100 connections. I'm talking about black progressives, white progressives, rich and poor progressives, working class and upper working class, Presbyterian, Baptist, anabaptist, Lutheran, non-denominational, etc, etc, etc - a wide range of progressive Christians from around the US and, to a much lesser degree, around the world. That's not an insignificant or monolithic data sampling to be ignored. I'm not saying this is ALL progressive Christians, I'm noting the reality that my not-small sampling suggests it's not a normative position.
As to the rest of your stuff, [rolls eyes].
Just for what it's worth, we've had several polite interchanges with him getting progressively more... well, like y'all. He's still being polite but then he says things like "I’m glad you’re at least being honest and no longer hiding behind "I love the Bible" while functionally setting it aside."
Of course, I never said I don't love the Bible and of course, I DO love the Bible.
Of course, I haven't "functionally set it aside" and instead, I'm striving to have a HIGH view of the Bible, precisely because I love its teachings and lessons.
He's apparently seeing that I have a different approach to honoring the Bible than what he has and that, to him, is "not loving" the bible and "setting it aside." This is how things inevitably start to descend in these conversations. If another believer doesn't accept your collective way of understanding the Bible and God, then we hate the bible and are not following God. It's not enough for you all to say, "Well, I don't believe as you do..." you all have this tendency to take it a step further towards rudeness and rejection and speaking for the others what we haven't said... that, instead of simple polite disagreement.
We'll see how it goes.
1. It is unreasonable, yet you continue to do so.
2. The ignorance excuse, clever. I'll note that your standard for disbelieving is yourself, which as you noted is unreasonable. You have "no DATA" either, but you'll pretend that your "no DATA" is somehow better.
3. That is exactly my point. You are drawing conclusions about all progressive christians based on those in your circle, as if your circle is definitive.
As for the rest of your self justifying, bragging, I simply don't care.
Yeah, I get it. The burden of pride is great.
I literally asked you not to do what you just did. I read the exchange, I don't need your biased, incomplete, and misleading summary.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. This is just you repeating the same old talking points you've been spewing for years. Nothing, new, no proof, no "DATA", just your unproven hunches.
"We meet, plan, support one another, organize, worship and otherwise are part of a common Beloved Community, again, to the tune of thousands of progressive-minded Christians."
Wow. That's a lot of fake Christians!
"I'm IN this world, daily, hourly."
You're of this world. That's a problem.
I admit to a degree of open hostility on my part. First, to the falsehoods of the progressives in general, and then to those like Dan who reject correction without the "good faith" counter argument and evidence he demands of others because of his devotion to pleasing his "Beloved Community" over pleasing God at the expense of them.
Art,
Obviously there are millions of people who ascribe to at least some of the tenets of progressive christianity. Just as obviously, and confirmed by reading through the comments on the FB post, there is little agreement between them.
I do agree that Dan's worldview seems more shaped by the world than by Scripture, but whatever.
https://progressivechristianity.org/
"The Core Values of Progressive Christianity
By calling ourselves Progressive Christians we mean we are Christians who:
1. Believe that following the way and teachings of Jesus can lead to experiencing sacredness, wholeness, and unity of all life, even as we recognize that the Spirit moves in beneficial ways in many faith traditions.
2. Seek community that is inclusive of all people, honoring differences in theological perspective, age, race, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, class, or ability.
3. Strive for peace and justice among all people, knowing that behaving with compassion and selfless love towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe.
4. Embrace the insights of contemporary science and strive to protect the Earth and ensure its integrity and sustainability.
5. Commit to a path of life-long learning, believing there is more value in questioning than in absolutes."
I guess it's a bit strange that they express their core values as absolutes.
"Do you find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions rather than in the answers?"
What, exactly, is the point of asking questions if not searching for an answer? What meaning is there in an answer that one is not (at least) reasonably certain of?
"As I continually point out, NO group (conservative, liberal or otherwise) is a monolith,"
Except that you've been called out many times over the years of speaking of others in such a manner (the black population easily comes to mind).
"There are, of course, conservative religionists who are convinced that "'christian' nationalism" and racism are good "christian" viewpoints. But that doesn't mean that all conservatives think that"
Yet, you have indeed suggested you believe that. You've often referred to us as racists and "Christian nationalism" is far more a figment of progressive imaginings than an actual movement, which is just as bad.
"I do not judge all conservative Christians (including myself, once upon a time) based upon the actions and attitudes of the most graceless, hostile, racist, sexist and uneducated conservative Christians."
This also clearly contradicts your history here on the blogs. Indeed, it's a basic description by you of conservative Christianity (AKA "Christianity"). And again, you were never conservative.
