It really depends on what you mean by “literal”. I don’t really believe that Jesus thought Herod was literally a fox. Believing the truths of the Bible and taking every part - including poetic metaphors-literally are quite different ideas. I probably am not ready to jump on the bandwagon with the group in Raliegh, but like them I am getting a little tired of people to the right of me assuming that somehow they are more correct, moral and spiritual.

First of all I object to the use of the word “progressive,.” Even though it is becoming more and more popular it projects the idea that these groups are moving forward, and acceptable in their beliefs.  These groups are the liberals in sheeps clothing.  They have a problem with what the Bible teaches simply because they violate the most fundamental rules of Bible interpretation.

As a result, if their premise is faulty, their conclusions are as well.  I would suggest before we start objecting to their ocnclusions that we establish a line of communication on the basis of how they are arriving at those conclusions.

A biblical literalist simply believes that:

1. The Bible can only mean what it was intended to men when it was written.
2. A text out of context is a pretext
3. There is only one correct interpretation of a biblical passage although there may be many applications.
4. Sometimes the interpretation is difficult to arrive at because there is culture, language, and time barriers to overcome.
5. As a result, when the Bible is unclear we must be willing to be flexible and when the Bible is clear we must be willing to defend its truth.
6. Where the Bible speaks clearly, we speak.  Where the Bible is silent we should be silent.

These simple rules would solve a host of the problems we have with improperly dividing the word of truth.  There is much more to be said about this issue of bible interpretation, but at the very least, this is the starting point.

First, thanks pjlr for what I found as clarifying. I think it is important to identify how one approaches Scripture.

Second, in response to the link Todd gave, it did not really answer the question in my mind. That is, the examples given are clearly figurative. However, there are others that are not. For example:

Romans 1:24-27, “RO 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

RO 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

and Galatians 5:19-21, “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

I do not read these verses as figurative. So, how do the churches that are pursuing a “progressive” approach thread the needle of being inclusive and tolerant and yet preach in a way to save souls? Certainly we want the lost to come, but at some point they will be confronted with their situation and need to make a choice.

Any thoughts?
John

PJLR:  While Todd can certainly respond for himself (*grin*) the Worldwide Church of God is no longer Armstrongism.  Some years ago they underwent massive transformation, renouncing their past error, teachings and practices.  The Christian apologetics community, who was used to combating Armstrongism, worked with them as well.  It was quite a move of God.

[[TODD INTERJECTS:

Thanks, Phil for covering for me.  I almost hesitated when posting that link in the first place from the WCG.  Truth is, I’ve heard the same thing about their amazing story and turning from Armstrongism.  It would make a great post (maybe I’ll do a little research and write something up) but it’s kind of off the topic here, so I just let it go. 

THANKS!]]

Thanks Phil: I’ll take your word for it for now.  With so much to cover and so much that interests me I haven’t followed what has happened at WCG lately.

Now, back to the “progressives.” Let’s engage them at the root of the problem.  Address their using improper methods of interpreting the Bible.  I’d like to know what some the pastors who read this blog are doing in their churches to enhance the typical members ability to interpret scripture.

I know many pastors use impeccable hermeneutics for preparing their messages, but what kinds of things are we doing to help our congregants learn the correct or at least basic principles of bible intepretation?

One final thing.  Thanks Todd for taking a strong stance on moderating your blog.  I have read the blog regularly, but quit posting when it was hijacked.  It seems like the same 4 or 5 people turned every post into a soapbox for a personal pet-peeve.  And even though their issue was significant, it probably needs a blog of its own so the rest of us can engage in good dialogue over you excellent posts.

Blessings

I think what the ad states clearly is that the bible cannot always be read literally. 

3 quick examples of what I think they are proposing. When it comes to creation: is one to believe the first creation story found in Gen 1-2:4a or the creation story that begins Genesis 2:4b-3.  Notice the clear shift in style, one tells the story in a very clean systematic first day, second day style and says that God created the heavens and the earth in six days. The story that begins at Gen 2:4b that in the “day” (singular) that the Lord created the heavens and the earth. This story also tells the reader that the Euphrates and the Tigris flow from Eden’s garden, but clearly the Euphrates flows from the Caucasas mountain range in Armenia and Tigris flows from southern Turkey.  Does anyone believe that a cheribum is someplace up in Turkey guarding the way to the tree of life which is in a place where the Tigris and Euphrates flow from?

