From Roger Olson:

Now, to read a good book on this topic, R. Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology

SMcK: I would some additional elements. First, I see progressivism as a kind of eschatology and thus it packages some major elements of liberalism into a theory of progress. Perhaps, second, as important is this: Progressives tend toward centralization of power, both politically and theologically, though the latter is more nuanced than the former.

Once Roger posted on this and I posted too but then I asked UMC pastor, overall good-guy and died-in-the-wool progressive (but is a progressive so described?), Bo Sanders and he said this in response to Roger’s long-ago post that some progressives have taken over the term liberal:

My contention is that saying progressives are really just liberals who don’t like the ‘L’ word is like saying that athletes and baseball players are really just the same thing. While baseball players are athletes, not all athletes play baseball. It’s an inexact statement. They aren’t exactly the same thing.

There is as big a difference between liberal and progressive as there is between evangelical and emergent. There may be some overlap, but to equate the two is unhelpful.

Here is the most basic definition I can provide – it comes from John Cobb, the greatest living American theologian:

• Liberal simply means that one’s experience is a valid location for doing theology. [SMcK: I’m not so sure it is accurate to locate liberalism in experience only. Liberalism is tied to Enlightenment and therefore liberalism is modernism, too. Which shifts its basis from experience.]
• Progressives are liberal folks who have learned from Feminist, Liberation and Post-Colonial critiques. *  [SMcK: this didn’t do much for me then and even less now, but what follows is a bit better.] …

Liberal is simply a constellation of positions and answers to question that were established in the Enlightenment.

Liberal is a settled matter. It has accepted the basic inherited framework to be the as-is structure and conceded the basic ground-rules as given. [SMcK: I just don’t know how one could say it is “settled.” My read of liberal theology and liberal theories about society is that they shift. Still, yes, a response to Enlightenment.]

Progressive on the other hand is to question, to wrestle, and to push. Progressives don’t  necessarily think that all progress is good and certainly don’t think that history is inevitable. …

So even if you just want to say that progressives are aggressive liberals, that would be more accurate. [This is where I’d locate the eschatological element and the activist element. I’d also say that their aggression is connected to power, to how social forces are used to effect change — activism, voting, majority. It seems, too, that “aggressive liberal” proves Roger Olson’s point.]

Liberals concede the rules of game, they just want to pick the better of the provided options. Progressives question the as-is possibilities of the given structures. This causes progressive to engage in critical examination and to re-evaluate both the road ahead and the road that delivered us here.

Now to Roger’s list:

Gradually, however, in my experience (as a Christian theologian for almost forty years now), “progressive Christianity” has by-and-large become a replacement for what used to be called “liberal Protestantism” (although it can be found in some Catholic circles as well).

The first signal (of liberal Protestantism disguised as “progressive Christianity”) is a disinterest, especially among Christian leaders (of congregations, denominations, and organizations) in doctrine. That’s sometimes difficult to detect because progressive Christians (as I mean that here) often talk about doctrines but only as historical relics, not as living realities to be protected and defended (even if reinterpreted and translated for the sake of understanding).

The second signal is a distinct tendency to replace doctrines, in terms of importance for membership and leadership, with “kindness” and “inclusion” as well as “social justice”—usually for some newly discovered “oppressed group.” Included in this tendency is a complete abandonment of church discipline especially as that relates to doctrinal accountability and sexual behavior (except for what is illegal).

A third signal is a determination, however, slow and subtle, to accommodate to trends within academic culture—regardless of their fitness with Scripture and tradition. In other words, the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” shifts beyond being an equilateral to being one in which reason (defined as what the American academy and its movers and shakers consider reasonable and normal) and experience (defined as what the American academy its movers and shakers consider normal and acceptable) dominate Scripture and tradition. Something to listen for is this now common saying in progressive Christianity circles: “Who cares what Paul said? I follow Jesus.”

A fourth signal is an elevation of inclusiveness to a virtue bar none (or “par none”) within the church, denomination, and/or Christian organization. Of course, “inclusiveness” is never complete; persons perceived to be “discriminatory” in any manner (language, behavior, sentiment) are marginalized if not ostracized.