"My daily and hourly life often revolves around Christian beliefs and connections and attitudes and efforts that you would call "liberal Christian.""
I don't call your kind "Christian" at all. Given your own words, I call it "heresy" or "anti-Christian". Either is far more accurate than "Christian".
"You aren't suggesting, are you, that you have as much deep connection to progressive Christians as I do, are you?"
No such suggestion is even necessary if you regard yourself as in any way representative of the whole. But discussions with others who might refer to themselves as "progressive Christians" (by virtue of their saying the same things you do) validates my position regarding your kind. It's truly a matter of knowing you by your rotten fruit.
"Do you see the problem?"
The problem is you think any significant time immersed in "progressive Christianity" is at all necessary given 17+ years of reading your perversions and heresies, and your constant reference to those in your "Beloved Community" as if it is indeed the monolithic Borg of like minded associates you describe them as being as if that further validates your heresies and perversions.
Art,
As you note, Dan notes that groups are not monolithic, yet Dan frequently treats groups as monolithic. See his continued treating as "religionists" as if there is actually some monolithic group that fits his definition.
Again, Dan preaches something that he doesn't always practice.
I "see the problem" as Dan's pride and arrogance, but who knows.
I can't truly express how bored I am constantly hearing this "speaking for God" excuse for defending what isn't Christian. Dan wears this out in his false suggestion that we (or whomever he's clubbing with this bludgeon) are saying something God or Scripture hasn't said, be it a principle/teaching or how later scholars label them, as if the label must exist somewhere in Scripture in order for the principle it references to be true. (I just heard a discussion with Wes Huff wherein he reminds us that nowhere in the Bible does the Bible refer to itself as "the Bible", yet even those like Dan have no problem referring to the Bible as "the Bible". Best mockery of Dan's objection to "Total Depravity" or "PSA" I've ever heard.)
But what Dan disparages as "speaking for God" is simply preaching. He has no problem doing it, though he's so often wrong about what he preaches. Yet when we give a more accurate account of what God has said as revealed to us in Scripture, he regards it as invention. But that's just Dan lying again. The then compounds his sin by the disparaging use of the term "religionist" which he is using it instead of his other false accusation, "Pharisee".
And of course, it would not be complete without again referencing his "human tradition" ploy, as if the tradition to which he objects isn't an accurate understanding of Scripture. Dan believes that our positions are thus reduced to something less on the basis of merely calling them "human tradition". No legitimate effort is expended by him to actually demonstrate our "tradition" isn't the application of accurate Scriptural understanding because it's mere "human" tradition. It's cheap and cowardly and more than he acknowledges, this ploy exposes his progressive heresies as truly without merit.
And of course, there is no concern for what compels a policy proposal...be it our more accurate understanding of Scripture, Dan's heretical perversion of it or some other non-faith based influence. All which matters in such a case is the merit of the proposal itself. But Dan's position suggests the Will of God is somehow NOT beneficial for all, the religious or atheist, the Christian or non-Christian, the truly Christian (and those striving to be) and the progressive heretic fake Christian like Dan. For example:
My opposition to SSM and laws enabling it begin with the fact that God regards all such behavior as abomination. Since God so regards it, it benefits us as a nation and/or culture that it not be enabled. However, I also have the fact that no Constitutional principle supports the SCOTUS ruling which fraudulently imposed this abomination on our culture, so my accurate understanding of God's Will on the subject doesn't stand alone while yet influences my position, which is indeed the moral and most beneficial position. This is an example of how a "human tradition" based on Scriptural truth would work and there's no harm of any kind caused by acting upon it politically.
""I love the Bible" while functionally setting it aside.""
Wow! He nailed you that quickly, did he? Seems he understands your kind quite well!
I completely agree that Dan simply repeating his hunches year after year gets boring. Nothing new, no one that he can cite that agrees with him (especially no one with any sort of credentials), just repeating himself as if that is all that is necessary.
Strangely enough, when we quote Scripture we're accused of "speaking for God", while Dan regularly quotes snippets and demands that we accept his (often) esoteric of contradictory hunches about his snippets.
The problem with the "human tradition" canard is that it treats "traditions" established by YHWH (Passover, The Lord's Supper, the moral law, The Sabbath) exactly the same as "no music in worship" or whatever. That humans took Scripture and summarized themes that run throughout Scripture into doctrinal, creedal, or theological constructs that are inextricably linked to Scripture, while not being Scripture. For example, there is plenty of Scripture that supports the concept referred to as Substitutionary Atonement. Beginning with the OT sacrificial system and how atonement was handled, through the Gospels and the remainder of the NT, the concept known as PSA is well supported. (Not to say that PSA is required) But to pretend that there is no Scriptural support for PSA is simply to ignore or dismiss Scripture. For those of us who've come to the conclusion that PSA best describes what Scripture tells us, we would always point to Scripture as the authority, not PSA. That may be a bit nuanced and technical for Dan, but who cares.
