The Spectrum of Protestantism in 2013 [Part 1]
Thursday, December 27, 2012 at 12:00PM I actually like labels. So shoot me. I have been rebuked a lot over the past few years when I have asked the Christian leaders I have interacted with, particularly those on the mid-to-left of the theological spectrum, what they consider themselves theologically. But I happen to think that while labels certainly can never fully describe the theological or philosophical position of any one person or movement, they can help give us a general idea of where someone stands and what kind of theology they hold to which can be (and often is) an incredibly helpful thing to know.
I have been trying to nail down the landscape of Protestant Christianity for about a year now. My personal journey following Jesus over the last decade has lead me from street preaching a "turn or burn" message with a fundamentalist church to sleeping in the basement of the founder of the Emergent church movement. From starting a Facebook App called "Anti-Atheist Quotes" (it exists) to doing an open blog dialogue where I agreed with one of the worlds leading Atheist scholars of religion. From loving the work of Marcus Borg (and doubting the reliability of the Bible) to loving and fully resting on the Scriptures through the scholarship of N.T. Wright. I have been as far to the right as I could have been and as far to the left as I could have been. I have settled (for now) somewhere in the middle. Many view my journey as a result of weak faith or being "tossed by every wind of doctrine"- however, I have found my faith growing more robust and closer to Jesus through this whole journey and I don't regret a second of it. All of that is to simply say, I feel like I have seen the city limits of Western Protestant Christianity and have desired for some time to map it out. This spectrum is the first step towards doing that:
With help from a number of friends- some lay Christians and some scholars, pastors, and theologians- I have identified 5 "Robustly Orthodox" categories of Protestant Christianity (meaning they are thoroughly adhere to a historic Christian orthodoxy) and 2 "Conditionally Orthodox" categories of Christian faith (meaning that while many are historically orthodox, many in these categories may fall outside Christian orthodoxy). The Conditionally Orthodox are "Fundamentalism" and "Classic Liberalism" because both, as bookends to the spectrum, contain fringe organizations that embrace clearly unorthodox and unchristian theology and practices- from Westboro Baptist Church and their hate speech and heretical hyper-Calvinism at one end, to Bishop Spong who rejects the core creedal affirmations of orthodoxy such as the resurrection and eternal life. The other 5 categories are Reformed Evangelicals, which is the one of the newest movements in Protestantism which marks the return to a robust reformed theology, Mainstream Evangelicals, who represent the most basic form of Evangelicalism which holds to a generally conservative theology but very passionate about evangelism and personal-conversion. These Evangelicals are often considered seeker sensitive. The next category, which is the one I would place myself in, is Neo-Evangelical. This category is for those who hold to a generally conservative theology that is more broadly Christian than it is "Protestant" per se, and who are more progressive in methodology and practice. The next category is Emergent Liberal which includes the small remnant of what is known as "The Emergent Church" that saw its hay-days in the 90's but has been generally recognized as "dead". However, in recent years, new life has sparked up in the movement and therefore I think it still deserves as spot on the spectrum.
Now what is important about this spectrum is noting where the future growth of the Protestant tradition will come from. I believe that all signs and trends show that the two movements on this spectrum that will ultimately dominate the Protestant stream of Christian faith over the next 40-50 years will be the Reformed Evangelicals and the Neo-Evangelicals, who I believe will ultimately win out over the Reformed movement because of its commitment to orthodoxy and progressive missiology and practice. The movements that will fade the quickest are most definitely the "Mainstream Evangelicals" and the "Emergent Liberals", mostly because they have already reached the peak of their movements and have been on the decline for a number of years. This means death to the megachurch movement, celebrity Christianity, doubt-based, and super informal, non institutionalized Christian faith. And I think that is something to praise God for. These movements had a purpose and a lot of good has come out of them, but now they are largely irrelevant and have detrimental results on the communities who belong to them.
