One of the common complaints Christian critics throw my way is that I paint with too broad a brush. When I disparage or critique Christianity, my critics get upset because I’m lumping all Christians together. I should be more specific when I write about Christianity, they say. I’m not sure what they expect me to do. Should I every time I use the word Christian, modify the word so everyone knows what domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species of Christian I’m talking about? Sorry, but there’s not enough time in the day to do so. Besides, Christianity is not as divided as the warring parties would have you believe. It’s easy to assume, as we watch the internecine warfare between Baptists and Catholics and Calvinists and Arminians and Evangelicals and Progressives, that they have nothing in common. However, the differences are not as big as they appear to be.
For example, progressive Christians tend to think of Evangelicals as fundamentalist crazies and Evangelicals tend to view progressives as weak-kneed, jello-on-a-stick compromisers of the teachings of the Bible. Listen to both parties talk and it is easy to conclude that they are polar opposites of one another. However, once the peripheral issues causing their disagreement are set aside, it’s easy to then see that the Evangelical and progressive Christian have a lot in common. Let me prove my contention.
The Evangelical follows a path that looks something like this:
- The Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is truth.
- The Christian God is the one, true God.
- Jesus is divine.
- Jesus is the son of God.
- Jesus came to earth and was born of a virgin.
- Jesus worked miracles while on earth.
- Humans are sinners in need of salvation and forgiveness,
- Jesus died on the cross to atone for humanity’s sin.
- Jesus resurrected from the dead three days later.
- Jesus ascended back to heaven and will some day return to earth.
- Jesus offers salvation and the forgiveness of sin to all who will put their faith in him.
- Those who accept this offer go to heaven when they die.
- Those who don’t accept this offer go to hell when they die
The progressive Christian follows a path that looks something like this:
- The Bible is, to some degree, inspired and contains truth.
- The Christian God is the one, true God
- Jesus is divine.
- Jesus is the son of God.
- Jesus came to earth and may or may not have been born of a virgin.
- Jesus worked miracles while on earth.
- Humans are sinners in need of salvation and forgiveness,
- Jesus died on the cross to atone for humanity’s sin.
- Jesus resurrected from the dead three days later.
- Jesus ascended back to heaven and will some day return to earth.
- Jesus offers salvation and the forgiveness of sin to all who will put their faith in him.
- Those who accept this offer go to heaven when they die.
- Those who don’t accept this offer might go to hell when they die or they might be annihilated.
As you can see, the Evangelical and the progressive Christian have a lot in common. These two parties tend to fuss and fight over the nature of the Bible, whether the virgin birth was necessary, whether Christianity is exclusive, and whether non-Christians go to hell when they die. Apart from these things, they are kissing cousins.
What adds to the confusion is that many Christians think fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are not the same. As I made clear in the post, Are Evangelicals Fundamentalists?, all Evangelicals are theological fundamentalists and most of them are also social fundamentalists. Press an Evangelical who objects to being called a fundamentalist about his beliefs and he will eventually show his true colors. Fine, an Evangelical may often say. At least I’m not a legalist like other Evangelicals, so that means I’m not really a fundamentalist. I smile at this point and say, are you sure about that? Are you sure you aren’t, to some degree, a social fundamentalist? Here’s what I had to say about this issue in Are Evangelicals Fundamentalists?:
Social fundamentalism focuses on the conduct, lifestyle, and social engagement of the Christian. An Evangelical looks at the rules, standards, and negativity of an IFB church that proudly claims the fundamentalist moniker and says, SEE I am NOT a Fundamentalist. I don’t believe in legalism (demanding a Christian live a certain way). I believe in grace and I leave it to God to change how a person lives.
This sounds good, doesn’t it? However, when you start to poke around a bit, you will find that almost every Evangelical is a social fundamentalist. The only difference between Evangelicals is to what degree they are. This can be quickly proved by asking people who think they are a non-fundamentalist Evangelicals a few questions. Questions like:
- Can a practicing homosexual be a Christian?
- Can a homosexual man be a deacon or pastor in your church?
- Can a same-sex couple work in the nursery together?
- Do think it is OK for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sexual activity?
- Can a cohabiting heterosexual couple be a member of your church?
- Do you think it is morally right for a woman to wear a skimpy outfit to church?
- Is it ever right to have an abortion?
- Do you think smoking marijuana is OK?
