#STRask - What Progressive Christian Teachings Should I Look Out For?

Episode Date: November 7, 2024

Questions about what progressive Christian teachings one should look out for and whether John 16:12–13 provides justification for the views of progressive Christians.   I’ve been hearing about progressive Christianity and wondering what I should look for when it comes to unbiblical teaching. Some progressive Christians and churches cite John 16:12–13 as justification for their views. If that passage doesn’t mean what they say, what does it mean?

This is Amy Hall. Welcome to Stand to Reason's Hashtag SDR Ask podcast, starring Greg Kokel. You have never put it that way, and I rebuke you. I know. I knew you would. I know, Greg. Okay. Well, today we have a couple questions about progressive Christianity. So we're going to start with a question from Michelle. She asks, I've been hearing about the progressive church and wondering what I should look for when it comes to unbiblical teaching. progressive church and wondering what I should look for when it comes to unbiblical teaching.

Well, one of the—let me back up. The progressive church is very, very broad, so it has a lot of variations, okay? It claims to be Christian, but it rejects much of what is considered classical Christianity. Particularly, imagine anything that seems in classical Christian teaching, doctrine or ethics, that seems out of step with the culture. And almost universally, the progressive church is going to reject that. So in many ways, they will hold the name of Jesus, but their understanding of Jesus is going to be a very, it's an understanding that's very consistent with cultural values, okay, particularly leftist values. So just to give you a heads up on that. Okay, particularly leftist values. So just to give you a heads up on that.

The reason that there is any concern that they would hold unbiblical views is because the one feature of progressive Christianity that unifies all the groups that are diverse is a rejection of the Bible as an authoritative source. It may be helpful or inspired in some sense, but not in the classical sense that this is God-breathed, and therefore the words are authoritative. And all the words, that's verbal plenary. The words are inspired, and all the words are inspired. And they're not going to accept that, because that then affirms a whole bunch of theology that they don't think is true. So they're going to reject that, and that's the bigger problem. And this is why you get a variety of beliefs. Who is Jesus? Well, he's not the incarnate Son of God who came to die for man's sins,

and belief in him is necessary to rescue us from judgment. Otherwise, we will receive the judgment in eternal hell. No, none of that. He's a social justice warrior. He's a guy who taught peace and love. He's there to help us all get along. He had insight in some way, whatever. There's all these different variations that are going to be manifest in the broader progressive

church. But what's not going to be there is classical Christianity. So if the question is, by Michelle, what should I be looking for? Just keep your ears open, because, and with this in mind, that anything that is offensive culturally to largely leftist culture regarding biblical teachings are going to be rejected by the progressive church, progressive Christians. Now, the variety comes when you look at where do they go with alternatives to those theological views, and you're going to get variety, but you are going to get consistency, virtually unanimity, on the idea that the Bible does not speak with divine authority. By the way, that's what makes them progressive. They have progressed beyond that. They have progressed beyond the Bible as the Word of God, beyond all of these things in the Scripture

that seem to clearly represent ideas that are archaic in their view, old and worn out, and no longer in step with the culture. So they have progressed. So in a certain sense, it's not difficult if you're familiar with classical Christianity, just let them talk. But be sure that you are getting clear characterizations or definitions of the otherwise biblical words or terms that they may be using. So, atonement, they might characterize that as at-one-ment, and we are all at one with God because Jesus has brought us to God in some way, because Jesus has brought us to God in some way, but not through substitutionary, penal substitution. He didn't die in our place for our sins.

