"Can Progressive Religion Claim the Center?" and "Culture Changers"

[Htom Sirveaux]

I began this Year Without God thinking that there would be a fairly easy alliance between so-called progressive and liberal religionists and atheists, but this is very often not the case. Many atheists see conservatives as the “real believers” because they believe what the Bible/Qur’an says, more literally. Atheists easily dismiss progressives as people who are simply trying to drag their (essentially conservative) religion, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Many atheists became atheists as they realized that this project was failing. Many atheists also feel that the progressives and liberals are giving legitimacy and social/cultural cover for fundamentalists and extremists. Rather than critiquing the core of the problem (belief in a God who supposedly revealed concepts taught in the Bible or Qur’an–which is it?), progressives just create space for the fundamentalists to claim the high ground. Or so goes the argument.

My current thinking is that that Christianity and Islam are inherently conservative. This is why liberals and moderates have to stake out special territory for themselves. Has there ever been a time in history when the Abrahamic religions have trended liberal and the outliers were the conservatives who were trying to pull the faith to the right? Perhaps so, but not in our time, nor for the past 100 years in these United States.

Abrahamic faiths, to varying degrees, believe that God communicated his (male pronoun intentional) will to humanity through holy writings. Liberals and conservatives differ in how to interpret these writings—hence the political spectrum within these religions. But conservatives can always lay claim to the “plain reading” whereas progressives have to engage in deep socio-cultural critiques. I think those socio-cultural critiques are valid and necessary as they would be for any ancient text (what is the “plain reading” of Beowulf, for example?). But it is hard to understand at times why liberal Christians bother with the Bible at all. After having agreed that it is a human document, full of moral and historical problems, why maintain that it is revelatory of God’s mind at all? Which parts? How can we know? And having stripped God of all notions of “being,” why bother with the word ‘God’ at all?

I am afraid that this re-formation of religion is a losing battle.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yearwithoutgod/2014/06/16/progressive-religion/

I would add the piece Bell was responding to, but Religion Dispatches appears to be down right now. I will add it when available. In the meantime, let's look to David Hollinger for some analysis on the progressiveness of religion in the United States in the past 100 years:

We’ve become so accustomed to the narrative of “mainline decline” that it is difficult to get our minds around a more nuanced version of this story. How do you tell this story?

The ecumenical leaders achieved much more than they and their successors give them credit for. They led millions of American Protestants in directions demanded by the changing circumstances of the times and by their own theological tradition. These ecumenical leaders took a series of risks, asking their constituency to follow them in antiracist, anti-imperialist, feminist and multicultural directions that were understandably resisted by large segments of the white public, especially in the Protestant-intensive southern states.

It is true that the so-called mainstream lost numbers to churches that stood apart from or even opposed these initiatives, and ecumenical leaders simultaneously failed to persuade many of their own progeny that churches remained essential institutions in the advancement of these values.

But the fact remains that the public life of the United States moved farther in the directions advocated in 1960 by the Christian Century than in the directions then advocated by Christianity Today. It might be hyperbolic to say that ecumenists experienced a cultural victory and an organizational defeat, but there is something to that view. Ecumenists yielded much of the symbolic capital of Christianity to evangelicals, which is a significant loss. But ecumenists won much of the U.S. There are trade-offs.

We usually say, “The victors write history,” but here you seem to be saying, “The victors refuse to claim victory.” Why is that?

The victors are slow to claim victory because they too often assume that numbers of church members are what counts most. If they had a more capacious understanding of the ways in which religion can function in society, they might be able to feel more pride in what happened. The great Anglican archbishop William Temple used to say that any church aware of its deepest missions would be willing to cease to exist if it advanced its ultimate goals.

http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-06/culture-changers

[the_sly_pig]

1. Seems to be a lot of overthought.

People turn away from the religion because individuals are required to conform to doctrine and belief. Additionally, it has become more important to be labelled Christian (or religious) than to behave like one.

Now, there is no more faith, only surety that there can only be one true 'God' and intolerance for those that don't conform. William Temple was right. Hopefully these dark ages won't last 400 years.

[cbayer]

2. I agree that this is horribly over thought.

There have always been distinctions within religion which can be defined by political ideology.

The prominence of different groups has risen and fallen, even in my lifetime.

My during my formative years, religion's role in the civil rights and anti-war movements were huge.

Following a relatively quiet time, the religious right began to rise and has dominated for 30 years or so.

And I see a resurgence of progressive/liberal religion at this time.

I don't think it's nearly as complex as some of these authors are trying to make it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

3. What did you think of the idea of progressive Christians dropping the "progressive"

and just identifying as "Christians" in order to define themselves as the mainstream?

[cbayer]

4. I think that they are not ready to do that.

Right now, I think the religious right still "owns" the label.

That can be seen here quite frequently, when there is sometimes the assumption that identifying as christian somehow puts you in the same basket with the religious right, or, at the very least, makes you responsible for their ideas and actions.

So, for now I think it's important to differentiate.

Once the progressive/liberal christian leadership and communities have taken it back, then becoming mainstream, and marginazling the conservatives, would seem to make sense.

[the_sly_pig]

5. Clergy need to lead in this battle.

There will be no change until religious leadership starts leading by example. The labels are the first step in division just as it is with Liberal and Conservative.

[MellowDem]

6. I think both pieces get it right...

One nit I pick with Bell's piece is where he says many atheists are atheists because they saw that religion couldn't be reformed. I don't think that's the case, at least in the US. Most atheists are atheists because they came to the conclusion religion isn't true.

I think some progressive religious people did come from more conservative churches once they realized it couldn't be fixed.

Though, still, most progressive religious people still identify with denominations that have explicitly bigoted dogma. This is allowed because of religious privilege, but I think it's becoming less and less accepted. It's such a display of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty that it just makes more and more people lose respect for the progressive theist who identifies with a belief system that is explicitly misogynistic and homophobic in their dogma.

Someone who identified themselves as a progressive KKK member who didn't really believe the racist beliefs of that group but liked the tradition and culture, for example, wouldn't be respected for that position (and shouldn't).

I think the Pope is a great example of progressive theists displaying deep cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty. Even on here, there are many posts praising the Pope, someone who says that the devil is behind marriage equality, someone who is fundamentally bigoted and leads an organization that causes immense pain, suffering, and death by encouraging men not to use condoms and women not to use birth control.

And there are many progressives that identify with that belief system. It's extremely frustrating to many progressive non-believers and victims of that oppression, because it is supposed allies throwing them under the bus to retain privilege. And the worst part is that when fair criticism is leveled at someone like the Pope, progressive theists come to his defense and even start hurling accusations of bigotry at people who criticize the Pope without caring for the privilege of religion.