A fifth signal is the abandonment of the “language of Zion” by which I mean traditional Christian concepts such as “sin,” “repentance,” “salvation,” “return of Christ,” and, yes, “judgment of God.” These are replaced by concepts such as “Kingdom of God” or “city of God”—interpreted as a condition of social justice including inclusion of all people equally without judgment (except discriminatory or perceived intolerance).

A sixth signal is implicit universalism—a complete abandonment of any mention of hell—except perhaps as a code word for misery in this life usually described as oppression—both the oppressed and the oppressors are in a living “hell” from which they need deliverance through social transformation which often includes social engineering via politically correct language.

A seventh signal is the way in which the Bible is described—not as a supernaturally inspired and unique message from God, possessing final authority for faith and practice—but as “our sacred stories”—different in degree but not in kind from other great and inspiring writings.

An eighth signal is the complete abandonment of belief in the supernatural together with a strong emphasis on the immanence of God in all people. The “imago dei” gets reinterpreted as a presence of God in every human person. Together with this comes a tendency to horizontalize Christian recognition of God’s presence—as totally within historical movements for justice and completely within the “face of the other”—especially the weak, the vulnerable and the marginalized.

Finally, a ninth signal is the adoption of hostile language about groups of human beings who dare to defend traditional values. They are often lumped together with racists, bigots, oppressors, “fundamentalists,” and even “red necks” solely because they hold to traditional “family values” or express the opinion that too much is changing too fast in terms of what is acceptable within the church and society.

As in fundamentalism, within many progressive Christian circles an echo chamber develops. In this one, though, those “out of touch” with the latest trends in sociology, social work, education, journalism and the social sciences in general are effectively silenced. There develops a “fundamentalism of the left” that is not really inclusive at all.

Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2018/02/progressive-christianity-beware/#sDzwAxzO3X6SxQKG.99

Image of an Illinois cornfield decorated into Cubs celebration!

My former school, North Park University, will have Robert George speaking on freedom of speech during culture wars. October 20, 7:30pm. His respondent will be Edith Humphrey. The lecture is in the Engaging Orthodoxy series. If you go, eat dinner at Tre Kronor (the best). For info, call Brad Nassif at 773-244-6213. I normally don’t advertise such events on this blog but this is a special event in our area.

Scott Stump on the new Wave at Iowa:

It’s the newest tradition in college football, and it’s already one of the best.

The University of Iowa unveiled a heartwarming scene in its season-opening win on Saturday when fans stood and waved to the children watching from the University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital across the street from the stadium.

The sold-out crowd at Kinnick Stadium got up and did their cool new version of “the wave” at the end of the first quarter of the Hawkeyes’ 24-3 win over Wyoming, and the kids waved back from the top floor of the hospital.

It’s the latest initiative in the history of the partnership between the hospital and the football team at Iowa.

Since 2009, the team has had a “kid captain,” a current or former patient from the hospital who joins the players on the sidelines during each home game and gets a special jersey.

These are a.m.a.z.i.n.g! HT: :mic

Dogs can help:

Every day when I wake up to my sweet pups’ faces I wonder: How do people not have dogs? How do they handle stresses of everyday life without a pair of puppy dog eyes to gaze into as their heart melts?

And that’s not just me being mushy about my guys (even though they are pretty special!). While “dogs have been a part of peoples’ lives for thousands of years,” says Rebecca A. Johnson, Ph.D, director of the Research Center for Human Animal Interaction at University of Missouri, they’ve evolved from working and living outside to living indoors as part of the family.

We didn’t let other working animals move into the house and sleep on our beds — why dogs?

“Over time the relationship has gotten closer and closer,” Johnson says. “Some would relate that to advancements in industrialization and technology. We live in a high-tech, low-touch world and people have a longing for a bond with nature.” Companion animals like dogs can be that bond.

And these bonds “help us to feel good,” she says. “When we see, touch, hear or talk to our companion animals,” beneficial neurohormones “are released and that induces a sense of goodwill, joy, nurturing and happiness.” At the same time, the stress hormone cortisol is suppressed. Heart rate, blood pressure and respiratory rate can all decrease, leaving us more relaxed “and able to manage stress in ways that aren’t harmful to our health,” she explains.