No, are you kidding? And then they have some other view. So, Michelle, you're going to find that virtually everything that is standard Orthodox classical Christian doctrine is going to be rejected by them because it's just out of step with the culture and the times, and consequently, they're going to reject it. They don't like it, and there's no authority in the Bible anyway. So, Greg, you hit on the point that I wanted to make, because the one thing that you need to look for at the root of everything, I agree, is their view of the Bible. The Bible is not their highest authority. So sometimes in churches, when they first start moving away, maybe they're not being as open with everyone about their views on everything, but this is where it will start. So if this is present, even if the other things aren't yet present, it will go that direction eventually. I remember I was reading a book by Brian Zond

called Sinners in the Hands of a Loving God, where he was speaking against God's... He's progressive. Yes, he's progressive. He was saying that he was speaking against the idea of God having retributive justice and the wrath of God. And he was saying that's wrong and the cross is about something else. The cross is about showing us that using your power, I can't remember, violence is wrong. And so that's what we learn from the cross. And so now we can live better lives. He basically took away the gospel and turned it into

law, saying, okay, now this is our example. Now we know how to live. Rather than saying, this is Jesus dying for our sins, and now out of God's grace, we're forgiven and we're reconciled to God. So as I was reading his book, I kept saying, but what about this verse? What about this verse? And I was writing down all these notes. I'm like, but that contradicts this thing. And it just made no sense to me until the very end. And at the very end of the book, he talks about how he doesn't understand. God can't be violent and all this. And then he realized, as he was sitting in quiet contemplation, having a vision of who God is and seeing him without violence, he realized, oh, this is the true Jesus.

I said, so the whole thing is based on this supposed kind of contemplative experience of the Jesus that he wants to be Jesus. It was not the Bible. The Bible is not his highest authority. He is judging the Bible based on what he thinks God should be like, which ultimately gets shaped by the culture, which is what you were saying, that when your sensibilities are shaped by the culture, you're going to think the Bible is wrong. So you either do that or you let the Bible shape your views of what is good and what is bad and who God is and try to make sense of that. But if it's not your highest authority, that will never happen. There's no way to correct your faulty views. If your faulty views are judging everything

else, there's no way to correct them. And this is why I'm trying to remember exactly how I put it. I was having a conversation with my sister over the weekend in Seattle when we were at Reality last weekend about this very thing. If you reject, look, a person can say, I think the Bible is just written by men. It doesn't have authority, okay? Or it's not historically reliable, whatever. I said, fine, you're welcome to that view.

But then you are not welcome to a view about a personal assessment of who Jesus was and what he came to do. Because if you reject the historical accounts, the primitive ones, the original ones, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the ones that were written early about Jesus from those who were closest to him, if you reject them, then you have no Jesus left to have an opinion about. historical references that we have from extra biblical sources corroborate the gospel profile of who Jesus of Nazareth was. So they all say the same thing. Now, if you reject all of that, which you're free to do, okay, fine. But what you're not welcome to is an opinion of Jesus, because now he's gone. Where are you getting your information? And what you suggested, on. Where are you getting your information? And what you suggested is Brian Zahn is just reflecting and having an insight on some person we know nothing about, because we can't trust the historical record. And therefore, okay, well, it must be just, now it's a Jesus fashioned after him, his image and his theology, not the Jesus who has his own theology.

And I'm not suggesting it. He flat out says it. Let me just read this one short paragraph. He says, One day, as I was sitting silently in contemplative prayer, I whispered this to the one who was there, Father, I don't believe you torture people for eternity. And then I began to laugh, and the one who was there laughed too. So he, again, this goes back to what we were talking about. Actually, that laugh should be a cackle, the one who cackled too, because we know the source of that idea.

Look, I understand that it takes some thinking, especially because we have been so shaped by our culture. It takes some thinking to figure out how all of these ideas fit together in the Bible and what it means to be good and to appreciate justice and to understand who God is. We are going against the culture in this, and that does take some thinking. So I don't want to dismiss the idea that people can be worried about that. But what I want to encourage you to understand is that the Bible is the objective revelation of God, and that is the safe place to go to resolve your questions. This goes back to what we were saying in the last episode where we were talking about some religions have this message given to somebody and their entire religion is based on this message that person

received. We have no way to check it. We have no way to know it person received. We have no way to check it. We have no way to know it's true. We have no way to know it was from God. But the way that Judaism and Christianity were revealed, it was always connected to objective reality and objectively seen reality. Third person public. Right. So we have God revealing himself in all sorts of ways in history.