Now one thing that was wrestled with on this spectrum was weather or not to include Westboro Baptist Church with the "Fundamentalist" label. As you can see, I eventually took them off, but they were on my first two drafts of this spectrum and I honestly think they still belong their. My friend Egon Cohen explained why: "Westboro is certainly offensive, by any standard. But their rhetorical content (as opposed to presentation) is unquestionably part of Protestant fundamentalism in America. And I don't think it's intellectually honest to allow American Protestantism in general and fundamentalism in particular to disclaim ownership of folks like Westboro." I agree. One of the big reasons I found myself distancing from both my fundamentalist roots and the neo-Calvinist movement is because I realized that on a theological level I had no disagreements with Westboro Baptist. I believed God hated people objectively. I believed that Christ had died only for a few and had created the rest to be damned without hope. I believed God was pouring out his wrath on our perverted nation in the form of tragedies and natural disasters. One only has to listen to one John MacArthur or Paul Washer preach once to realize that he has virtually the same message of WBC, and not THAT different of a method.
At the end of the creation of this spectrum, after recieving a lot of input from my friends, I did come to one conclusion: creating a spectrum is a really hard thing to do. But that doesn't mean it's not an important thing to do. One friend of mine pointed out in a message exchange we had about this spectrum: "I just read a very progressive/liberal/emergent blog whom was saying how he is tired of lefts and right, and he is in the middle. But he is as emergent/progressive theologically as you can get. So the middle needs definition. That is why a chart ends up helping and I know people resist categories, but the fact is we are in categories by nature. We may be a blend somewhat, but bottom line is I think it is fine to do a spectrum like you are doing." We do need, I think, some clear lines and definition to help us find out where we stand and who is in our category. Not so we can divide- but so we can belong. We all need to belong. If spectrums and labels become an excuse to condemn and divide, then they are being misused. Especially this spectrum. Nearly everyone listed here is a Christian and should be fellowshipped with, dialoged with, worshipped with, and loved as brothers and sisters in Christ. And that's what this spectrum is meant to show. It's meant to be a family portrait or a map of the country we live in. These are "our people" in "our tradition". And the reality is that many of us will move around on this spectrum in our faith journey. And that's healthy! It's labels and charts like these that can hopefully help us find our way as we journey closer towards Christ
But those are just one guys thoughts. What do you think? Really! I want to hear from you. Who should be added or moved on the spectrum? Do you agree with my assessment? This is the beginning of a series of posts on the future of Protestant Christianity and I want to hear from people with different perspectives than my own! So let me know!
I would like to thank a number of people who contributed their thoughts to help me formulate the spectrum used for this post: Steve Knight, Calvin Moore, Egon Cohen, D.K., Blake Fewell, & Phil Zilinski. Your thoughts and ideas helped me see the diversity and difficulty in using labels and placing theologies on a spectrum. You all rock.
Grace & Peace-
Brandan
The Revangelical Connection
Brandan Robertson
Wow! The response this has been getting is amazing. Whoda' thunk?
I just wanted to include one more point: Notice that Tim Keller is located on 2 different categories. That's not a mistake. Tim Keller is perhaps one of the best examples of where I believe the future of Christianity lies- he is conservative theologically, justice oriented, embraces science and history, liturgically rooted, and a whole plethora of of other amazing qualities that one would never expect from the co-founder of The Gospel Coalition. Keller is just one example of a person on this list who spans the categories. However, no one would deny that Keller himself still associates and considers himself a "Reformed Evangelical". So while the categories are not entirely accurate, they are still helpful.
Also- someone pointed out that John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg consider themselves progressive and therefore should be placed in a category 2 to the right. However, I just want to say that when you deny core aspects of the Christian story based on "scientific conviction", you are not a progressive, but a classic liberal. Just saying.
I love this dialogue! Thanks guys!
Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Labels, Spectrum, emergent, liberal in Missiology , Theology
Reader Comments (37)
Unfortunately, this chart isn't quite accurate. Neither Borg nor Spong are "Classical Liberal." Instead, they are Progressive Christians -- the post-modern influenced evolution of 20th Century Liberalism. I'm a Progressive Christian too; i.e., a Progressive United Methodist mainline Protestant Christian. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-roger-wolsey/progressive-christianity_b_892727.html
Brandan, I read your comment on your recent blog. 1) I'm disappointed that you aren't allowing comments to be seen on your blog); 2) I'm disappointed that you are apparently intentionally refusing to honor that there is a reformation movement called progressive Christianity and that it is different than liberal Christianity. Did you read my article?
see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity
Roger-
Once again, I obviously do allow comments since you just commented. I have no clue what that means.
