Poll: Social/Religious Progressivism and its effect on Conservatives - #1

[Ernie]

This thread is about Social/Religious Progressivism and its effect on people who consider themselves both Christian and conservative.

Social/Religious Progressivism has some overlap with Progressive Christianity, Social Justice, Socialism, Political Progressivism, Liberalism, and the Left, but each of these terms denote different things. In this thread, I am using the term Social/Religious Progressivism according to a narrow definition, but the term can be used in a variety of contexts.

In the last 150 years, progressives have pushed for various practices to become normalized in the church and in society. I think that the beliefs/practices in the poll have only gained traction in the last century and a half. Most of these beliefs/practices are now embraced by progressives and conservatives alike. A few are still being resisted by social/religious "Christian" conservatives. I realize that some of these practices have much more weighty consequences than others so do not assume that I think they are all equal in importance.

I’m curious how MennoNet readers look at these issues in comparison with general society. Hence the poll. If you are a MennoNet reader but do not typically vote or post, I would like if you could also answer the poll. It doesn’t take much to register and become a member.

In this thread we will focus the discussion on acceptable practices for Christians, rather than on whether or not such practices should be regulated by civil government. There will likely be more threads on this topic in the coming months.

Please do not engage in promoting left wing/right wing ideology or critiquing the actions or viewpoints of a particular political party or political leaning in this thread. Please keep partisan comments/debates out of this thread - avoid comments that reflect negatively on either right-leaning or left leaning political persuasions or persons.

Please keep this thread focused on the topic. If you want to debate the use of terms mentioned above, or the validity of threads such as these, please do so in another thread. Thank you!

[JohnH]

I have observed a pipeline from conservative Anabaptists -> “God and country and guns” right wing sort of things -> squishy evangelicalism -> full blown liberal-progressivism.

I am hearing some concerning things about some of these things taking root at Faith Builders.

[joshuabgood]

One might say "democratic" or they might say "submitting ye one to another."

It seems clear to me, per Paul's teachings regarding women being covered when praying and prophecying, that they do in fact have a voice and are intended to use said voice for prayerful and prophetic utterances for the building up and edification of believers.

Priscilla played an important role in teaching Apollos a more accurate theology/gospel it seems.

It feels to me that men and women both have obligations concerning "minors."

I would idealize marriage, where like Jesus exemplified, coercion is verboten, and self sacrifice and giving is the core of the relationship. And I think there is strong scriptural data that indicates that applies to both parties.

The amount of the body that is covered is a cultural expression that can look and feel different in different situations/contexts. And nudity, as an issue, isn't directly correlated or associated with lust, but rather, shame. In some contexts, full nudity is appropriate - ie in medical situations etc. Similarly, full nudity is shameful without any lust being a part of it (we can all think of folks with physical challenges that no matter if they were fully nude, would not present arousing properties). Similarly, full nudity, even in the context of same sex, is something I would advocate against for the same reason. (That is, open lockers, open showers, "skinny dipping" etc).

[JohnH]

I can’t vote since I didn’t want to choose any options.

[Ernie]

I have observed a pipeline from conservative Anabaptists -> “God and country and guns” right wing sort of things -> squishy evangelicalism -> full blown liberal-progressivism.

I am hearing some concerning things about some of these things taking root at Faith Builders.

Yes, that is a very familiar pipeline. Some people skip the in-between steps.

Regarding Faith Builders... I see the board and administration taking a fairly stable, historical position on these matters. Staff who promote progressive viewpoints are dismissed.
Many students who come to Faith Builders are a reflection of the homes and churches within the constituency that supports Faith Builders. Young people who are interested in a liberal arts education are often more progressive in their thinking to start with. The administration at Faith Builders has said for years that they try to do what they can to influence students in a good direction, but they can only work with whatever students/worldviews that churches send their way.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

"You must specify an option before voting."

Ernie, could you add something to the effect of "none of the above"?

I'd also take issue with the wording of some of the lengthier options. Some of then are confusingly worded. At least one seems unfair: the "democratic church governance vs rule by elders under the Lordship of Christ" option seems to imply that only rule by elders is under the Lordship of Christ, while any form of church decision-making that includes non-elders is somehow no longer under the Lordship of Christ.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

I also feel like there are other things not listed here that I would say are acceptable but might be considered by some as an influence toward progressive/liberal thinking.

An example would be "Women not covering their heads in public during times OTHER than prayer/prophecy/worship." And the corollary for men with covered heads.

[Ernie]

One might say "democratic" or they might say "submitting ye one to another."

The difference I see is that "submitting to one another" does not always mean majority rule.

It seems clear to me, per Paul's teachings regarding women being covered when praying and prophecying, that they do in fact have a voice and are intended to use said voice for prayerful and prophetic utterances for the building up and edification of believers.

Same here. Just not sure if Paul intended for them to do this in the church assembly. In light of not being sure about this, I am ok with women testifying and praying in the church assembly as long as they are not teaching.

Priscilla played an important role in teaching Apollos a more accurate theology/gospel it seems.

Yes, I agree. I see a role for women to do this outside of the church assembly.

It feels to me that men and women both have obligations concerning "minors."

No argument there.

I would idealize marriage, where like Jesus exemplified, coercion is verboten, and self sacrifice and giving is the core of the relationship. And I think there is strong scriptural data that indicates that applies to both parties.

I agree. Where this is done well, little submission to the husband needs to happen as both function well as heirs together of the grace of life.

The amount of the body that is covered is a cultural expression that can look and feel different in different situations/contexts. And nudity, as an issue, isn't directly correlated or associated with lust, but rather, shame. In some contexts, full nudity is appropriate - ie in medical situations etc. Similarly, full nudity is shameful without any lust being a part of it (we can all think of folks with physical challenges that no matter if they were fully nude, would not present arousing properties). Similarly, full nudity, even in the context of same sex, is something I would advocate against for the same reason. (That is, open lockers, open showers, "skinny dipping" etc).

While I can't say this is truth, there does seem to be at least some truth in this.

[barnhart]

Just scanning through, I don't think I can check any of the options as they are worded.

[Ernie]

"You must specify an option before voting."

Ernie, could you add something to the effect of "none of the above"?

I asked Robert for 20 poll options but his idea is that this would be too many options for people to think through. (I'm not sure why in a non-censured environment, we couldn't let posters figure this out on their own via trial and error.) But for now, Robert is the owner and he gets to decide.