We have the prophets testifying to their message with their miracles. We have Jesus dying and rising again and doing miracles to prove who he was. That's where we need to put, that's the basket we need to put all our eggs in. basket we need to put all our eggs in. To go to our own subjective ideas, which will inevitably be shaped by a culture that's in rebellion against God, I don't know why we would want to do that. So even when it seems difficult and you don't understand how could God say this or do this, I just encourage you to continue to move forward in trying to figure that out. And so many people have thought about that and written about that. And I just, I don't know, I just encourage you to do that. Now, maybe we've gotten a little bit off track, but

this is the first thing to go in the progressive church. So if you end up in a church, I would ask questions about their view of the Bible before anything else. By the way, when that goes, everything else goes eventually, because there's so much that, at least on the surface, prima facie, as a quick look, in light of what our own fleshly desires entails, there is so much in Christianity that just seems unpleasant or offensive. That is, there's things you could look at that you would draw that conclusion, just like Brian's saying. I don't think you're going to torture and torment people for all eternity. Ah, ha, ha, ha. I laughed and I heard a laugh. Why? Because to our fallen selves, this is an untenable kind of thought.

our fallen selves, this is an untenable kind of thought. Now, if you think about it further, you know, why would a good God not punish injustice? Why would a good God just wink at all kinds of evil and just let it happen? That happens in our culture. We say, that guy got put, he got away with murder. Our inherent sense of justice rebels against that. Why would we think that a perfectly moral and good God would be any different than that? So there are intuitions we could draw on to make sense of these kinds of things, but the initial reaction that we have, especially a reaction that's going to be informed by self-interest, immediate self-interest, pleasure, that's going to be informed by self-interest, immediate self-interest, pleasure, fitting into society and all that other stuff, being liked,

that impulse is going to cause us to reject the straightforward teaching of Scripture on this. And so, by the way, there are two books that you may want to consider, Michelle, anyone else too. Elisa Childers' book, of course, A Different Gospel. That was one of the first books to explore these problems in progressive Christianity. And then Jason Hemingway has written, I think, Hijacking God? I think Jesus. Hijacking Jesus. Starts out hijacking Jesus. And he does a great, they both do a great job coming from different angles and bringing a lot of information to bear on this issue. And Tim and Elisa's book,

The Deconstruction of Christianity, they make this point that when people are deconstructing, it's because they're not putting the Bible as the ultimate authority. And so they move towards whatever culture is promoting. And this shows up in another big one would be sexuality. So I would say the meaning of the atonement, the rules regarding sexuality. What else would you say? The views on the Bible. Well, there are things that are offensive to them in the Bible because they misunderstand the alleged genocide in the Old Testament, the mistreatment of women in the Bible, and things like that, slavery in the Bible. And these are things that they have not looked at with ancient eyes, so to speak. In other words, an assessment of the cultural

circumstances and also the details of the text itself. They just react when they see these words. And if you're progressive, you can just dismiss all of that because the Bible is not the Word of God. This didn't happen, or I don't believe in that God. I believe in a kind of God of Jesus, a Jesus after own making. Let's go on to a question from Brad. Some progressive Christians and churches cite John 16, 12, and 13 and following as justification for their views. If that passage doesn't mean what they say, what does it mean? Well, it's interesting that they quote—I didn't know that progressive churches do this. I didn't either.

Because this is taking Jesus at face value here in the Upper Room Discourse and also affirming that there is such a thing called truth that the Holy Spirit is going to lead them. And I'll read the verse in a minute, but you just had an epiphany. Well, because I realized I haven't heard that they've used this particular verse. However, I have heard them give the idea that God is giving some sort of progressive revelation and things are moving in a particular direction that they only went so far in the Bible, direction that they only went so far in the Bible, but the trajectory we're supposed to follow into God accepting homosexuality and all those other things, so like inclusion. Right, but how is that a reflection of progressive revelation? You know,

we'd have to have new revelation then that expressed that. But my point is that I think that verse could be used to support that idea, so I'm guessing that's what they're using. Maybe, and also maybe individual understanding, because this is what it seems to speak to. Let me read the verse, John chapter 16. Incidentally, this is very important. This is one of four discourses that Jesus gave, This is one of four discourses that Jesus gave, major discourses. It's the last one. It's called the Upper Room Discourse.