And what you are calling Progressive Christianity is not different from classic liberalism. If one denies the creedal essentials of the Christian faith such as the incarnation, miracles, and resurrection, they are NOT progressive and historically, not even Christian. Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Bishop Spong all fall in to those categories. That is also known as classic liberalism. I am sorry if you want to try to consider yourself progressive, but if you align with Spong and Borg, you are not progressive but liberal. I say this with all due respect and care.
Also, you are noting that my category "Progressive Evangelical" is NOT the same as progressive Christian, right? I think what you're calling progressive, I am calling Emergent on this spectrum. But I still stand firm that Borg, Crossan, and Spong are NOT progressive but clearly, classically, liberal.
Well, done, Brandan. I would be interested to see where you think particular denominations within Protestantism fall in this spectrum, as opposed to simply non/inter-denominational organizations. Generally agree with the groupings, though. Makes sense.
Brandan, the first comment that I posted here isn't showing up. I'll repost it now, with some added resources for your readers:
Unfortunately, this chart isn't quite accurate. Neither Borg nor Spong are "Classical Liberal." Instead, they are Progressive Christians -- the post-modern influenced evolution of 20th Century Liberalism. Borg and Spong both self-identify as progressive Christians and Spong blogs via progressivechristianity.org. I'm a progressive Christian too; i.e., a Progressive United Methodist mainline Protestant Christian.
12:49am (9 hours ago)
====
Marcus' book The Heart of Christianity is a primer in progressive Christianity and is dedicated (at the beginning of the book) to progressive Christians. My book Kissing Fish is also an introduction to progressive Christianity -- have you read it? If nothing else, please at least read the wiki-link above (which quotes my book).
Spong used to be a liberal Christian, but over the past 15 years has decidedly become a progressive Christian.
=====
Progressive Christianity is Part of Today's Reformation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-roger-wolsey/progressive-christianity_b_892727.html
Progressive Christianity isn't Progressive Politics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-roger-wolsey/progressive-christianity-isnt-progressive-politics_b_1897381.html
Brandon, you cannot lump all progressive Christians into the same group as Spong. You are not understanding the nuance that this means to many Christians who cannot call them selves Evangelical but still affirm the major tenants of classical Christianity. This is what the majority of the mainstream Denominations consist of and it is a very large group that you are totally ignoring. Please do some more research in this area as you seem to have a blind spot of at least 5 million Christians in the USA alone.
Bob-
Once again, I never have lumped all progressive Christians into the same group as Spong. The progressive Christians your speaking of, I have called Emergent and given them an entirely different category that Spong. Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Rob Bell etc would all affirm the most basic creedal doctrines of our faith but are not Evangelical. I think you are misreading this chart and I am not sure why. It seems quite clear to me.
Branden,
I found your list to be brilliant in it's simplicity. But what stands out to me is what isn't said. The spectrium is drawn less by beliefs, and more by boundaries. The theological question being, "Who is in?" The fundamentalist strains the gnat at expense of dignity and value (and even the command to love). While at the other end is an inclusion that is theologically dissatisfying. We bristle against the notions of justice and mercy.
Much love and great work.
Jonathan
Hi Brandon,
i like the spectrum-- it's very descriptive-- but i would like to know where you would put other Protestant traditions like the Amish or Mennonites, the Quakers (evangelical and liberal), the Greek or Eastern Orthodox, etc on this spectrum. Thanks!
It seems to me that you are assuming belief as to "faith". There is "secular faith", too, which would include atheists. I wrote about this subject on my blog. Here is how I divided up "faith"; http://angiespoint.blogspot.com/2012/10/where-are-you-on-spectrum-of-faith.html
Why is Jeremiah Wright under "classical liberal"? His theology affirms the resurrection, the incarnation, and as far as I know, pretty much all the tenets of orthodox Christianity. While he is part of the UCC (which you also classify as "classic liberal", a categorization I would dispute, being a member of the UCC who pretty much affirms all those things that you selectively decide are "orthodox"), the UCC does not represent any one theological stream, and Wright's own brand of liberation theology is distinct from classic liberalism and in fact fairly opposed to "liberal" theology. Interestingly, James Cone, who was essentially one of the "fathers" of Black liberation theology, based much of his theology on the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth, who I notice does not seem to fit comfortably within any of your categories, unless you consider him a "classic liberal", which would definitely surprise and almost certainly offend him.
