What is a Christian? Thinking Well About Progressive Christianity w/ Dr. Joshua Swamidass

In this episode, I'm joined by Dr. Joshua Swamidass to look at how Progressive and Conservative Christians can disagree in a way that is more productive and fruitful.

---------------------------- FREE STUFF ----------------------------

-------------------------------- GIVING --------------------------------

Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!

---------------------------------- SOCIAL ----------------------------------

--------------------------------- MY GEAR ----------------------------------

I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).

--------------------------------- CONTACT ---------------------------------

#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod

[lolroflmaoization]

Joshua Swamidass is quite right about your audience being more than just Christians, i'm a Palestinian ex-muslims, who is current agnostic on theism, yet i still watch most of your videos lol, not even sure why but i enjoy them nonetheless.

[brianfarley]

To be forthright I’m a Catholic and lean very much to a traditionalist view of Christianity. I haven’t watched the video yet but when I hear the words “progressive Christianity” my mind goes to gay marriage, pro abortion, women pastors. None of this is Christian.

But I’ll see if I can make it through your video because I appreciate your approach and respect to being open to learning

[samdg]

45:30
Josh says, "The best response is to not to exert power against it, but to invite it into conversation and show what is wrong with it."
You nailed that part Josh! That would be the exact opposite of cancel culture.

[dan]

It is important to separate being a Christian with regards to salvation with God and Christianity as an institution. No one knows if another Christian is saved but it is extremely valuable for Christianity as an institution to have primary beliefs that excludes people. Everybody is not a philosopher or theologian that can look into these issues one by one, topic by topic and decide like Cameron stated. If there is any such thing as a church it needs to have tenants. What does it mean to be a Christian that rejects the commandment to love your neighbor and enemy not just by his actions but by believing the opposite. I don't know if the person is saved or not but the church needs to exclude beliefs that explicitly contradict historical and scriptural views. We can't deconstruct Christianity to just mean anyone that says Jesus.

[actsapologist]

RR's argument that "Progressive" Christianity is fine because the word "Progressive" just means moving toward something.... was kinda embarrassing to listen to.
Like if you name something the "Super Awesome" sect of Christianity, and someone says, "How can it be bad? It says 'Super Awesome' right there in the name!"

[whatsinaname]

I like the shift towards internal issues. Natural theology will always be my favorite thing on this channel, but branching out to more interviews on stuff like inerrancy, doctrines of Hell (like the Talbott comment), and other debates within the faith would be a very nice addition to go along with your new cath series. Discussion on other religions compared to Christianity, etc… There’s plenty of room for growth

[samdg]

30:44, (The Lausanne Covenant) "It's negotiated. It is far more nuanced. It is not that everyone is going to agree with it and love it. That's not the point. It just ends up being a far wiser way to solve debates like this."
I find that to be very problematic? It just assumes that it is wiser. On what grounds is it? Because it includes more people than any other? It negotiates with what? Error? So, it is wiser to what end? It seems self-evident that I can be allied with any theist the world over in my assertion that God exists. It is not even a matter of opinion. It is a fact. We agree on that point. So? How long is it before I must part ways with them as we tease out more detail about who God is, what he has said, what he desires?

2 quotes,

“If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.”
attributed to Martin Luther

I would not have wished to end this chapter on a sad and sour note, but realism seems to require it as an illustration of what happens when doctrine is not taken seriously.

A Canadian journalist, an immigrant like myself, wrote that the great Canadian commandment is, “Thou shalt be ambiguous.”. This touches not only politicians, the constituency that he had in view, but church leadership too. In England I got tired of being told that ambiguity was Anglicanism‘s great virtue, and I hoped when I responded to Canada‘s call that I was leaving all that tommy-rot behind. But no. As one who sees truth and clarity as primary Christian values, and the ambiguity that dodges or fudges issues of truth is harmful to people and dishonoring to God, I found the Anglican Church of Canada intensely saddening.
J.I. Packer – Taking God Seriously

[Imheretohelpnhavefun]

I find the overall approach of Dr. Swamidass very nice, but I do struggle with some of the biblical warnings about how to treat false teachers. The consistent attitude that the new testament has towards false teachers is to not give them any space, and reject them completely (For example, Romans 16:17-18, and particularly strong is 2 John 1:9-11, although there are many more texts). I don't think the historic creeds are enough to really define what is or is not a false teacher, since they were the continuously growing result of dealing with specific controversies of their own time, similarly to what we are doing now with our own controversies.

