Watch
Listen
Click here to listen to the episode on our website
Read
Gramster Rant: The Widening Chasm of Progressive Christianity
Progressive Christians they are so progressive they came out with a progressive list of reasons why you should be a progressive. We're going to look at that list and shred it.
We've been watching the chasm grow wider and wider and wider for literally decades now. The chasm between biblical Christianity and whatever different wacka-noodles are out there. That's why I kept talking about how we have to go narrower, holding fast to the truth. That's really the point because the times that we live in are no different than in Jesus' day when He said, "False teachers, they're going to be on the rise. Watch out, be careful." These are people calling themselves Christians but not quite right.
This idea of the progressive Christian constantly messing up the walk of the authentic Christian, or trying to - that's what we see out in the hinterlands of social media.
I found this meme put out by the Reverend Dr. Caleb J. Lines. I didn't know who this person was, so I had to look into him. The reason I called him that is because that's what he calls himself on his website. Let's be clear - the dude screams "I have a butler." I don't know that he has a butler, he's pretty young actually.
To be clear, we're talking about an overtly false teacher. He denies the virgin birth - he says that's just myth, not an actual historical event. He advocates for various sexualities, gender identities, etc., believing these are all just social constructs. What happened in Jesus' time was just the social constructs of that day, and how we're living today is very different - they're just social constructs with no right or wrong. Unless, you know, you're a Biblical Christian, then you're very very very wrong. Needless to say, he is as far left and as progressive as progressives come.
His meme is titled "Why I'm a Progressive Christian," and it's basically two columns - Progressive Theology and Regressive Theology. I had never heard this term "regressive theology" before. When you hear "Progressive Christian" or "Progressive Theology," you know what that is. But "Regressive Theology"? Nothing - absolutely nothing came up when I searched. This is something he made up.
What he means by "Regressive Theology" is traditional biblical theology - the theology that the church has held since Jesus walked the Earth. He's contrasting himself with authentic Christianity, renaming us as "regressive Christians." That's what we are. And guess what happens to people who go too far regressive? They need to be punished in some way. That's what's coming - the militancy of the progressive. This is what liberals do. They love to rename things and use derogatory terms with negative connotations to label wide swaths of people.
Let's look at the actual list and compare both sides:
"Moving Forward vs. Moving Backward"
The first comparison claims progressive theology "moves forward" while biblical theology "moves backward." This fundamentally misunderstands the value of remembering God's faithfulness. Do you know how many times the word "remember" is mentioned in the Bible? Over 350 times! If you take variations of the word, you're looking at 550 times throughout the scriptures.
The only things you can remember are things that are backward, behind us. There's nothing wrong with that, and to say one is better than the other is not even rational. It's a ridiculous statement wrapped up in pride and ignorance masking itself as intelligence.
Paul's second letter to Timothy 3:14-17 says, "Continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know from whom you learned it." He's talking about learning from people who actually walked and talked with Jesus himself. "Hold on to that because we're trustworthy, we're eyewitnesses, we were with him, and from a child you have known the scriptures."
Just imagine if you had a theology that always moved forward - it's always changing. What I believe today is not going to be relevant tomorrow? It gets down to your feelings eventually, and you have absolutely nothing to rely on.
"Affirming Rights vs. Stripping Away Rights"
The list claims biblical Christians "strip away rights" while progressives "affirm rights for the marginalized." This ignores history. Christians like William Wilberforce, John Newton, and all the Christians who stood up against and squelched the slave trade. Martin Luther and all the reformers - there was a reason they reformed everything. Luther was looking at the church when doctrine was getting so skewed that charitable works were almost extinct, and he didn't like that.
What about John Bertram Phillips and the countless translators who gave their lives translating the Bible into languages of largely unknown and forgotten people around the globe? What about Dietrich Bonhoeffer - was he the one stripping away rights when he was saving Jews?
The church has always been at the forefront of human rights - that's a fact. But it has also been the force in restraining sin. That's his confusion right there. You want to eliminate racism? You know where racism doesn't exist? Inside an authentic "backwards" church. That's where there is no racism because you're all one blood in Jesus Christ. Christ said long ago, "There is no Jew, Gentile, Greek, slave, free" - we're all one, and Christ is in all.
When you look at the agendas progressives have, like affirming transgenderism and different sexual lifestyles, they're confusing the word "rights" with the word "sin." That's their error.
"Ignoring Historical Context vs. Embracing Modern Knowledge"
He claims biblical Christianity "ignores historical context" while progressive Christianity "acknowledges insights from modern knowledge." This is an oxymoron - he's contradicting himself literally. He's complaining that we don't use historical context, yet he's the one with an aversion to going backward. He wants to go only forward with modern insights. It's not making sense at this point.