It's almost one-third. It's chapter 13 through 17, inclusive of the Gospel of John. It's maybe one-quarter of the entire Gospel is one evening that Jesus spent just before he dies, and he's communicating to his disciples the last things he's going to tell them, all right? And one of the things he said, I'll just read the chapter 16, 12 through 13, and he says, I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you unto all truth. I guess I should, that's usually where they stop, but I'll just read the rest of that sentence. For He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak,

and He will disclose to you what is to come. Now, presumably, the point here is Jesus has more things to say, but he is going to speak them through the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives, okay? And what he's going to do is guide them into all truth. Now, I've heard many Christians quote this for themselves. And they say, see, the Holy Spirit said he's going to guide us into all truth. Okay. Now, if we take that at face value, and by the way, this is a good way to see if you're taking a verse correctly, and that is just apply it the way you say it is meant and see what happens. So if Jesus is talking about all Christians receiving the Holy Spirit, which we do in virtue of the new covenant, the new birth, baptism in the Spirit,

and what that means is he will lead all Christians to all truth, all born-again Christians, well, it's clear that he's failed. Because even you and I, as much as we agree on so many things, we disagree on some things, and there's hardly a Christian alive that agrees in every way with even any other Christian. So if the Holy Spirit is meant to be given to Christians to guide individual Christians to all truth, then we all ought to have the same beliefs. But we don't. So that can't be what he's referring to. This verse in chapter 16 is actually a repetition of something Jesus said a little earlier in the evening and recorded in chapter 14, verse 26. Let's start at verse 25. These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. I'm here telling you right here.

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things. Oh, well, that sounds like a repetition. The same thing. Keep reading. And bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. In other words, what Jesus is saying here is, in both cases, I've been talking to you, but now I'm leaving,

but there will be another source, a helper that will come and will be able to help you recall everything I have taught you. Now, that doesn't apply to us. It applies to the disciples there who would become the apostles, who would be the spokespersons, the authoritative spokespersons for Jesus. And indeed, that's a central part of the issue of the canon. I've just written a piece on this. It might be out by now, November 1st. I'm not sure when you're reading this. The New Testament canon, which books and why?

And the why has to do with what is the source of authority, and that is the apostles were the source of authority. Therefore, if books were written by the apostles, they were authoritative. If Paul wrote it, there it is. It's over with. That's almost immediately in the first century, the majority of what we now know as the New Testament canon was already accepted by Christians at large because of the authorship, because of the promise being fulfilled that Jesus is making here in John 14 and John 16, that the Holy Spirit will lead the apostles to all truth. And this is why we have what's called the analogy of faith, that if we look at different passages,

here's John writing, and then here's Paul writing, and here's James writing. Well, they're all apostles. They're all filled with the Holy Spirit and giving us truth, so they're not going to contradict. So, we're looking for a way to harmonize their ideas, whereas, you know, when it comes to Christians at large, they contradict each other all the time. Do we have an authoritative source of information? Yes, the early church saw that, the apostles to whom this promise was given. So there's a principle here of hermeneutics, by the way, when you're reading something that Jesus says to a group of people, you need to ask yourself, based on the circumstances that this happens in, whether it appears that Jesus is speaking to them as those individuals as such, and therefore his comment is

limited to those individuals. Jesus tells Peter, throw the net on the other side of the boat. Well, we're not all supposed to throw the net on the other side of the boat. That was for Peter under that circumstance. Or whether he's speaking to them as believers, and these are universal principles that apply to them as believers. Now, there's a lot in the Upper Room Discourse that applies to them as believers. The next verse in chapter 14, peace I leave with you, peace I give to you. Not as the world do I give it to you. Do not let your heart be troubled. Don't

