Friday, April 17, 2026

Manifestations of the Spirit (Spiritual Gifts) Are for Everyone

Somewhere in California


In churches I've been in I have handed out "Spiritual Gift Inventories," so people could find out what their spiritual gift was. Now, I think that's a misunderstanding. Obviously, the early church in Acts did not use inventories. The situation was more fluid and organic than that. 

In 1 Corinthians 12:4-7 Paul writes:


Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.


Note that what was given were manifestations of the Spirit. Here is God, giving himself to us, in his infinitely variegated personality.

James McDonald writes: “God’s provision for all that we need is His manifest presence with us. God doesn’t dispense strength, wisdom, or comfort like a druggist fills a prescription; He promises us Himself— His manifest presence with us, as all that we will ever need— as enough! We must be terrified at the thought of a single step without it, without the Lord.” (McDonald, Vertical Church) 

Gordon Fee, in his brilliant commentary on First Corinthians, writes:


""Each one," standing in the emphatic first position as it does, is [Paul's] way of stressing diversity; indeed, this is how that diversity will be emphasized throughout the rest of the paragraph. He does not intend to stress that every last person in the community has his or her own gift...  That is not Paul's concern. This pronoun is the distributive (stressing the individualized instances) of the immediately preceding collective ("in all people"), which emphasizes the many who make up the community as a whole." (589)


Fee writes that what "each one" was "given" was not a "gift,' but a "manifestation of the Spirit." "Thus each "gift" is a "manifestation," a disclosure of the Spirit's activity in their midst... [Paul's] urgency, as vv. 8-10 make clear, is not that each person is "gifted," but that the Spirit is manifested in a great variety of ways. His way of saying this is that, "to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit."" (Ib.)


This is about the Spirit manifesting himself within the Jesus-community. It is not a statement about spiritual gifts being given to people once and for all. Paul's emphasis is on the variety and diversity of the Spirit's manifestations. Fee writes:


"Contrary to so much of the popular literature, Paul does not intend by this to stress that every last person in the community has his or her own gift. That may or may not be true, depending on how broadly or narrowly one defines the word charisma. But that is simply not Paul's concern. This pronoun is in the distributive (stressing the individual instances) or the immediately preceding collective ("in all people"), which emphasizes the many who make up the community as a whole...

[Paul's] urgency, as vv. 8-10 show [1 Cor. 12], is not that each person is "gifted," but that the Spirit is manifested in a variety of ways. Paul's way of saying that is, "to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit." (Fee, God's Empowering Presence, 163-164)

The Church is to desire the manifestations of the Spirit. (1 Cor. 14:1) This is Paul's way of saying that a variety of manifestations can be expected in the community. Craig Keener writes:


"Many churches and ministries today use “spiritual gift inventories,” which often tend to be interest or personality tests similar to those used in Christian counseling. While interest and personality tests are often useful and God sometimes gifts us in ways that correspond to our interests interests and personalities, we should not limit God’s gifts to those discovered in such inventories. This is especially true when we are speaking not about gifts we are born with but those we seek from God in prayer to build up Christ’s body (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1)...

Paul also calls us to consider what gifts are most necessary for the church in our time. Having considered them, we should ask God to give those gifts to his body and be open to him using us if he chooses." (Keener, Gift and Giver: The Holy Spirit for Today, pp. 113; 136)

John Wimber held to a similar interpretation as Fee. Contextually, this makes sense to me. Wimber writes:


"Another theological barrier is what I call an incorrect interpretation of 1 Cor­inthians 12, verses 8-10 and verses 20-31, in which the gifts are frequently understood as given individually, and unilaterally to each member of the body. My perception is that we've wrongfully interpreted that text, that if we go back to 1 Corinthians 11, verses 17-18, where Paul says, "When you gather together there are divisions among you," the em­phasis in the entire section (from chapters 11 through 14) is that he is speaking to the church corporately, the congregation at Corinth. Therefore the emphasis on the gifts is that they are not primarily given to the individual but to the whole body.
Another way to understand this is to see them as situational—they are given in the situation, for the use of the individual and for the blessing of others. First Corinthians 12, verse 7, deals with the whole issue of the purpose of the use of spiritual gifts and teaches that the gifts are given "for the common good." In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul emphasizes the multiplicity of gifting that's available to the individual: "If you speak in tongues, pray that you might interpret." Whereas in chapter 12, he says, "One interprets, and one speaks in tongues." In chapter 14 he tells us all to prophesy, whereas he tells us in chapter 12, verse 29, that some are prophets and some are not.
The emphasis returns strongly in the 14th chapter on each individual having a multiplicity—or a potential for multiplicity—of expression of gifts, rather than for just singular expression. This means any individual Christian might prophesy, speak in tongues, interpret tongues and so on, but he should do it in the body, in good order and for the common good." (Wimber, "Spiritual Gifts Ignite Diverse Gospel Expressions")

Harshness Polarizes; Gentleness Disarms


                                                                               (Grand Haven, MI)

I begin the day reading from Proverbs 15.

A gentle answer turns away wrath, 
but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Proverbs 15:1

Harshness adds nothing to a disagreement.

Harshness subtracts from the truth.

Harshness polarizes; gentleness disarms.

Harshness depletes; gentleness adds.

Gentleness subtracts nothing from a disagreement.

Gentleness provides the atmosphere in which truth can shine.

Avoid harshness. Exude gentleness.

I read this verse from my NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible. Below it is a link to the following list.


Character Traits in Proverbs 

Traits to be avoided 


  • anger 29: 22 
  • antisocial behavior 18: 1 
  • beauty without discretion 11: 22 
  • blaming God 19: 3 
  • dishonesty 24: 28 
  • greed 28: 25 
  • hatred 29: 27 
  • hot temper 19: 19; 29: 22 
  • immorality 6: 20– 35 
  • inappropriate desire 27: 7 
  • injustice 22: 16 
  • jealousy 27: 4 
  • lack of mercy 21: 13 
  • laziness 6: 6– 11; 18: 9; 19: 15; 20: 4; 24: 30– 34; 26: 13– 15 
  • maliciousness 6: 27 
  • meddling 26: 17; 30: 10 
  • pride 15: 5; 16: 18; 21: 4, 24; 29: 23; 30: 13 
  • quarrelsomeness 26: 21
  • self-conceit 26: 12, 16 
  • self-deceit 28: 11 
  • self-glory 25: 27 
  • self-righteousness 30: 12 
  • social disruption 19: 10 
  • stubbornness 29: 1 
  • unfaithfulness 25: 19 
  • unneighborliness 3: 27– 30 
  • vengeance 24: 28– 29 
  • wickedness 21: 10 
  • wicked scheming 16: 30 

Traits to be promoted 

  • avoidance of strife 20: 3 
  • compassion for animals 12: 10 
  • contentment 13: 25; 14: 30; 15: 27 
  • diligence 6: 6– 13; 12: 24, 27; 13: 4 
  • faithful love 20: 6 
  • faithfulness 3: 5– 6; 5: 15– 17; 25: 13; 28: 20 
  • generosity 21: 26; 22: 9 
  • honesty 16: 11; 24: 26 
  • humility 11: 2; 16: 19; 25: 6– 7; 29: 23 
  • integrity 11: 3; 25: 26; 28: 18 
  • kindness to others 11: 16– 17
  • kindness to enemies 25: 21– 22 
  • leadership 30: 19– 31 
  • loyalty 19: 22 
  • nobility 12: 4; 31: 10, 29 
  • patience 15: 18; 16: 32 
  • peacefulness 16: 7 
  • praiseworthiness 27: 21 
  • righteousness 4: 26– 27; 11: 5– 6, 30; 12: 28; 13: 6; 29: 2 
  • self-control 17: 27; 25: 28; 29: 11 
  • strength and honor 20: 29 
  • strength in adversity 24: 10 
  • teachableness 15: 31 
  • truthfulness 12: 19, 22; 23: 23
(From the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible)

Thursday, April 16, 2026

Abortion Is Not a Political Issue for Me

 

(Bolles Harbor, Michigan)
(I'm re-posting this to keep it in play.)