"Denying Science vs. Progressive Insight"
Biblical Christianity supposedly "denies science." Again, he's got a doctorate - how did he not ever learn about Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell?
What he's doing is denying creation and promoting the easily falsified religious belief system called Evolution. This is their mantra, and because we deny their lies - which aren't really science but a belief system - we're called science deniers.
Sir Isaac Newton advanced science more than anybody else I know. He actually created our modern method of science - how we go from just a theory to a law like gravity or thermodynamics. James Clerk Maxwell knew the entire Bible by heart. George Washington Carver - the list goes on and on. These are men and women, black and white, all Christians, all huge scientists. To say that we deny science is so lame.
"Singular Salvation vs. Common Good"
Biblical Christianity is "focused on singular salvation" while Progressive Theology focuses on "common good." Well, I got news for you, Mr. Lines. Common good will not save you. Common good will not get you to heaven.
What does "common good" even mean? The common good for a believing Christian would probably be very different than it is for someone else. The question always comes up: who determines right and wrong? Who determines what's good, what's bad, what's common? It puts it in the will of man. This same thing played out in politics results in communism, where some people are chosen as winners and some people are chosen as losers.
The rest of us sinners - that's who we all are - we need a savior, and we don't care who hears about it. God's going to burn this all up anyway. You're not building a Utopia here; God already knows it's a fallen, cursed world. The common good does not reconcile you to God.
Three Ways to Spot Progressive Christians
There are three major things that help you spot a progressive Christian or false teacher right away:
- Inverted Priorities: As Christians, we go to the Bible, read it, and put our faith 100% in the Bible. We let the Bible form our thoughts, opinions, and views - including our political views. Progressive Christians do the opposite: they start with their political views, then go to the Bible and form their theology in a way that conforms to their political views.
- Elevating Human Over Divine: They elevate the human aspect of the Bible over the divine aspect. They put man first in reading God's word. It's all about man and me, not about God and Jesus - that's secondary for them. When we read the scriptures, especially in the New Testament and the gospels, we want to put ourselves into the story so bad. But if you take a step back, you'll realize that the whole narrative is about the greatness, holiness, and awesomeness of Jesus - presenting Him as our Savior, what He was thinking, doing, and teaching.
- Culture-Driven Ethics: They derive their morals and ethics from culture rather than from the Bible. They want Christians to change their moral ethics to fit the culture rather than looking at the Bible and saying our culture needs to conform to Christ. They have everything backwards.
When dealing with progressive Christians, pray for them when you can, but at the end of the day, you've got to stand firm. Sometimes a little sarcasm doesn't kill anybody - might even wake somebody up. When you see straight-up lies, be prepared to call it what it is: false teaching.
That is my Gramster Rant for the day.
Creation Science: A Conversation with Russ Miller
Both Pew and Barna research have been reporting for the last 30 years that between 70% and 90% of Christian-raised children leave the church by the age of 20. The progressive Christians decided the way to stop that is to change God's word to fit with the foundation of secular atheistic humanism. That has flat not worked.
The way to fix that is to use real science. Very few people know this, but 82% of the branches of modern science were started by what they would call "traditional Christians." About 9% of the other ones were started by Jews. So to sit there and say that Christianity and traditional (real) Christianity is against science? That's just propaganda put out by atheists.
The father of the scientific method was Francis Bacon. The greatest scientist of all time was Isaac Newton. Real science is our best friend, was our best friend, always will be.
The biggest hook that atheists or progressives use to convince people not to believe the Bible is Darwinian evolutionism. More subtly, it's millions of years of time. The modern old Earth beliefs were only invented 220 years ago - they're a fairly new invention.
The old Earth beliefs used today are based on two beliefs: uniform processes and denial of the global flood. It all comes down to how the Earth's crust formed. The biblical view is that the stratified layers were laid down in a global flood. The secular view is based on uniformitarianism - that they form at the rate we see today and there was never a global flood.
In Second Peter 3:3-6, we're told that in the last days, non-believers would claim uniform processes and deny the global flood. And here we are today with secular geology claiming uniform processes and denying the global flood. Progressive theology agrees with the secular atheists and the scoffers, making them scoffers themselves.
There are two types of science:
- Operational Science: This is real science - knowledge derived from the study and testing of evidence. Evidence has to be testable and studied so they can do repeatable tests, and when the results always come back the same, it becomes a scientific principle, maybe a theory, or eventually a law. This is what most people think of when they hear the word "science."
- Historical Science: This is not knowledge derived from the study of evidence. It's assumptions - you make a story (they call it a "historical narrative") to fit things we see today that happened in the past. You can't test, study, and observe it. Normally, they look at rates today, assume it's always been the same (uniformity), and extrapolate backwards.