On the other side of the spectrum (as you've defined it), I'm not really sure how John MacArthur can be anywhere in the same category as Bob Jones University and with the Assemblies of God, a denomination that in fact has some more "progressive evangelical" congregations in parts of the country.
Overall, I think your categories are pretty restricting and not very helpful. I'm a fan of labels myself, but I don't think that the labels you chose are an accurate representation of the current situation of the church, nor do I think you grasp the complexity of the theological beliefs and differences that you choose to lump together under your artificial categories.
Barth is NOT a liberal but a Neo-Evangelical/Neo-Orthodox. I am a Barthian and an Evangelical. But I would argue that Barth would have disputed Cones use of his theology to come up with liberation theology.
Wright is a classic liberal, denying many key components. Like I said in the post, no one fits squarely in one category. But the UCC is more classic liberal than any other category on the chart.
John MacArthur is a fundamentalist and so is BJU. You're the only one to note a contradiction their. And the Main AOG doctrines are also fundamentalist and have their roots in fundamentalism.
I appreciate your thoughts, but think you obviously haven't read the post and are making rather harsh and quick judgements about me and my understanding of the categories I have created. But I suppose we will have to disagree. Such is life.
In the Classic Liberal category you have "Shelby Spong". His name is John Shelby Spong and this is what he uses in all of his writings and books.
You have obviously worked hard on this construct and it is not my intent to trash it. However I do see in the comments a stream of thought of simplification in these labels and inclusions. Let me suggest that you are attempting to cram a three dimensional world into a 2D construct. The "mainline" seems to be lost within your linear presentation. The UMC is going a different route than Presbyterian (USA) and different from Episcopal. Where is the American Baptist which often partners w/UCC but maintains a distinct theology. The UCC has been discussed in the context of your over-simplification. Let me assure you that not all are liberation theology advocates. Some are avid pacifists seeking social justice to become a reality. Others UCC members are pretty traditional in their theological constructs. I over simplify too when I talk about any mainline denomination--they each have their varied constituent alliances.
I appreciate your thoughts and I agree- I think that is the danger of labels- making the world 2D. However, I am currently working on a better spectrum to work from based on responses from this. Would you give me some input? Open this page in a new tab: http://brandanrobertson.com/spectrum/ and comment on this stream here. Right now I just have expanded category distinctions. Do you agree? Thanks so much.
I think you exclude some of the best contemporary Christian thinkers. I do not consider Christian fundamentalism as Christian. I do not notice that you considered with Gabriel Vahanian, the French Protestant theologian or Gordon Kaufman, the Mennonite theologian.
“The Christian era has bequeathed us the 'death of God,' but not without teaching us a lesson. God is not necessary; that is to say, he cannot be taken for granted. He cannot be used merely as a hypothesis, whether epistemological, scientific, or existential, unless we should draw the degrading conclusion that 'God is reasons.' On the other hand, if we can no longer assume that God is, we may once again realize that he must be. God is not necessary, but he is inevitable. He is wholly other and wholly present. Faith in him, the conversion of our human reality, both culturally and existentially, is the demand he still makes upon us.” (Wait Without Idols, p. 46).
Hi Brandan! Thanks for sharing your thoughts and insights. You've certainly started an interesting and good conversation. I was raised Catholic, now belong to a United Chruch of Christ, love Henri Nouwen and Marcus Borg and Karen Armstrong and many others in-between. I've come to a point where I don't really concern myself much at all about labels _ sorry _ or fitting beliefs into certain categories. I appreciate the urge to do that. I think as humans, we love to shrink big things down into small boxes, which makes it more comfortable for us to move along through life and also gives us things to argue about _ my box is better than yours, those who fit into that box aren't as good, etc. It seems to me, at this point in my life, that Jesus was about erasing those cardboard walls we construct between each other. There are no boxes; we're all the same family. Or, maybe the better way to put it: We're all in the same box, all part of the same category, all fit the same label. There were labels and categories in his day, as in ours. Jesus seems to me to be a giant eraser, trying to wipe away those imaginary lines we draw between ourselves and others, between our beliefs and those of others. When we see someone bleeding by the side of the road, we simply react out of compassion, we don't walk by because they seem to fit into a different category. The challenge is to avoid getting caught up in who fits into whatever category. Love one another. Be compassionate. Forgive. Embrace. Heal. Accept those who are outcasts. Show the poor that they are blessed. And do it because you understand that we are all equally God's children, with no one considered first or last. No categories or boxes to divide us. It's not about which theology we accept. It's more about what goes on in our hearts than in our heads. It's about being moved, just as the good Samaritan was moved. Or the father of the prodigal son. And then, following our hearts. Again, thanks for asking the question, knowing you would get some answers that were critical and negative and _ hopefully _ some others that were challenging and in some ways satisfying and helpful to your growth. Peace! Joe
I'm 17 and after a lengthy time of looking at the beliefs of different churches, I have discovered that theologies and belief systems just confuse the heck out of you. Jesus never liked religious people, he spent a long time arguing with them. The Jesus of the Bible is easy to understand until religion steps in.