So I don't know, for example, if I shouldn't consider someone like Peter Enns a false teacher in the biblical sense. And this is really hard to struggle with. Some things that might seem like minor details are treated as heresy in the new testament (e.g.: the resurrection being past, according to 2 Tim. 2:15-19). I fear that sometimes we can be more "polite" than the bible demands of us, because of our academic inclinations to consider all opinions, at the same time, I don't want to be too harsh on uncertain topics. It's really a tough balance to reach.

[danielcartwright]

One of the problems with this discussion is that progressive Chriatianity is a very broad category that's hard to define.

Another frustrating thing is that often people will attack any non-agustinian or non-Calvinistic position as "progressive." By Childer's definition, the Eastern Orthodox church would be progressive because they don't have an Augustinian view of original sin.

[craigsmith]

If we identify ourselves as 'traditional' or 'progressive' or 'conservative, ' we've already begun badly, for this is a description the Bible tells us in its narrative way not to use. Nothing can come between us and God, especially not a method of interpretation or of political method (which is what there terms are). _The Screwtape Letters_ reminds us that anything at all can be an occasion for sin, a concept of very long standing. Aristotle showed us that many (most?) vices are the virtues unbridled. When the virtues are not reined in by reason, respect, and compassion, they go wild (a colloquial translation of Isaiah 29:18).
Now, we may be 'traditional' or 'progressive, ' but these are human ways of living out what we see as the Biblical requirements, and as such, must be subject to modifying, for no human method will work all the time. We simply cannot 'camp' on one of these categories and defend it as though we are defending God or the Bible or Christianity. We must put on the 'whole armor of God' and 'love the Lord with all our heart, ' AND we must 'be one' as Jesus prayed in John 17. The only way we can do this is in dialogue, the only way that we discover truth. Usually that means that we learn and compromise, learn and compromise in a continual dialectic of growth. If we stop to stay on one category, we will not learn. We must be one, and that means that we must listen to each other. What did Chesterton say, that it was permissible to laugh at someone else, 'but not to think him bad because you laughed.' We are all wrong somewhere, for we are human, and it's the mark of an open mind that sees another's different thought and to laugh because it is a surprise (the key and soul of all humor), but then to make that extra decision and to think someone bad because that person does not think as you presently do, why, you yourself will change your mind in the future (I hope. Some of the greatest kids I've known were forty-five years old, and were pitiable). Will then you think yourself bad because you are now different? Then do not think someone else bad because they are different from you. Jesus died for that person, too. Thank you for having Dr Swamidass on.

[australopithecusafarensis]

The people complaining about their super chats in the comments sound entitled

[RoyceVanBlaricome]

47min into it now. Finding it enjoyable and somewhat edifying. Gotta stop here and pickup later. So just a couple more observations.

LOTS of mixed messages and therefore thoughts on what Josh is saying. I'll just cut to the chase.

1) Seeing/hearing a LOT of OPINION and virtually NO theology to substantiate any of it. False beliefs are based on false theology which leads to a false gospel which results in false converts.
2) Seeing/hearing a LOT of emphasis on FEEWINGS and "kindness". It MUST be remembered that Jesus fashioned a whip of cords and to it to the backside of some who had turned His Father's House into a den of thieves? How much more would He do to those who take His Word and use it to lead others astray? And I keep hearing Josh talking about "humanity", "love", "kindness" etc. Need I remind you that Satan and his minions disguise themselves as "angels of light"? And that there are wolves in sheep clothing? Whose bidding does God say ALL Unbelievers do? (Eph. 2:1-3)
3) If you don't hold Scripture as your Final Authority then you are left with yourself being such.
4) I'm seeing/hearing nothing about "have NO fellowship with darkness but rather expose it" (Eph. 5:11), "mark and avoid", and Paul's comments toward the heretics. (Which, btw, needs to be defined. I define it as those who deny/reject the essentials of the Gospel and the Faith (5 Solas) which are tied to the Gospel.

