Talk:Progressive Christianity

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Christianity Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merged and copy edited - removed many red links and wikified Paul foord 12:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article tends towards a POV defense of Progressive Christianity (from my POV) as well as lacking a proper perspective from religious and non-American political points of view. I added the cleanup tag it hopes of attracting a general re-write from someone who knows the topic well.Eluchil404 04:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be marked as {{POV}}, not {{cleanup}}. --Ezeu 04:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an earlier change God's people -> Christians: many of the biblical injunctions are not specific to Christians, but are Old Testament (i.e. Hebrew, Jewish) calls to justice and peace, which apply as universals, not just as exhortations to Christians. Myopic Bookworm 13:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should be using the more accurate term "Progressive Protestantism", for Pope Bendict has decreed that it is EVERY Catholic's responsibility to support the aims of "Progressive Christianity". More importantly, the Catholic's inalienable duty to promote social justice is enshrined in the Catechism of the Church. Thus, there can be no such distinct movement within the Church. --WGee 01:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, people have to start describing, specifically, the ways in which the article is allegedly biased. --WGee 01:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pope did not say this, he said that progressive Christianity goes against traditional bible teaching. The movements gay marriage is detrimental to the future of christianity. http://progressivechristianity.ca/prc/?p=4347 24.86.166.62 (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with this entry is that it is very America-centred. The very first line links it with 200 years of American history... what about other nations where Progressive Christian thought has flourished and created a far more moderate religious landscape than the USA? Although TCPC is located in the USA, the larger theological movements of liberation theology and the social gospel are not unique to American history. Also, there are many religious organizations world-wide that would fit under the "progressive christian" banner but are not officially associated with TCPC. Also, the neutrality of the article is extremely questionable. Theolad 10:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's at issue here is that "Progressive Christianity" needs to be differentiated from "progressive Christian thought". Progressive Christianity is a movement in the same way that Evangelical Christianity is a movment. More specifically it applys to a group of liberal Christians who are attempting to bring the church's liturgy and teachings in line with their secular scientific worldview. And while it might feel a great deal of affinity for liberation theology and the social gospel movement, neither are really central tenents of Progressive Christianity. Jaylashen 18:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to recast this article so that it actually relates to the specific topic, no more, no less, and added a clarifying note at the top. This I hope will solve both the geographic scope problem and the supposed neutrality problem, and I would hope that both templates can be removed. I have only re-organized the information, since I do not know enough about it to add new material. I have removed duplicate material on particular organizations with their own Wiki articles. (I have stated that the movement is Protestant: since it is called "Progressive Christianity" that it what we must call it!) Myopic Bookworm 15:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there is no section called "criticisms of pregressive Christianty" in this article, as there is in the "Conservative Christianity" article. Both articles should have similar sections to demonstrate fair reporting. "Progressive Christiantiy" must have a criticisms section to be complete.

Jaylashen's comments are spot-on. It's the "bringing into line with secular-scientific worldview" which marks PC - and this is a 'modern' concern - interested in questions about historicity, rationality etc. For this reason the emerging church stuff doesn't belong here. EC doesn't have the emphasis on modern concerns. Often EC wants to go back to the past, re-learn from the past. The emphasis is not on rational thought but on practice and community. I feel this article conflates EC and PC because it's only seeing their agreement on issues in sexual ethics. 192.76.7.206 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is biased toward anyone not politically leaning toward liberalism. It also gives the impression to the reader that conservative christians are racist which is biased.

It ignores the fact that liberalism in the US is not the same as liberalism in other countries and has different meanings.

It gives the reader the impression that all progressive christians have liberal political views which is not the case.

As a whole the article gives readers the impression that progressive christians beliefs are different due to political philosophy and not thier progressive beliefs in christianity.

It comes out sounding like a political speech against conservatism instead of a true definition of what a progressive christian is.

Progressive christians are identified as "spiritually vital", but according to whom? As an example, other Christians would question the spiritual vitality of anyone supporting homosexual practice. Not all Christians, be they conservative, or progressive/liberal are spiritually vital- this is a personal descriptor of an individual, not of ANY entire group. Instead, the emphasis on the "spiritual vitality" and "willingness to question" of so called progressive Christians comes off as veiled support for the homosexual agenda within the church, something that is not shared by all progressive Christians. Arguably, it is not very distinct from what's commonly labeled "liberal" Christianity, at least in beliefs on "political" issues. Lindalinecm 07:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Christianity is a hermeneutic method and Progressive Christianity is not. You state that Progressive Christianity is arguably the same as liberal, I disagree. If you know that the reference supporting the statement “affirmation of human diversity” is inaccurate and too broad please modify it or request a citation e.g. ^{[citation needed]} If a citation is not provided in couple of days remove the statement.--Riferimento 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not question the reference to "affirmation of human diversity" whatsoever. That is an accurate description of all spiritually vital Christians. If you notice, I left the remaining references the same. However, the words "spiritual vitality" cannot be applied to any Christian "group", be they protestants, Catholics, liberals, conservatives, etc. without sounding biased. Some catholics are spiritual vital, so are some protestants, so are some conservatives, and so are some progressives. Thus, the descriptor is not exclusive to progressives, and certainly is not characteristic of every Christian that self-identifies as progressive. If this is to be left in the first paragraph, it should be cited as the opinion of someone, not used as accurate fact. Furthermore, "willingness to question" is also not a descriptor that makes progressives distinct from others. Perhaps you should elaborate. Are not conservatives willing to question (politics, liberal thought, social justice, etc.) as well? Perhaps "willingness to question tradition" would be more accurate of progressives.