Thinking clearly about “privilege”, by Jeffrey K. Mann:

First of all, “privilege” is a misnomer. Privilege has to do with special treatment. If one group faces discrimination, it does not necessarily mean another receives a particular privilege. If Gingers get picked on, it doesn’t mean the rest of us enjoy non-gingered privilege. What we are talking about are relative advantages, which are indeed real. Overuse of the word “privilege” turns people off; they are then less likely to stop and listen.

Opponents of privilege discussions must recognize, generally speaking, that life is easier in this country if you are born white, male and heterosexual. Denying this is an over-reaction. We must acknowledge that not everyone begins life with the same resources and benefits. Many face unfair hardships along the way – some are linked to race, gender, and religion.

Admitting that certain folks have relative advantages over others, however, does not make you a Lefty. I can admit the realities of my own unearned advantages without self-flagellating, liberal, white guilt.

Liberals who talk the most about “privilege,” however, need to recognize that they do not go far enough. There are numerous potential advantages that affect one’s chances in life. It is not just race and gender identity. Consider the enormous and disparate impact of wealth, attractiveness and intelligence. A man’s height is statistically significant when considering his potential for professional success; a person’s posture and weight also play a role.

And consider one of the most powerful unearned “privileges” that only some children enjoy: a two-parent home. …

When we multiply these variables with the fact that people hold multiple identity markers, we end up with a twisted web of relative advantages and disadvantages that no one can untangle through policy or decree. Who has it easier: an attractive girl brought up by a working-class Puerto Rican family in the Bronx or an autistic boy of Greek heritage raised in an upper-middle class, single-parent home in West Virginia?

Our social reality is a tremendously complex interrelationship of economics, education, religion, ethnicity, national origin, individual psychology, appearance and gender that play different roles in different times and in different places. Recognizing these identity markers – and the relative advantages they may carry – is important in creating a more just society. We may then work toward greater equality of opportunity by minimizing discrimination and favoritism, not adding to them. In the long run, that works to the advantage of us all. [HT: JS]

Tim Suttle’s pastoral approach to the Nashville Statement.

Book burning is about power and the logic of privileging one’s information.

But for Rebecca Knuth, author of Libricide: The Regime-Sponsored Destruction of Books and Libraries in the Twentieth Century and Burning Books and Leveling Libraries: Extremist Violence and Cultural Destruction, Qin and religious leaders like him are only a small part of the early book-burning equation. “A lot of ancient book burning was a function of conquest,” Knuth says. Just look at one of the most famous examples of burning, the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. The famed building had its contents and structure burned during multiple periods of political upheaval, including in 48 B.C. when Caesar chased Pompey to Egypt and when Caliph Omar invaded Alexandria in 640 A.D.

What changed everything was the printing press, invented by Johannes Gutenberg in 1440. Not only were there suddenly far more books—there was also more knowledge. “With the printing press you had the huge rise of literacy and modern science and all these things,” Knuth says. “And some people in authoritarian regimes, in a way they want to turn back the effects of the printing press.”

According to Knuth, the motives behind book burning changed after the printing press helped bring about the Enlightenment era—though burning through the collateral damage of war continued to arise (just consider the destruction of the U.S. Library of Congress during the War of 1812 or all the libraries destroyed across Europe during World War II). People saw knowledge as a way to change themselves, and the world, and so it became a far more dangerous commodity, no longer controlled exclusively by the elite. What better way to reshape the balance of power and send a message at the same time than by burning books?

The unifying factor between all types of purposeful book-burners in the 20th century, Knuth says, is that the perpetrators feel like victims, even if they’re the ones in power. Perhaps the most infamous book burnings were those staged by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, who regularly employed language framing themselves as the victims of Jews. Similarly, when Mao Zedong took power in China and implemented the Cultural Revolution, any book that didn’t conform to party propaganda, like those promoting capitalism or other dangerous ideas, were destroyed. More recently, the Jaffna Public Library of Sri Lanka—home to nearly 100,000 rare books of Tamil history and literature—was burned by Sinhalese Buddhists. The Sinhalese felt their Buddhist beliefs were under threat by the Hinduism of Tamils, even though they outnumbered the Tamils.

