Christianity Under the Progressive Gaze

It was a dramatic week. Politically speaking, there was a blue tidal wave that swept across the country, returning control of Congress to the Democratic Party. Elections are complicated, and it may be naive to think the wave indicates the public made its decision based on ideology. Rising costs, political dissatisfaction, an extremely unpopular war, and any number of other considerations likely had much more to do with the outcome. I’m not convinced those elected have been given a mandate to implement Woke 2.0 — but I’m not sure that will stop them from trying to!

What interests me more than politics is the apparent cultural strength and growing respectability of progressive Christianity. In fact, a headline in The Guardian boldly declared: “A progressive understanding of Christianity won in the US elections.” In a society where historic Christian convictions — and I don’t just mean Reformed confessionalism but basic creedal Christianity — is often treated with suspicion, if not hostility, some expressions of “Christianity” seem to be enjoying a rather warm reception.

To define my terms, I understand progressive Christianity as that which is set against historic orthodox Christianity. It’s a movement that seeks to reinterpret Christianity in light of contemporary cultural and moral assumptions. In doing so, it often questions, denies, or remains agnostic about essential Christian doctrines, including the authority of Scripture, the atoning significance of Christ’s death, and the historic reality of his bodily resurrection. Yet, it tries to get a lot of traction out of Christ’s imperative to love one’s neighbor.

The contrast between the cultural suspicion directed toward historic orthodox Christianity and the cultural acceptance, even celebration, of progressive Christianity is a contrast worth thinking about.

A few years ago, Aaron Renn introduced his increasingly popular framework of the Positive, Neutral, and Negative Worlds. In summary, Renn has argued that American Christianity has moved from a cultural environment where being a Christian was generally regarded as a positive good, through a period where it was viewed as one legitimate option among many, into a Negative World where historic Christian convictions can carry significant social and professional costs.

For a moment, especially following the 2024 election, there was some reason to wonder if the cultural winds were changing. The repudiation of some progressive ideologies, retreat of certain institutions from their more extreme commitments, and a renewed boldness among conservative Christians seemed to suggest maybe the Negative World was shifting.

Is that wishful thinking?

Perhaps a single election can’t settle the question. Political victories don’t necessarily translate into cultural transformation. I suspect the Negative World didn’t disappear even if it was temporarily drowned out. But maybe there’s something more revealed by this week’s elections. The Negative World may not be quite as negative toward Christianity as we sometimes think. Or, to be precise, it may not be negative toward everything that calls itself “Christianity.” This is where the rise of a more culturally respectable progressive Christianity becomes interesting.

More than a century ago, J. Gresham Machen wrote Christianity and Liberalism. His main argument was that theological liberalism wasn’t simply another expression of Christianity, but a different religion altogether. Biblical Christianity proclaims the supernatural redemption of sinners through the life, atoning death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. Liberal Christianity abandoned the supernatural, minimized “doctrine,” and recast Christianity largely as moral improvement.

Machen understood it was possible to retain the vocabulary of Christianity while surrendering the substance of Christianity. Words like salvation, redemption, grace, and love could continue to be used, but their meaning was fundamentally changed. Liberalism didn’t reject Christianity by name. It reinterpreted Christianity according to the assumptions of the modern world. Ultimately, although Machen’s pushback was right, it largely failed in the mainline churches and society. But his prophetic warning remains important. The question isn’t whether Christianity can make itself appealing to the world, but whether it can do so without abandoning the truths that make it Christianity.

Progressive Christianity has continued what Liberal theology began. It has retained some of the language of historic Christianity while reinterpreting its message according to the moral assumptions of the day. Maybe that explains what we’ve seen in recent days. Why should a culture be hostile to a Christianity that has accommodated itself to the culture? A “Christianity” that has made its peace with the world shouldn’t be surprised when the world embraces it. Personally, I don’t think there’s a place where this is more evident than in the contemporary appeal to Christian love.

One of the prominent features of the recent election was an emphasis placed upon Christ’s command to love our neighbors — this should drive public policy, immigration control, and even the cultural ethos. Love for one's neighbor is a good commandment! It’s one that every Christian is obligated to take seriously as the defining characteristic of those who belong to Christ.

But what is Christian love? Who defines it? And what happens when the world’s understanding of love comes into conflict with the teachings of Scripture? Those are questions I've tried to mull over again and again – and have attempted to write something about from a biblical perspective (e.g here and here).