I did not write that section that provides the list, but the editor of that section did provide a citation. I agree that it would be more accurate to use the statement "willingness to question tradition,” but I have not reviewed the citation and I am hesitant to change cited material before reviewing the citation. I am not sure why you consider using the words “spiritually vital” is bias, nor do I understand why you believe that by making such a statement the editor was implying that other groups are not (I also do not care it is certainly not a necessary phrase.) I do question how you are applying your labels. The progressive movement within the Catholic Church is as old as the social progressive movement itself so to imply that progressives are only Protestants is inaccurate. Also liberal and progressive are not interchangeable. --Riferimento 00:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a POV check template at the top of the page. It seems that there has been some discussion here about possible bias about the article. I feel like the article has a positive slant, but is there anyone else who would be willing to read the article to see if it appears neutral? 69.128.140.93 (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That last note was mine, but I was signed out for some reason. Sorry. Tnxman307 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is now nearly a year old, and a number of revisions have happened since this was tagged for neutrality issues. At this point, I think the article is reasonably balanced. Any objections to removing the neutrality check template? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article is still politically biased and under the comparison section, titles Conservative Christianity but the body doesn't mention the term at alland instead refers to traditional Christianity which is not the same. DoulosBen (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [2] to the article by Hal Taussig is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.62.28 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the names listed are unsourced, for instance what is the evidence that Johnny Cash was a Progressive Christian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenW (talk • contribs) 17:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the list of names should have been deleted. I specifically came back to this article to see the list of names and was surprised to find it gone. While I know how to go into the archive and find removed data that I know was there in the past, the ordinary user might not know to look for it there. If there was a problem, as noted above, with “Some of the names”, the correct solution is to provide sourcing or remove those names, not to remove the whole list. If I don't see a good reason not to do so, I will restore the list in a few days. Sterrettc (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically wondered about Johnny Cash's inclusion, too. Perhaps those that are uncited would be better off removed, while those who are/identify with PC remain? TheOverflow (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead a removed a few famous, uncited inclusions. Further review is needed of those remaining. TheOverflow (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following redlinks were removed in this edit, due to the difficulty establishing that these individuals are 'notable' (not just involved) in progressive Christianity. I agree that they do not belong in the list unless additional resources are available to address this problem, but am preserving the list of removed people here on the talk page in case anyone would like to investigate and present a case for any of them.

• James Rowe Adams [1]
• Delwin Brown [2]
• Jim Burklo [3]
• Jarrod Cochran [4]
• Hugh Dawes - author of Freeing the Faith [5]
• Peter Laarman [6]
• Phil Lawson-lifelong pacifist and leader of non-violence, associate of Dr. M.L. King, Jr.
• John C. O'Keefe [7] author, pastor, speaker
• Scott Paeth [8]
• Fred Plumer [9]
• Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou [10]
• Timothy F. Simpson [11]
• Charles H. Toy II [12]
• Gretta Vosper [13] - author, United Church of Canada minister, founder of the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity
• Roger Wolsey [14] - author, United Methodist pastor
• Joseph Mattioli [15] - ProgressiveChristianity.org Discussion Board Administrator, author, Ordained Christian Minister

Additionally, there should be some reference for every person on the list – some like Karen Armstrong, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and John Shelby Spong may be pretty obvious to those already somewhat familiar with the subject, but that doesn't include everyone who might read this article. Identifying some of the other individuals with progressive theology in particular (and not just with related but nevertheless very distinct concepts, such as liberal or liberation theology) may be less clear-cut. Ideally, we can work on strengthening the references pre-emptively rather than waiting for future challenges and then having to play catch-up. --167.206.48.221 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of a person on a list should only occur if they have an article on Wikipedia or their notability is well supported by

wp:wtaf Jim1138 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I note that

Progressive, certainly, but not a Progressive Christian within the meaning of this article, I think. Any objections to removal pending a cite of him as a Progressive Christian? TheOverflow (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I question the opinion, above, that Karen Armstrong "may be pretty obvious[ly] a "Progressive Christian," or any kind of Christian, in light of her statement "I am no longer a believing or practicing Christian nor do belong to any other official religion." [Muhammed: A Biography of the Prophet (c)1992 by Karen Armstrong, HarperCollins paperback, p.14]Ken Sandin (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One user keeps adding back into the lead "Many would hold that so called "Progressive Christianity" would be more accurately labelled as "Regressive" as it seeks to bypass the cross.^{[citation needed]}" Others keep removing it. I, too, was tempted to remove it as it does nothing to establish that it is true in several ways:

• It does not give any evidence that "Many" would, in fact, hold that view;
• There is nothing here to show that Progressive Christianity "seeks to bypass the cross", (an assertion that is contrary to my exposure to it);
• It is not clear why "Regressive" would be the right term for seeking to bypass the cross, even if you believe, as I do, that seeking to bypass the cross would be wrong.

So, rather than having an edit war, let us have a discussion and a resolution to this problem. Sterrettc (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the content before seeing this, yet it seems clear that the content does not fit within the article, especially in the lead section. It is purely conjecture, offering readers no new knowledge about Progressive Christianity, instead only offering the opinion of one individual. Moreover, as you stated, there is no evidence that Christianity "seeks to bypass the cross and '"regressive" is simply a subjective term, which presents a biased view of the topic.

Furthermore, a number of editors have reverted the content, so there does seem to be a consensus that the it should not be added back into the article. User:Eb7473 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to see both sides of the view on Progressive Christianity, though I concur that the "Many would hold" paragraph is misplaced and could use better citations. At the very least, perhaps it belongs in its own section -- "Controversy" or some such. Agent Zero (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not seem appropriate to me, in an article on one form of Christianity, to have a section simply to highlight the fact that people who adhere to another form of Christianity disagree with its position. There's already a discussion of the difference between Progressive and Conservative Christianity (itself contentiously implying that the label "Conservative", rather than, say, "Traditional", applies to all those opposed to the Progressive movement). Myopic Bookworm (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This current definition isn't incorrect, but it is vague and incomplete. A new definition should include the following points:

• Progressive Christians use the techniques of higher criticism to study the Bible. The article should include a statement contrasting this Progressive approach, with the literal approach favored by fundamentalist Christian congregations.
• Progressive Christians respect other religious traditions and beliefs.
• Progressive Christianity is inclusive in that everyone is welcome in a worship service, including individuals who follow other cultural or religious traditions or are members of social minorities.
• Progressive Christians believe in social activism.

This article should include a link to Progressive Christianity's 8 point statement at http://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/ and summarize its content.

This article conflates 'Liberal' Christianity with 'Progressive' Christianity. Liberal Christianity refers to a specific scholarly approach to the Bible having its roots in the Enlightenment 200 years ago, and not to the practice of a specific political or religious ideology. 'Progressive' Christianity refers to the modern practice of some Christian Congregations, of including social minorities as equals in worship services, and acting with objectivity, tolerance and compassion as Christians to define and resolve community issues. Biff alcatraz (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dude was progressive, and the dude was Christian, but the dude was not a "progressive Christian." In fact, he was highly fundamentalist. I suggest removing him from the "list of notable progressive Christians."140.141.179.154 (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Progressive Christianity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://trinity.qld.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/UTC_Essay05.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Not sure the article makes this clear. Fluous (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, difficult to add them as fact. For instance, The United Church of Canada^[1] contains many Progressive Christian churches, and have a progressive ethos as a whole, but of course, not all churches adhere to the theology. Newfontherock (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the criticism of Vosper may not be useful. Her self-professed atheism leaves her outside the Progressive Christian camp now, based on the definitions outlined earlier, even if she founded the Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity.^[1] Could someone more informed than I present criticism of Sponge, for example? Newfontherock (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know when Thompson's criticism of Vosper was formed and on which of her positions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an addition of Michael J. Kruger's commentary on Gulley's If the Church Were Christian. I can't tell if Kruger is disingenuous, ignorant, feels threatened by the ideas provided, just doesn't like the concept of following Jesus, or something else. The idea that "Jesus Is a Model for Living More Than an Object for Worship" does not imply that Jesus is no longer an object of worship at all as Kruger claims. It also does not make Christianity moralism, as Kruger claims. It means followers of jesus model our lives on Jesus, because Jesus is worshipped. That is why I removed it. Also, it's a

And the editor who added it complained on my talk page about my removal.

I will point out that R.C. Sproul had similar concerns about the "what would Jesus do" movement and commented on it on his broadcast. I don't get why Presbyterians are so frightened of following Jesus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]