I have a Bachelor's degree in philosophy (Northern Illinois University), and a PhD in philosophical theology (Northwestern University). I was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at Monroe County Community College for eighteen years. I have taught courses in theology at several seminaries since 1977. I recently taught, again, at Faith Bible Seminary in NYC, and will teach, again, at Payne Theological Seminary in Wilberforce, Ohio (Feb. 28-March 3).

Philosophers study morality and ethics. Here, e.g., is a book I read last summer on metaethics - The Morality Wars: The Ongoing Debate Over the Origin of Human Goodness.  

Philosophers and theologians study morality and ethical systems without reference to political outcomes. Then, they often state the implications of certain moral judgments for human existence, some of which concern how to govern the polis. (See, e.g., Plato's Republic; or Hobbes's Leviathan; et. al. ad infinitum.)

Occasionally, someone accuses me of being political when I speak out against abortion. My response to them is to explain the distinction between moral matters and political matters. Yes, moral beliefs can influence certain political outcomes, But many, to include myself, have long believed abortion to be immoral and unrighteous, regardless of whether a vote is involved.

Philosophers mostly use logic to formulate and evaluate moral claims. Christian theologians use Scripture, and logic, to formulate and evaluate moral claims. All this kind of discussion precedes political application, and can be done without spinning political implications into  the discussion. (An exception to this might be utilitarianism.)

The statement It is morally wrong to kill innocent, defenseless human beings requires no support from political thinking. Moral judgments, such as Abortion is wrong, stand independently of political implications. 

I have, and will continue, to write against abortion because I believe it is wrong to kill innocent, defenseless human beings. Anyone who thinks such a philosophical and theological position is "political" simply does not understand the distinction.


***

Abortion - Links to Some of My Posts

(Bolles Harbor, Michigan)

(I'm reposting this to keep it in play.)

Tuesday, April 14, 2026

Jesus Is Greater Than Me, Than You, Than Moses, Than Angels, Than Donald Trump

 Peter Cartwright was a courageous preacher. 

One Sunday, President Andrew Jackson visited his church. 

Somebody alerted Pastor Cartwright and asked him not to say anything out of line.

 When he stood to preach, he said, 

“I understand Andrew Jackson is here. 

Somebody asked me to guard my remarks. 

Well, Andrew Jackson will go to hell if he doesn’t repent.” 

People were shocked, but later, as the President shook hands with the preacher 

he said, “Sir, if I had a regiment of men like you, I could whip the world.”


(Last October Franklin Graham shared the gospel with President Donald Trump. Scroll down to see what Graham told the President. And pray in that direction.)


I'm a pastor.

Also, a theologian.

I self-refer as evangelical-pentecostal.

I preach moral, spiritual, and biblical issues.

I identify with theological Orthodoxy, not progressive Christianity. (See my book Deconstructing Progressive Christianity.)

I don't get my understanding of the Bible, nor my theology, from politicians.

In this post I intend to speak as a pastor, and as a theologian. (PhD in philosophical theology, Northwestern University, 1986 - a long time ago!)

Last weekend, at Redeemer, we began preaching through the biblical book of Hebrews. Hebrews issues strong warnings about apostasy, and beautifully lifts up the supremacy of Jesus.

How great is Jesus? Hebrews 3:3 tells us that Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses. To a first-century Hebrew, that is a huge, outrageous claim! I'll be preaching on this verse this coming Sunday.

Yesterday morning, I spent a few hours immersed in Hebrews, and the supremacy of Jesus. I paused for a break, and looked at today's news. The first thing I saw was a headline that said, "Trump deletes post depicting him as Jesus-like figure after backlash."

What did he post, I wondered? And then I saw this. And felt biblical outrage. And was glad he deleted it, as a growing number of evangelical pastors and theologians expressed their outrage. (See Fox News here, e.g.)