2. How does the writer of Daniel who claims to be apart of the Babylonian captives (586 BC) clearly point to the prince of Greece as a challenger of to the Persian Empire (circa 334).

3. Which resurrection narrative do you take to be literal, Matt 28, where the two Marys head to the tomb, there’s an earthquake, and one angel who descends from heaven sits on the the stone.  Or Luke’s in 24, where the women walk into an open tomb, find Jesus not there and two angels appear beside them.

Here you have three examples of text that if you are going to treat them as literal, well I don’t know what you do.

I also don’t get the others who have posted the proof-texts for homosexuality.  Do we not believe that God’s love does embrace all persons equally regradless of gender, race or sexual idenity?  I don’t think it says that homosexual sex is not a sin, it just says that that God’s love embraces all people.  And the Jesus who lets prostitutes touch him and who went to tax collector parties seems to embody that kind of inclusive love. We in the church are so worked up about homosexuality which really doesn’t affect many of us, at tops 4% of the population is exclusively homosexual.  And yes there are 3 NT verses that deal directly with homosexual practice.  But there are 100s of verses which guide us as a church in what our practice should be regarding the poor, and right now 17.9% of children in the U.S. (the richest nation on the face of the earth) live in poverty. That’s almost 1 out of 5.  Poverty as defined by the US is $9,300 annually for one person and $14,400 for a family of four. 1 out of every five children live in that kind of poverty.  The average CEO in the 1970’s made 40 times the working wage of the average employee, today that same CEO makes more than 500 time his/her average employee.  If we had to make a list about what Jesus would most be concerned about in our culture today, do you think it would be about gay marriage or about the 12.1 million children living in poverty everyday?  And yet we will elect those who will cut programs or seek to outright destory the social nets we have erected to catch those who would otherwise fall into despair.  We have cut assistance to the poor so that the top 1% of income earners (those making well in advance of $200,000 a year) could have the biggest tax cut in history, and in the process we have sunk deep into debt.

The Pharisees were the fundamentalist/literalists of their day.  They knew their bible backwards, forwards, inside and out.  The knew the letter of the law but not the spirt.  Jesus pointed this out on several occasions.  Torah, translated law, really means “instruction.” That is why it is important to preach the whole counsel of Scripture.  Scripture interprets Scripture and symbolism is consistent throughout the OT and the NT.

God clearly forbids homosexuality in both the Old and the New.  We know it is not because He doesn’t want us to “have fun” but because He knows what we refuse to believe--He knows what is good for us.

Now, would Jesus today sit at meat with drug-addicted, HIV-positive homosexuals?  ABSOLUTELY.  To teach them about the kingdom of God.  These are those who will get into the kingdom before the “religious types” since they will at some level recognize their need.  It is the self-righteous Pharisee or Sadduccee that cannot see their need.

Jesus has only one requirement to be in His Church.  That you recognize your sin as sin and repent of it.  Because it’s a squeaky clean club for nerds?  Because He’s a stern taskmaster?  No, because He knows what will break the relationship between He and us.  No one can be at peace with themself, much less with God, if they are a drug-addicted, HIV-positive, active homosexual.

But these are the VERY people He would be preaching the love of God to right now.  And tack on the end of any sermon, “Now go.  And sin no more.”

Jesus Himself--His Words and His actions are the only key to rightly understanding Holy Scripture.  That’s why, unfortunately today, the Jews and the Muslims cannot.  They do not have the One who holds the keys.