Darwinian biology is historical science. They see us today and make a big story on how we came about that has no evidence behind it. Most of modern geology is real science in that operational science in geology is when you can look at a rock and say this is granite or shale or sandstone. But to say how it formed and when it formed (unless it happened in the last couple thousand years and someone saw it) is historical narrative.
Where there's controversy between what the Bible says and what's masquerading as science, it's always historical narratives - never operational science.
An example: Let's say you drain oil out of a car. Operational science shows it took two minutes to drain. But if you've never seen that before and you come along five days later and see a full pan of oil, then watch it for a week and see one drop fall, if you believe in uniformitarianism, you'd say "it's one drop a week - it took 2,000 years to fill that pan." Operational science shows it took two minutes; historical science says it took 2,000 years.
Right On or Way Off?
Statement #1: If passed, New York City will be the first to mandate paid leave to care for companion animals.
Chris: Way Off. I believe everything should be done for people with pets. I've given people days off when their cat died as a boss. There are ways employers can care, but to mandate it? No - people are not animals, and animals are not people. Maternity leave for dads has been a good decision. A newborn child is incredible, not the same as having a pet. I have incredible love for my dogs, but mandating that employers pay people to be with their pets is absolute madness.
Zach: Way Off. When it comes to mandating nearly everything, we've got to have a really light hand. Everybody also has the ability to say, "This is not an employer I want to work for." I'd lean more on the side of a lighter hand when it comes to legislation and more on freedom.
Emilee: This statement is Way Off. It cannot be mandated. If we're not given time off to care for our children, which many employers don't provide, then companion animals wouldn't rise above that. Bravo to a company if they want to offer that as a perk, but mandating it is the problem.
Statement #2: Everything happens for a reason, and sometimes the reason is you're stupid and you made a dumb decision.
Zach: Right On. There are natural consequences to our dumb decisions, and that might be the reason for things. But even in our dumb decisions, God can use everything for good.
Chris: Right On. Just ask kids - they know they made stupid decisions. "Johnny told me to jump off the shed. I thought it was high, but I did it anyway." Why? Because you made a stupid decision. We still do that as adults. There are times when you make decisions that you think are good that turn out horrible, and you kick yourself for not thinking it through differently.
Emilee: This statement is Right On. We had a young child playing with matches one time. We punished them for playing with matches and caught them playing with matches again. Sometimes God protects us from our stupidity. We're all stupid or naive in some areas. Be honest - you'll realize you ain't all that. Just own it - "I made a dumb mistake."
Statement #3: Let's make sure we're on the same page about Jesus. I'm always going to love Him more than I love you.
Chris: Way Off. If you're talking to your spouse, that's a horrible thing to say. If you understand biblical marriage, you will love your spouse more than anyone on Earth because the two became one, and together as one, you love Jesus. In a Biblical marriage, we're supposed to love our spouse like Christ loved the church and love our kids in the same kind of way.
Zach: Right On. I can't love anybody at all unless I love Christ first. I can't effectively love in any good, meaningful way unless I love Christ first. With that as the foundation, I have to build upon that to love anyone else effectively.
Emilee: This statement is Way Off. When we get into the scriptures, God's call on our life is to love Him and love others. If you don't love others, you don't love Him. There's no competition between "Should I love Jesus or should I love you more?" We're supposed to even love our enemies. The reality is we don't love God the way He deserves, but His long arm of mercy keeps refining us, forgiving us, renewing us. If you're not loving that person, you're not loving Christ either.
Final Thoughts
The battle between progressive Christianity and biblical Christianity isn't new, but it is intensifying. When progressives create lists that frame traditional biblical believers as "regressive," they're using classic tactics of manipulation and misdirection.
What they call "moving forward" is actually drifting away from the anchor of God's unchanging truth. What they frame as "affirming rights" is often embracing sin. Their claims about science ignore the rich history of Christian scientists who founded most branches of modern science. Their focus on "common good" misses the central point of reconciliation with God through Christ.
The challenge for authentic believers today isn't to become more "progressive" but to stand more firmly on biblical truth. We must recognize false teaching when we see it, lovingly but firmly refute it, and continue to proclaim the unchanging gospel in a constantly changing world.
As we navigate these turbulent waters, remember that what seems backward to the world may be exactly the direction God is calling us. The narrow path rarely looks appealing from the outside, but it's the only one that leads to life. Scripture doesn't need updating - it needs proclaiming. And truth doesn't need revision - it needs defenders.
Love God, love others, and you'll be good. Get into God's word - He'll show you how to do it, and He'll even give you the ability to.