By George Yancey Published on August 13, 2017

I recently blogged about research I’ve done on how progressive Christians view conservative Christians, atheists and Muslims (on the religious side), and liberals and conservatives (on the political side). I defined the difference between the two groups of Christians very simply: Do they accept the Bible as the Word of God?

What I found was interesting (though not surprising). Progressive Christians tend to put politics over theology. That’s not to say there are no conservative Christians who do the same. Nor does it mean that all progressive Christians view politics so highly. What it does mean is that progressive Christians on average value political concerns over spiritual ones.

Progressive Christians tend to treat political concerns as more important than theological matters.

A little confession is in order. I’ve been studying anti-Christian bigotry for some time. At first I thought that more unity among Christians would help. I wrote about that in my book on the subject. But I was wrong. I no longer think unity of that sort is possible, given the contrast in values between conservative and liberal Christians. So this research was an eye-opener for me.

Buying Peace for the Secular Left

In general, progressive Christians approach politics the same as other leftists. For example, they view separation of church and state in much the same way as liberal atheists. Some of them differ from other leftists on abortion, but still they shy away from supporting pro-life laws. Otherwise, there’s little political difference between progressive Christians and other leftists.

Anti-Christian hatred is directed almost entirely toward conservatives, rarely toward liberals. Sure, there are a few, like Sam Harris, who will attack all people of faith. But those who are hostile toward Christians rarely direct their hatred toward believers who support their politics. So progressive Christians’ loyalty to liberal causes will buy them peace from anti-Christian bigotry. They have no skin in the game when it comes to religious freedom for Christians. Conservative and liberal Christians have no basis for unity on that front.

What About the Bible?

Appeals to unite on the basis of Scripture are also likely to fail. Progressive Christians do not share conservatives’ high view of Scripture. They also tend to place their liberal political views in the forefront, rather than spiritual concerns. They’re likely to have a hard time with arguments based on the Bible that challenge their politics. This is in contrast to conservatives, who tend to place spiritual matters ahead of politics. There’s hardly any basis for unity there.

So it looks the two groups of Christians are so different that we’re practically distinct religious groups. As we think about the sort of community that conservative Christians will need to survive in a post-Christian society, we must realize that progressives are not part of that community. That doesn’t mean they’re enemies. And we’re still called to love them. But clearly they’re not allies.

I know that others have said this before me. Now, though, we have research that documents it. We also know why some Christians will not help to build a Christian community: Their priority is politics. Their desire for a certain political order is more vital to them than religious issues.

For Practical Purposes, There are Fewer American Christians Than You Think

This leads to one more key implication. Many people argue that Christianity is a majority religion in the United States. By this they mean that Christians have more power in society than members of other religions. But this implies that Christians share a common identity. They don’t. Progressive Christians do not work together with conservatives for the good of the faith. Rather they operate with different values and often against each other.

Some argue that Christians do not suffer any meaningful bias, as the term “bias” best fits those who are minority groups. Christians are supposed to be strong enough to protect their own interests. But so many Christians hold opposing views that there’s not enough unity for that power to matter.

Granted, Christians do have some advantages in our society. But their power has often been overstated. Christians are not always able to escape religious bigotry. And in legal disputes, progressive Christians often harm conservative Christians’ standing more than they help.

In fact, progressive Christians can do the most damage to religious freedom. They’re just as willing to suppress speech and religion freedoms as any other leftist, but they can use their Christian status to do so. I’m sure you’ve heard progressives attacking other Christians’ freedoms, then excusing themselves by saying “We’re Christians, too.” So the next time you hear someone who claims to be a Christian attacking freedom for Christians, remember my research.

We need to forge strong Christian communities in a post-Christian society. By and large, progressive Christians, by their choice, will not be part of what we build. That shrinks our numbers. But it also helps us be realistic about what we can expect.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • So would anyone care to estimate what percentage of the American population is authentically Christian, using Mr. Yancy’s criteria?

    • Chip Crawford

      No

    • Charles Burge

      The Barna group did a survey in 2009 which found that only 9% of American adults have what they defined as a Biblical world view.
      christianitytoday com/edstetzer/2009/march/barna-how-many-have-biblical-worldview.html

    • Patmos

      At this point the percentage is probably pretty small. Not a big surprise though. Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

  • A. Castellitto

    Oh yeah, Rockefellers helped found the liberal church….. They are not Christian, maybe somewhat humanitarian, but that’s about it….. cinos

  • Chip Crawford

    God loves everyone, but he is only covenantly related to those who have received him. Since he is love and his word makes it clear what is required, what’s the holdup? Actually, it’s religious tradition, that stuff that inoculates one from getting the real thing. The political side is not the worst of it; it’s the religious works and talk that impair from the vital relational, knowing God Christianity that is the real thing. That is the one with power. Huh? What’s that; what do you mean …. Yep, exactly the problem; there’s too little of that around and affecting our sick world.

  • Mensa Member

    >> I defined the difference between the two groups of Christians very simply: Do they accept the Bible as the Word of God?

    That’s a terrible definition!

    So bad, it invalidates his research into liberal Christianity.

    I belong to a liberal church and we believe the Bible is the Word of God. We believe the Bible is inspired and God speaks through it to us.

    I’d argue that mainstream churches take the bible more seriously than to Evangelicals. I’ve literally put a timer to it and concluded that we read and focus on the bible in our church more than any Evangelical church I’ve attended.

    As for mixing politics and religion — that’s a signature heresy of the American church in general. But there is a political activism in conservative Christianity that has no equivalent on the left. The Evangelical Voting Bloc and associated political action groups work hand-in-hand with the Republican Party.

    Their Christian faith and their conservative politics are tightly syncretized. You don’t even need to leave “The Stream” to find those people.

    • Chip Crawford

      Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

      So, ciaio Mensa …

      • Patmos

        And Paul wrote to Timothy about how there will be those who hold to the form of godliness, but deny the power thereof, from such turn away.

    • Patmos

      Your church affirms what God calls an abomination. You remain clueless to the power of God and the promise of the Holy Ghost. Your church is cold and dead, with no life of Christ in it at all. So you very well may read the word of God, you just don’t understand it one bit. As such you conform to the world, and counter just about everything salvation stands for. You are truly deaf, dumb, and blind. What’s worse is you have pride on top of all that.

      You are clearly not a Christian. Your are more likely an LGBT activist. They did the same thing during the push for perverting marriage: Rolled out a bunch of trolls claiming to be Christian, but who knew nothing of scripture when you put them to the test. Maybe they are doing the same for transgenderism now. My guess is that is the case.

      Everyone be clear about this, Mensa Member is a fake Christian troll. Nothing of what he supposedly stands for is backed by sound scripture.

    • Hmmm…

      Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
      Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
      2Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

      One needs to know the author of these words for them to deliver the import and impact they possess. Those who arrogantly except themselves from calling on the Lord as their savior disqualify themselves with that lack of right choosing. The Bible then says one thing, but they always know better …

  • JM

    Real Christians believe the Bible that means even the parts that offend people. these liberal ”christians” put feelings above God’s word.

  • A. Castellitto

    Liberal christians are much more ideologically aligned with secular and political leftists…. They have a high view of humanity and low view of sin…. Which is why they will trust luciferian elite…. While orthodox Christians are highly divided poltically…. Many were down on trump and those who came to support him did so because they liked the idea of a political outsider resisting the 2 party rigged system that often serves the geopolitical global and repressive agenda of luciferian elites

  • Patmos

    I think one of the things people holding fast to the word need to do is, keep holding fast to the word. Seems like a lot of Christians are viewing the current great apostasy with fear, but we wrestle not with flesh and blood. Hold up the shield of faith and counter with the sword of the Spirit which is God’s word:

    13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. -2 Peter 3

    That’s just one instance, an easy victory, and the cavalry is on it’s way.

  • Kevin Carr

    It seems to me that Progressive “Christians” want their cake and to eat it also. Some God, but only the parts that they like. What it really comes down to if you are a Christian, then you are a follower of Jesus Christ. You cannot take the parts of him you like and toss the rest. That applies to the so-called conservative or progressive, be Christian. The things God’s word calls sin is just that, you cannot change it. God is holy and just, because of that he cannot tolerate sin. As Christians we are to love the sinner as Christ has and does, not make peace with the sin.

