What Progressive Christianity Is

What you'll learn

Trace progressive Christianity from nineteenth-century liberal theology (Schleiermacher, Harnack, the social gospel) through Machen's critique and the emerging church to today's progressive voices.
Describe accurately, in their own words, what progressive Christians typically affirm and reject, while recognising how widely their views vary.
Identify where progressive Christianity departs from historic Christianity on Scripture, sin, the cross, the resurrection, judgement and the exclusivity of Christ.

Who we are talking about

You have probably met progressive Christianity already: perhaps a friend from youth group who now says the Bible is 'problematic', a podcast that calls the cross 'divine violence', or a church sign that says 'All are welcome, no exceptions'. Put bluntly, much of it teaches unbiblical ideas and affirms sin. In many cases that is true, and this module will say so clearly. But we will also try to understand progressive Christians as they understand themselves, because you cannot help someone you have not first listened to (Prov 18:13).

Progressive Christianity is a loose movement, not a denomination, that seeks to reinterpret the Christian faith in the light of modern and postmodern values: inclusion, social justice, scepticism about certainty, and suspicion of traditional authority. Views vary enormously. Some progressives still recite the Nicene Creed and believe in the bodily resurrection; others treat Jesus mainly as a wise teacher and the resurrection as a metaphor. Never assume that one person believes everything in this lesson.

Three distinctions will keep you fair. First, progressive Christianity is not identical to historic liberal theology, though it grew out of it; liberalism was a modern, rationalist project, while progressives are often more postmodern, valuing story, doubt and experience. Second, it is not the same as the mainline denominations (the older Protestant churches such as Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians and, in Australia, the Uniting Church). Many mainline congregations have moved in a progressive direction, but these churches also contain faithful, orthodox believers. Third, it is not the same as evangelicals who simply care about justice. Scripture commands us to 'do justice' and 'love kindness' (Mic 6:8), and books like Tim Keller's Generous Justice (2010) show that concern for the poor flows from the gospel. The question is never whether Christians should care about justice, but whether justice is allowed to redefine the gospel.

Explain in your own words what progressive Christianity is, and why the lesson warns against assuming any one person believes everything described.Show answer

Progressive Christianity is a loose movement, not a denomination, that seeks to reinterpret the faith in the light of modern and postmodern values: inclusion, social justice, scepticism about certainty and suspicion of traditional authority. Views vary enormously: some progressives recite the Nicene Creed and believe in the bodily resurrection, while others treat Jesus mainly as a wise teacher and the resurrection as a metaphor. So we must listen before we answer (Prov 18:13) and never assume.

loose movement, not a denomination
reinterprets faith by modern values
views vary enormously
listen first (Prov 18:13)

What three distinctions does the lesson give to keep you fair when discussing progressive Christianity?Show answer

First, it is not identical to historic liberal theology, though it grew out of it; liberalism was modern and rationalist, while progressives are often postmodern, valuing story, doubt and experience. Second, it is not the same as the mainline denominations, which also contain faithful, orthodox believers. Third, it is not the same as evangelicals who care about justice (Mic 6:8); the question is whether justice is allowed to redefine the gospel.

not identical to old liberalism
not the same as mainline churches
not the same as caring about justice
does justice redefine the gospel?

Roots: nineteenth-century liberal theology

Progressive Christianity has a family tree. Its grandfather is Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), often called the father of modern liberal theology. Facing Enlightenment scepticism, he tried to rescue religion by relocating it. In On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (1799) and The Christian Faith (1821-22), he argued that the heart of religion is not doctrine or a revealed book but the 'feeling of absolute dependence' on God. Doctrines then become descriptions of religious experience rather than truths God has revealed. That move, from 'God has spoken' to 'we have experienced', runs through everything that follows.

Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930), the great Berlin church historian, gave liberalism its popular manifesto in What Is Christianity? (1900). Harnack wanted to peel away the 'husk' of later dogma to find the 'kernel' of Jesus' teaching, which he summarised as the kingdom of God, the fatherhood of God and the infinite value of the human soul, and the commandment of love. In his reading, the gospel Jesus preached was about the Father, not about Jesus himself; doctrines like the incarnation and atonement were Greek additions. When Harnack signed the 1914 manifesto supporting Germany's war aims, his former student Karl Barth saw it as a sign that liberal theology had no word from God to stand against the culture.

In America, Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918), a Baptist pastor in New York's Hell's Kitchen, led the social gospel. Moved by real poverty, he wrote Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907) and A Theology for the Social Gospel (1917), arguing that sin is embedded in social structures and that the kingdom of God means transforming society, not only saving individuals. Rauschenbusch saw real evils, and he still believed in a personal God, but in the movement he inspired, personal sin, atonement and conversion tended to fade behind social reform. In 1922 Harry Emerson Fosdick's sermon 'Shall the Fundamentalists Win?' brought the conflict into the open in American Protestantism.

H. Richard Niebuhr, no fundamentalist himself, later summed up the theology of liberalism in one devastating sentence in The Kingdom of God in America (1937): 'A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.' Keep that sentence in mind; you will hear its echoes.

What was Schleiermacher's key move, and why does the lesson say it runs through everything that follows?Show answer

Facing Enlightenment scepticism, Schleiermacher relocated religion: its heart was no longer doctrine or a revealed book but the 'feeling of absolute dependence' on God. Doctrines then became descriptions of religious experience rather than truths God has revealed. That shift from 'God has spoken' to 'we have experienced' underlies later liberal and progressive theology.

religion relocated to feeling
doctrine as description of experience
from 'God has spoken'
to 'we have experienced'

How did Harnack and Rauschenbusch each reshape the gospel, and how does Niebuhr's famous sentence sum up the result?Show answer

Harnack tried to peel away the 'husk' of dogma to find a 'kernel' of Jesus' teaching (the kingdom, the fatherhood of God, the value of the soul and the command of love), treating the incarnation and atonement as Greek additions. Rauschenbusch's social gospel saw sin embedded in social structures and the kingdom as transforming society, and in the movement he inspired, personal sin, atonement and conversion faded. Niebuhr summed up liberalism: 'A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.'

Harnack: husk and kernel
incarnation, atonement as additions
social gospel: structural sin
Niebuhr: Christ without a cross

Machen's diagnosis: a different religion

The most important critique came from J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), a New Testament scholar at Princeton Seminary. In Christianity and Liberalism (1923) he argued that 'the chief modern rival of Christianity is Liberalism'. His thesis was startling: liberalism was not a variety of Christianity at all but a different religion using Christian vocabulary.

Machen's method is worth copying. He went doctrine by doctrine, comparing liberal and historic Christian answers on God and man, the Bible, Christ, salvation and the church. He showed that Christianity is founded on a message about events: Christ died for our sins and rose again (1 Cor 15:3-4). If you turn the gospel into an ethic or an experience, you have kept the vocabulary and lost the religion. Machen also insisted that he was not attacking people's sincerity; he was asking whether two incompatible messages could honestly share the same name.

Machen paid a price: he left Princeton in 1929 to help found Westminster Theological Seminary. But the questions he asked in 1923 are exactly the questions to ask of progressive Christianity today.

What was Machen's thesis in Christianity and Liberalism, and what about his method is worth copying today?Show answer

Machen argued that liberalism was not a variety of Christianity but a different religion using Christian vocabulary. He went doctrine by doctrine, comparing answers on God and man, the Bible, Christ, salvation and the church, and showed that Christianity rests on a message about events: Christ died for our sins and rose again (1 Cor 15:3-4). He did not attack people's sincerity but asked whether two incompatible messages could honestly share the same name.

a different religion, same vocabulary
doctrine-by-doctrine comparison
gospel is a message about events
not attacking sincerity

From emergent to progressive: the movement today

Liberalism largely won the older denominations in the twentieth century, but a newer wave arose from within evangelicalism. In the late 1990s and 2000s the emerging church (its American network was Emergent Village, co-founded by Brian McLaren) described itself as a 'conversation'. It drew on postmodern thought, preferred narrative to propositions, questioned 'modern' evangelical certainty, and emphasised mission and justice. D. A. Carson's Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church (2005) was an early careful critique. Many emergent leaders later moved openly into progressive positions.

