Just to Clarify

Early disclaimer: I started writing this and it went into a million different directions. I apologize beforehand for the long-windedness and for any rambling. This post was bascially necessary for my own peace of mind. :)

A month or so ago I posted the following line: "There's a common misconception that aligns progressiveness with immorality."

That statement was ALL KINDS of confusing mainly because I provided no clear context for my use of the word "progressiveness." E. Newman and I hashed it out after she read what I wrote and I think it's a worthy enough issue to clarify what I meant and the different things that can be gathered from it.

At the time, I had recently had a conversation with a non-believer who coined a community as "progressive" merely because it was growing away from traditional conservative influences. She would say, or at least I think she would say, that progressiveness is found in a community that supports excercising rights such as abortion and homosexuality. These institutions, in light of my belief in Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible, are morally wrong. Thus, immoral acts are being aligned with progressive thinking in an unfortunate way.

What I realized after posting that sentence is that it can be easily seen in a different light. Again, I think it boils down to the context in which one uses the word "progressiveness." Coming from a small-town Baptist ministry grounded in a 200-year old tradition, I know the hate and resistance that is often imparted to "progress." Change and new perspectives are often viewed as tools of Satan. The church I last attended tried to accuse the youth ministry of cult behavior because they used candles and low lighting during a presentation. The accusors were clearly aligning change/progress or anything remotely different from a traditional service as "evil" or "immoral." Their attacks on the efforts of the leaders at my church were not grounded in Scipture and were not offered in a spirit of love and healthy fellowship. This type of reaction to "progress" is clearly an injustice to the Gospel. Too often people cling so tightly to tradition and comfort, that they forget to remain relevant to an ever-changing and dare I say "progressive" world. Tradition can be a rich and beautiful thing, but when it's used in a way to hinder the work of the Lord, it becomes rather ugly. Or should I say the way it's being manipulated becomes ugly? The tradition in itself may remain pure, but humans use it to futher their own personal agendas in a disrepectful way. Paul reminds the Corinthians:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. - I Corinthians 9:19-23

In reference to progress in the church, I belive change should always be a matter of reaching out to the world around us for the sake of God's kingdom, that is so long as we do not sacrifice the righteousness to which God has called us through Christ.

More generally/secularly speaking, there are also people who might see technology, diveristy, and civil rights as evil institutions. The white power movement would obviously see the "progressive" implementation of integration as a terrible, even immoral thing.

That leads into the next issue which involves the reverse injustice, so to speak. One friend in response to my shady post commented, "the opposite is true...sometimes." I would completely agree. Often times, those who support more "progressive" approaches feel more enlightened or more justified in their convictions opposed to others that choose to remain grounded in traditional thininking. The truth is that if both sides don't hear each other out with spirits of love and understanding, the outcome can be nasty. So, what if somebody likes to sing out of the hymnal whereas another person prefers to sing along to a projector or television screen? That's a matter of preference, not a matter of immorality.

And the issue gets more complicated. What about non-believers that see Christians' adherence to a 1st century text as close-minded?

Anyway. I think this is getting way more complicated than I intended.

That being said, if I were to rephrase my previously confusing statement, I would say that progressiveness, in as much as it remains loyal to Scripture, is usally a good thing, but if someone is less inclined to certain progressive activities, he or she is not necessarily evil.



Please, anyone feel free to call me out on inconsistencies in what I just wrote or things that don't make sense.

That's why we write, I guess...to process all this stuff. And who knew the topic of "progressiveness" could be such a muddy issue?