- Do you think it OK for your pastor to smoke cigars and drink alcohol at the local bar?
- Is it OK for someone, in the privacy of their home, to become inebriated?
By asking these questions, and a number of other ones, you will quickly find out that non-fundamentalist Evangelicals are social fundamentalists after all. They may jeer and laugh at the crazy, extreme rules and standards of the IFB church, but they too have their own set of non-negotiable social standards. They, like their IFB brethren, are social fundamentalists.
I am sure some Evangelicals will be sure to argue that their social fundamentalism, like their theological fundamentalism, come straight from the Bible. Of course, ALL Evangelicals think their beliefs come straight from the Bible. The IFB pastor has a proof-text for everything he preaches against, as does the I-am-NOT-a fundamentalist-Evangelical-pastor. Both believe the Bible is truth, an inspired, inerrant, supernatural text. The only difference between them is their interpretation of the Bible.
No Evangelicals yet have successfully challenged my contention that they are fundamentalist. What often confuses the matter is progressive and liberal Christians who, out of fear or complacency, still affiliate with the Evangelical church. While I recognize such people exist, they are Evangelical in name only.
What complicates matters further is those who are to the left of progressive Christianity, those who are commonly called liberals. Liberals are quite hard to pin down belief-wise. They often despise Evangelicalism and even take issue with certain aspects of progressive Christianity, yet when pressed about their own beliefs, their interlocutors find out that nailing down liberal beliefs are like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. There seems to be no theological hill they’re willing to die on, no belief, save that Jesus is their Lord and Savior, they aren’t willing to jettison if called on to do so. Those who have been riding Bruce’s crazy train for a long time might remember a frequent commenter by the name of Grace. She was a liberal Episcopalian. While she said she accepted the ecumenical creeds as statements of her faith, there was little, belief-wise, that she held dear. It was frustrating to interact with Grace because it was almost impossible to find common ground with her. God is love, Grace would say, and I’d reply, explain this so-called God of love to me in light of this same God destroying the entire human race, save eight, with a flood. From my perspective, the notion of a God of love that wipes everyone off the face of the earth makes no sense. In Grace’s mind, making sense wasn’t important. All that mattered is that God is love.
From an intellectual perspective, I can understand Evangelicalism. Beliefs are clearly defined. But, with the liberal Christian, it seems that all they have as the cornerstone of their belief is the notion that God is love and Jesus is the personification of that love. Certainly I’m being simplistic, but I’d love for some liberal Christians to explain to me exactly what beliefs matter to them. What beliefs are nonnegotiable? Every liberal I know thinks the Bible is a book of great stories and metaphors, yet they hold on tight to the notion that Jesus is who Christianity says he is and he is their savior. The liberal throws away the Old Testament and paints Paul as a misogynistic control freak. Book after book is relegated to the dung pile of human ignorance. All that is left is a selection of writings from the gospels and maybe the book of Acts. While liberals love to appeal to antiquity for support of their supposedly enlightened view, I’ve yet to stumble across this view in the writings of the early church fathers. Liberals, with one foot firmly planted in the modern world and its repudiation of much of what Evangelicals hold dear, want to hang on to Jesus, so they grab for beliefs they can hold on to and still be considered Christian.
To the liberal Christian I ask:
- Is belief in the Christian God important?
- Is everyone a sinner?
- Does everyone need the forgiveness of sins and salvation?
- Is Jesus in any way divine?
- Was Jesus’s death necessary?
- Did Jesus resurrect from the dead?
- Where is Jesus now?
- Is there a heaven? a hell? What determines who goes where after death?
- Do all roads lead to heaven?
These are questions that many liberals prefer not to answer or think they are unimportant. In their minds, it’s all about Jesus. They are, in many ways, no different from some Evangelicals who say, Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. To the liberal, Jesus, along with the communal aspects of the church, is very important. Everything else is just noise.
Here’s what I think about the matter. Many liberal Christians are actually universalists, agnostics, or atheists. They like the idea of church, of belonging to a congregation. Everyone would agree that religion in general gives people a sense of purpose, meaning, and connection. It is this that really matters to the liberal.