    • SkippingDog

      Jesus the Christ gave only two commandments.

      • Kevin Carr

        One was love God with all your heart, he also said if you love me you will keep my commandments.

        • SkippingDog

          He only gave us two commandments to keep. People seem to get them confused with The Law.

          • Kevin Carr

            So all the prohibitions found in other parts of the NT are meaningless, or “well if you feel like doing it” type of passages? In 1 Peter 2:11, we are told abstain from fleshly lust, is there an only if you feel like it attached to it? It was written as a command. Can you point to one passage of scripture that presents, homosexuality, fornication, adultery, lying, stealing in the positive?

          • Trilemma

            The Bible presents lying in the positive. For example, it presents in the positive the lies that Rahab the harlot told her people about the location of the Jewish spies.

          • SkippingDog

            If we say we are Christians, what more do we need to do beyond following the commandments Christ gave us? The New Testament supersedes the “old law,” as Jesus repeatedly made plain. Our role, as the faithful in Christ, is to love one another. If you can cite even one examples of Christ teaching otherwise, please do so.

  • Trilemma

    For most conservative Christianity that I see, the Bible tends to get in the way of the word of god, especially the Old Testament part. Progressives tend to view the Bible through the eyes of God where conservatives tend to view God through the eyes of the Bible.

  • Jim Walker

    There is no such thing as a progressive christian.

    • Concerned Christian

      are these the salvation scriptures?

      John 3:16
      Romans 10:9-10

      • Jim Walker

        Yes they are. We are on the same page here. Just that I pray for Trump, as a flaw fellow human being.

        As for these verses, many also proclaim them clinging onto SSM, sinful lifestyles, and actually believe Jesus accepts them fully while they continue in their sinful ways.

        • Concerned Christian

          i think my issue is if i don’t do SSM or live a sinful lifestyle and don’t try to control those who do, does that make me a liberal christian? or more precisely, what makes me a liberal christian?

        • Concerned Christian

          I agree with that! 🙂

    • Jim, J. Gresham Machen, who founded Wesminster Seminary Philadelphia, wrote a book in 1923 called Christianity and Liberalism. His whole adult life was lived on the front lines of the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the early 20th Century. He argues persuasively in the book that “liberal” Christianity is another religion, and he was right.

      • Trilemma

        How is it a different religion?

        • I can see from your other comments here that you would be unlikely to agree with anything I have to say. If you are really interested in why Machen, and I, believe this, you should read his book. It’s a tough case to make in a comment. But here is the basis of his argument from page 39 of the New Edition, 2009:

          The liberal preacher is really rejecting the whole basis of Christianity, which is a religion founded not on aspirations, but on facts. Here is found the most fundamental difference between liberalism and Christianity—liberalism is altogether in the imperative mood, while Christianity begins with a triumphant indicative; liberalism appeals to man’s will, while Christianity announces, first, a gracious act of God.

          Amen!

          • Trilemma

            The paragraph you quoted doesn’t make any sense to me. First, I thought the whole basis of Christianity was faith and not facts or aspirations. Christianity based on aspirations sounds like the prosperity gospel which I don’t usually associate with progressive Christianity. Second, how is progressive Christianity altogether in the imperative mood and conservative Christianity isn’t? It looks to me that conservative Christianity is totally in the imperative mood. Third, progressive Christianity also announces, first, a gracious act of God.

            However, I think progressive Christianity needs to differentiate itself from conservative Christianity kind of like the Jehovah’s Witnesses having differentiated themselves from other Christian denominations.

          • I told you we wouldn’t agree on anything! The whole basis of Christianity is NOT faith, as you define it. If “faith” isn’t associated with facts, then all you have is delusion. Faith as I define it, and as we live it every day is trust based on adequate evidence. Faith is NOT a religious concept. People can believe things for no reason at all, for bogus reasons, for reasons contrary to evidence, but that just makes such faith not well grounded.

            Second, liberalism historically understood was all about the imperative, or the exhortation to do certain things, or be certain ways. Christianity was reduced to morality and good works. But orthodox Christianity historically understood is based on the indicative, that Jesus of Nazareth, a real historical figure, a human being, claimed to be Israel’s Messiah, was condemned to death for claiming to be God, was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilot, nailed to a real, actual cross made of wood from an actual tree, and died. He was buried in a tomb owned by a Pharisee named Joseph of Arimathea, and three days later rose from the dead, witnessed by first a few, then eventually by hundreds. As Paul says in I Cor. 15:

            3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

            This work of God in Christ is the “gracious act of God” Machen refers to. If it did not happen, in space, and in time, then Christianity is a fraud, just as Paul says in that chapter, we are to be pitied more than all men.

            If you knew your history, which I suspect you don’t, you would know that Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late 1700/early 1800s was the first “liberal Christian,” because he accepted the naturalist/materialist assumptions of the Enlightenment, and tried to make the Christian faith fit into those. It didn’t, and it doesn’t. Liberal Christianity denied the supernatural foundation of the faith, became all about religious experience and human moral progress, and thus a different religion.

          • Trilemma

            Ahh, that clears things up. Liberal Christianity and progressive Christianity are two very different things. From the little bit of reading I just did on liberal Christianity, it sounds like it’s closer to deism and similar to Thomas Jefferson’s Christian deism. So, in that respect, I agree that liberal Christianity is a different religion.

          • Well, there you go!

  • SkippingDog

    Which Bible? There are at least 18 different versions.

  • Concerned Christian

    Funny but i’m a liberal christian which is not a Christian at all, at least by your definition. I consider myself a Christian in that I’ve accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I confessed John 3:16 & Romans 10:9-10. Please note that this was of my own free will. I regularly attend church, read my Bible, re-listen to my pastor’s sermons. I also type up my Bible Notes and give them to my kids for study during the week. I personally find real joy and comfort in my relationship with Jesus and seeing the relationship my kids have with Him.

    However, i didn’t realize that once I made the choice, I’m now obligated to condemn others who decide to either reject or be indifferent to the call. Instead of being part of the Christian community, I now see that I’m an enemy of it.

    I see that what really separates liberal and conservative Christians is “Choice”, yes the “Matrix”! 🙂

    Where as I believe that adultery, homosexual, abortion, etc. are sins, I don’t believe I have the right to prevent someone from committing them. Especially if the reason is to either defend God or prevent them from hurting my children. I don’t believe that God gave me the right to deprive others of their right to choose or reject Him. Also, I don’t believe God gave me the right to deprive others of their rights because I’m afraid that I can’t raised my kids to serve Him. He gave me Proverbs 22:6 for that.

    God freely gave me the choice so I’ll give the same to others!

    • Jim Walker

      You are condemning Trump already. Remember.. Pray for your leaders ?

      • Concerned Christian

        i didn’t condemn Trump at all. this really wasn’t about him.

        i was really addressing the fact that it seems that conservative Christians are doing everything in their power to find enemies. It seems that you no longer have to be a sinner to be considered a enemy of the conservative Church.

        • Anthony

          CC,

          I’m a bit confused by much of your post. First, you say that you have “chosen” of your own free will to be a Christian. Now, I will give the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean something like you believe in a libertarian sense of human free will (i.e. that God does not unilaterally, without some free choice of the individual, overwhelm the will of the person, coercing him or her into belief). That’s fine, I can accept an LFW or Armenian position since I am not strongly Reformed in my thinking. However, I wonder where you would include God’s saving grace into your conversion? Do you believe in Christ, in the sense that you perused the intellectual and philosophical viability of Christianity and based on your investigation chose to believe totally on your own power? That seems to be a very non-Biblical understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the historical teaching of the Church (Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox alike). I wonder if you would say that you are a Pelagian of sorts (i.e. that you chose God in spite of grace, or without the need of it)?