This is a response to a number of people:
Ted: Interesting. I may have a bias- I have been fundamentalist but I have never been far-left liberal- but I would say that most fundamentalists, theologically wise, fall within Orthodox Christianity. Now, I would agree that I think they often fall into the category of "Pharisee" (don't we all?) and that many of the teachers are far to concerned with arbitrary doctrine than with following Jesus- which is the most Unchristian thing one could do. As far as the thinkers you have listed, I must admit, I have never heard of any of them. I am a Junior in an Undergraduate Theology Program, so as far as the list of Academic theologians are concerned, I am limited- especially towards the left of the spectrum. But I appreciate your thoughts and contribution.
Joe: I agree and am very much like you. I am very influenced by theological minds from across the spectrum. I too love Marcus Borg, Karen Armstrong, as well as John Piper, N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight, and A.W. Tozer. It's a good thing to have an eclectic and well rounded theological pool. I think you have hit on the main danger here. Categories CAN indeed shrink BIG and COMPLEX things into small labels and boxes. That is why none of these should ever be seen as comprehensive or all-encompassing. No one accurately fits in one box. We all pull from different streams and traditions. And I agree- Jesus is the "big eraser" when it comes to cultural divisions, socio-economic divisons, and racial/gender divisions. But I think that the theological diversity we see and the "Divisions" are actually a testimony to the diversity within God himself. We are to have the same mind when it comes to the centeral belief- namely that Jesus Christ is our Lord and our God, (what I call the Thomas confession). But all of our other theologies and differences are a testimony to the vastness and mystery of God, and it's okay that we disagree and even divide- as long as we keep the unity of the Spirit and the understanding that we are all children of our Savior and God. Thanks for your response. I appreciate it!
Billy- I don't know you, but you sound like me. I was doing the same thing when I was 17. You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Theology can become a distraction, an idol, and even a tool of the enemy. But never become complacent, because our theology effects how we think and live in light of Jesus. Begin with following the clear commands of Jesus- Love God, Love your neighbor, Love your enemy, and seek the Kingdom of God. From that you will be led deeper into theology, not as a distraction, but as growth into the mystery that is God. Thanks for your thoughts!
Bob Jones and the IFB wouldn't be pleased to be in the same category with Franklin Graham and John MacArthur and for different reasons wouldn't like to be lumped with Pentecostals who speak in tongues. Separation from the world and anti-ecumenicalism is a significant issue for true Fundamentalists. And Terry Jones is in a category all by himself.
This also ignores other groups such as the Amish, Mennonite, Quakers, Celtic Christianity and Progressive Christianity that is neither Evangelical nor Classically Liberal. There seems to be a few colors missing from your spectrum. You've teased out some nuance among Evangelicals but have not done the same on the Progressive end of the spectrum.
I find it irritating and dangerous when people declare, for example, that Bishop Spong et.al. is not Christian. You don't get to decide who's in tbe club and who isn't. If you think God cares about belief, you are doing it wrong. Go read/watch "The Life of Pi" for example and expand your horizon a little on faith being more than believing hard-to-believe facts.
Dave- I never said Spong was out. Never. I just said he is not orthodox. The question that stands is this: Does one have to be Orthodox to go to heaven? (even though I hate that phrase) I would say, resoundingly, NO.
Check out my new spectrum and tell me your thoughts.
http://brandanrobertson.com/blog1/2012/12/28/people-love-labels.html
Where do you put Episcopalians? Where do you put Desmond Tutu, or Gene Robinson?