Yes, there are many rooms inside the House of God BUT there is NO room for those outside of the Faith and who have a different Gospel. (Gal. 1:8-9) Those different rooms consist of "in-house" debates. For example, Paedobaptism, differing views on the Lord's Table, ECT vs. CI/Annihilationism, Women Pastor's, etc. IOW, Level TWO issues on the Theological Triage Scale. NOT Level One. To those who hold to heretical views on Level One issues they are to be put out, marked and avoided, exposed, and treated as Unbelievers. They should be given NO quarter but rather exposed and the dust shaken from your feet.

Lastly, Cameron you're just dead wrong on your view of Inerrancy. Scripture ABSOLUTELY MUST be the Final Authority and for you to say that the doctrine in not really taught in Scripture is just ridiculous. It most certainly is. In several places! 2nd Tim. 3:16 being one. How can you possibly say that? You REALLY need to bone up on what God says about his Word.

And, really, c'mon. You're a bright guy that prides himself on the use of Logic. Do you really seriously think God's Word is in error?? That God made mistakes? REALLY? C'mon! So, let me try to change your mind with this:

1) Do you believe that the Gospel is the power unto Salvation. (Rom. 1:16) If so, why? How do you know that is true if not that God's Word says so?
2) Do you believe that Jesus is who He said He is and the ONLY Way? If so, why? How do you know that is true if not that God's Word says so?
3) If you do not believe God's Word is without error then on what Authority do you base ALL Truth? I submit that if you do not surrender to God's Word then YOU are your own Final Authority and if that is the case then you are NOT a Christian.
4) What was the one thing that Jesus constantly and consistently referred back to and quoted from for His teachings? And did not the Apostles not do the very same thing? What do you think was the belief of Jesus and His Apostles regarding Scripture? That it was not inerrant? That the Word of God actually contained errors and mistakes?

I did not coin this and I don't remember who did but I'll leave you with this... The first step to Apostasy starts with one step of compromise.

[RoyceVanBlaricome]

Josh, what are you referring to by "historical creeds" when you say "it's a little bit harder to make that case if we're talking about the historical creeds". Obviously you must not be going back far enough in History because you go on to say "but that wasn't a position that was really in any of the historical creeds" because the Didache certainly addressed Homosexuality along with other sexual immorality.

That "position" being encapsulated in your question "how do we handle Christians who are theologically orthodox in every way except for where they stand on Homosexuality". Well, I'd say two things about that. First you have to define both "theological" and especially "orthodox". I say "especially" "orthodox" because you MUST make a determination as to whether "orthodoxy" is defined by the early church fathers or later ecumenical creeds.

When I read Scripture I see REPEATED references and a deferring back to SCRIPTURE. NEVER to a man-made creed. Creeds are NOT Scripture! And it is God's Word that answers your question. How does God handle someone that is perfectly sinless except in one way? How does God handle ONE sin? Does God explicitly and specifically call Homosexuality a sin? Yes or No? What does God REPEATEDLY say about those who PRACTICE SIN?

How does History report those who were "theologically orthodox" except in one way? What does Paul specifically say about someone who adds or subtracts ONE thing from the Gospel? What does God say about those who are theologically orthodox in every way except in their Christology. What does God say about those who's Christology is theologically orthodox in every way except they either believe Christ was "a god" or a created being and the spirit brother of Satan?

What say you, Josh? Cameron? Are they or are they not "Christian"??!!