The best-known summary of the movement is the 8 Points of Progressive Christianity, first drafted in the 1990s by The Center for Progressive Christianity (founded by Episcopal priest James Rowe Adams, and now called ProgressiveChristianity.org) and revised several times. In the version widely quoted until 2022, progressive Christians say they 'affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life', that they 'know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe', and that they 'find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes'. Other points speak of inclusive community regardless of sexual orientation, peace and justice, care of the earth, and lifelong learning. In 2022 the organisation condensed the eight points into five 'core values' with the same themes; the last still speaks of 'more value in questioning than in absolutes'.

Key voices you will meet include:

Brian McLaren, the leading emergent voice: A Generous Orthodoxy (2004), A New Kind of Christianity (2010), Faith After Doubt (2021) and Do I Stay Christian? (2022). He has since publicly affirmed same-sex relationships.
Rob Bell, former pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church in Michigan: Velvet Elvis (2005) and Love Wins (2011), which questioned eternal punishment (see lesson 3).
Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest and founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque: The Universal Christ (2019) presents 'Christ' as the divine presence in all things; he describes himself as a panentheist and rejects the idea that the cross appeased an angry God.
Peter Enns, a biblical scholar who parted ways with Westminster Theological Seminary in 2008 after Inspiration and Incarnation (2005): The Bible Tells Me So (2014) and The Sin of Certainty (2016) present the Bible as an ancient, human, developing collection.
Brandan Robertson, a Moody Bible Institute graduate turned progressive pastor and activist: The Gospel of Inclusion (2019) argues a Christian case for LGBT+ inclusion.

What was the emerging church, and how does it relate to today's progressive movement?Show answer

In the late 1990s and 2000s the emerging church, whose American network Emergent Village was co-founded by Brian McLaren, described itself as a 'conversation'. It drew on postmodern thought, preferred narrative to propositions, questioned modern evangelical certainty, and emphasised mission and justice. Many emergent leaders later moved openly into progressive positions.

a 'conversation'
postmodern, narrative over propositions
questioned evangelical certainty
leaders moved into progressive views

Pick two of the quoted '8 Points of Progressive Christianity' and explain in your own words what each says about truth or about Jesus.Show answer

The claim that Jesus' teachings provide 'but one of many ways' to experience the Sacred makes Jesus one path among several, not the only way. The claim that 'the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe' puts conduct, rather than doctrine, at the centre of faith. And finding 'more value in questioning than in absolutes' makes ongoing searching a virtue above firm truth claims.

Jesus 'one of many ways'
behaviour as fullest expression of belief
questioning valued over absolutes
relativises revealed truth

Deconstruction: affirmations and rejections

Many people enter progressive Christianity through deconstruction: a process of taking apart one's inherited beliefs to examine them. Some deconstruct because of real church hurt (abusive leaders, harsh legalism, hypocrisy), some because of hard intellectual questions, and some because of cultural pressure, especially on sexuality. Lesson 5 treats deconstruction pastorally. For now, notice that examining beliefs is not the problem; the question is what standard you use to rebuild. Progressives typically rebuild with their own moral intuitions as the final judge.

Speaking generally, progressives tend to affirm: following Jesus' example of love and inclusion; justice for the poor and marginalised; full inclusion and affirmation of LGBTQ+ people, including same-sex marriage; humility, questions and doubt as virtues; ecological care; and openness to other religions. They tend to reject: biblical inerrancy; penal substitutionary atonement; eternal conscious punishment; the exclusive claim that Jesus is the only way; and what they call 'certainty' or 'gatekeeping'. Again, individuals vary, and some hold more of historic Christianity than others.