Linear continuums often don't work for me. The richness of variations in a topic like this calls for much more branching of the lines, overlaps (like Venn diagrams) and other assorted geometrics. A somewhat better diagram is the four square matrix. It allows for at least twice as many continuums and many nuances between them. Phyllis Tickle has created a great quadrilateral diagram in her book, The Great Emergence; How Christianity Is Changing and Why. However, her diagram is so information dense that one has to read the book to get the full impact of the progression of change in religious currents. But, that task is a pleasure and would directly apply to this discussion.
I question the usefulness of a descriptive spectrum. You mentioned one of the main purposes of this exercise was so that people can feel like they belong. I think that concept of labeling in and of itself is a limiting approach to our faith. Our faith and beliefs ought to be ever evolving, and that is why I think the church as a whole has become irrelevant, because it does not evolve. Traditional evangelical Christianity, the average person in the pew, attends a particular church to be spoon fed what they ought to believe. The pastor falls somewhere on the spectrum and says, in essence, in order to belong this is what you need to believe about God, this is how you should think, this is what you should do, this is how you should feel about this or that. There is not a dialogue, a pressing against our own limiting labels. Progressive Christianity challenges the church to ask the hard questions, they realize and understand none can fully understand the things of God, it encourages open dialogue, and pushes against what has been considered fundamental to our Christian faith, and challenges those beliefs. People may come to the same convictions as when they began, but the questions were asked. The word Liberal is always meant (at least when a Christian uses that word) as a derrogatory way, it's filled with judgment, and it IS divisive. So, I question that although it is said this spectrum is descriptive it is really meant to highlight how the "middle" of the spectrum is the best place to be as a Christian, that the middle is "real Christianity". I am not saying this was ir is your intention, but i think it is fair to say that many christians do not believe it is pissible for someone to call themselves a christian but question the deity of Christ. Right? So, in many christian circles that person would not be considered a "real chrisitian". theI will proudly stay with Christ as I believe there was nothing middle about him. Jesus questioned and challenged everything that the church of that day believed was orthodox and fundamental to their faith, and he called all to stand for peace, justice, love, and the poor. Nothing middle about his position. Little was mentioned by Jesus about any of the beliefs that have divided the church today into the spectrum that was just outlined. Bottom line, I think it's because we as Christians ignore what was most important to Jesus, and focus more on doctrine and dogma, that has caused this division. Imagine what would happen if the entirety of this spectrum focused less on our different beliefs about the incarnation, the ressurection, the deity of Christ, and focused and put all their energy on the Message of Jesus Christ... Now that would be a most powerful movement and would lead people to follow Jesus! The message of taking care if the sick, the poor, the disenfranchised, the oppressed, the outcasts, etc.. It seems to me Jesus was not about drawing attention to himself, but about drawing attention to loving and caring for others. Forget about being right, forget the labels, forget arguing or spending energy on figuring out who fits where, and get on with being the example of Christ in our own community. We belong to each other. I fell in love with Jesus not because of his deity or whether or not he was the incarnation of God, it was His life, His message, His way about him that I fell in love with Him, and made me a follower. Lets get our eye on the ball and get to work on what seemed to matter most to Him.
Reconciled: I would say that generally, on this chart, the Episcopal Church in America is between Emergent Liberal and Classic Liberal. I have a new chart and would put them in the "Progressive" Category on it. Desmond Tutu is certainly progressive, Gene Robinson borders on classic liberalism. (
Art: I know of that diagram and I agree- Phyllis has been a huge influence on me and an supporter of the Revangelical movement. Check out my new spectrum and tell me what you think.
Interesting schema.....I think there is a difference between classic liberal and progressive. I would put Borg in progressive and Spong and Crossan in classic liberal. Perhaps the difference between the two is the emphasis of classic liberals today on deconstruction and the influence of enlightenment rationalism. I believe progressives are open to experience, which includes mystical experiences, healing, moments of ecstasy.....so, for example, I affirm - contra Crossan and Spong- the fact that Jesus did cure people and that prayer - while relational and non-coercive - makes a difference.....I would refer foks tp my books - Emerging Process; Process Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed; Healing Marks: Healing and Spirituality in Mark's Gospel; God's Touch: Faith, Wholeness, and the Healing Miracles of Jesus for a more expansive progressive vision....that joins progressive, emerging, and mystical....blessings on all..