The simple fact is that those on the left (including Dan) regularly use proof texts to attempt to justify partisan political policies. Dan's bizarre justification as to why "gay marriage" should be legal is a jumble of out of context snippets of Scripture. That none of those Scriptures mention gays is immaterial. Likewise, we've all seen the "Jesus was an immigrant" propaganda used to justify changes in US law/policy. I'm not saying that we leave out faith at the door when we engage in politics, but to pretend like it's not happening on the left (especially when Talarico engages in exactly this behavior in the video), is to deny observable reality. Hell, a big part of the credibility of the Civil Rights movement of the '60s was that it was framed in theological terms and flowed from the church. Talarico is literally using Scripture to justify various leftist political agendas. Yet, Dan won't criticize him for doing what Dan bitches about regularly.
Virtually all of the issues like (SSM) have can be argued from a secular perspective. Personally, I'd prefer not to live in a theocracy, but that's me. If Dan and his ilk have their way with immigration, we may end up in a theocracy, but that's a whole different argument.
Check out the thread for a more accurate representation of how the conversation actually is going.
It seems fair to say that Dan "idolizes" the Bible, as long as he gets to interpret it his personal, subjective, manner.
I can reduce the entire conversation between Dan and Tyson to this.
Dan: "Your observations about progressive christians don't describe me."
Tyson: "That's great. If you are not one of the people that I am describing then this essay doesn't apply to you."
Dan: "But, what about my standard litany of complaints and my greatest hits of "conservative" misrepresentations? Oh, by the way, you've made a mistake let me beat you over the head with it."
Tyson: "Thanks for revealing more about what you really believe, and it seems to be more aligned with my conclusion that originally claimed. But, if you genuinely don't resemble what I've written about, that's great. BTW, why would I acknowledge or correct a mistake I don't believe I've made?"
Dan: "Well here are many more comments full of my greatest hits that I expect you to address."
Dan's problem manifests in so many ways.
To be fair, Dan's "problem" (pride) is the root of virtually all sin. Dan's just a little more up front about it.
---I don't regard them as "hunches". They're absolute rejections of Scripture...at least until he can provide something more than "hunches" to rationalize his rejection. He certainly hasn't any facts.
---Well, that's just Double Standard Danny, isn't it?
---Indeed. And it's a great point and not at all a semantic game to separate the "tradition" of adhering to the clearly revealed Will of God from traditions such as infant baptism, Christmas on Dec 25, and the like. As I said, he writes off the former as mere "human tradition" so absolve himself from actually mounting a real "good faith" argument against our (actually accurate) understanding of Scriptural teaching.
---Again, the leftist double standard, but without legitimate backing for presuming one is wrong to object to his clearly corrupt understanding and presentation of Scripture to defend the indefensible and erroneous.
---Of course a theocracy isn't supported by Christians, nor is the implementation of Christian values and behaviors an indication that one is intended. Moreover, nothing in the Constitution prohibits enacting policy influence or informed by Christian teachings on behaviors.
And of course, to deny Christian influence in the operation of a nation founded on Christian principles for the proliferation of Christian morality and behavior, is to necessarily restrict our governance to the dictates of the religion of secularism.
I refer to them as hunches to reinforce the reality that they have no actual value because it's not like there's anything to back them up. There's a degree of mockery as well, as he refers to things we've said which are well supported as hunches.
Yes, (with apologies to Hee Haw) if it weren't for double standards Dan would have no standards at all.
First, "human tradition" in and of itself is not necessarily bad. Second not all "human traditions" are created equal. Third, by dismissing or minimizing summaries of Scripture as mere "human tradition" is a way to avoid dealing with what the underlying Scripture says.
A theocracy isn't supported by conservative Christians, I wouldn't dream of speaking for progressive christians given their tendency to use christian sounding language and proof texts to justify their leftist policies.
Yes, to deny the influence of Christianity on the founders and founding of the US is simply absurd. They did a magnificent job of building a secular government infused with a Christian worldview, yet accommodating of non Christians as well.
As noted, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" come directly from our Creator and are protected/guaranteed by the government. To sever the connection between the source of the rights and the rights is problematic.
Craig, demonstrating his skills at failing to understand...
Dan: "Your observations about progressive christians don't describe me."
Tyson: "That's great. If you are not one of the people that I am describing then this essay doesn't apply to you."
etc.
The ACTUAL conversation, summed up:
Dan: "Your observations about progressive christians are not universal descriptions of progressives and, in my experience, not even a major segment of progressive Christian's views. Here's what we ACTUALLY tend to believe from someone actually in this population: ..."