Riley Gaines, a popular conservative activist and staunch Trump ally, said she "cannot understand" why Trump would post the image and that "a little humility" would serve the president well.  "Why? Seriously, I cannot understand why he'd post this. Is he looking for a response? Does he actually think this?" "God," wrote Gaines, "shall not be mocked." 

Megan Basham, a prominent Christian influencer in the MAGA movement, wrote on X: "I don't know if the President thought he was being funny or if he is under the influence of some substance or what possible explanation he could have for this OUTRAGEOUS blasphemy. But he needs to take this down immediately and ask for forgiveness from the American people and then from God."

David Brody, an evangelical journalist with the Christian Broadcasting Network, called on Mr. Trump to take the picture down. Brody is a vocal supporter of Donald Trump. Yet Brody said, "This goes too far. It crosses the line. A supporter can back the mission and reject this."

I have read, for decades, the leading evangelical magazine Christianity Today. CT posted this by one of their staff editors. "Even if Trump is right on every issue he invokes—crime, COVID-19 closures, Iran, Venezuela, and the stock market—he’s still grotesquely wrong to elevate himself to the level of Christ and claim for himself authority over Christ’s church."

Here is Mike Johnson's response to Trump's post.

What shall we do? Hebrews 12:1-2 says - And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith.

I'm glad Donald Trump took the picture off social media. Now, let's turn our gaze elsewhere, and keep it there.

***

This past October President Trump made comments suggesting he might not get to heaven. He also told reporters several times that he hoped his global peacemaking efforts would help him get to heaven. Franklin Graham responded to Trump, telling him that "the only way to heaven was to believe that Jesus came to earth, died, and rose again to save him." 

Graham cited Romans 10:9 and wrote that he was praying for Trump. 

Graham told WORLD Magazine on Monday: 

“This letter was written in October after President Trump had made a comment to the media—maybe in jest—about not knowing if he would make it to heaven. I wanted him to know what the Bible says and that he could be sure. It’s not by works, it is through repenting of your sins and putting your faith in God's Son, Jesus Christ."

Graham said afterwards, "I wanted him to know what the Bible says."

Me, too.

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity: Point #3

 

 


ABOUT ME

I am a husband (to Linda, since 1973). A father. A father-in-law. A grandfather! A pastor (since 1970). A professor (taught at several seminaries around the world; taught philosophy at Monroe County Community College for 18 years). A philosopher, and a theologian. (PhD, Northwestern University, in Philosophical Theology, 1986).

I have studied people, and biblical and theological issues, and culture, for over fifty years. I am a constant reader and observer. 

I present to you a series of posts I am calling "Deconstructing 'Progressive Christianity.'" Here are reasons why I could not be a "progressive Christian." The first two posts are especially about this, using semantics and some deconstruction thrown in. (See here.) Post #1 was: "'Progressive' is not a word that fits into a Christian eschatological worldview." Post #2 was "The term "progressive Christianity" is too vague to be useful." Post #3 is  - "Progressive Christianity Wrongly Diminishes Confidence in the Bible." In the third post I will critique progressive Christianity's approach to the Scriptures. I am still putting together Post #4, and maybe a fifth post.

A final note before I begin this first post. I have read, as a theologian myself, several of the theologians who are usually associated with progressive Christianity. (Postmodernism, deconstruction, critical theory, linguistic semantics and philosophy of language (my dissertation was in this area), and, yes, political progressivism.) Some of them have written books and articles that I have benefitted from. But then, along the way, some of them turned away from some core beliefs that I see as important to our faith. Some of them were "deconverted" from evangelical Christianity. That has saddened me. 

I want you to know that there are many theologians and biblical scholars, such as myself, who have not departed from what we see as essential. This is not out of ignorance. We are quite familiar with, and have wrestled with, all the questions progressivists raise. And wow! We see things differently. Which means: we disagree with each other. Which means: we think each other is wrong about some things. (For example, see Brian McLaren's vicious disagreement with The Nashville Statement, where he even brings in the KKK, implicating the 24,000+ theologians and biblical scholars, and even Francis Chan, J. I. Packer, and people like me, who agree with the Statement.)