Why does the lesson say that examining beliefs is not itself the problem in deconstruction? What is the real question?Show answer

People deconstruct for different reasons: real church hurt, hard intellectual questions, or cultural pressure, especially on sexuality. Examining beliefs is not wrong in itself. The real question is what standard you use to rebuild, and progressives typically rebuild with their own moral intuitions as the final judge.

varied reasons for deconstructing
examining beliefs not wrong
what standard rebuilds?
own moral intuitions as judge

Summarise what progressives generally tend to affirm and to reject.Show answer

They tend to affirm following Jesus' example of love and inclusion, justice for the marginalised, full affirmation of LGBTQ+ people including same-sex marriage, questions and doubt as virtues, ecological care and openness to other religions. They tend to reject biblical inerrancy, penal substitutionary atonement, eternal conscious punishment, Christ as the only way, and 'certainty' or 'gatekeeping'. Individuals vary, so this is a general picture.

affirm inclusion and justice
affirm doubt as a virtue
reject inerrancy, penal substitution, hell
individuals vary

Where it departs from historic Christianity

Measured against the historic faith summarised in the creeds and the Reformation confessions, progressive Christianity departs at six crucial points. (You studied each of these doctrines in Know Your Faith, Lessons 1, 5, 6 and 9.)

Authority of Scripture. Historic Christianity receives the Bible as God's word, which he 'breathed out' (2 Tim 3:16) and which the Westminster Confession calls the supreme judge in all controversies (WCF 1.10). Progressives treat it as a human record of developing beliefs, judged by conscience or by a selective picture of Jesus.
Sin. Scripture says all have sinned against a holy God (Rom 3:23). Progressives tend to reduce sin to brokenness, exclusion or unjust systems, and to treat some things Scripture calls sin as good.
The cross. The Bible presents Christ as the propitiation for our sins (Rom 3:25; 1 John 4:10). Many progressives reject substitution and see the cross only as an example of love or a protest against violence.
The resurrection. Historic Christianity says the bodily resurrection is essential (1 Cor 15:17). Some progressives affirm it; others, following writers like Marcus Borg or John Shelby Spong, treat it as a metaphor.
Judgement. Jesus taught a final judgement and eternal punishment (Matt 25:46). Progressives commonly deny hell or hope for universal salvation.
The exclusivity of Christ. Jesus said, 'No one comes to the Father except through me' (John 14:6). The 8 Points call his teachings 'one of many ways'.

Explain how progressive Christianity departs from the historic faith on the authority of Scripture and on sin.Show answer

Historic Christianity receives the Bible as God's breathed-out word (2 Tim 3:16) and the supreme judge in all controversies (WCF 1.10), while progressives treat it as a human record of developing beliefs, judged by conscience or a selective picture of Jesus. Scripture says all have sinned against a holy God (Rom 3:23), but progressives tend to reduce sin to brokenness, exclusion or unjust systems, and to treat some things Scripture calls sin as good.

Scripture God-breathed, supreme judge
progressives: human record
sin against a holy God
progressives redefine sin

Which text would you use for each of these: the cross, the resurrection, judgement and the exclusivity of Christ? Say briefly how progressives differ on each.Show answer

Christ is the propitiation for our sins (Rom 3:25; 1 John 4:10), but many progressives see the cross only as an example of love or a protest against violence. The bodily resurrection is essential (1 Cor 15:17), though some progressives treat it as metaphor. Jesus taught eternal punishment (Matt 25:46), which progressives commonly deny, and said 'No one comes to the Father except through me' (John 14:6), while the 8 Points call his teachings 'one of many ways'.

cross: propitiation (Rom 3:25)
resurrection essential (1 Cor 15:17)
judgement (Matt 25:46)
only way (John 14:6)

How to hold this lesson

Paul told the Galatians that a message which changes the gospel is 'a different gospel' that is really no gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Jude urged believers 'to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 3). Those texts matter here. When someone denies that Jesus bore God's judgement for sinners, or calls good what God calls sin, we are not dealing with a difference of emphasis. As Machen saw, we are dealing with another religion wearing Christian clothes.

