Really Real, and Truly True

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us."

1 John 1:1-2

Without delving into the debates of authorship that constantly surround this book, we can see even in the opening sentence that the author is speaking from personal experience.

And what did he personally experience? "That which was from the beginning."

And in what does this personal experience consist? "Which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands."

This is not the language of a mystic.

This is not the language of one whose visions evaporate in the morning light, whose dreams remain firmly in the realm of sleep. This is not a truth that seeks refuge in metaphors and symbolism, which hides in shadows and refuses to be nailed down. This is not a "spiritual" truth that lacks the substance of regular, everyday truth.

This is not the lukewarm spirituality of the "spiritual, but not religious." This not the inconsistency of the "progressive" Christian, who finds joy in questions but has forgotten what they are for. These are not the words of those who claim that truth is fundamentally unknowable. This is not the language of a mystic.

Or more correctly, this is not just the language of a mystic. The topic is, indeed, mystical. "That which was from the beginning." This is the core, the bedrock, the Truth that all self-professed spiritualists and wanderers and "progressives" claim to be seeking (but never finding).

But John is not content to leave it mystical. John is not content to leave it undiscovered, undisturbed, unconfirmed.

John claims to have found it. And not a metaphorical finding, but a true one: A finding confirmed not just by hearing it, but by seeing and even by touching it. 

John says in no uncertain terms, "Here it is. Here is the truth that you have been searching for. We have found it. We have heard it...we have seen it with our eyes... we have touched it with our hands! We have found it."

The truth is no longer mere mysticism. It no longer exists merely "out there," in the realm of the spiritual. It is still there, but now it is also HERE.

That is what Christmas represents. It represents an end to that part of the mystery. It represents an end to the myth that God is fundamentally unknowable, because Jesus came to make Him known. It represents an end to seeking without finding.

It is true what Eliot wrote, that "Here the impossible union/ Of spheres of existence is actual." This is the meeting of the physical and the spiritual, the eternal and the temporal. This is the moment that God entered our reality not as an interloper, not with his finger to inscribe commandments and not as a Spirit to empower, but as a man to walk and live and breath (and die).

Christmas is the moment that Truth was proclaimed not as something high and unknowable, not as something elusive and ethereal, but as something wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.

Jesus: Not Progressive Enough?

A friend of mine asked me to start contributing to Evangelical Outpost, a blog currently made up of several Torrey alum and hoping to grow. Check out my debut post here, and then, you know, stick around! There's lots of really great stuff going on there.

http://evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2012/07/jesus-not-progressive-enough.html

Is Progressive Christianity "Progressive?"

In last week's post, I discussed some of the more inconsistent and self-defeating aspects of "Progressive Christianity." Ultimately, it seems apparent that at least half of their label is wildly inaccurate and misleading. They claim to be "Christian," while discarding Christian doctrines as not only unnecessary but actually harmful: This is very similar to Penny's (from "The Big Bang Theory") claim to vegetarianism: "I'm a vegetarian. Except for fish. And the occasional steak. I love steak!" A "vegetarian" who eats steak and fish is no vegetarian. A "Christian" who is "opposed to any exclusive dogma" does not follow the God-man who claimed to be the way, the truth, the life, and the only way to the Father. (I think this is extremely simple: If anyone disagrees, just let me know in the comments and I'll dedicate an entire note to the claim that Progressive Christianity is not Christian).

But now I want to investigate the other half of their label. In their very title, they claim that theirs is a Christianity that progresses. A look at progressivechristianity.org (same link as above) reveals additional info: "We affirm the variety and depth of human experience and the richness of each persons' search for meaning, and we encourage the use of sound scholarship, critical inquiry, and all intellectual powers to understand the presence of God in human life." The way in which they want to progress, then (or at least one of the ways) is in knowledge of God. They wish to use "sound scholarship, critical inquiry, and all intellectual powers" to arrive at more knowledge of God then when they had started. This is a worthy goal: It's why the Bible was written, why the Bible is read: It's the reason for all theology ever written, from Justin Martyr to Thomas Aquinas to Martin Luther to The freaking Shack (not all of it good, of course).

So: Knowledge of God. Learning more about God and how He is present in human life. Awesome. Bravo. This goal, as a goal, is beyond reproach. Now, let's see how Progressive Christianity will progress towards this goal.

1. They "affirm the variety and depth of human experience and the richness of each persons' search for meaning." This, combined with their search for understanding about "the presence of God in human life," suggests they are investigating God in each individual life. 
2. They strive for "the acceptance of all people, and a respect for other religious traditions." So presumable every person, and every religious tradition, has something to bring to the table as they attempt to progress in their understanding of God.
3. Finally, they are "opposed to any exclusive dogma that limits the search for truth and free inquiry." So any doctrine or dogma that excludes the experience of a person or religious tradition, that says to any individual or any religion, "Your doctrine is false," is not welcome in Progressive Christianity, because to do so would not be respecting that religious tradition, would not be acknowledging the richness of that person' search for meaning.