          Also, you reference the Matrix in an odd way. What are you implying? Do you think conservative Christians are different than you in this regarding free will? Are you suggesting they are “brainwashed,” and if so, how? By whom? Can you name names or institutions? What evidence do you have for this?

          Second, I don’t understand your statement regarding “being obligated to condemn others who decide to either reject or be indifferent to the call.” I do not see the author suggesting that anywhere in the article, so why would you think that conservative Christians believe that? Is it based on some personal experience with a particular person, who identifies as a conservative Christian? Biblically, as far as I understand Romans 1-3, for example, we are all under the condemnation of God until we are saved by Grace through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Thus, it is not I or you or the author of the article who is condemning anyone, but God Himself. That seems prima facie obvious from the New Testament itself. It also seems to be the primary reason for Christ coming into the world at all. So, I don’t think conservative Christians are condemning anyone, in fact, I don’t think any person can condemn another, even if they may sound condemning in the manner in which they speak or act. However, it is one thing to act judgmentally or arrogantly and another thing to point out that non-believers already stand in judgment and are in need of a savior. Wouldn’t you agree that those are different things? Further, Isn’t that what Jesus himself did in the Gospel narratives, i.e. pointing out that people would perish because of their sins, if they didn’t repent (cf. Luke 13:1-5, Mark 7:17-23, Matt 11:16-24, etc.)?

          Further, regarding sin, if you became convinced that abortion is the same as murder, would you then change your position on whether it should be illegal? If conservative Christians believe that abortion is no different than, or not substantively different than murder, why should they not be able to advocate for the laws to change? Is this not a democracy? Don’t we all advocate politically for what we think and feel is true and just?

          Also, while I would agree with you that I have no need to defend God from sinners, I would strongly disagree with you that I don’t have a need as a loving parent, to defend my children (and yours as well) from sinful behaviors. Now, part of the problem, admittedly, is that I am one of those sinners, but right now at least, by the grace of God, I am not sinning egregiously or illegally against my children. Certainly the rest of my unintentional sins (of basically being a very flawed parent) I will hope they can forgive for later in life. But still, can you honestly say as a loving father/mother that you do not have any right to prevent someone else from acting sinfully toward your children…especially if it is in the area of sexual sin? Do you think it is acceptable for a 51 year old man to ogle your children lewdly, ponder plans and ways to sexually molest them and if the right opportunity should arise carry out the wicked act? I don’t see how as a loving parent you could say that you are simply okay with someone doing that because you want them to have some form of unrestrained freedom in society. Don’t you want laws against such behavior?

          Finally, no one thinks that God has given anyone the ability to coerce another person into belief in God. That’s crazy talk! Do you really think that I or any other conservative Christian can coerce another person to believe in God? I wonder if you could simply wake up tomorrow and honestly just change your belief about something. Could you really wake up in the morning and say “today I chose to believe that God does not exist,” and so be done with your belief in God? That seems absurd (not you, your argument is absurd). No Christian of any substance throughout history has ever believed that conversion is a matter of a believer converting a non-believer. Christianity has always taught what is plainly given in Scripture, that the Holy Spirit is the agent of conversion, not the evangelist. That being said, I wonder if you will perhaps begin a journey of challenging your own beliefs, one that might persuade you to seeing the “conservative” side more clearly? Would that not be an open minded attitude to have?

          regards,

          A saved sinner

          • Concerned Christian

            For point one i would say that God’s saving grace is always available, i just had to make the “choice to accept it”. The same as “We love Him because He first loved us”. I look at God as my Father. With my own Father and with my kids I see how this works. My Father loved me without conditions the same as I love my own kids. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences to behavior. But it does mean that I can go to my Father with confidence that He loves me and that He’s not looking for ways to condemn me.

            For point two, God may condemn but Conservative Christians seem to believe it is their right to enforce. I went to a conservative church with a black minister. I also watch TBN during the election. In both cases, there was strong condemnation of the LGBTQ community and those who are pro-choice. That in and of itself wasn’t the worst part, they also agreed with this line from the article we’re discussing:

            “We need to forge strong Christian communities in a post-Christian society. By and large, progressive Christians, by their choice, will not be part of what we build. That shrinks our numbers. But it also helps us be realistic about what we can expect.”

            To me this line not only condemns sinners but lumps “liberal Christians” in with sinners. Per John 3:16 and Romans 10:9-10, this is the way to salvation. If i’m saved through grace i.e. my decision to accept these scriptures, then i can’t be condemned for allowing others to make their own choice.

            In terms of abortion, I strongly believe that it is a woman’s body. I don’t want to go on too much of a tangent here because i know that we are going to strongly disagree. 🙂

            In terms of defending my children. I never exposed them to the things of the world i.e. rated R movies and we only listen to Christian music. But I also talk to them about who they are in Christ and the things that Christ has in store for them. I disciplined them when needed and have tried to be an example of what i preach.

            in terms of someone acting sinfully towards my children, i’m much more concerned with someone their own age, of the opposite gender, trying to have sex with them. If my kids allowed a 51 year old man to ogle them and didn’t tell me, that would be the problem. We have always been open about what’s appropriate and what’s not appropriate. I’ve taught them how to defend themselves both physically and spiritually. I don’t believe that kids are incapable of making good decisions. If my kids have sex before marriage, it’s because they decided to do not because they didn’t have the ability not to do it. The reality would be that they didn’t guard their Heart/Spirit!

            Here’s an area where i feel that parents look at their kids as victims. Again, i taught my kids that no one has a right to touch you period. You defend yourself at all times. Predators in the wild always look for the weakest prey. Therefore, always act and carry yourself as dangerous prey. You are a child of the most high God!

            Btw, of course there should be laws against this behavior. But there shouldn’t be laws that single out people for FEAR that they may commit the behavior.

            In terms of coercion. Forcing someone to live according to your standards is forcing them to accept God regardless of whether they want to or not.

            Finally, i think where we differ is that I don’t look at myself as a saved sinner. I may sin but that doesn’t make me a sinner anymore than painting makes me a painter. What I am is a child of the most High God that has been restored to my rightful place through Jesus.

          • Kevin Carr

            Then what are we supposed o be salt and light for? In being salt shouldn’t Christians stand for the things Christ affirmed? I look at your point of forcing someone to live by certain standards, it is done all the time, no stealing, murder, rape etc…So in terms of what happens in society, if people wish to indoctrinate your children in sinful behaviors, is it okay? No one here can condemn anyone, that is God’s area. If we are to tell others about Christ, the bible has behaviors (sins, iniquities, transgressions) that are not to be engaged in, to affirm or encourage people in those behaviors is aiding them in sin. When Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more, was he forcing his beliefs on her or was it just nice suggestion? Ten Commandments, suggestions or should we strive to keep them?

          • Concerned Christian

            The difference to me is that stealing, murder, rape, etc. is physically taking something away from someone by force.

            Someone trying to indoctrinate my children is a battle of ideas that Christ has equipped us to win. I spend a lot of time ministering to my kids so I’m truly not worried about this.

            Also, your example of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery is funny. From your perspective were the people getting ready to stone her correct? Or should they have said, no God’s law demands that we stone this woman regardless of our own personal sins?

            I believe Jesus taught that there is a difference between the letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law. The Spirit of the Law is how we change hearts as demonstrated by this woman and the woman at the well.

            God has not given us a Spirit of fear. So i have no fear of someone trying to indoctrinate my kids.

          • JM

            ”Where as I believe that adultery, homosexual, abortion, etc. are sins, I don’t believe I have the right to prevent someone from committing them.” then how do you explain this? “Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” ―Psalm 94:16

        • Jim Walker

          No one is finding enemies here. The truth we stand for attract these “enemies” who want to shut us down.
          Remember Jesus warns us that being his disciples, the world will hate us. We are facing such persecutions now. Won’t you join us or you prefer to stay on the safe side ?

          • Concerned Christian

            Well, the safe side of course and I’m not joking. 🙂

            if you look in the NT, when the Word is preached people are saved. Look at Acts and the Gospel. The Gospel is good news about who God is, who we really are, and what God has planned for us. He has Good things planned.

