There has been argument brewing in the progressive religious community as to who really counts as a “progressive,” and, by implication, whose policies and politics should be shaping the new Obama administration. Whose voice, in other words, will be heard in post-religious-right Washington?
The argument revolves around those who see themselves as truly progressive versus those who are more eager to work with religious moderates. While all this might seem like a tempest in a theological teapot to outsiders, the discussion is generating heated passions (along with some bruised egos) in the left-ward religious community.
In his April 16 article, “Will the Real Progressive Christians Please Stand Up?,” Delwin Brown introduced a very helpful historical survey into the conversation, identifying four historical antecedents to reemergent progressivism: 1) the early 19th century evangelical movement; 2) post-Civil War liberalism; 3) early-20th century neo-orthodoxy; and 4) mid-20th century liberationist movements. He placed the current discussion in this historical context, suggesting that there aren’t really divisions among contemporary progressives as much as there exists two points of view—the “purists” and the “accommodators.”
While there is much to commend in his analysis, I’m not entirely sure I agree with its conclusions. I don’t disagree because I am offended in any way. I actually disagree because I don’t fit into the schema—and I suspect many others won’t either. Over the last couple of years, I have been equally claimed by purist progressives and accommodating progressives (and equally criticized by both!) And, by theological pedigree, I have drunk deeply from the wells of all four of the historical streams of the progressive movement. So, while I found Del’s historical analysis clear and pointed, I also found it a bit baffling in relation to personal experience.
And that’s because I’m a post-modern, post-partisan, neo-pragmatic progressive pilgrim.
What do I mean by that?
In the last twenty years, a new way of being progressive has emerged—thus, Delwin Brown’s historical schema needs a fifth “phase.”
Around 1980, theology shifted when a new form of liberal theology, called “post-liberalism” began to shape a new, young generation of graduate students and seminarians. “Post-liberals” stood in the liberal tradition, and continued to emphasize God’s reign of justice, but they moved “beyond” historical liberalism in two key ways: 1) they reengaged tradition, taking the texts, scriptures, and insights of the past with a new seriousness; and 2) they emphasized the importance of spiritual practices and formation in an attempt to connect the faithful to a more transcendent and personal experience of God.
“Post-liberals” believed that old-style liberalism had, in many ways, failed. They both critiqued the hubris of inherited liberalism and developed a more pragmatic and modest approach to theology.
“Post-liberalism,” a post-modern theology, has transformed into a new sort of post-modern progressive Christianity. It moves beyond (as indicated by the word, “post”) and is subsequent to the traditional categories of liberal-and-conservative. Instead, it takes a non-dualistic, discrete, narrative, and situational approach to religion—very different from the former arguments between the Truth claims of older theological structures.
Because of its essential modesty in regard to truth (opting instead for speaking of “truthfulness” rather than Truth), it finds itself as “post-partisan” and doesn’t take sides in the old arguments. As a result, it tends toward theological pragmatism: How does one enact justice in a fallen world? With whom can the faithful make alliances for the sake of shalom in the world? It constructs the world more in terms of a journey of justice rather than a destination of truth. Hence, post-modern progressives are post-partisan, neo-pragmatic pilgrims.
And they do not fit into the categories of “purist” or “accommodator.” Like the “purists,” they are idealistic—they truly believe in God’s reign, in justice, and work (often prophetically) so that the world might be better. But, like the “accommodators,” they are pragmatic, seeing always the “both-and” (or the “and-and-and-and”) rather than the “either-or.”
Thus, part of their idealism is building coalitions and in creating conversation with people from a broad spectrum of opinion. They are idealistic pragmatists—fashioning a progressive faith that matches the longings of what cultural theorist Jonathan Pontell calls “Generation Jones,” (a group who are reshaping a host of political and social institutions)—among whom President Obama is a prime example.
Progressive religion, and the ways it is changing, must be understood within the larger frame of what many philosophers believe is a massive paradigm shift in Western culture—the shift away from modernism toward whatever post-modernism is birthing. The old categories no longer work. We are going to need an entirely different language in order to name progressivism’s new historical iteration.
The tempest-in-a-teapot argument among religious progressives is but one small microburst in the larger storm of cultural change. Those who expected a pure progressive Camelot under President Obama are bound to be disappointed—because he is a post-modern progressive. And that’s a different sort of thing than we’ve known before. History may point the direction, but we’re having to make this up as we go along. Because liberalism just ain’t what it used to be.
Tags: christian left, diana butler bass, faith, god, justice, obama, peace, pluralism, politics, post-liberalism, post-modern, progressive, rhetoric, theology
Your article resonates with me and gives another perspective. I made a comment to the "Will the Real Progressive Christians Please Stand Up" that tried to articulate my experience and hope. Still, I need some concrete examples of what a post-modern, post-partisan Christianity looks like. My attempts at understanding include "living before God's wonder and presence, radically inclusive of all people and creation, and fostering equality, peace and human rights." Can others help point the way to groups living the vision you articulate?