let your be fearful. Well, that's a verse that would apply to all of us. But the verse just above that, he's giving specific instructions to the disciples, and it's obvious. All that I have taught you, the Holy Spirit will bring to remembrance, and then later in chapter 16, he will teach you all truth. So this is a promise that is limited in scope to the people, and I think obviously to the people to whom he's speaking, and that is the apostles. to whom he's speaking, and that is the apostles. And therefore, it wouldn't have application to Christians in general at any period of time, even at that period of time.

And so down the line for a progressive to cite this concept in favor of, well, we have progressive revelation continuing on, and now we have insight that they didn't have. Well, first of all, now they're quoting the Scripture as a proof text, which is odd for a progressive. And secondly, it's a proof text about truth, which they also are kind of mushy on the concept of, generally speaking. It's subjective, not objective. And so it just strikes me as unusual they will cite this passage,

especially since there's a whole bunch of other stuff in the Upper Room Discourse that they're probably not going to agree with, except for Jesus' washing feet. Well, I've found that there are a lot of people out there that will use verses to try to convince people who actually do take the Bible seriously and think that it's the highest authority. So they're trying to convince them. I mean, I don't want to say that's what everyone is doing. That's interesting. But I think even if it's not their highest authority, they'll often use it to try and convince people for whom it is the highest authority. Sure, I get it.

it to try and convince people for whom it is the highest authority. But even if it were true that the Holy Spirit will lead people in that way, He's not going to contradict Himself. God didn't change. The moral standard doesn't change. Now, what they might cite is, well, it used to just be for the Jews and now it's for the Gentiles, so this is a totally new thing. Well, not really, because from the very beginning, God was saying that all the nations would be blessed through Abraham. There are other parts in the prophets where he talks about bringing the Gentiles into the temple. And this was always hinted at. I mean, not even hinted at. It was promised from the beginning. So this fits into the story.

And then you have the law, and people might say, well, then God got rid of the law and brought in the Gentiles. Well, what actually happens is Jesus dies and rises again, and because he's died, he's released from the law, and when we're joined to him, we're released from the law. There's actually an explanation of how this comes about. It isn't just randomly, oh, and now this is different. I mean, there's a reasoning behind it. Yeah, more specifically, the Mosaic law was a conditional contract that God made with the Jews, and they broke it. And that's why Jeremiah says, I'm going to give you a new covenant,

with the Jews, and they broke it. And that's why Jeremiah says, I'm going to give you a new covenant, not like the one which God gave at Sinai, which you broke. Okay, so that's a broken contract, and now he's giving a new one. So there's a progression that makes a lot of sense. It isn't just willy-nilly, the old rules have changed, and the new ones are coming. And the law is based on God's moral standards. So the laws weren't random. I mean, there were other purposeful ones that didn't have to do with morality and that had to do with the holiness codes and certain things that could end because Jesus fulfilled them.

But then there are other ones that are based on the moral standard. And since God's morality doesn't change, so we are still to be like Christ. We're still to be like God. We're still to reflect His morality. So if anyone comes in and says, well, this morality is different now, well, now we've got a problem.

So I think with all this in mind, you cannot use this verse to support that. Yeah, it might be. That's a good observation you made, that maybe they're just trading on the Christian source of authority and saying, your authority agrees with us. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that strategy. And we use it actually with regards to the Quran to commend the Gospels, for example. But it's interesting, though, that also it's in John 14 where Jesus says, I am the way and the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me. And of course, no progressive is going to affirm that. Well, thank you, Michelle and Brad.

We appreciate hearing from you. Send your question on X with the hashtag SDR Ask or just go to our website and look for the hashtag SDR Ask podcast and you'll find a link there to send us your question. We look forward to hearing from you. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel for Stand to Reason.