Even when the knowledge itself isn’t prevented from reaching the public, the symbolic weight of burning books is heavy. “Books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them as to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are,” wrote John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, in his 1644 book Areopagitica. “Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature… but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself—” an idea that continues to be espoused in modern culture, like in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. [HT: JS]

Roger Olson asks if it is “evangelical Calvinism” or “classic Arminianism.”

This week has been consumed with the expansion of Northern Seminary — four sites (South Side, Lawndale, Lisle [moving from Lombard], and our wonderful Northern Live program) and adjustments and, well, there are more announcements to come. Stay tuned.

Roger Olson on Trump’s decision to bomb Syria:

So, my own conclusion as a Christian ethicist is that, should it turn out that the U.S. government is telling the truth (and not “alternative facts”) about its military intervention in Syria, it is justified—because necessary to protect weak, vulnerable and defenseless people–even if not righteous.

Now I can just hear some Christian pacifists saying “That’s Niebuhrian—pure and simple!” Well, not quite. Niebuhr sadly and notoriously neglected the church in his Christian realism. The church should not actively support or applaud any government’s violent aggressions. It should be an alternative community to the violence of the world. So what should the church’s response be to America’s violent and aggressive attack on Syria? Neither celebration nor condemnation but prayer and witness—prayer for peace and witness by example of how it is possible for people of extremely different kinds to live in peace with each other. But it should realize that violence is inescapable in this fallen, broken world and give spiritual aid and comfort to those Christians who must reluctantly use violence when necessary—to protect and defend the weak and helpless.

What say you?

Did Jesus celebrate a Seder? (No.) Should Christians? (No.) In my book Jesus and His Death I argued Jesus ate a meal during Passover week but it was not the Passover meal and the Seder is subsequent to the NT.

So this is a phenomenon that cannot be denied, but it is one that most Jews find particularly troubling.

The first reason is historical. The Seder ritual, as it is practiced today, did not exist at the time of Jesus. It was only fully developed by the rabbis in the years following the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., in other words, at least two generations after Jesus. Many assume that Jesus, at the Last Supper, conducted what we now know of as a traditional Passover Seder with the Pesakh (pascal) offering of the lamb, matza, bitter herbs, the telling of the tale of the Exodus from Egypt, and other rituals as found in the Jewish Passover Hagada. This is incorrect. To put it bluntly, Jesus certainly celebrated Passover, but neither he nor his disciples ever attended a Seder, any more than they drove a car or used a cell phone.

In the Last Supper, Jesus surely is making allusions to the Exodus, as does the Jewish Passover meal, but that event takes a back seat to his revealing himself as “the Passover lamb,” as the object of a new and revolutionary expression of faith. The Jewish Passover meal inaugurates the Jewish people into its history; it prepares them to fulfill the responsibilities of the mitzvot (commandments) given at Sinai. As such, it is an event designed for and limited to the Jewish people. Jesus of Nazareth, in the Last Supper, presents himself as the offering not just for all Israel, but for all of humanity. He is, in short, establishing a unique ritual. In our view, celebrating a Christian Seder to commemorate the Last Supper misses the point historically.

Alex Dobuzinskis on Bill O’Reilly:

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly and his employer have made payouts totaling about $13 million to five women to settle claims of sexual harassment and other inappropriate behavior, the New York Times reported on Saturday.

O’Reilly said in a statement that he has been unfairly targeted because of his public prominence.

“In my more than 20 years at Fox News Channel, no one has ever filed a complaint about me with the Human Resources Department, even on the anonymous hotline.” O’Reilly, host of “The O’Reilly Factor,” the network’s biggest star, added, “I have put to rest any controversies to spare my children.”

Fox News declined to comment.

“While he denies the merits of these claims, Mr. O’Reilly has resolved those he regarded as his personal responsibility,” Twenty-First Century Fox Inc, the parent company of Fox News, said in a statement. “Mr. O’Reilly is fully committed to supporting our efforts to improve the environment for all our employees at Fox News.”