In his tiny second epistle, the Apostle John warns of the ever-present danger of untethering Christian love from Christian truth. He’s particularly helpful because he repeatedly connects the two. He speaks of loving “in truth” (v. 1), of grace and peace being with us “in truth and love” (v. 3), and defines love in terms of walking according to God’s commandments (v. 6) — commandments which direct us not first and foremost to neighbor love, but to the love of God himself (see Mk. 12:30). Truth and love aren’t competing virtues, nor does one excuse the absence of the other. They belong together. But there’s an important order to them. Love doesn’t determine what is true. God’s truth teaches us what it means to love.

This is one place where Progressive Christianity has gotten things terribly and dangerously wrong. It’s taken the biblical command to love and made it an independent standard by which the rest of Scripture is to be judged. Rather than letting God’s Word define love, it starts with a culturally acceptable definition of love and then demands that biblical teaching conform to it. Progressive Christianity is a clever hijacking of Christian love.

The Apostle has no room for toleration. In fact, the striking feature of his short letter is that even as he speaks affectionately about love, he issues a severe and strong warning to believers against extending a kind of welcome that would give encouragement to those who denied the doctrine of Christ (vv. 10-11). There’s always those who want to exploit Christian love even as they untether it from doctrinal truth. And John is warning that a misplaced understanding of Christian love can make believers participants in antichristian error. Christian love cannot be separated from historic orthodox Christian doctrine without ceasing to be Christian love.

But it’s important to notice to whom the Apostle is writing. He’s not writing to those who deny the doctrine of Christ, he’s writing to those who confess it. “Look to yourselves,” he says (v. 8). The danger isn’t so much about those who want to distort Christian love, but the danger is that there are Christians who might be persuaded to accommodate that distortion.

Isn’t that a real temptation? After all, no sincere Christian wants to be accused of being unloving. But what happens when the accusation comes from those who have already rejected the biblical definition of love? Are we willing to let them determine whether we’re being faithful to Christ?

In my experience, this is a particular vulnerability for Christians who want to be both doctrinally faithful and culturally respectable. We don’t necessarily abandon convictions, but we may grow reluctant — almost apologetic — to express them. We learn which doctrines provoke objections, invite accusations of bigotry, and which ones cost us the approval of those around us. And without consciously deciding to compromise, we adjust ourselves accordingly.

I’ll probably catch flack for saying it but it needs to be said. Joe Rigney has described this temptation as living under the “progressive gaze.” Whatever one thinks of Rigney and his circle, I think he puts his finger on a real danger. It’s the tendency of Christians to evaluate their beliefs, words, and behavior through the anticipated judgment of progressive culture. It’s like we begin to speak as though a progressive critic is constantly looking over our shoulder — and sometimes they are! And we become concerned with satisfying that critic’s expectations.

It’s one thing, and a normal Christian impulse, to be concerned that our words are understood. But it’s another thing to be so concerned about how we’re perceived that we become reluctant to say what needs to be said. We can soften biblical convictions, avoid uncomfortable doctrines, qualify plain teachings because of a fear of being thought unloving. It’s subtle but it’s real. Those who have untethered love from orthodox truth can become the very people Christians look to for approval concerning whether or not we’re being loving. And it’s not only the question of love. More broadly, why should Christians feel compelled to satisfy the expectations of a culture that has increasingly rejected the truths we confess? But that’s what happens when we begin living under the progressive gaze.

We cannot let fear of criticism rule our obedience. The Apostle Paul asked, “For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:10). That’s a searching question! Whose standard shapes our understanding of what it means to be faithful? If it’s other men, then you’re not a servant of Christ.

I’m not sure what the next few years in America will bring for Christianity. Maybe this week’s election is evidence of a growing acceptance of Progressive Christianity that will keep competing with historic orthodoxy for the right to define what Christianity is. Maybe the political significance of these victories will prove greater than their religious influence. But whatever happens, the church doesn’t need to chase after cultural respectability — especially among those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, are hostile and unsubmissive to God, and have become the fool who says in their heart, “There is no God.”

We don’t need the world’s approval to believe, confess, and live according to the truth of Jesus Christ. And we certainly don’t need to accommodate ourselves to a culture that has made its peace with a “Christianity” that has learned to live without that truth.