Yet the same apostle who wrote Galatians also wrote that the Lord's servant must be 'kind to everyone' and correct opponents 'with gentleness' (2 Tim 2:24-25). Many progressive Christians have real wounds and real questions. Some were never taught the gospel well. Our aim is not to win a culture war but to show them the Christ of Scripture, who is both more holy and more loving than the Jesus of progressive Christianity.

How does the lesson hold together Galatians 1 and 2 Timothy 2 in the way we approach progressive Christians?Show answer

Galatians 1:6-9 says a changed gospel is no gospel, and Jude 3 calls us to contend for the faith, so denying that Jesus bore God's judgement or calling good what God calls sin is not a difference of emphasis but another religion in Christian clothes. Yet Paul also says the Lord's servant must be kind to everyone and correct opponents with gentleness (2 Tim 2:24-25). Many progressives have real wounds and questions, so our aim is not to win a culture war but to show them the Christ of Scripture, who is both more holy and more loving.

a different gospel is no gospel
contend for the faith (Jude 3)
kind and gentle (2 Tim 2:24-25)
show the Christ of Scripture

In their own words

“By calling ourselves progressive Christians, we mean we are Christians who... affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life.” (The 8 Points of Progressive Christianity, point 2 (ProgressiveChristianity.org, version used until 2022))

“By calling ourselves progressive Christians, we mean we are Christians who... know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe.” (The 8 Points of Progressive Christianity, point 4 (ProgressiveChristianity.org, version used until 2022))

“By calling ourselves progressive Christians, we mean we are Christians who... find grace in the search for understanding and believe there is more value in questioning than in absolutes.” (The 8 Points of Progressive Christianity, point 5 (ProgressiveChristianity.org, version used until 2022))

“The Bible is an ancient, human collection of writings that shows Israel and the early church wrestling with God in their own cultural setting, so it should be read as a record of a journey of faith rather than as a timeless instruction book (paraphrase).” (Peter Enns, The Bible Tells Me So (2014))

“The cross does not show an angry God who must be appeased; it reveals God's infinite, participatory love (paraphrase).” (Richard Rohr, as summarised from The Universal Christ (2019) and his Center for Action and Contemplation teaching)

Key texts

Galatians 1:6-9: A changed gospel is 'a different gospel' that is no gospel at all. Use it to show why the debate is about the gospel itself, not style or tone.
Jude 3: The faith was 'once for all delivered to the saints'. The church receives and guards revelation; it does not keep updating it to match the culture.
1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 17: Christianity is a message about historical events: Christ died for our sins and rose. If he has not been raised, 'your faith is futile'. Machen's whole argument in one passage.
John 14:6: Jesus' own claim to be the only way to the Father directly contradicts point 2 of the 8 Points. Ask a progressive friend how they read it.
Micah 6:8: Justice and kindness are biblical commands. Use it to affirm what progressives rightly care about while showing that justice flows from God's word, not against it.
2 Timothy 4:3-4: Paul warns of a time when people will gather teachers 'to suit their own passions'. Use it carefully, as a warning to all of us, not as a label to throw.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“Progressive Christianity is just Christianity growing up. The church changed its mind on slavery and on women; it is simply doing the same now.”Show a response

I agree that Christians have sometimes been badly wrong, and slavery is the clearest example. But notice how the church corrected itself: abolitionists like Wilberforce argued from Scripture, from the image of God in every person (Gen 1:27) and from texts that condemn 'enslavers' (1 Tim 1:10). They were calling the church back to the Bible, not beyond it. Progressive Christianity often works the other way, setting Scripture aside where it clashes with modern values. So the real question is not whether Christians can change, but what authority judges the change. If our own moral sense is the final judge, we are no longer following Jesus; Jesus is following us. Could we talk about what authority you trust?