            People don’t need to be told how bad they are since they already know this. They need to know that through Jesus how special they are. When Jesus and the disciples ministered to people, He ministered to their needs and changed the world. People stop living a sinful life when they embrace who they really are in Christ.

            Yes the disciples were persecuted, mainly by religious folks. But they couldn’t be silenced because they had something that the devil doesn’t have, Hope & Power through the Word!

            So i’m going to continue embracing:

            2 Timothy 1:7
            Ephesians 6:10-18
            Psalms 91

            So, yeah, i think I’m on the right/safe side! 🙂

          • Jim Walker

            You must be a fan of Joel Osteen.

          • Concerned Christian

            actually, that is true. I like a whole range of ministers. ranging from John Hagee, James Robinson, etc.

            i certainly don’t agree with them on everything, but i like getting their perspective.

  • glenbo

    Whether one is progressive or conservative, it matters not.
    Just keep your beliefs to yourself, mind your own business and then we will all get along.
    How simple is that?

  • Devieg72

    A very good article and one worth a good deal of thought. For a long time I’ve considered some denominations as political action committees with a I Love Jesus air freshener hanging from the rear view mirror.

  • Andrew Mason

    Random thought, what would the Romans have considered progressive Christians?

    • Trilemma

      Perhaps the Romans considered the first Christians to be progressive Jews.

      • Shaquille Harvey

        “Progressive” in what way ? They would of Considered them odd for believing what they believed and traitors to Rome itself.

        • Trilemma

          Well, the progressive Jews were very liberal in what they could eat, being able to eat what the Romans ate. The conservative Jews probably thought the progressive Jews were being too worldly and not True Jews.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            1. What do you mean by progressive?

            2. Liberal Jews as stated were considered worldly as they were following laws and statutes of other cultures and lands instead of Israel and weren’t keeping to the covenant as the Jews should be expected.

            3. What has this got to do though with Christians and Christendom?

          • Trilemma

            Progressive as in liberal. The first Christians were viewed as a sect of Judaism and not a separate religion. They would have been viewed as liberal Jews.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “The first Christians were viewed as a sect of Judaism and not a separate religion.”
            True

            “They would have been viewed as liberal Jews.”
            How ?

          • Trilemma

            They believed they didn’t have to follow the dietary laws. How would they have been viewed as conservative?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            True they didn’t but while this was the case it should be noted that they, the Christians, were under a new covenant. That still didn’t mean the romans saw them as “progressive” in any nor were they. Christians were only seen as a sect of Judaism earlier on later, when many gentiles started to convert, it was started to be seen as a new group that was somewhat traitors to the roman system.

          • Trilemma

            All true.

            “That still didn’t mean the romans saw them as “progressive” in any nor were they.”

            True. I was just speculating off of Andrew Mason’s random thought.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            But if the case then no. At best romans would viewed as odd and traitors. The Jewish Christians still thought of the tanak in high regards at which was the basis for Christendom.

          • Trilemma

            Why would the Romans consider Christians traitors more than Jews? After all, it was the Jews who staged a revolt that led to the destruction of Jerusalem.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Jews or Judaism was older than the Roman Empire and was already legal. Christians, when they disassociated with Judaism on the account of many gentiles converting, were not legal and by accounts were not following the Romans structure that was to be expected by those throughout the empire. This and the account of the fact Christians were not putting the loyalty and faith to Rome and the emperor but to someone else, someone who was seen to Rome as a common law criminal and died by means of crucifixion. By doing so we’re making themselves enemies of Rome.

    • Nicholas

      The Romans would have considered progressive Christians to be pagans.

  • tether

    I believe this is a heart issue. If you love others as commanded by Jesus then you tell them the truth out of love. Even when it is not convenient or may not be what they want to hear. But it must be done out of love. Not to condemn but to hopefully encourage correction. God is a righteous God which means He will keep His word and judge or act accordingly. If you are living in sin, you will be dealt with accordingly. For instance if I struggle with shoplifting, or drugs, or adultery, and give into that regularly then I should be concerned because I am living in sin. Jesus said we must confess with our mouth and repent. Repent means to not only turn from our sins but to have a change of heart or mind in regards to the sin. That is why Jesus told the adulteress woman to go and sin no more. Grace is a wonderful gift but it is not a license to go on living a sinful life style. Having said that when one is born again they are a new creature all things old have passed away. That does not always mean that all the old desires will never temp you and that you will never struggle or even give in to them. But there should be evidence of change and hopefully you continue to grow in Christ and away from the ways of your past.

  • Trilemma

    Progressive Christians tend to put politics over theology.

    Then there’s the huge number of conservative Christians who put politics over theology by supporting President Trump.

    I defined the difference between the two groups of Christians very simply: Do they accept the Bible as the Word of God?

    Most progressive Christians accept the Bible as the Word of God. What progressive Christians reject is the conservative Christian interpretation of the what the Bible says. For example, progressive Christians who believe there is no Hell have not rejected the Bible as the Word of God but a particular interpretation of the Bible. Also, progressive Christians place greater emphasis than conservative Christians on some verses in the Bible. For example, Jesus commanded Christians to love their enemies so progressive Christians tend to be more welcoming of Muslim refugees.

    • Concerned Christian

      agree. glad you addressed this false narrative.

    • Gary

      The Bible is very clear that Hell is real. Jesus said so. Those who say there is no Hell are not Bible believers and have indeed rejected the Bible as being true.

      • Trilemma

        Do you consider yourself a conservative Christian? Is your understanding of what the Bible says perfect and without error?

        • Gary

          As to the existence of Hell, yes, my understanding of what the Bible says is perfect. The Bible is very clear about it. Those who reject the existence of Hell do so because they don’t want Hell to be real, not because the Bible isn’t plain about it.

          • Trilemma

            I’ve read all the arguments for the existence of Hell that conservative Christians use. I’ve read all the arguments against Hell that progressive Christians use. After comparing all the arguments, it’s clear the Bible never says there’s a place of eternal conscious torment.

          • Gary

            Well, even if it is only temporary, you won’t like it.

      • Mal

        You are right, Gary. Jesus spoke about hell on numerous occasions. It is the realm in which the angels who rebelled against God linger. Those who reject Jesus and his teachings would suffer the same fate as those angels.

  • Gary

    Progressive Christians” are not Christians at all. They are hypocrites and liars. So don’t think that they are just a different kind of Christian because they are not.

  • Becky

    Good article
    Is God for abortion? Answer: no
    Is God for same sex marriage? Answer: no
    Is God for boys and girls switching genders? Answer: no
    If a person who says they are a Christian answers these three questions with lots of prefaces about loving their neighbor and being careful to not have judgement, then that is a clear way of telling that they are uncomfortable with the clear-cut “no’s” of God and His Word. The fact is, the new progressive extreme alt-left view would answer these questions with three hearty “YESES”! And, when “Christians” are not able to say clear “no’s” to these questions, then they want to take God out of the picture altogether. They want to fit God in their pocket like a genie. And it just doesn’t work that way.

    • Trilemma

      The Bible never specifically addresses the issue of abortion except maybe in Numbers 5:11-22. The Bible doesn’t specifically address same sex marriage. The Bible doesn’t specifically address transgenderism.

      • Shaquille Harvey

        “The Bible never specifically addresses the issue of abortion except maybe in Numbers 5:11-22.”
        http://www(dot)tektonics(dot)org/af/abortion01(dot)php

        (Please replace dot with real dot and remove brackets)

        “The Bible doesn’t specifically address same sex marriage.”
        True however it does speak on homosexuality and sexual immorality or sexual sin, which homosexuality is condemned.

      • Mal

        Jesus did not have to mention these because people at that time knew that these things were wrong. Just as they knew that killing was wrong.

        • Trilemma

          So, your theology is based on what you think people at that time might have believed rather than what the Bible actually says?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            People, the Jews, would have been expected to learn and know the tanak especially to know things like to know what to expect of the messiah, whom Jesus claimed to be.

      • Becky

        Do you believe God is for killing unborn babies?