Their doctrine accepts everyone and everything: Nothing is to be excluded from this grand tapestry, made up of the entire human experience with God. Every person and every religion is respected, rich with knowledge to offer. Surely the picture to which the entire human race is contributing cannot fail to produce an ever-more-accurate portrait of God... except...

You cannot progress towards positive doctrine without dispensing negative doctrine as well. 

You cannot affirm anything without denying the opposite of your affirmation. Every step is both a step towards one thing and a step away from some other thing. A desire to keep everything, to disregard nothing, will only result in an accumulation of contradictory statements: You will be immobilized by the weight of all the different doctrines that you refuse to throw away.

Here's what I mean: Saying "God became man in Jesus Christ" would be a real progress in our understanding of God. It tells us something about God, about man, and about the relationship between the two. Saying "God did not become man in Jesus Christ" would also be a real progress in our understanding of God, man, and the relationship between the two. Unfortunately for Progressive Christianity, they can't say either: To say that God did become man would be to alienate all those who don't believe in a historical Jesus, or who believe that he was real but that he was just a man. To say that God did not become man in Jesus Christ would be to alienate all those who believe that He did.

Let's broaden the picture: Some people claim to experience God as multiple gods and goddesses. Some claim that there is no personal God, merely an impersonal force. The worshipers of Baal believed that God was best worshiped by infant sacrifice: There are many today who believe that God doesn't need to be expressly worshiped at all. Progressive Christianity must affirm all these people (and I do mean all, unless Progressive Christianity wants to break their cardinal rule and dogmatically exclude any remaining Baal-worshipers). To all these people, Progressive Christianity can say, "That is a wonderful idea. We can learn so much from that perspective." But they cannot say, "You are wrong" to any of them, and because of that, they can never say, "You are right."


And so they remain in exactly the spot they began, forever. Forever affirming any and all who come to them, forever "learning" from every person and every religion, and never progressing one inch closer to understanding God.

But perhaps that's not what they mean: Maybe they just mean that they will carefully investigate each religious claim and then... improve on them. Maybe they hope to take the best out of every tradition, and eventually arrive at a knowledge that merely excludes what is obviously erroneous. That is the only alternative to remaining locked in place forever, crushed under the weight of a thousand doctrines which cannot be proclaimed right or wrong.

But here's the thing: Once Progressive Christianity has arrived there, they will be in the same position that orthodox Christianity is in now. That is how the Church got to where it is today: By investigating each claim, each experience, and comparing it to the Bible (what they considered as the ultimate authority). Once Progressive Christianity actually begins to progress, by means of comparing various doctrines to whatever they decide on as their ultimate authority, they will have become that thing that they hate: Their churches will be full of exclusive dogmas. They will be forced into the deeply intolerant position of telling certain people that they are wrong. That is what it means to "progress" in truth: Learning what is false.

Again, Progressive Christianity finds itself forced to choose between two undesirable outcomes: Does it remain dedicated to its original exclusion of exclusionary dogmas and, in doing so, freeze itself in place forever? Or does it actually progress and, in doing so, exclude incorrect dogmas so as to proclaim correct dogmas? In any case, I feel it is obvious that whatever Progressive Christianity may be, two things are certain: It is not Christian, and it is not progressive.

Does "Progressive" mean "Not Really"?

"'Listen!' said the White Spirit. 'Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them. Become that child again: even now... You have gone far wrong. Thirst was made for water; inquiry for truth."
C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

The other day I saw the name "ProgressiveChristianity.com" pop up on facebook. I was intrigued, so I checked it out. Unfortunately, I was only able to make it through about half of the "About" section before I was forced to close the window by a growing sense of the poetic "conscious impotence of rage at human folly." (T.S. Eliot ftw! He must have had a vision of the internet.) Among the more rage-inducing elements was its status as a haven for those who "find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions rather than in the answers," as well as those who are "repelled by claims that Christianity is the 'only way.'" They also "affirm the variety and depth of human experience and the richness of each person's search for meaning," as well as a "respect for all religious traditions."