When I take a step back and look at the broad expanse called Christianity, I see diversity. But, when I peel away all the issues that make Christianity diverse, I’m left with one thing: Jesus. Evangelicals, progressive, liberals, and everything in between, all love and worship Jesus. And where does this belief in Jesus originate? In the pages of the Bible. Without the Bible, there would be no Jesus or Christianity. While Evangelicals, progressives, and liberals bitterly snipe at each other over the nature and authority of the Bible, all agree that the Jesus they love and worship is found within its pages. And once this fact is admitted, then all of them are in the position to understand why I, and others like me, are not Christian. Whatever my backstory might be, the foundation of my unbelief is the Bible. Every Christian-turned-atheist I know says the same. We all have stories we can tell about our experiences as Christians, but at the end of the day, our deconversion rests on our belief that the Bible narrative is not true, that Jesus is not who Christians claim he is, and that the Christian God is just one of many Gods humans have created.
It’s taken me 2,000 words to say this. Please forgive me for not distinguishing between all the flavors of Christian ice cream. When I look at the ice cream case, I see all sorts of flavors, but they all have one thing in common; they are ALL ice cream. So it is with Christianity. While I find the various theological squabbles entertaining and fodder for blog posts, when I peel away all the beliefs that make the various sects and believers unique, I’m left with one truth: all Christians put their faith and trust in Jesus and worships him. I’m not inclined to spend much time making sure every post I write about Christianity says exactly which flavor I’m talking about. If it’s evident that I’m not talking about your flavor of Christianity, by all means ignore what I’ve said. In time, I will get around to your flavor, and then I’m sure you’ll complain that I don’t understand or that I am misrepresenting your version of the faith once delivered to the saints.
Notes
Roman Catholicism also have fundamentalist, progressive, and liberal wings.
Yes, I am aware that there are as many shades of Christianity as there wall color chips in the paint department at the local Lowe’s. That said, every Christian falls somewhere along the line between Evangelical and liberal.
[signoff]
I’ve heard liberal Christians define “Christian” as any follower of Christ, seeing that as just another name for Jesus; for them, everything is questionable except that they somehow are sitting at the feet of a particular teacher, Jesus. Whatever. I’m generally cool with people’s self-labels. I’m not convinced a real teacher named Jesus hung out in Israel/Palestine at the beginning of the Common Era — at least not one who corresponded remotely closely to the tales of the bible… so I even fail to be a Christian by that definition. Nor do I claim the label.
I confess, I don’t pay that close attention to people’s self-descriptions. I’m waaay more interested in how they live their lives. If you want to hinder and oppress others, I don’t care if you self-identify as Christian, some other religion, Godless Libertarian, or whatever. You are on my s*** list, probably permanently. OTOH, if you pay lip service to a really nasty version of some deity, but you’re as humanitarian as they come in practice, we’ll get along.
Humans are complicated creatures; everyday life and its relationships are complicated; lots of people are trained that being completely honest is dangerous. In some cases they’re right. We all carry baggage. That’s why what you do carries so much greater weight than what you say.
Spot on, Karen.
bruce, i would add to your list of questions no only their own views, but what the official statements of their particular official church theology says. i think many liberal christians believe the rest of their congregation is as liberal as they are, but i don’t think that’s true. eg, the liberal may think the resurrection was metaphorical rather than bodily. ok, propose rewording the nicene creed and see how that goes?
look at same-sex marriage — many tried to change their church’s policy, and discovered that there is a substantial conservative component of their “liberal” church. and the arguments had to be made by re-interpreting the clobber verses, ie, maintaining biblical authority, rather than simply saying “they got that wrong; there are errors in the bible.”
UUs and liberal quakers are the only groups that i’m aware of that don’t fit the mold.
I think you are right. We attended an Episcopal church in 2008. Quite liberal, but there was a small contingent of fundamentalists, every bit as closed minded as the fundamentalists in the Baptist church. They were a minority, but they had a lot of power and control.
Very insightful article and I am how many years late to the party haha.
I’ve been trying to learn about progressive Christianity and I was curious about your thoughts on it, which brought me to this particular article.
What I’ve been able to learn is it’s something like this: The Bible says Jesus is the word, the Bible is words so because Jesus is the word we should only mainly concern ourselves with what Jesus says. Jesus talks about Hell but they conclude that Jesus isn’t the sort of person to send people to Hell so Hell doesn’t exist. I too think they are mostly agnostics, atheists, universalists. They just like the idea of getting together a bit and some feel goods.
It’s fair enough to do what you want but for me, why bother? I’d rather get together over a sports match and a beer.