I hope you gain from these posts. I will do my best to revolve around one main point per post. I'll do my best to make it accessible. 

Blessings!


John Piippo

Redeemer Fellowship Church, Monroe, MI

johnpiippo@msn.com


***

I have already given two reasons why I could never call myself a "progressive Christian." The first reason was that the word 'progressive' does not work as a modifier to 'Christianity', because 'progressive' does not fit into a Christian eschatology. I added that the biblical view of sin mitigates against any idea that, over time, humanity has made and is making and will make moral and spiritual "progress." Indeed, there are many secularists who consider "progressivism" to be rooted in the mythical idol of Progress. (See, e.g., John Gray, Straw Dogs; and Rod Dreher, Live Not By Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents.)

The second reason I could not self-identify as a "progressive Christian" is because I find that the term 'progressive Christian' is unacceptably vague, and therefore not useful. Basically, my point is simply this: I am unable to identify with a group if the meaning of the group is vague and amorphous. 

In this post I present a third reason why I could never self-identity as "progressive Christian." It's this. Progressive Christianity diminishes the authority of the Bible. It undermines faith, especially the faith of young believers. 

Greg Boyd, in his recent book defending the full inspiration and authority of the Bible, says the same. Boyd defines PC this way: 

"Progressive evangelicals: A very diverse group of people who continue to embrace many of the distinctives of evangelicalism, including the importance of having a personal relationship with Jesus, but who tend to emphasize the social justice aspect of the Gospel while embracing at least aspects of the historical-critical approach to Scripture." (P. 177)  

Progressive Christians, if they are academics, utilize what has been called the historical-critical method to interpret the Bible. What is the historical-critical approach to the Bible? Boyd writes:

Historical-Critical Approach to Scripture: A method of studying Scripture that treats it no differently than it would treat any other ancient collection of writings. Among other things, historical-critical scholars try to discern the various possible sources that may have been combined in the construction of a biblical narrative. And they try to determine the historical veracity of these sources, though they often vary widely in their determinations.”

This concerns Boyd, because use of the historical-critical method tends to undermine faith and confidence in the Scriptures. He writes:

“The church has traditionally considered the entire Bible to be God-breathed… This conviction has been foundational to the life and faith of the church throughout history. Every reforming and reviving movement in church history was based on this foundation. Conversely, history has demonstrated that groups that abandon the church’s traditional understanding of Scripture tend to drift outside the bounds of historic orthodox Christianity…  

If we imagine the church as a ship on a tumultuous sea, the Bible has always served as the rudder that keeps her on course. In our postmodern, post-Christendom, and (some are claiming) post-truth world, the sea in the Western world is as tumultuous as it has ever been. Which means, the Western church arguably has never needed its rudder more than it does right now.”

A year ago I was talking with a young adult who reads my blog. They told me they had become a "progressive Christian." Another "progressive Christian" had placed doubts in them, about the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Without researching this, they no longer believed in the stories of the Old Testament, and "only believed in Jesus." (Even though Jesus viewed the Old [First] Testament as inspired and authoritative!) This, to them, was "progress." Yet, as expected, they knew nothing of the historical-critical method of interpreting Scripture. All this, to me, was unthinking regressivism. 

I suggested the following.

First, abandon the amorphous title "progressive Christian." I prefer calling myself "follower of Jesus." And, "Christian" (using no modifiers). 

Second, go slow, when it comes to understanding Scripture. Here's part of my story.

I attended theological seminary in the 1970s. There, I was escpially interested in hermeneutical theories. This included Rudolph Bultmann's method of "demythologizing" biblical texts. Bultmann removed the supernatural from the Bible stories, denoting it as mythical.