        • Trilemma

          The Bible doesn’t say. The Bible does say they God ordered the deaths of unborn babies. God apparently designed the human reproductive system such that the majority of humans never make it past the fertilized egg stage.

      • Becky

        Do you believe God’s original design of a family was to be two men or two women?

        • Trilemma

          God does not specify a particular design for a family.

      • Becky

        Based on the genitalia and reproductive organs of human beings, do you believe God designed for male and female to be interchangeable?

        • Concerned Christian

          yes we can find God sanctioning the killing of women and children. We can find the patriarchs with multiple wives. We can find the qualification for a deacon is one wife which implies it’s ok to have multiple wives as long as you’re not a deacon.

          We can’t use the LAW to describe/box in a New Testament God.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            What sanctioning?

          • Concerned Christian

            1 Samuel 15:2-3
            Deuteronomy 2:31-37
            Joshua 8:24-28

          • Shaquille Harvey
          • Concerned Christian

            I read them but they don’t address those scriptures. I think by any stretch the author is attempting to explain away uncomfortable Bible verses.

            Plus we don’t make those caveats when it comes to homosexuality or abortion.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            They don’t need to necessary explain those verses. The point was not everything in the biblical texts exegetically, is literal or didactic.

          • Concerned Christian

            I agree. My response was really in response to this statement which began the discussion:

            Is God for abortion? Answer: no
            Is God for same sex marriage? Answer: no
            Is God for boys and girls switching genders? Answer: no

            There are no scriptures that specifically state God’s position but we have no issue trying to force others to adhere to them.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Except when it comes to things such as same sex marriage we do have a biblical understanding of/on it. Much of the scriptures state homosexuality and acts are a sin.

          • Concerned Christian

            do people have the God given right to sin? not as in hurting someone else but against themselves?

            Clearly fornication is a sin and Christians are not pushing laws to make that illegal.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            “do people have the God given right to sin? not as in hurting someone else but against themselves?”
            I’m not 100% sure what you mean here but I would state people can choose sin and carry on sinning and choose to reject the gospel, even if/when wrong.

            “Clearly fornication is a sin and Christians are not pushing laws to make that illegal.”
            If comparing this to same sex marriage then this is a bad comparison. Christians can’t force people to not fornicate just like they force people not to commit adultery, even though both are sins. However same sex marriage, which was not legal, Involved a standardised process which required the courts unlike fornication.

          • Concerned Christian

            At late as 2014 seven states still had anti-fornication laws on the book. If challenged in local, state, federal, or supreme court, they be would overturned. The reason Christian don’t push them is because they know they will lose.

            The courts had to step in to legalize inter-racial marriage and common law marriage so the notion that they did something special with same sex is not correct.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Interracial marriage, for a moment here, was not redefining or adding anything really to the basis and implications of marriage. It still was the union between one man and one women. The issue was to do with race/ skin colour/ ethnicity.

          • Concerned Christian

            if only those Christians in the 1960’s had agreed with that, the supreme court would have not have had to get involved.

            Also, we see that the qualification for a deacon is to have one wife which implies that it’s ok to have multiple wives.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            True, had Christians been actual Christ followers it would have been the case however it is still of course complicated.

            “Also, we see that the qualification for a deacon is to have one wife which implies that it’s ok to have multiple wives.”
            I’m not 100 % sure what you mean here ?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            As for the patriarchs;

            Perhaps this;

            https://m(dot)youtube(dot)com/watch?v=dUA2pR2L5Qg

            (Replace dot with real dot and remove brackets)
            This is a video series.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            What do you mean caveats with abortion and homosexuality?

        • Trilemma

          When it comes to reproduction, no. Do you believe sex is only to be engaged in for the purpose of reproduction?

  • texasknight

    Progressives are actually socialists. They believe that it is more important to make sure everyone has an equal amount of stuff even to the detriment of society as a whole. The “Christian” version of progressives (socialists) believe that this is way more important than moral issues. They cannot see or understand that their ideology is antichrist. Pray for conversions.

    • Myth Buster

      One needs to remember that Jesus was a radical nonviolent liberal revolutionary who hung around with the poor, unemployed, lepers, hookers and crooks; wasn’t American and never spoke English; was one of the world’s most prolific wine makers, was anti-wealth (Idolatry of Money), anti-death penalty, anti-public prayer (M 6:5) and never promoted the idea of increased prison sentences; but was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control, never called the poor lazy, never justified torture, or recommended people should carry or take weapons into the temples. He never promoted stand your ground legislation, never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarene or anything that specifically benefited the top 1%, never promoted capitalism, never argued there should be more money spent on building new legions or increasing the size of the military, never asked a leper for a payment made by a beneficiary (especially for health services) in addition to that made by an insurer. He shared is property equally and encouraged people to give their worldly goods to the poor. Jesus was a long-haired poorly dressed brown-skinned homeless community-organizing anti-slut-shaming Middle Eastern Jew who didn’t promote right wing trickle down economics and wasn’t well liked by the authorities or religious leaders.

      There are the false prophets the Bible speaks about. He says “and many false prophets will appear and lead many astray.” (Matt 24:11)

      • Dire Distress

        Amen!

      • Shaquille Harvey

        “One needs to remember that Jesus was a radical nonviolent liberal revolutionary who hung around with the poor, unemployed, lepers, hookers and crooks; ”
        I’m not sure on the liberal revolutionary part but Jesus, when considering the people that he hung around with whom maybe crooks, adulterers and so on did not mean he applauded what they did. He constantly talked of sin and made the point of why he came in the first place.

        “but was never anti-gay, never mentioned abortion or birth control,”

        “Anti gay” I’m not sure what you mean but if you’re going with the silence situation I must inform you that Jesus never mentioned pedophilia and beastilaty etc. Did that mean he was for it ? Jesus didn’t need to mention much of it the ancient Jews were to be expected to know that of sexual immorality or sexual sin, that which included things like homosexuality etc.

        • Myth Buster

          Then, I guess he was silent on these issues and didn’t think they were worthy of being addressed. Or, are you saying this was an oversight on his part?

          • Shaquille Harvey

            If the case then you would have to state that he was okay with things like pedophilia and such, Or they weren’t needed to be addressed since much of his audience, whom were Jews, already knew or were to be expected to know the law which covered of the sins.

          • Myth Buster

            No, I don’t have to state anything. Like you, I can’t speak for God. Sorry. I don’t think you have any divine insight into what Jesus liked or disliked. We gave to leave that to the literal words of the Bible.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            What ?
            So then what is your statement then on the issue from things from homosexuality to pedophilia, since Jesus said nothing, that means we must be for it then ? Why divine insight when much has already been stated and understood !?

          • Myth Buster

            I never said that. You can be as homophobic as you like. Hate them like you’ve never hated anyone one or any group in your life. Just remember your bigotry isn’t backed up by Jesus’ teachings.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            1. What is meant by being homophobic may I ask ?
            2. I never said that Christians should hate homosexuals or that homosexuals can never become Christians however homosexuality will still be a sexual sin.
            3. What bigotry?

          • Myth Buster

            I must apologize for the homophobic comment. I mistakenly thought the first commentator on this string mentioned it in their initial post. Nevertheless, “… however homosexuality will still be a sexual sin.” Says who? Jesus never said that.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            Again Jesus didn’t necessarily have to state it, to much of his audience at the time it would of already been understood. While Jesus did not outright state he did mention something on it;

            ” 15But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled?d 18But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.””
            (Matthew 15:15-20)
            The “sexual immorality” part would of covered a whole array of sins including, but not solely, homosexuality.

          • Myth Buster

            Yes, it’s just too bad he never specifically defined what “sexual immorality” meant. It could mean a number of things. Early first century Christians also had a view on sex that would have been unacceptable (to restrictive) even by modern day Christians. We can’t just pick and choose what we follow. That’s what cafeteria Christians do. We also can’t just fill in the missing blanks based upon out personal prejudices.

          • Shaquille Harvey

            What do you mean it was not able to be understood?
            ( also it’s funny and strange both at the same time that later apostles like Paul was able to understand that things like homosexuality was seen as a sin in Christendom)

            “Early first century Christians also had a view on sex that would have been unacceptable (to restrictive) even by modern day Christians. ”
            Okay and what was that then ?