Yesterday, this made me a little angry (Had I stayed on the site, I imagine my anger would have increased exponentially for each subsequent minute). But now, looking at it today, I just have to laugh. There's just sooo much wrong with this, starting with the fact that they claim the title of "Christianity," despite the fact that they reject "the beliefs and dogmas [associated with] Christianity." One has to ask: Can you, in good conscience, really call it "Christianity" when it's stripped of its specifically Christian doctrines? And much of it really is laughable: For instance, the site assumes the existence of God (so that's one point in their favor, I guess). If God exists, that means he is solid. Real. And if He is solid and real, than that means that certain ideas can accurately be applied to Him (and if you correct me and say "She" or "it" or "He-She", then you are only playing right into my hand). If certain ideas can be applied accurately to God, then other ideas can be applied inaccurately to God. If God is Real, in any sense commonly understood by "Real," then not all ideas about God can be equally valid, because many ideas about God are contradictory.

The absolutely hilarious thing is that "progressive Christianity" explicitly condemns the "rigid, 'explain-all' dogma that overliteralizes and distorts the grand mysteries it seeks to illuminate" that is found in traditional Christianity. So they advocate respect for all religious traditions... except traditional Christianity? Because that doesn't sound very respectful: It sounds downright disrespectful, to me. It seems as though they're saying that traditional Christianity is in some way worse than progressive Christianity... but that can't be right, because they say right there that they're "opposed to any exclusive dogma." But everything on the page seems to say that their own dogma excludes traditional Christianity. Even if I worked at it all day, I couldn't make this any more ridiculous than they make themselves.

But that's really simple stuff. Today, I want to focus on something a bit trickier to look at: The elevation of "searching" above "finding."

I really need to talk some more about this, because this talk of "searching" being more important than "finding" is one of those truly ridiculous claims that can sound really nice when it's said in the correct tone... but if it's ever really thought about, it's revealed to be absolutely indefensible. Let's take this from the top.

There either is meaning to be found, or there is not. Those are the only two choices. There is no middle ground.  

If there is meaning to be found, then that means meaning is a solid thing. That means meaning, presumably, can be found. But it also means that meaning can be missed, can be left undiscovered, can be sailed right past in the dim light of human experience and reason.

So I have a question: Is there any other solid, real thing where searching for it can be said to be more important than finding it?

Let's take the fountain of youth. A lot of explorers looked for it: A few spent their whole lives looking for it. And I'm sure you could craft a cool story out of the search. I'll bet they had a lot of adventures looking for it. But you know how that story ended? They all died because they never found the fountain of youth. The search, ultimately, was worthless, meaningless, because they failed to find what they were looking for.

Or let's take diamonds, or coal, or friendship, or a spouse, or literally anything else that you have to look for. Is the search itself ever more meaningful than finding it? The very suggestion is ridiculous. Searching for something important (and in this case, meaning assumes ultimate importance) and not finding it is not fulfilling: It is hopeless. It is failure. It is meaningless.

But aren't there several instances of people searching for one thing and never finding it, but being fulfilled anyway because they found something else? Yes indeed... but that simply means that they were searching for the wrong thing to begin with. They found what was meaningful, and (and this is the important bit) had they not found it, they would have remained unfulfilled.

There is yet one more refuge for the professional seeker: That seeking, itself, is meaningful. But guess what? If you come to the conclusion that "seeking meaning" is exactly what is meaningful in life, then the search for meaning is over. You have found the answer: You have discovered that meaning is found in looking for it. Congratulations! Or... not, because you've only replaced one fixed meaning (which you claim to hate) with another, equally fixed meaning. If meaning is found in seeking, then once you begin seeking, you have found it. This is just as fixed, just as dogmatic, as anything about Christianity that you claim to be repelled by.

And you cannot escape from this sense of fixity, because if meaning is--if there is such a thing as ultimate meaning (which, in this case, is God and how he interacts with us)--then meaning must be a fixed thing. The Progressive Christian looks down on those who (he thinks) try to find this meaning in "fixed, over-literal dogma": The Progressive Christian tries to find meaning in the ongoing action of searching, and in doing so, he thinks he has escaped fixity. He is wrong. His meaning is just as fixed as anyone else's: Just as gold is always gold, whether it is found panning in a river or digging in a mine.

Now: If there is NOT meaning to be found, then nothing is meaningful: This includes the search. If there is no meaning, then the search for meaning is meaningless. If there is no meaning to be found, then the search for meaning is a horrible, futile, never-ending, hope-destroying thing, like Sisyphus rolling his boulder up the hill forever.

So what are you, Progressive Christianity? Are you a wildly inconsistent, all-inclusive-except-for-stuff-we-disagree-with feel-good pseudo religion ... or merely the starting point of an inherently hopeless search for something which doesn't exist? You seem utterly intent on being both at once.


I don't want to be unfair, I don't want to misrepresent anything, and I don't want to replace debate with pointless mocking. I don't feel as though I have done anything of the sort here: But if you do, then please, feel free to comment.