As I studied Bultmann, I also read New Testament theologians who critiqued him. There were many! But note this. When I read Bultmannian scholars who told me the resurrection of Jesus was a myth, I did not jump on it and deny the historical resurrection. I was going slow. Plus, I was not an anti-supernaturalist. (As I read scholars who self-refer as "progressive Christian," I find many of them to be antisupernaturalists or, at least, to avoid the subject. See footnote 1 below.)

Third, study biblical interpretation. One of my doctoral qualifying exams was in new hermeneutical theories. I actually taught a course on this in Garrett-Theological Seminary's M. Div. program. Begin with this book, by New Testament scholar Gordon Fee - How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth

Fourth, ask questions, then research the questions. Is it OK to ask questions about the Bible? Of course! I have found this to be true: the deeper you go into understanding something, the more, and different, questions you will have.

When I have a question about a biblical text or story that captivates me, I study. Some of my studies have lasted for decades. For example, in the 1980s I began studying the historicity of the biblical Exodus. These studies continue to this day. Some of the texts I have read include this, and this, and this, and this, and this. I subscribe to this. I use this Bible. And, I read biblical commentaries on the book of Exodus. 

The young "progressive Christian" who still, somehow, "believed in Jesus," cannot be faulted for lack of study. This young person was disconnected from the arena of academic biblical, textual studies. But progressive Christians who are academics create for me the kind of concerns Greg Boyd mentions above.


***

If you are someone who is asking questions about the veracity of the biblical texts, here are two resources I suggest you become familiar with.

Craig Blomberg, Can We Still Believe the Bible? 

Darrell Bock, James Hoffmeier, et. al., Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith?

***

See also:

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity: Point #1



Footnote 1 - "When naturalistic assumptions serve to control “real history,” we should not be surprised to see the proponents of historical criticism either struggle to maintain belief in the historical reliability of the biblical accounts or give up on that reliability entirely (or, in some cases, almost entirely). But the claims of metaphysical naturalism should have no hold on historians who are Christian believers (or other theists). Moreover, as Plantinga’s famous “evolutionary argument against naturalism” shows, metaphysical naturalism itself is not without without some stiff challenges (some of which are epistemological in nature)."

   Thomas H. McCall, "Religious Epistemology, Theological Interpretation of Scripture, and Critical Biblical Scholarship: A Theologian's Perspective," in Do Historical Matters Matter to Faith? (p. 45) 

Monday, April 13, 2026

Bob Sorge - God Could Have Left Job Alone

This is a video I watch again, and again.


 Bob Sorge was a senior pastor and worship leader in upstate NY when he suddenly suffered a life-changing vocal injury in 1992 that left his voice completely depleted of strength. He is able to whisper for about an hour each day before the pain prevents him from speaking. 

Deconstructing Progressive Christianity: Point #2

  


ABOUT ME

I am a husband (to Linda, since 1973). A father. A father-in-law. A grandfather! A pastor (since 1970). A professor (taught at several seminaries around the world; taught philosophy at Monroe County Community College for 18 years). A philosopher, and a theologian. (PhD, Northwestern University, in Philosophical Theology, 1986).

I have studied people, and biblical and theological issues, and culture, for over fifty years. I am a constant reader and observer. 

I present to you a series of posts I am calling "Deconstructing 'Progressive Christianity.'" Here are reasons why I could not be a "progressive Christian." The first two posts are especially about this, using semantics and some deconstruction thrown in. (See here.) Post #1 was: "'Progressive' is not a word that fits into a Christian eschatological worldview." Post #3 will be - "Progressive Christianity Wrongly Diminishes Confidence in the Bible." In the third post I will critique progressive Christianity's approach to the Scriptures. I am still putting together Post #4, and maybe a fifth post.

A final note before I begin this first post. I have read, as a theologian myself, several of the theologians who are usually associated with progressive Christianity. (Postmodernism, deconstruction, critical theory, linguistic semantics and philosophy of language (my dissertation was in this area), and, yes, political progressivism.) Some of them have written books and articles that I have benefitted from. But then, along the way, some of them turned away from some core beliefs that I see as important to our faith. Some of them were "deconverted" from evangelical Christianity. That has saddened me. 