Folks, I'm from Australian and I stumbled across this discussion somehow. Can I say: I applaud you all for having a discussion which is respectful. I read so many conversations ostensibly between Christians which are distressing in their bitterness and hate towards the other, the one that doesn't agree with 'me'. So good on you. Also as a person who loves the English language, could we watch our spelling? Because bad spelling takes away credibility. Otherwise, congratulations everyone who is thinking about these things. Either the one who likes structures and finds categories helpful, or the one who doesn't. We all contribute something different, and the real life giving conversation often happens in the tension between two opposites. Best wishes from Oz. Carol
CC-
Eric Elnes, a friend of mine, gave me permission to use his quote. But thanks for your concern.
I like this, and re-posted it from a friend on facebook. I'm not as familiar with some of the names as others, so you may have addressed this already, but I don't see semi-conservative main-line denominations addressed, or any Catholics. How would you categorize your run-of-the-mill Lutherans, Catholics, or Presbyterians? Though as some have mentioned in the comments, each of these traditions are themselves highly diverse. Thoughts? I know that Tim Keller for example is Reformed and may reflect some Presbyterians, but he is not representative of your average neighborhood Presbyterian/Reformed Church.
Brandan, Have you ever researched the Eastern Orthodox Church?
There seems to be some debate cooking here about "in" and "out" and 2D vs. 3D representations of "the spectrum" of Christian belief. This isn't remotely a criticism of your work, and please don't take it as such, but I don't think a spectrum is the best analogy and I don't think it's really what you're doing here. I have no problem with labels as they're generally descriptive when not used pejoratively (thank you), and that's what you're doing, rather like collecting and naming butterflies. One of my favorite political websites, www.politicalcompass.org somewhat turns the left/right spectrum on its ear by plotting political leaders (and those who take its quiz) on an X&Y axis representing social & economic issues. I'm not sure an X-Y is helpful for Christendom — what each axis might represent would be hard to agree on— but perhaps something else will emerge in tandem with your project. A Venn diagram? i.e. ALL evangelicals believe ____ but only SOME evangelicals ____.
Cheers,
John
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I wonder where are all the women? We make up the majority of church attendance!
Some nice work here; I'll look forward to seeing the rest play out. I'm curious, though, about the megachurch thing. I'm not at one myself, but I've been hearing for decades that megachurches are on their way out, but we have more now than ever before, and they're more likely to be growing than the average church.
What evidence led you to the conclusion that they are on their way out?
Also, do you recognize the irony of saying that "Celebrity Christianity" is on its way out, while compiling a list built around classification of celebrities?
This is interesting, but I agree with other commenters that it seems so focused on the evangelical world that it mostly missed mainline Protestantism. It seems odd that people from denominations that would almost never describe themselves as either "evangelical" or "fundamentalist," but would definitely consider themselves "orthodox" (insofar as believing in Jesus's reality, divinity, and resurrection), would be forced to fit into boxes that contradict their own identities by this chart. Maybe it's just the labels themselves, and not the groupings, that are confusing me?
Caren- I agree! Unfortunately- while women make up the attendance, the leadership and influential people in Christianity are still mostly all men. There are some women, but they are few and far between. Thankfully that is changing!
Micah- On Megachurches, I was in a meeting last year with about 10 of the most influential mega church pastors in the nation. The group was led by Bill Hybels. He presented to the small group some information that was startling to the group- Willow was increasing in size, but not in their main campus but in other regional campuses. Many pastors concured that less and less people attended the main campus/services because they were tired of lack of community and un-organic worship and teaching. Bill Hybels implemented a last-ditch effort at Willow to make the main campus feel and look smaller to attenders- and that plan is in full force today. The reality is that the concept of the megachurch isn't dying- it's dead. Churches may seem to be growing, but the fastest growing churches are growing by expanding to smaller church campuses, not by building a megachurch. The stats all point to that.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by celebrity christianity- I meant the mega-church superstars are out. The new leaders who will have renoun will be from smaller churches and orgs. That's what I was going for.
Emma- No one was forced into a box. I was using traditional definitions and the only group I heard raise concerns were progressives who told me they were more liberal (which is why they ended up in the liberal category) but redefined liberalism as progressivism. In the new chart there is much more space to move.