The “gay boogeyman”?  The embracing of homosexuality as morally acceptable is a Biblical barometer (along with the shedding of innocent blood) of God’s impending judgement on a nation.  This is true throughout the OT and reinforced in the NT (Romans 1).
pdl

I consider myself a conservative “progressive”. Why? Because I choose to look at issues of the 21st century with a missional purpose to understand how to reach this generation for Christ. If conservative means using archaic language and applications of scripture made for another era then I’m not conservative. But I am conservative in believing some parts of scripture are literal and some must be understood in light of ancient culture, customs and practices. And if Progressive means liberal, neglecting the basic truths of scripture (virgin birth etc) then I’m not that. However, these labels are slowling losing thier once held meaning and dividing line. Liberalism and conservatism are dead in their once understood application and meaning. Many christians labeled liberals espouse deep conservative spiritual/biblical values. Their liberalism is defined not by compromising biblical truth, but in embracing the need to consider being better stewards of all that God has entrusted to us. Being people of grace means to embrace peaceful settlement over conflict leading to war. An attempt to understand the diversity of cultures and respecting them for their differences, will help us win this world for Christ. I think this is what the term “Progressive” really means, and I think the transitioning interpretation of liberal means this also. Not compromising the missional purpose scripture, and at the same time broadening the scope of grace and the message of salvation through Christ.

I am no expert on progressive Christianity. In fact I am also seeking a greater understanding of what the term means. Two noted authors that are helpful in defining this new kind of Christianity are Marcus Borg and Brian McLaren. McLaren’s book “A New Kind of Christian” is just plain good reading even if one does not agree with much of what is said. I think that I can safely assert that progressive Christianity has little or nothing to do with homosexuality. It seems more to be post-modernistic interpretive process applied to Biblical text.

Most fascinating for me is that in terms of liberal or conservative designations, progressive Christianity fits neither--or both. And, it is refresshing to step out of that dichotomy!

Thanks again for a great conversation. Progressive Christianity would say that it is the conversation that matters more than the labels--so everyone on this blog should count themselves at least a little bit “progressive.”

WHOA!  I’m a believer who loves the Lord Jesus; I’m born again and I trust the word of God...and I did NOT vote “your way,” pmn, in the election.  To my mind, Christian values were tragically hidden in that election - so don’t go around saying that people who felt like they lost the election are unbelievers!  I know that’s not the topic here, but I can’t leave that unaddressed!  Voting “red state” doesn’t make one a believer; and being a believer doesn’t obligate one to vote Republican. Lots of labels here ("progressive," “emerging,” etc.)—but if we shed the labels and the categories and the bandwagons, we might hear the Spirit of God at work:  God did not want homosexuality for us; neither does he wish for us to be led into war through false pretenses.

I think it’s interesting that these “progressives” claim to be inclusive, yet at the end of their criteria, they say they will “warmly welcome” anyone who believes these things. So...I guess if I don’t follow their criteria, then I won’t be warmly welcomed. Hey, if you’re going to be progressive, then that means conversing dialoging and fellowshipping with people who don’t agree with you. That’s all I have to say about that.

I am a “recovering” Baptist. I was raised in rural MS in the ‘60’s. My family consisted of southern Baptists, who twisted the “Holy Book” to justify bigotry, grudges, hate, and they still do. I, cannot, however, denounce my belief in a higher being. I just believe that my God is a God of love. I say curse words, tell off color jokes, don’t go to church. I am doomed for hell to the “Christians”. The Christians that I find myself associated with are back-biting, envious, grudge-holding, destructive to others...but they’re saved. It makes no sense to me. I don’t believe in the virgin birth. I don’t believe in a place called hell. I don’t believe that Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt or that Jonah was swallowed by a whale and survived. I do, however, believe that God is Love. Period. My “Bible” is “Conversations with God”. It’s the only thing that makes sense. It gives me hope. I am an artist, and was showing a “Christian” a tee shirt that had one of my Jesus paintings on the back. I asked him if he would like to sell them in his business. This individual said that to overtly promote Christianity might offend some of his patrons. Those words to me are shocking, if he believes his book. I told him not to look at it that way, but to look at it from another perspective...that Jesus is a pop icon these days. Young people see movie stars wearing Jesus shirts, and they are wanting to jump on board. Then he made himself feel justified in denying to promote “Jesus” by calling me a “money-changer” like Jesus chased out of the temples. Man, I just don’t get it.