Pastor Brett continues his sermon series in the book of Mark. Check out his sermon notes and slides below. 

Progressive Christianity and The Bible

In our study through Mark’s gospel we have encountered numerous times when Jesus is acting/working outside the understood laws of nature, he is doing “supernatural” works, or “miracles”.  Miracles served a few purpose, first, Jesus’ miracles blessed the ones on whom they were exercised, the blind received sight, the lame walked, the deaf hear, lepers were healed, the dead were raised, the hungry were fed, etc.  Second they confirmed the Deity of Jesus, he did what only the creator God can do, stopping winds, calming seas, creating bread and fish, defying gravity, teleporting people and boats, raising the dead.  Last, they demonstrate the heart and character of God.

As we have seen, eye witnesses did not deny the miracles, but they missed the point.  The spiritual corruption caused by our sin nature leads us to seek the “benefit” but not worship the “benefactor”, or stated another way to seek the “good” but choose not to worship the God that performed the miracle.

A great irony is the fact that modern man, 1000’s of years later, (Enlightenment to present) has chosen to reject the supernatural and would now view the historical accounts of the Gospel writers with suspicion or outright contempt, suggesting deceit on behalf of the authors.  The logical outcome of this view leads to the denial of the inerrancy, accuracy, reliability and authority of the Bible.  They reject 1000’s of eye witness accounts and in so doing they reject divine revelation.  Critics often appeal to science as their ally, if it can’t be seen, proven and replicated it can’t be trusted.

But denying the supernatural is not the only cause of rejection of the Bible as God’s divine revelation, in my opinion there are two more common causes.  First, we reject the truth of the Bible if it conflicts with our culture or experience.  To put it simply… if the Bible tells me my experience, desire, impulses, longings are wrong, it’s often easier to say “the Bible is in error” than to submit to its demands.  Second, and growing in popularity, is to overlay our sense of justice, our sense of right and wrong over the historical accounts of the Bible.  How could a “loving God” call for the destruction of the Canaanites (remember our study in Judges), how could a loving God ask Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, how could a loving God allow slavery, how could a loving God kill his own Son on a cross, how could a loving God send people to Hell, etc.  In essence we are saying our sense of justice, our cultural values are superior to those of the god of the Bible.

Slide #1 - This leaves mankind with 4 choices:

• Believe the Bible to be God’s revelation to man and submit (obey) it
• Believe the Bible to be God’s revelation and choose to disobey it 
• Re-interpret the hard parts to fit our culture and experience
• Reject it as divine revelation and ignore it

Defining some terms:  Please note, some of these sound “political” but they are not related to politics

Slide #2 - Fundamentalism: A term commonly used of a “type” of Christianity until the 1970’s, defined by these 5 “fundamentals”.  They were called “fundamentalists”.

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially the creation account, OT miracles and Jesus miracles
• The virgin birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

• Conversionism: the belief that lives need to be transformed through a “born-again” experience and a life long process of following Jesus
• Activism: the expression, demonstration and proclamation of the gospel in missionary and social efforts
• Biblicism: a high regard for and obedience to the Bible as the ultimate authority
• Crucicentrism: a stress on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross as making possible the redemption of humanity

** note what’s not listed “political affiliation”  Evangelicalism became synonymous with Republican

Slide #4 - Classic Liberalism:  18th Century to Present, primarily emerging out of “mainline” protestant denominations

• Denies the inerrancy, authority of the Bible as God’s divine revelation (and all that comes with that)
• Does not see a “conversion” experience or being “born again” as a needed experience
• Promotes a “social gospel”… meet the needs of mankind, care for the poor, seek justice, environmentalism never suggesting a need for a savior, sin is a cultural problem, God is loving and will overlook sin, etc.

Slide #5 - Progressive Christianity:  A current movement emerging out of “Evangelicalism” “de-conversion stories”

• Denies the inerrancy of the Bible (and all that goes with that), often rejecting the historicity of the account but looking for the meaning of “story”. 
• This denial of inerrancy is primarily based on culture and experience, secondarily on the conflict with science.  eg. “a loving God would not have asked His people to kill Canannites”,  “a loving God would not send people to Hell”, “a loving God would not ask my friend to deny their sexual desires and live in purity” “a loving God would not…”
• In essence Progressive Christians are saying “our sense of righteousness is higher or better than that found in the pages of scripture” so we will re-define, ignore, deny scripture. 

Brett’s Broad Brush Summary:  Classic Liberalism wore a “clerical collar” while Progressive Christianity comes in “skinny jeans or yoga pants”  (bear with me here, this is not an old man rant)

If you were in an “Evangelical” church in the 1970, 80’s, 90’s etc. you generally understood the threat came from outside your church.  Some (not all) mainline churches that were pushing “Classic Liberalism” (Episcopal, Lutheran, Presbyterian, UCC, Disciples of Christ, Quaker, Methodists, etc.)

But today the threat comes from within the “Evangelical” world.  Disillusioned believers (many younger), are distancing themselves from the church, and establishing a “new” movement, I think for the following reasons.

• They have been entertained and taught moralism in the church, Jesus and his Gospel has not been central, primary and essential.  The goal of the church has been to keep kids out of trouble not transformation and sanctification through the Gospel.
• Many churches who have seen young people leaving, double down on programs and entertainment, while continuing to avoid uncomfortable truth, ignoring real questions, suppressing doubt rather than facing it with clear Biblical teaching.
• Churches have become to “political” 
• None of us want to appear foolish, holding traditional views that run counter to culture and maybe science
• They hope to make “God more approachable” by removing the barriers to belief.  They are re-defining the gospel… you are not as sinful as you’ve been told, God is not a holy as the Bible portrays, there are better ways to understand those culturally insensitive accounts in the Bible, hell’s not real, same sex marriage is fine, abortion is a right, etc.
• They have bought into the lie that if you disagree with a neighbor then you obviously hate or reject them. 
• Culture and experience informs Divine Revelation