            “We can’t just pick and choose what we follow.”
            Agreed

            “That’s what cafeteria Christians do.”
            Who and what is that then ?

            “We also can’t just fill in the missing blanks based upon out personal prejudices.”
            Again what personal prejudices?

          • Myth Buster

            You mean Paul the guy that never met Jesus? Yes, he was homophobic to be sure. It’s just too bad that Jesus never was specific in the Gospels.

            I saw a documentary on the subject of early Christians about a year ago and sexual views were discussed. They rejected the Pagan life style and sex was just for reproduction purposes (missionary style stuff). i’ve also read about this is the past too. Therefore, in the context of that period “sexual immorality” could mean a lot of things that the average person wouldn’t view as being sinful by today’s accepted standards.

            To answer your final questions, if it’s not specifically spelled out in the New Testament as being a sin – that decision does not default to you, me, your neighbor, the pastor at the podium or someone who claims divine insight to the Good Book. That’s for God to decide when we meet him.

          • JM

            If Jesus was for homosexuality than why did he never say in support for it? every homosexual supporter says something about their support for homosexuality. how come Jesus never did? don’t you think he would have said something in support for it if he was for homosexuality? how come we never find any homosexual relationships in the Bible? don’t you think that if God designed some humans homosexual that we would read about homosexual relationships in the Bible? we would find tons of homosexuals relationships in the Bible if God intended this for some of us but not one is found. why we do never read about Jesus celebrating homosexuality or rebuking those who did not support homosexuality in the Bible? also if God intended for some of us to be homosexual why did he never say it like that? like if God wanted for some of us to be homosexual that there’d be a verse about it in the Bible? show me the verse in the Bible where it says homosexuals are born that way and that God created them that way and if God wanted for some of us to be homosexual than why is everything in the Bible that has to do with sexuality always directed at man and woman? show me a verse in the Bible where it says that God created marriage and sex for anyone regardless of gender. homosexuality is a sin in NT as it Was in OT. there is nowhere in the NT that says that God is now okay with homosexuality

          • Myth Buster

            Yes, you mean Paul the guy that never met Jesus? Yes, he was homophobic to be sure. It’s just too bad that Jesus never was specific in the Gospels.

            I saw a documentary on the subject of early Christians about a year ago and sexual views were discussed. They rejected the Pagan life style and sex was just for reproduction purposes (missionary style stuff). I’ve also read about this is the past too. Therefore, in the context of that period “sexual immorality” could mean a lot of things that the average person wouldn’t view as being sinful by today’s accepted standards.

            To answer your final questions, if it’s not specifically spelled out in the New Testament as being a sin – that decision does not default to you, me, your neighbor, the pastor at the podium or someone who claims divine insight to the Good Book. That’s for God to decide when we meet him. Wouldn’t you agree?

          • Myth Buster

            Yes, you mean Paul the guy that never met Jesus? Yes, he was homophobic to be sure. It’s just too bad that Jesus never was specific in the Gospels.

            I saw a documentary on the subject of early Christians about a year ago and sexual views were discussed. They rejected the Pagan life style and sex was just for reproduction purposes (missionary style stuff). I’ve also read about this is the past too. Therefore, in the context of that period “sexual immorality” could mean a lot of things that the average person wouldn’t view as being sinful by today’s accepted standards.

            To answer your final questions, if it’s not specifically spelled out in the New Testament as being a sin – that decision does not default to you, me, your neighbor, the pastor at the podium or someone who claims divine insight to the Good Book. That’s for God to decide when we meet him.

          • Myth Buster

            Someone is playing flagging games and soon he’ll have to repost messages. Nevertheless, here it is again:

            Yes, it’s just too bad he never specifically defined what “sexual immorality” meant. It could mean a number of things. Early first century Christians also had a view on sex that would have been unacceptable (to restrictive) even by modern day Christians. We can’t just pick and choose what we follow. That’s what cafeteria Christians do. We also can’t just fill in the missing blanks based upon out personal prejudices.

          • Myth Buster

            Someone is playing flagging games and soon he’ll have to repost messages. Nevertheless, here it is again:

            I must apologize for the homophobic comment. I mistakenly thought the first commentator on this string mentioned it in their initial post. Nevertheless, “… however homosexuality will still be a sexual sin.” Says who? Jesus never said that.

          • Myth Buster

            Someone is playing flagging games and soon he’ll have to repost messages. Nevertheless, here it is again:

            I must apologize for the homophobic comment. I mistakenly thought the first commentator on this string mentioned it in their initial post. Nevertheless, “… however homosexuality will still be a sexual sin.” Says who? Jesus never said that.

          • Myth Buster

            Someone is playing flagging games and soon he’ll have to repost messages. Nevertheless, here it is again:

            I never said that. You can be as homophobic as you like. Hate them like you’ve never hated anyone one or any group in your life. Just remember your bigotry isn’t backed up by Jesus’ teachings.

          • Myth Buster

            Someone is playing flagging games and soon he’ll have to repost messages. Nevertheless, here it is again:

            I never said that. You can be as homophobic as you like. Hate them like you’ve never hated anyone one or any group in your life. Just remember your bigotry isn’t backed up by Jesus’ teachings.

          • Myth Buster

            Someone is playing flagging games and soon he’ll have to repost messages. Nevertheless, here it is again:

            No, I don’t have to state anything. Like you, I can’t speak for God. Sorry. I don’t think you have any divine insight into what Jesus liked or disliked. We have to leave that to the literal translation of the words in the Bible.

        • Myth Buster

          Someone is playing flagging games and soon he’ll have to repost messages. Nevertheless, here it is again:

          Then, I guess he was silent on these issues and didn’t think they were worthy of being specifically addressed. Or, are you saying this was an oversight on his part?

        • Myth Buster

          Someone is playing flagging games and soon he’ll have to repost messages. Nevertheless, here it is again:

          Then, I guess he was silent on these issues and didn’t think they were worthy of being specifically addressed. Or, are you saying this was an oversight on his part?

      • Joseph

        If Jesus was for homosexuality than why did he never say in support for it? every supporter of homosexuality says something about their support for homosexuality how come Jesus never did? don’t you think he would have said something in support for it if he was for homosexuality? how come we never find any homosexual relationships in the Bible? don’t you think that if God designed some humans homosexual that we would read about homosexual relationships in the Bible? we would find tons of homosexuals relationships in the Bible if God intended this for some of us but not one is found. why we do never read about Jesus celebrating homosexuality or rebuking those who did not support homosexuality in the Bible? also if God intended for some of us to be homosexual why did he never say it like that? like if God wanted for some of us to be homosexual that there’d be a verse about it in the Bible? show me the verse in the Bible where it says homosexuals are born that way and that God created them that way and if God wanted for some of us to be homosexual than why is everything in the Bible that has to do with sexuality always directed at man and woman? show me a verse in the Bible where it says that God created marriage and sex for anyone regardless of gender. homosexuality is a sin in NT as it Was in OT. there is nowhere in the NT that says that God is now okay with homosexuality. look if Jesus supported homosexuality we would know about it. he would have said something about it in the Bible to let us know that he supports it but he never did so that means that Jesus does not support homosexuality otherwise if he supported homosexuality he would have said so and than there would have been no reason for him to keep quiet about it

      • Joseph

        If Jesus was for homosexuality than why did he never say in support for it? every supporter of homosexuality says something about their support for homosexuality how come Jesus never did? don’t you think he would have said something in support for it if he was for homosexuality? how come we never find any homosexual relationships in the Bible? don’t you think that if God designed some humans homosexual that we would read about homosexual relationships in the Bible? we would find tons of homosexuals relationships in the Bible if God intended this for some of us but not one is found. why we do never read about Jesus celebrating homosexuality or rebuking those who did not support homosexuality in the Bible? also if God intended for some of us to be homosexual why did he never say it like that? like if God wanted for some of us to be homosexual that there’d be a verse about it in the Bible? show me the verse in the Bible where it says homosexuals are born that way and that God created them that way and if God wanted for some of us to be homosexual than why is everything in the Bible that has to do with sexuality always directed at man and woman? show me a verse in the Bible where it says that God created marriage and sex for anyone regardless of gender. homosexuality is a sin in NT as it Was in OT. there is nowhere in the NT that says that God is now okay with homosexuality. look if Jesus supported homosexuality we would know about it. he would have said something about it in the Bible to let us know that he supports it but he never did so that means that Jesus does not support homosexuality otherwise if he supported homosexuality he would have said so and there would have been no reason for him to keep quiet about it

        • Myth Buster

          It seems you like to place words in Jesus mouth just to have the moral authority on the Bible behind you on bigoted issues, as you selectively overlook other issues that he actually spoke about intensely. Sorry, I’m not a Cafeteria Christian. If the Lord didn’t say it who am I or you, to place those biased thoughts in his mouth.