The report follows heightened scrutiny of the workplace climate at Fox News, the top-rated cable news network and unit of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc. Founding Chairman Roger Ailes left the company last year after sexual harassment allegations.

Aveneesh Pandey:

It is estimated that over 660 million people in the world still do not have access to clean and safe drinking water — a number that is only expected to rise in the coming decades as water supplies begin to run dry. According to the United Nations, by 2025, 14 percent of the world’s population will face water scarcity.

This is despite Earth being a “pale blue dot,” 70 percent of whose surface is covered in water.

The problem is that the water held in our planet’s oceans, which accounts for over 96 percent of all water on Earth, is not potable. So far, efforts to make it drinkable have been either inefficient, dauntingly expensive, or both.

Now, in a study published Monday in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, a team of researchers from the University of Manchester have described a breakthrough that could open the door to the synthesis of an inexpensive desalination method — creation of a graphene oxide membrane that can be used as a sieve to remove salt from seawater.

“Realization of scalable membranes with uniform pore size down to atomic scale is a significant step forward and will open new possibilities for improving the efficiency of desalination technology,” study co-author Rahul Nair said in a statement released Monday. “This is the first clear-cut experiment in this regime. We also demonstrate that there are realistic possibilities to scale up the described approach and mass produce graphene-based membranes with required sieve sizes.”

Although previous experiments have shown that graphene-based membranes are capable of filtering out small nanoparticles, organic molecules, large salts, until now, scientists had been unable to create membranes with pore size small enough to filter out sodium chloride.

Tiffany Bates, and this will be an option that will haunt American politics:

After four days of scrutinizing hearings and nearly a week of vociferous debate, the U.S. Senate has voted 54-45 to confirm Neil Gorsuch as an associate Supreme Court justice.

Gorsuch’s sterling credentials and demonstrated fidelity to the Constitution and the rule of law should give all Americans confidence that he will be a fair and impartial justice.

Chief Justice John Roberts is set to swear him in early next week, and Gorsuch will take his seat immediately.

The ceremony will round out a uniquely transparent nomination process. President Donald Trump was clear about the type of justice he would appoint, even taking the unprecedented step of publishing a list of candidates from which he would choose.

He repeated his promise to appoint someone from the list throughout the campaign, often citing the fact that many Americans would vote for him because of the Supreme Court vacancy.

This turned out to be true. Polls show that the future makeup of the Supreme Court was a leading concern of the American people, and it was this promise—more than anything else—that convinced many to support him.

Trump fulfilled his promise by nominating Gorsuch, to acclaim from conservatives and even some fair-minded liberals.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer pledged to oppose the nomination to the bitter end—even though neither he nor any other Democrat opposed his nomination to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 11 years ago.

How many schools?

Chicago-area teenager has been accepted to 22 colleges, WLS reports.

Ariyana Davis, a senior at Mother McAuley Liberal Arts High School, was also awarded $300,000 in scholarships.

“”It was a pretty amazing experience. I’ve made so many friends,” Davis said. “I’ve been friendly with so many teachers, and I’ve gotten a lot of support from the entire school.”

Davis, who plans to major in accounting, used just one college application to obtain admission and scholarships to the universities.

“I used the Common Black app, which is a website where students can apply to HBCUs where you can apply to up to 50 colleges,” Davis said.

According to the Common Black Application’s website, aspiring college students can apply to any number of 50 HBCUs at the same time for just $35. To date, more than 100,000 students from the U.S., Africa, South America and the Caribbean have completed the application, the website states.

Read more at EBONY http://www.ebony.com/news-views/black-teen-college-acceptance#ixzz4dai9jaAw
Follow us: @EbonyMag on Twitter | EbonyMag on Facebook

Liberal theology emerged in the 19th Century and regularly drew response from the traditionalists, the orthodox or the conservative. Trials just prior to the 20th Century favored the conservatives but in the 2d and 3d decade of the 20th Century the liberals began to win. This story is told in Roger Olson, The Journey of Modern Theology. Conservatives “won” the well-known Scopes Trial but lost the public; J. Gresham Machen was tried by his own Presbyterian denomination for his opposition to liberals and was suspended from its ministry in 1935.

