Monday, May 08, 2017

Can Progressive Theology Survive?

It was one of those fascinating conversations in which one finds one's self without ever actually intending to do so. I was presenting at a multiple-church gathering on the topic of the theology of the Progressive Church movement. The plenary presentations made up the majority of the morning agenda, with two 45 minute sessions. The first sessions dealt with early church history, particularly the shift that took place in 66/70 c.e. from an imminent understanding of the kingdom to a delayed understanding. The second session dealt with Biblical material, and how the 7 canonical books that were written before the shift represent a far different set of assumptions than the twenty that came about following it.

In the afternoon session, I presented on the cultural shift that has been taking place globally since about 1968, and how that shift can be understood as a call for the Church of Jesus Christ to return to a theological foundation that predates the theological shift of 66/70. (If you want to know more about this theological shift, and its results for Christian history, I encourage you to attend Shiloh's Bible studies on Tuesday evenings at 7:00 and Thursday mornings at 10:00.)

The conversation in question took place after the closing Q & A session. I though that I had laid out a fairly cogent argument for seeing Progressive Theology as a return to the ethical archetype that stood as foundation of the practical theologies of Jesus and Paul. A clergy person approached me as I was gathering my materials and said, "You know that Progressive Theology will never work, right?"

I may have sputtered a bit in my response. "H..Huh?" "W....What?" "What do you mean?"

The person explained that Progressive Theology was doomed to fail because it offered no tangible incentive. No one would follow the ethical archetype of sacrificing one's self in order to go out of her or his way in order to meet the needs of others. The only way that theology works is if there is some reward offered in return for that kind of faithfulness.

It was an intelligent point of view, I thought. The theology that was practiced by Jesus and Paul was doomed to failure because its practice did not offer any personal reward. No one would do it without a measurable advantage to doing so.

We engaged one another for quite some time. I explained that what my colleague was pointing out was precisely the thinking that lead to the theological switch of 66/70. Of course, that switch was forced by a number of other historical and practical matters as well, but there was its crux. The incentive of universal human benefit is not adequate motivation for persons to sacrifice their desires, needs, dreams, aspirations, opinions or values. While the ethical archetype of Crucifixion/Resurrection seems good in theory, it will never succeed in practice. It lacks personal and individual incentive. The Church needs to offer the reward of eternal life, salvation beyond death, an immortal human soul, one that is rewarded for doing the right kinds of things in life.

I did not disagree too vehemently, except to say that the theology that underlies the Progressive Church movement is not based in its popularity or practicality. It is based, instead, in its faithfulness to the ethical archetype that is expressed in the historical Jesus and Paul. It is to this that the Church of Jesus Christ is called. In my opinion, it is this to which culture, since 1968, is evolving. Whether or not it is a draw, it is faithful to the primary layers of Christ-like practice.

So, what do you think? Can the Church of Jesus Christ return to a theology that reflects the ethical archetype of Jesus/Paul? Or is the Church of Jesus Christ required to continue on the path of the theological shift of 66/70? How key is the personal and individual incentive of the heaven-rewarded immortal human soul? Is improvement and benefit of the entire human family enough motivation for sacrifice? Can Progressive Church Theology survive or thrive?

   

1 comment:

Randy Z said...

It seems to me that once again culture will find a path of compromise between the two extremes. (you know the ebb and flow) We are obviously not living in either world faithfully. But there is no doubt that we ARE moving away from the self-centered reward and punishment of the institutional heaven and becoming more engaged world wide in understanding the human dilemma of peaceful coexistence and that helping all people improve on life’s challenges and hardships actually does benefit everyone and it does so now (which really seems like something we could hold up as REWARD). By becoming less selfishly engaged we practice the archetype that Christ modeled for us as God’s will. Truly he has given us this answer to all the hard questions. Will we become that which we know to be God’s will is the correct question in my thinking. That’s the great thing about the human species. We can individually elect to do just that by choice despite all odds and it is in this pursuit that we succeed in the selection of practice that emulates God’s will. The question of reward becomes muted by successes that are redefined in terms that do not require reference to the flesh. Less selfish = less fleshish. So to the extent that we understand what it means to practice the archetype of Christ in the here and now diminishes and replaces the need for a reward and punishment system. Can we handle that?
It's not about whether or not we can practice religion with a reward system of going to heaven. It’s taken us 2000 years of institutional churching-to-us to finally understand that is only a surface engagement with God. This would be the same church that has been and is being summarily dismissed by culture in preference to a “spiritualism” albeit an individual one BUT still a movement from the institutionalized focus on self towards a broader humanistic understanding of otherness. We are at a necessary junction of understand this denial of self for the benefit of all. I only hope we are not at a zenith of this understanding and practice as we are far short of the goal. Let’s face it. Reward and punishment to get us to heaven has not worked as a common understanding of God’s will and since the Progressive Church ideas are new (and original) to this 2000 year old entrenched understanding we need to give it time. Will we get there…. Oh who knows but let’s give 2000 years as fair play.

Randy Z