Tyson: "That's great. If you are not one of the people that I am describing then this essay doesn't apply to you."
Dan: "But, your words are suggesting that this is representative of all/most of liberal Christians. It's not. Also, it's notable that you did not provide even ONE actual quote to support your hunches... is it possible you have misunderstood what we actually believe?"
Tyson: "Thanks for revealing more about what you really believe, and it seems to be more aligned with my conclusion that originally claimed. But, if you genuinely don't resemble what I've written about, that's great. BTW, why would I acknowledge or correct a mistake I don't believe I've made?"
Dan: "But what you are concluding about what I believe is, as a matter of fact, NOT what I believe. Thanks for your attempts to have a genuine conversation, liberal to conservative, but it doesn't help, does it, if you misrepresent what we actually believe?
I greatly believe in the need for liberal/conservative conversations. Thanks for trying. Please reach out if you'd like to spend more than a shallow conversation about our differences..."
But don't let reality throw you off.
Craig:
It seems fair to say that Dan "idolizes" the Bible, as long as he gets to interpret it his personal, subjective, manner.
Of course, it isn't fair to say that, nor accurate, nor rational, nor representative of reality. It's important to note that you offered NO quotes to support your silly false claim that I idolize the Bible, but nothing I've said supports that. Which is, no doubt, why you provided no quotes.
And we ALL are interpreting the biblical text in our own personal, subjective manner. How else are you going to interpret it? Are you going to listen to another human and whatever you think with your OWN reasoning, you're going to reply, "Okay, that's what the Bible says. I'll rely on what that guy, that sect, that tradition is saying and won't use my reasoning at all to weigh the validity of their claims..."?
No, of course, you use your personal human reasoning to decide what the text is saying. It's called reading for understanding.
Ohhhh.... well, maybe so. That makes sense if you're NOT trying to read for understanding. That would explain so much.
Craig put "idolizes" in quotations, which is as close to speaking sarcastically in the virtual world as one can. Of COURSE you don't idolize the Bible. That's been crystal clear to us for almost two decades as you continually subordinate it to what you laughingly refer to as your "reason".
It's no good trying to project onto all others your subjective interpreting as common to all others. It is not. The fact is you like to say you're doing "A" when in fact you're constantly doing "Z" which you falsely pretend is "A" so as to pretend we're doing the same thing while getting different results. And now a brand new victim of your bullshit has called out the very same bullshit of your as the bullshit it is.
I have to say...I got quite a kick out of it. Tyson, as I said, has you totally pegged as EXACTLY the type of progressive "Christian" he was describing.
Dan: I think I’ll demonstrate that I don’t understand sarcasm, or understand that people can read the entire exchange.
Coming from someone who regularly claims that I say/do/think/believe things with absolutely ZERO quotes to back up your claims, the double standard here is delightful. It is gratifying when you demonstrate that our conclusions about you are accurate.
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
It seems like there could be a fine line between love and idolize when it comes to an inanimate object.
I took another dive into the FB thread under discussion and didn't focus on Dan's interactions. What I learned is that Dan isn't close to the most intelligent or effective commenters in the thread. There are a few that present much better arguments, which are presented much less confrontational manner.
Fortunately for Dan he's not the worst commenter by a wide margin.
What I found interesting is the number of people who proved the point of the post, along with the number of people who went with "What about...?".
The problem with most of the "what abouts" is that they (unlike the author) couldn't or wouldn't provide specific examples in context. They used Charlie Kirk as an example, but referred to what third party commentators said about what Kirk said, instead of what Kirk said. When specific examples were given, the author applied the same framework to those as to Talarico, bringing similar criticism when appropriate.
I think that what has been lost both in the thread, and in this thread, is the point that Talarico was explicitly doing what the ASPL has pilloried conservatives for doing for years. He was trying to use (badly interpreted) Scripture to justify specific partisan, political, policies.
If you are going to complain when conservatives do this, consistency suggests holding ASPL/DFL to the same standard.
I noticed the same things as I scrolled for what seemed like forever before finding Dan's attempt to run his BS to this guy who's BS alarm clearly rang loudly.
We've seen some of the least Christian Dems exploit Scripture and their alleged Catholic (or whatever) faith to push blatantly unChristian policies. Pelosi, Biden, Obama...all of these creeps have done it. Now this Talarico creep is doing it, too. Totally Trabue!
Yeah, the author was very patient with lots of people and lots of ridiculous statements.
It's interesting that Dan bitches and moans when "conservatives" use their faith to guide their political engagement and policy, but seems perfectly happy when Talarico does what he claims to despise when "conservatives" do it.
Post a Comment