Maybe it's because I've never been accused of being the brightest bulb in the socket but in my estimation this isn't rocket science and one doesn't have to be an Einstein to figure out the answer. Contrary to what Josh says, in my estimation, this is NOT a "difficult conversation" to have or a difficult position to figure out where to stand on.

There are TONS of sins not addressed in the creeds. Why should they be? When we have Matt. 7:23, Jn. 8:44, 1st Jn. 3:8-9, Rev. 21:8 & 22:15 making it CRYSTAL CLEAR that ANYONE who practices lawlessness will NOT inherit the Kingdom there is only one reason I can think of that one would want the creeds to address them and that is because they don't want to rest in Sola Scripture as their Final Authority but rather bring that Authority down to Man. As far as I know, Sola Scriptura isn't addressed in the creeds. Perhaps that's the reason why. And perhaps that's why the Reformation came about.

[RoyceVanBlaricome]

Getting into the Q&A. Josh brings up a good point and then completely fumbles the ball. What is Christianity? C'mon Josh! Your answer is EXACTLY what happens when you start bringing in Man's thinking (Pro. 14:12) and a Christian's thinking (Rom 12:2).

Words matter! Did you see "What Is A Woman?" We live in a world today where a full-grown naked man standing in front of a mirror is saying, "Boy howdy, I am one good lookin' woman!" In fact, it's worse! We now have a crowd of folks standing behind him saying, "You sure are!!" And you wanna stand in that crowd?

NO! That is neither kind or loving. The most loving thing we can tell the Mormons, JWs, the WMSCOG, other cults, AND Progressives that reject the Word of God, Call God a Liar, and stand in opposition to Christ is "NO! You are NOT a Christian! You are an angel of light headed for eternal torment in the lake of fire if you do not surrender your life to the REAL Jesus and beg Him to save you so that you can be Born Again and inherit the Kingdom." Or at best that they are standing in the Matt. 7:21-23 line waiting for their turn to come upfront and get the shock of their Eternity.

To allow them to believe they're Christian for one nanosecond is a slap in the face to the Lord Jesus Christ, every martyr who has died for the Faith, and every other true Christian in The Body.

[RoyceVanBlaricome]

Where does God say it's ok to steal a loaf of bread or anything else to feed your starving family? I don't recall that being in Scripture? What I do recall is Jesus saying that Man does not live by bread alone, that it is better to cut your hand off than sin, and that when one seeks the Kingdom of God first ALL necessities of life (food, clothing, shelter) WILL be provided.

So maybe Josh can find that and let us know. When he does that I'd also like him to tell us what the difference is between his Morality and Moral Relativism? Or is Josh claiming that Biblical Morality is equivalent to Moral Relativism?

I must say that I am deeply concerned about Josh and his Eternity. Especially when he keeps continuingly going back to "a more humane" way of doing things. Why not a more "Biblical" way? He seems to have a very MAN-Centered theology and that is a VERY dangerous place to be. Seen it happen countless times when this kind of thinking and the MAN-Centered theology falls apart, which it inevitably will, that their faith goes with it and they "fall away". Think about all the "Deconstruction" stories we've seen in the last few years.

[RoyceVanBlaricome]

Josh, there may be a difference between those who are orthodox in everything but that one thing and those who are "way out there" BUT it is a difference without distinction and that is what you're missing. You are either in the Kingdom or you're not. You're either saved or you're not. You're either a child of God or a son of Satan. It goes right back to what I said before. It doesn't matter one iota whether you miss the bulls-eye by a fraction of an inch or a mile. You missed the bulls-eye. Period. BOTH groups ARE outside of God's Word.

And PLEASE STOP with the "humanizing" stuff. Rather START seeing PEOPLE as more than the product of random chance over long periods of time but as God sees them.

I'm VERY familiar with Gary Johnson and Josh has mischaracterized Gary and those on the other wise. I think I've got a video saved in my eSword of Gary being interviewed during the whole flare up over the Revoice Conference. If not, I can find it but the fact is that it's NOT as Josh is presenting it and it comes down to a MUCH deeper theological and soteriological issue. That being whether one can be a "Gay Christian". And the answer to that is a resounding NO!! However, that said, that is an issue for a whole other video of it's own. Suffice it to say it is as I said before. You either are a Christian or you are not. Period. NO defining adjectives.