I want you to know that there are many theologians and biblical scholars, such as myself, who have not departed from what we see as essential. This is not out of ignorance. We are quite familiar with, and have wrestled with, all the questions progressivists raise. And wow! We see things differently. Which means: we disagree with each other. Which means: we think each other is wrong about some things. (For example, see Brian McLaren's vicious disagreement with The Nashville Statement, where he even brings in the KKK, implicating the 24,000+ theologians and biblical scholars, and even Francis Chan, J. I. Packer, and people like me, who agree with the Statement.)

I hope you gain from these posts. I will do my best to revolve around one main point per post. I'll do my best to make it accessible. 

Blessings!


John Piippo

Redeemer Fellowship Church, Monroe, MI

johnpiippo@msn.com


***

POINT #2 - The term 'Progressive Christianity' is woefully vague, and therefore cognitively useless. 

I could never refer to myself as a 'progressive Christian', for several reasons. In my first post I questioned the word 'progressive' as not fitting a Christian eschatology. And, I questioned the idea of moral and spiritual progress in the human race, over time, finding the idea of moral and spiritual progress mythical and utopian.

In this second post, I find that the term 'progressive Christian' is unacceptably vague, and therefore not useful. Basically, my point is simply this: I am unable to identify with a group if the meaning of the group is vague and amorphous. 

In this post I am going to explain why I believe this. And, I will again suggest removing 'progressive Christianity' from our theological vocabulary. Instead, I choose to self-refer as 'follower of Jesus'. This term is focused and clarifying and, therefore, helpful. It does not suffer the interminable vagueness of calling oneself a 'progressive Christian'.

Let me define "vague'. It's a term encountered in Logic texts. (Note: I had a self-identified progressive Christian tell me they didn't like logic. I asked, why not? They then used logic to make an argument that logic was just another social construct. Which is, of course, self-contradictory. But this is what we are today dealing with.)

It was my great joy to teach Logic for eighteen years at our local community college. At universities, Logic is also called Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is needed to excel in any field. We want our physicians to be able to reason clearly. The same goes for our auto mechanics, psychologists, computer technicians, home builders, political leaders, chefs, sports coaches, parents, economists, lawyers, scientists as they develop vaccines, and more. 

The more there is clarity of reasoning, the less there is vagueness.

So, what about 'vagueness'? 

In my Logic classes I used Patrick Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic. Hurley dedicates an entire chapter to linguistic errors, and how they contribute to faulty reasoning. One such error is vagueness. Again, my point in this post is to establish unacceptable vagueness about the term 'progressive Christianity'. 

Hurley writes:

"Now that we have distinguished emotive meaning from cognitive meaning, let us explore some of the ways that cognitive meanings can be defective. Two of them are vagueness and ambiguity. A linguistic expression is said to be vague if there are borderline cases in which it is impossible to tell if the expression applies or does not apply. Vague expressions often allow for a continuous range of interpretations. The meaning is hazy, obscure, and imprecise. For example, words such as ‘‘love,’’ ‘‘happiness,’’ ‘‘peace,’’ ‘‘excessive,’’ ‘‘fresh,’’ ‘‘rich,’’ ‘‘poor,’’ ‘‘normal,’’ ‘‘conservative,’’ and ‘‘polluted’’ are vague. We can rarely tell with any precision whether they apply to a given situation or not. How fresh does something have to be in order to be called fresh?" (7th edition, p. 79. Emphasis mine.)

A "continuous range of interpretations." (Think of the postmodern, progressivist word 'fluidity' here. Think also of the cognitively challenged word 'affirmation'.) Let me illustrate, this time using 'progressive Christianity'.

Linda and I worked as campus pastors, for eleven years, at Michigan State University. I was a member of MSU Religious Advisors group. We had every Christian denomination represented, plus Hindus, Muslims, Jews (the rabbi became a good friend of mine), Buddhists, Bahais, and an atheist group. The group was, to say the least, theologically diverse! And, I enjoyed meeting with all these people. The truth is, I have spent a lifetime studying religions, whether they be major or minor. I love doing this!