“You are just repeating Machen. Calling us 'another religion' is arrogant gatekeeping.”Show a response

I understand why it sounds harsh, and I do not doubt your sincerity. But every faith has boundaries. If I said Jesus was only a myth and still called myself a Christian, you would rightly say the word had lost its meaning. The apostles drew lines too: Paul said a changed gospel is no gospel (Gal 1:6-9). Machen's point was not that liberals were bad people but that their message was different on every core question: God, sin, Christ and salvation. Honesty means admitting real differences rather than covering them with shared vocabulary. I would rather we disagree clearly and keep talking than pretend we agree.

“Evangelicals only care about doctrine. Progressives actually care about the poor, the planet and the marginalised. That is what Jesus cared about.”Show a response

You are right that Jesus cared deeply for the poor and the outcast, and evangelicals have sometimes failed here. But historically, gospel Christians have been at the forefront of care: hospitals, schools, abolition, orphan care and missions. Concern for the poor is not progressive property; it is biblical (Mic 6:8; Jas 1:27). The difference is the foundation. Jesus fed the hungry, but he also said, 'I am the bread of life' (John 6:35), and he came 'to give his life as a ransom for many' (Mark 10:45). If we keep his ethics and lose his atoning death, we lose the power that makes sinners into people who love justice.

“Nobody can be certain about God. Doubt is more honest than your dogmatism.”Show a response

Humility is a real virtue, and I do not claim to know everything about God. But notice that 'nobody can be certain' is itself a very certain claim. Christian confidence does not rest on my cleverness but on God's having spoken and acted in history (Heb 1:1-2). Luke wrote so that his reader might 'have certainty concerning the things' he had been taught (Luke 1:4). Doubt can be a stage on the way to deeper faith, and God is patient with doubters (Jude 22). But doubt is not a destination to celebrate. The question is whether God has spoken. If he has, humility means believing him.

“I still say the Nicene Creed every Sunday and I believe Jesus rose. Don't lump me in with progressives who deny everything.”Show a response

Thank you for saying that; it matters. Progressive Christianity is a loose movement and views vary enormously. Some progressives do recite the Nicene Creed and believe in the bodily resurrection, and I shouldn't assume you hold everything others in the movement teach. So let's talk about what you actually believe. If you confess that Christ rose bodily, we share something precious (1 Cor 15:17). The questions I'd want to ask next are the ones Machen asked, doctrine by doctrine. What is your final authority when Scripture and your conscience clash? Do you believe Christ bore the judgement our sins deserved (Rom 3:25)? Is he the only way to the Father (John 14:6)? I'm not trying to trap you. I'd just like to know honestly where we agree and where we really differ.

“Jesus came to teach us to love God and love our neighbour. That's the core. All the doctrine about atonement and the Trinity was added later.”Show a response

That was almost exactly Adolf von Harnack's argument in 1900: peel away the 'husk' of doctrine to find the 'kernel' of Jesus' ethical teaching. It's an attractive idea, but it doesn't fit the New Testament. The earliest gospel Paul passed on is a message about events: 'Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day' (1 Cor 15:3-4). Machen pointed out that if you turn the gospel into an ethic, you keep the vocabulary and lose the religion. And think about the command itself. If I measure my life by loving God with all my heart and my neighbour as myself, I fail every day. A command to love can't forgive me for not loving. That's why the cross is good news, and why Niebuhr warned against 'a Christ without a cross'.

Written task

Read the 8 Points of Progressive Christianity (widely reproduced online; ProgressiveChristianity.org now publishes a shorter list of five 'core values' with the same themes) alongside the Apostles' Creed. In 300-400 words, write a fair comparison. Begin by stating, in progressive Christians' own terms, what the 8 Points value and what you can genuinely appreciate. Then identify at least three points where the 8 Points and the historic faith cannot both be true, supporting each with Scripture. Finish with two questions you could ask a progressive friend to open a respectful conversation.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Represents the 8 Points accurately and charitably, quoting or paraphrasing correctly
Identifies at least three genuine points of conflict (e.g. exclusivity of Christ, authority of Scripture, the cross, judgement)
Supports each conflict with accurate, well-chosen Scripture
Shows awareness of the movement's roots (liberalism, emergent church) or of Machen's argument
Ends with gracious, open questions rather than accusations