The very fact that Josh admits he has to ask the question "Why" and states that it was really about "some very subtle things that were hard to make sense of" speaks! If Josh is filled with the Holy Spirit then why would he have to be asking "why" and WHY would he think for a nanosecond that those "subtle things", which were NOT subtle at all, are hard to make sense of? My guess is that he really didn't do his homework and figure out what all the hullabaloo and ballyhoo was about. I did. And it's NOT hard to figure out at all. To claim this was all a Nothingburger and a lot to do about nothing is evidence of one who is severely lacking in Discernment and the wiles and ways of The Enemy. The tactics and weapons of Satan were clearly evident to me and many others.

And maybe that's the takeaway on this whole video. Who is REALLY behind this Progressive Christianity? God or Satan?

I'd like to see his evidence to support his claim that the historical church would "really not had a problem with him". I doubt that claim.

[RoyceVanBlaricome]

Looking forward to this. Since it's as long as it is I'm gonna make some observations as I move thru the video.

12min into this and making the first observation. Josh is wrong. Atheists are our enemy. They are God's enemy, they belong to The Enemy, and thus they should be ours. That said, we are called to love our enemies.

One question I always as folks like Josh is can you show me just me one verse in the Bible where a God-mocking, rebellious sinner clung to their sin, celebrated and reveled in their sins and tried to lead others to Hell with them was ever given audience or even the time of day by Jesus? Now, that said, it must be remembered that not all atheists are cut out of the same cloth. I did actually have a pretty good civil discussion with somebody that initially called himself an atheist but the admittingly said he might be considered more of an agnostic.

Lastly, on that note, perhaps you and Josh will get around to it but it would've been helpful to define your terms and in particular Progressive Christianity. Josh says they are a "branch of Christianity". Maybe. But from those I've seen who carry the moniker they are NOT Christian. You've probably heard the old axe "I can live in a garage but that don't make me a car." In short, one cannot hold to beliefs/teachings/doctrines when Scripture CLEARLY states that to do so will result in NOT inheriting the Kingdom and be Christian. When Progressives advocate for, endorse, support, and promote certain behaviors which God SPECIFICALLY says will exclude them from the Kingdom they can NOT be Christian.

[RoyceVanBlaricome]

I'm back. Let me start again my saying I really like Josh and the way he comes across but his answers are falling WAY short. I think I addressed this in one of my previous comments but I'll bring it up again just to show it's a pattern with Josh. He just said, "It depends on what you mean by Christianity."

NO NO NO!! It depends on what Christianity means! That is tantamount to saying "it depends on what you mean by Truth" or "it depends on what you mean by Woman". "Christianity" literal means "belonging to Christian". "Christian" literally means "little Christ". Thus "Christianity" means "belonging to Christ".

Now Josh, do I need to say anymore? If something is not of Christ then it is NOT "Christianity".

[Cocomelon_baby-grqg]

This gives me hope that the progressive side can dialogue with the conservative side. Joshua Swamidass should have more of these conversations. Alisa Childers won’t talk to people like Randal Rouser or Pete Enns, but I think she might talk to Josh.

[bornbucket]

I felt this was really helpful. I think that Alisa was offering her story as a way to say, "Hey be careful where you put your faith." Especially, since it was a church who shook hers. Randal then has a bone to pick with her arguments out of a personal friendship to those Alisa calls out.
One thing I noticed was that they're both pointing to errors/generalisations from the further end of each other's spectrum e.g. Randal specifically goes after conservative evangelicals (fundamentalists) and Alisa going after radical modernists (social justice warriors). They're looking beyond each other. There is also a highlighted distinction in the sexual ethics and LGBTQIA+ community.
If you listen to Alisa's podcast she has come a long way since writing her book.