We were all under the umbrella 'MSU Religious Advisors Association'. But, because the diversity of beliefs was so vast, we did not have a theological umbrella, or a worldview umbrella that, by our own admission, contained us all. In this group there was a "continuous range of interpretations," often conflicting and contradicting each other. 

Now, imagine this group was called "MSU Christian Advisors Association." This would mean that Buddhists and Hindus and atheists would be excluded. If everyone, regardless of their beliefs, was a 'Christian', the term would diminish in its cognitive meaning. (Note: anyone who believes "all the religions lead up the same mountain" simply has not actually studied the comparative religions. See, e.g., Boston University scholar Stephen Prothero's God Is Not One: The 8 Rival Religions that Run the World - and Why Their Differences Matter.)

That's how I see it when I research progressive Christianity. There is too much theological and even non-theological diversity to make the term meaningful. This does not mean that God does not love all these people. It does not mean several of these people have not said some true things, or done some good things. 

Sociologist Laura Edles has identified a spectrum of identities within Progressive Christianity, with "self-proclaimed spiritual progressives" like John Spong or Marcus Borg on the far left and "prophetic/progressive evangelicals" like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo on the far right of the progressive spectrum. (See Edles, "Contemporary Progressive Christianity and Irts Symbolic Ramifications." Edles writes:  "I argue that in addition to their structural disadvantages, progressive Christians face thorny dilemmas regarding authority/legitimacy, rationalization, de-mystification, disenchantment, charisma (or the lack thereof), and profanation that, though not insurmountable, are not easily resolved.")

When I research 'progressive Christianity using Google, the first item to appear is ProgressiveChristianity.org. I scroll down a bit and see a recommended book called With or Without God. It's by Gretta Vosper. I typed her name in the website's search engine and came to this. To Vosper, "god is a metaphor for goodness and love lived out with compassion and justice, no more and no less." (See here.) 

Well, I don't agree with that. I would never teach my people that. I cannot affiliate with that. Plus, I like metaphors. My PhD dissertation is "Metaphor and Theology: A Multidisciplinary Approach." (Northwestern University, 1986)

Alisa Childers writes: "Progressive Christianity is tough to define, because there isn’t a creed or list of beliefs that progressive Christians officially unite around." I agree. 

I know there are progressive Christians who do not agree with Vosper. They still believe in the God of theism. Nor would they agree with Michael Gungor, who testifies to no longer believing in the theistic God. But that's my point. Gungor says he now is an “apophatic mystic Hindu pantheist Christian Buddhist skeptic with a penchant for nihilistic progressive existentialism.” (See here.) 

Really? I'm now restraining my philosophical impulses. Note that Gungor uses 'Christian' and 'progressive' in the same self-description. I have studied (doctoral work) on apophatic (and kataphatic) mysticism. But... he has a leaning towards "nihilistic progressive existentialism?" Really? 

Gungor's self-definition is, I assume, his embracing of universalism. Even though I know of a few PCs who deny being universalistic, my intuition is that there is some kind of path that easily runs from PC to universalism.

I here confess that, as for me, I just don't belong here. It's not helpful. 

Vagueness is, analytically (in Kant's sense), obfuscating, or non-clarifying.

Still, I can love all these people. But I cannot wear the progressive Christian t-shirt. 


***

My next "Deconstructing Progressive Christianity" post shows why I could not identify as a PC because of its way of utilizing the historical-critical method in biblical interpretation. Greg Boyd expresses a similar concern in his new book on the inspiration and authority of the Bible. Greg defines progressive evangelicals as:

"A very diverse group of people who continue to embrace many of the distinctives of evangelicalism, including the importance of having a personal relationship with Jesus, but who tend to emphasize the social justice aspect of the Gospel while embracing at least aspects of the historical-critical approach to Scripture." (Boyd, Gregory A.. Inspired Imperfection, p. 177) 

You can read my first post HERE