Roger Olson’s theme is that conservatives fought back in a “modern” way or as another form of modernity. In other words, in many ways the fundamentalist posture came by way of assuming modernity’s assumptions in order to speak against it.

Olson focuses on Charles Hodge (for a study of Hodge, see Paul Gutjahr). He taught more than 3000 students at Princeton and his 3 volume systematics was a major theological textbook or reference book for 20th Century’s pastors and professors. He was part of what is often called Old Princeton School Theology that, when it lost out at Princeton, moved to Westminster Theological Seminary. A. Alexander, C. Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and B.B. Warfield and then J.G. Machen. Hodge may have been its most influential theologian.

The theology at work here is often called fundamentalism, and is marked by maximal conservatism vs. maximal modernism (in liberal theology): orthodoxy morphed into the term fundamentalism and then later into neo-evangelicalism and then evangelicalism (Olson, p. 215). Original fundamentalism was not originally politically aligned (William Jennings Bryan was a progressive).

Olson: one cannot limit “modern” to “liberal” for it also includes “fundamentalism” since it too was a modern expression of theology. Hodge formed orthodox theology shaped by modernity’s themes and methods. Furthermore, he is modern in that he responded to and fought against modernity. In particular (see below), he wanted theology to be “scientific” et al..

1. Hodge constructs a modern form of Protestant orthodoxy. Olson’s paradigmatic quotation: during his time, Hodge said, “a new idea never originated in this seminary” (217). With the world changing, he wanted to hold firm. They not only abhorred liberalism but also revivalism.

2. Hodge became a success story: grew up there, went to school there, and established his career there. He edited The Princeton Review for forty years (name changes included). He wrote a famous devotional book called The Way of Life. He was well liked, gregarious, and did not tolerate ambiguity. He was famous as a polemicist. Deeply devout.

3. Hodge was influenced by Reformed scholasticism and confessionalism. He was not always aware of the difference between his inherited theology and what the Bible actually said. He inherited a highly rational and logical method from Reformed scholasticism, and he was influenced by Francis Turretin’s famous scholastic theology, though with more modesty in approach. One Hodge scholar calls his method “rational orthodoxy” or “supernatural rationalism” (224). Hodge did not like the term rationalism since it was devoid of revelation etc.. His confessionalism is the First and Second Helvetic Confessions.

4. Hodge was influenced by Scottish common sense realism. This is a rather common statement about Hodge, and some debate the extent of the influence.  He imbibed it without recognizing it. That is, a belief that the mind apprehends objective external realities naturally. As there is a self-authenticating nature to reality so there is one to revelation. E.g., in the common appeal to common human experience. That is, when he claims “all normal people” believe this (228).

5. Hodge set down a biblical foundationalist method. He did not separate facts from faith or between facts and values and he saw theology as factual. His Systematics begins with theology as having a scientific status because it follows a similar method of knowing: induction. The Bible is a “store house of facts” (230). This is a kind of Enlightenment approach to knowledge. Noll says the Princeton School can be “scientific postitivists” at times (231).

6. Hodge defended the Bible as the foundation for the science of theology. He opposed subjectivism by the objectivity of God’s Word. [This is still a very common claim.]

7. Hodge sought to reconcile theology and science. They listened to science within the bounds of theology and Bible. This remains a common feature among many evangelicals/fundamentalists. Here is Hodge: the Bible must “bow to the facts of science, but the facts of Scripture may never give way to mere theories of science” (237).  Olson says Hodge taught that theology must at times be reinterpreted to fit the facts of science. “the Bible should be interpreted under the guidance of the facts of science” (237).  E.g., “day” in Genesis 1 — since the world/universe is so old, cannot be 24 hour days and must be an indefinite period. But he thought there was no final conflict.

8. Hodge left a legacy that led to fundamentalism. (1) Hodge saw the Bible as a reservoir of facts; (2) he was largely non-comprehending of his own culture’s influences upon him; and (3) he lacked a historical consciousness about Bible and the development of theology.