We're at an interesting inflection point where virtually all the words we've used to describe and define the political spectrum are muddled beyond meaning.
In my own life, I find myself relying on story telling to get ideas into play. Isolated words to describe complex mental models don't seem workable any more.
And isn't "what works" the name of the game? What kinds of alliances shouldn't be considered in the pursuit of what works? If Obama can graciously embrace Chavez in search of common ground ...
James
This might be a helpful contrast in understanding the difference between old-style progressives and postmodern ones. Liberals often talk about the need to "speak truth to power"; I think that pomo progressives might revise that to "speaking truthfully amidst the powers."
A subtle difference, but I think it well illustrates my point!
I appreciate Diana Butler Bass's reflections and agree with her that we need to see the current progressive Christian development as a fifth phase. That, apparently unclearly, is what I meant. I see the developing "movement" (I hope it becomes that!) as something new, formed largely, but not entirely, out of the varied ways that its four more recent antecedents are appropriated and "mixed" together.
I suppose one should say, as Diana does, that "post-modernism" is a new element. It is only relatively new, however. Many of the liberals of the Chicago School were post-modern in their understanding of truth and its warrants--though often with some considerable discomfort and ambivalence. I think some of the later liberals were also post-modern before the post-modernists, and comfortably so. But some differences in degree (in this case its pervasiveness) are so great as to be differences in kind; hence I accept Diana's point that post-modernism is a new ingredient.
If I have a substantive point to make it is about post-modernism and truth. In the end, any credible attempt to live truthfully or to be truthful, I think, will mean trying to live in accord with what one thinks to be truth. The important--and, I believe, correct--postmodern qualification to this is that our discernment of truth is always fallible and contextual, not infallible and universally appropriate (which is not to say, without potential value beyond our own context).
This, I think, is an important point in order that the journey of the "post-modern, post-partisan, neo-pragmatic progressive pilgrim" does not devolve into a individualistic subjectivism--something that I am sure Diana Bass no more supports that I do. But this kind of "truth is whatever one finds it to be"(and, thus, so is truthfulness) is too quickly and commonly I, at least, find among (especially) younger progressive Christans. They don't want to fight the old battles, which is understandable. They think the way beyond that kind of partisanship is to replace the dogmatisms of the past with a "live and let live" individualistic conception of truth. From a postmodern perspective, they fail to notice the importance of community, and its give and take, in our effort to discern what constitutes truth and truthfulness for our time. (And in the end, I would add, that community must not be narrowly and homogeneously defined.)
In short (well, I guess not short enough!) I want to warn progressive Christianity against a tolerance that ignores the demands of responsible advocacy. We are for some things because we think careful thinking about concrete situations lead us in that direction and should make a claim on others, not just ourselves. And that partisanship remains even if and when we find it appropriate to join forces with others with whom we differ on some issues.
Del,
Thanks so much for jumping in. I really appreciated your article--and it obviously made me want to engage the ideas further.
You are right about the potential weakness in pomo progressivism, an inability to take a stand on important issues and a sort of toleration that doesn't make distinctions very well. I hope that the spiritual practice of discernment might serve as the corrective to that possibility. Discernment functions to sort out right from wrong within community from the stance of humble listening. It allows one to make commitments, yet with a certain sense of humility and continued openness.
I agree and think the spiritual practice of discernment can be the corrective (though of course not a fool proof one), especially if it is conceived with depth and breadth. I like Anne Howard's insistence that it include justice work, careful theological reflection, and disciplined spiritual (here I'd say, "ritual") practice, all three in interaction and in community.
Back to the larger issue on which you've spoken with insight--the tension between being a "purist" and an "accommodator," as I teasingly termed these two strategies (or are they moods!). Since I think both are inevitable, and to me necessary, I also think it important that we be as vigorous as possible in trying to identify the dangers as well as the benefits of each approach. And since most of those I know of (not all!!) confess to being accommodators, that approach, it seems to me, should be given special attention.
The arguments in its favor are mostly strong, as are the criticisms. But one additional problem with the reaching rightward that this often involves is the loss of anything but the fuzziest meaning for the term "progressive Christianity," or whatever we want to call it. If what many of us mean by it is to become anything like an effective force in American public life, it does need to mean something not entirely reducible to "progressive evangelicalism." And right now that seems to be its sole meaning, especially in the media and therefore also in the public mind. And when progressive Christian people and organizations spend so much of their time working with the more open evangelical groups and individuals, those endeavors--valuable as they are, and not to be ended--only strengthen, willy nilly, this misperception. I frankly wonder if this misperception is not fairly dominant even in the Obama administration, where one might have hoped for a much more nuanced understanding of current Christianity in America.
I don't mean to be pressing you now for further discussion. (This happens to be my night every two weeks for sleeplessness, thanks to a recurring medical treatment.) But if and when you are inclined to take these issues up again, all of us committed to the same general goals will be gladly listening.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.