          You ask “how come we never find any homosexual relationships in the Bible?” Let me turn the question around. If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people, then Christians continuing to do so is morally indefensible, and must cease. God did not tell you to do this. Jesus specifically spoke about the Idolity of Money throughout the Gospels. In fact, statistically this was his main issue; yet, right wing Christians have conveniently overlooked this and cafeteria like focused on other minor verses in the Bible to maintain their bigotry.

          Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her. —John 8:7 – A fundamental tenant of Christianity is that we are all born sinners, that we have no choice but to exist in relationship to our sinful natures. And so Christians accept as inevitable that any given Christian will, for instance, on occasion drink too much, lust or tell a lie. Paul also condemns, along with homosexuality, other specific sins. Paul never said one sin was worse then the other. But Christians don’t think that they are expected to never commit any degree of those sins. They understand that circumstances and normal human weaknesses must be taken into account before condemning any transgression. We all readily understand and accept the moral distinction between drinking socially and being a drunk; between a lustful thought and committing adultery; between telling a flattering white lie and chronically lying. Virtually any degree of homosexual “transgression” gets treated by Christians as an absolute sin deserving absolute punishment. Yet, so called Christians draw no moral distinction between the homosexual gang rape in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the orgies to which Paul refers in his letter to the Romans, the wild sexual abandon Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians, and consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual partners.

          Using the four Old Testament passages to condemn all homosexual acts is not in keeping with any directive from God, nor with the practices of contemporary Christians.The Bible’s first four mentions of homosexuality occur in the Old Testament.

          While continuing to be spiritually inspired and influenced by the Old Testament, Christians were specifically instructed by Paul not to follow the law of the Old Testament, in such passages as:

          “The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.” —Hebrews 7:18-19

          “Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” — Galatians 3:23-25

          • Joseph

            There is nowhere in the Bible in NT or OT that says that ”consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual relationships” is allowed. anything having to do with sexuality in the Bible is always directed to one man and woman and nothing else and also Jesus did not support homosexuality and it is clear that he did not. why can you not see this? if Jesus supported homosexuality there would be a verse about it in the Bible right? show me the verse. why would he keep quiet about his support of homosexuality if he supported homosexuality? where in the Bible is Jesus saying anything in support for homosexuality? please show me and also where are the homosexual relationships in the Bible? I have noticed that you did not answer that question instead responded with something completely unrelated ”If there is no clearly stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people” “Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity?” ―Psalm 94:16” that includes homosexuality. do you also take issue when Christians speak against other sins or just homosexual sin? this whole ”Jesus didn’t mention homosexuality” argument. did he really have to? he did not have to mention homosexuality because people already knew that homosexuality is wrong. the same reason why did he not mention pedophilia. because people already that pedophilia is wrong so there wouldn’t be a need for him to address homosexuality. if I asked you why didn’t Jesus talk about pedophilia? you would say because we already know that pedophilia is wrong so there would be no reason for him to talk about it. why can’t the same be said for homosexuality? why the whole ”well let’s just wait to what Jesus has to say about it”? Jesus did not support it, the fact Jesus did NOT say anything in support for homosexuality or celebrate it or stood against people who did not support homosexuality is enough evidence for one to conclude that Jesus did not support homosexuality. he doesn’t have to say ”I condemn homosexuality” to let us know his views on the issue. the fact that he never did any of the things mentioned above already lets us know his views on it. please repent and stop calling evil good and good evil and stop twisting scripture

          • Myth Buster

            “There is nowhere in the Bible in NT or OT that says that ”consensual homosexual sex between loving and committed homosexual relationships” is allowed.” I agree. There is also a lengthy list of other sins discussed in the Bible and they’re not weighted – one being worse then the other. Many sins that are discussed “abominations against God” are conveniently overlooked, such as the Idolatry of Money (one of Jesus most discussed Christian transgressions) and the Right Christians rallied around Trump, the guy that endlessly and I mean endlessly bragged about all of his all his money. Therefore, who picks what Biblical sins that are to be overlooked and what gets placed at the “unforgivable top of the list” – YOU? The so call Cafeteria Christian selective picking bigots? Sorry, I’ll leave that one up to God.

          • Joseph

            if homosexual relationships are not in the Bible and Jesus said nothing in support for homosexuality than it is clear he did not want it.

          • Myth Buster

            No, you are making an assumption based upon something that is not there. If Jesus was profoundly against homosexuality, as you are suggesting, why did he statistically preach about the Idolatry of Money over all other sins (this was statistically his most talked about sinful issue) and he did not even address the homosexual issue? Then, why do right wing Christians just simply ignore the Idolatry of Money and focus on an issue he never condemned? This makes no sense, unless someone is trying to use the Bible to religiously justify their highly selective or programmed bigotry.

            He also said nothing about a condemnation against slavery. Does that mean he supported it? By your logic I could then say if capitalism is not in the Bible and Jesus said nothing in support for of a free market economy than it is clear he did not want it. Would that be correct?

          • Joseph

            If you were God and you created and wanted for some people to be homosexual you would of said something about it in the Bible right? like you would write or command someone to write a verse about in the Bible right? than why didn’t God? the only reason you wouldn’t say something about it is because you do not want people to be homosexual. that is the only reason why otherwise why not say anything about? if God wanted for some of us to be homosexual than why is the Bible written in heterosexual? if God created homosexuality and heterosexuality shouldn’t the Bible be written in both heterosexuality and homosexuality? why do we only see heterosexuality in the Bible? where are the passages that say that homosexuals can get ”married”? and have sexual relations? and have families? it is nowhere. if homosexuality was a creation of God there would be a verse about saying that he wanted this but there is none so that means that God did not want homosexuality to be part of his creation. that’s end of it. it is not hard to understand. if God wanted homosexuality for some his creation to be homosexual there would be a verse about it. God would not create homosexuality and not saying anything about it, he just wouldn’t.

          • Myth Buster

            If you were Jesus and you wanted to condemn homosexuality and didn’t want for some people to be homosexual, you would of said something about it right? Like you would write or command someone to write a verse about in the Bible right? Jesus wouldn’t have spent a lot of time talking about Idolatry of Money that right wing Christians would just ignore later, right? There would have been something written in the Bible to make this one of the worst sins, right? God would have made sure this would have been at the top of the list, right? It would have been included in the Ten Commandments, right? No, it was not. It seems like some bigots out there wish to ignore what Jesus spoke of the most and speak for him on issues he never condemned.

          • Joseph

            You never answer my questions. where in the Bible did God say he wanted homosexuality? there would no reason for God to leave out homosexuality out of the Bible if he wanted homosexuality. why are there no homosexual relationships in the Bible? if God designed some humans homosexual there would be homosexual relationships in the Bible right? but none exist so what does that tell you? I don’t know why you’re having so much trouble understanding this.

          • Myth Buster

            My God! “… where in the Bible did God say he wanted homosexuality?” No where. However, that don’t mean it was the worst unforgivable sin. Jesus just never spoke about this issue. Obviously, he didn’t think too much of it. You are jumping to bigoted conclusion or wild assumptions. No where in the Bible does Jesus say it’s okay to have air conditioning. This does not mean its a sin to own an air conditioner?

            I will concede that homosexuality is a biblical sin; but Christian honesty demands of you to concede no where in the Bible does it say it’s the worst, or the second worst or even the third worst …….

            Now it’s your Christian turn. Please admit there is no clearly no stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people, then if Christians continue to do so it is morally indefensible, and must cease. God did not tell you to do this. Could you please admit those points?

          • Joseph

            ”Now it’s your Christian turn. Please admit there is no clearly no stated directive in the Bible to marginalize and ostracize gay people” homosexuality is a sin so I will treat it as sin. I treated adultery as a sin, I treat stealing as a sin. why should I treat homosexuality (which is also a sin) any differently? did God call us to treat homosexuality differently? do you say the same about every other sin or just this sin?

          • Myth Buster

            “… why should I treat homosexuality (which is also a sin) any differently?” Yes, why should you? You should not. Unfortunately, some hypo-Christians do. They selectively ignore some sins, like the Idolatry of Money, and place homosexuality at the top of their hate list in an un-Christian manner.

          • You are one confused, lost puppy Myth. I sure wish your kind were teachable.

          • Myth Buster

            Now that was an intelligent comment. You must be a Tea Party kind of a guy or one that carried the tiki torch. I heard the bigger the really brainless ones held the Confederate Flag.

      • Joseph

        I guess to you Jesus likes to play the guessing game ”does Jesus condemn homosexuality? ”he’ll let you guess that” it’s obvious Jesus condemns homosexuality like I said before If Jesus was in support of homosexuality he would have said so and there would be no reason for him to keep quiet about it there would be a verse in the Bible letting us know about Jesus’ support of homosexuality but no verse exists and that is enough evidence for one to indicate that Jesus is not for homosexuality otherwise he would have said so also that fact Jesus never said anything for homosexuality or celebrated homosexuality or stood against those who did not support homosexuality in the Bible is more evidence that Jesus did not support homosexuality

      • texasknight

        Wow! That’s quite a list of labels you placed on our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Word of God is very clear on matters of morality, including murder and sexuality. You obviously are not Catholic.

        • Myth Buster

          But, it’s all true. There is nothing in my statement that is not factually correct. So, no I am not a Catholic. Just someone who reads the Gospels and thinks about what is being said.

          • texasknight

            You are a lost soul trolling a Catholic site. You have no authority in you misguided interpretations. Nothing you said was factual. It was simply Marxists spin applied to bible passages. Repent and be saved.

          • Myth Buster

            Just because someone has a different point of view doesn’t make them a “troll”. Get real, grow up and stop acting in such an un-Christian manner. I’d also strongly suggest you pick up a book and start reading it. try educating yourself.

          • texasknight

            Please… You are the one acting un-Christian by trolling this Catholic site with your anti-Christ opinions. Have a nice day.

          • Myth Buster

            I guess you’re trolling too, simply because you’ve posted here. Is that the logic you’re using?

    • Trilemma

      And all who believed were together and had all things in common. – Acts 2:44 ESV

      Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. – Acts 4:32 ESV

      Clearly, the first century Christians were socialists since they had everything in common and denied personal ownership of property. Apparently, the first Christians were progressive Christians.

      • Myth Buster

        Well said and factually correct. There was no such thing as capitalism in the first century and Jesus was clearly not a supporter of any type of trickle down economics.

      • texasknight

        Your interpretation is way off. They formed a community, not a evil anti-Christian government ideology like socialism.

        • Trilemma

          They formed a socialist community. There’s nothing in socialism that requires a socialist community or a socialist government to be anti-Christian or anti any religion. Socialism is simply public ownership of property and has nothing to do with religion.

          • texasknight

            His Church rejects socialism. If you are Catholic, then you profess during Mass every week to believe what His Church teaches.

          • Trilemma

            If His church rejects socialism, that would mean his church rejects investing in stocks and mutual funds. That would mean His church rejects using the post office, Medicaid and Medicare. It would mean His church rejects using public or private schools. I have never heard His church teach rejection of everything and anything that’s socialist.

          • texasknight

            Read the CCC

          • Trilemma

            From the CCC

            2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.207 Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”208 Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

            The church rejects totalitarian and atheistic ideologies that have included socialism but does not necessarily reject socialism in and of itself. Here’s an article on the church’s position on socialism.

            www . catholicculture . org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2942

            You’ll have to delete the spaces around the dots. Here’s a quote from the concluding remarks.

            1. The Church does not reject Socialism in the sense of a voluntary agreement as to the renunciation of individual property, or the sacrifice of the individual will among a certain number of chosen souls called by God to this renunciation and sacrifice, and specially aided by His grace to carry it out.

            The various socialist aspects of America are not rejected by the church since they are by voluntary agreement.

          • texasknight

            Nice try. He is talking about an individual deciding to live a religious life. He mistakenly likens that to socialism. This is nothing more than mental gymnastics. However, he clearly states that the Catholic Church cannot accept socialism. Socialism as a form of governance has been rejected in many papal documents and the CCC as you quoted. You can place whatever adjective around it. It is still rejected.

          • Trilemma

            He is talking about a group of individuals choosing to own property in common. He is not mistaken in calling that socialism. And he clearly states, “The Church does not reject Socialism.”

            The CCC I quoted also says the church rejects capitalism. If the church rejects socialism and the church rejects capitalism, then what does that leave?

          • texasknight

            Sorry, you misquoted the CCC regarding capitalism. Try again. Also, you can have your opinion about what a guy with no authority says. His writing style is nuanced – typical academy type. He is talking about a community of religious, not a government ideology. He should stop confusing people. A better comparison would be that the religious community is like a family – think subsidiarity. The CCC and the popes have been very clear that His Church rejects socialist governments.

          • Trilemma

            Yes, I misquoted the CCC regarding capitalism but only to the same extent that you misquoted it regarding socialism. The CCC does not reject all forms of socialism. It rejects totalitarian or authoritative socialism. It does not reject democratic socialism. The CCC promotes a mix of socialism and capitalism such as in America.

          • texasknight

            You are funny with your mental gymnastics. If His Church wanted to limit the rejection, She would have said so. As I stated before, socialism is rejected in all its forms. To think otherwise is lunacy. Just because 50%+ vote for the government to take property from one group and give it to another group does not make it right. It is in fact evil.

          • Trilemma

            The Church did limit its rejection of socialism because, as the CCC says, “regulating [the economy] solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice,
            for ‘there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the
            market.'”

            Taking property from one group and giving it to another is not socialism. Where did you get this false concept of socialism? If the Church rejects socialism in all its forms, does the Church reject socialism in the form known as the United States Postal System?

  • Nicholas

    There’s no such thing as a progressive Christian. When a Christian becomes progressive, they cease being Christian. “If you love me, keep my commandments.”

    • Concerned Christian

      is it possible that your description of a Christian Progressive is wrong?

      • Myth Buster

        Yes, his views are extremely wrong and maybe he should think about actually reading the Bible.

      • Gary

        Can you describe what a “Christian Progressive” is?

        • Chip Crawford

          Of course, they can’t.

      • Nicholas

        It depends. To what issues or teachings are you specifically referring?

  • bbb

    People who want to keep an insurance policy for the hereafter in their back pocket will join a ‘liberal’ church. But if they ever read the true Word in the Bible – and probably they will not – they will realize that without total commitment to Christ and to living a life in Christ they do not have a hereafter in heaven.
    That sounds mighty strict, but that is God’s Word, not mine.
    ‘Appeals to unite on the basis of Scripture is likely to fail.’

  • I wrote a book also, it clearly reveals the difference between Christians, Socialists, and muzslime. There is really no such thing as a moderate Christian these days, just as there has never been a moderate muzslime. Many are going to say they to the Lord “but we did this and this and this in your name” and He will say “depart from me for I never knew you”. Either you are a Christ following Christian or you are a devil following socialist, there is no in between, there simply is no time for that.

Inspiration
The Play’s the Thing
Al Perrotta
More from The Stream
Connect with Us