Chris​Hubbs​.com

Matthew Paul Turner says he’s a “progressive Christian”, but that he’s never really owned the label because he’s not entirely sure how to define it. He writes an insightful piece, with a title (“20 Problems with Progressive Christianity”) that’s a bit of a head fake - rather than being a list of 20 items, it’s an essay with 20 “problems” identified throughout.

While I wouldn’t identify myself as being in the same theological place that he is, I do recognize myself in some of his self-descriptions. For instance:

A part of the bigger problem is that it’s easy for many of us onetime conservatives/now progressives to get caught up in our faith being defined by our past as opposed to it being inspired by what’s in front of us (<-Problem number 10). In other words, many of us know exactly what we believe to be true and untrue about the churches we grew up in, the theologies that we were taught, and the perceptions of God that we once worshiped. And there’s nothing wrong with knowing what we believe to be good and true about our pasts. But sometimes we fall onto the path of getting so lost in fighting the ills of our former spiritual lives that we go for long periods of time when that’s all our faith is, one big fight against what was.

I went through that period for quite a while a year or two back. It might’ve been helpful to me for a while, but it was something I had to get beyond if I was going to move forward.

Turner never really gets around to defining what he means by “progressive Christianity”, so I’m not sure whether I’d self-identify as a member or not. I often find myself somewhere in between, not willing to fully endorse the liberal leanings of folks like Rachel Held Evans, but also not fully embracing the conservatism of my more fundamentalist past or the neo-Calvinism to which many of my friends hold.

Down in the comments of Turner’s post, Colorado pastor Jeff Cook proposes a set of “centering affirmations” of progressive Christianity, and these I could probably get behind:

… We believe in a New Creation , not in an escapist soteriology. We do not embrace the Gospel as “the plan of salvation” (a gospel just about me). The Gospel is the royal announcement that Jesus Christ is Lord (a gospel about all of creation). … We have moved from speaking of ethics as simply rules to follow, to seeing the good life as a process of becoming a person fully alive in Christ and in community through the power of the Spirit. … We have moved from thinking history doesn’t matter or that modernity is history’s zenith to seeing the past as full of wisdom to draw on. …We are aware that the Bible must be interpreted by fallible readers. … We elevate Jesus’ life, teachings, resurrection and ascension, and reject an exclusive focus on just the virginal birth and cross. All 6 are necessary to see God and his unveiling story.

If you’ve made it this far through my post, I’ll recommend you go over and read MPT’s post in its’ entirety.

BHT patron and Twitter friend John H posted earlier today about the “Flash evensong” he participated in last night in front of St. Paul’s Cathedral in London. Since St. Paul’s has been closed due to the Occupy London protests happening nearby, there was a “flash” decision to hold a standard Anglican evening prayer service in public outside of the cathedral. (John can be seen in this video, in the back row, wearing a blue, open-collared shirt.)

[Click here to see the video - I removed the embedded video because it annoyingly auto-plays every time my site is loaded.]

John notes how relevant even this standard, everyday service was for the situation:

What really struck me about the service, though, was this: the service was nothing more than the Church of England’s standard evening prayer for tonight, with the psalms and lessons taken from the lectionary, and the hymns and anthem being pretty standard fodder as well. And yet large portions of what was said, sung and prayed seemed to speak very directly to the context in which the service took place.

And further down in the post:

I think it is that “crunchiness” [the against-the-mainstream aspects] of the word of God that turned an exercise that may have had an element of whimsy to it – or at least could have been seen as nothing more than a bunch of mostly white, mostly middle-class, mostly Anglican people being “well-meaning” – into something transcendent.

A few thoughts prompted by, if not directly related to, John’s post:

First, this not-quite-comfortable evangelical would’ve loved to be a part of that service. I was greatly moved just watching the short video.

Second, I, too, have been struck by how often the “everyday” readings seem to speak with the subversiveness of God’s kingdom directly to the events of the day. The past few months I have tried, on a maddeningly infrequent basis, to start and end my day with the Book of Common Prayer morning and evening prayers. Even practiced as just a personal reading and prayer, the Scripture and prayer elements of the service have spoken directly to my heart with surprising regularity with regard to the events of my day, both personal and public.

Finally, there is a part of my soul that yearns for a daily corporate practice like this. I would dearly love it if there were some local early-morning gathering around which I could schedule my day. What I really don’t want is the (for me) awkward, informal Bible study and prayer groups that seem to abound in my evangelical church culture. Sitting around in a circle waiting for someone to come up with some thought on the day’s passage and then sharing shallow prayer requests doesn’t feed me in the near the way that the morning prayer liturgy could. I need that daily practice of praise, confession, Scripture and prayer, and the opportunity to do it corporately rather than off by myself.

My brain is full; it is my soul that needs fed.

“Tolerance” is a much misunderstood word these days. I remember hearing a barn-burner of a chapel message back in college from Josh McDowell, warning us that the biggest sin in the worlds eyes in upcoming days would be “intolerance”, which they would define (roughly) as “saying someone’s beliefs are wrong”.

The fact of the matter is that it’s impossible to be tolerant if you don’t disagree with someone, since tolerance is, by definition, allowing the existence of something that you disagree with. I was recently witness to an illustration…

Our associate pastor, Robin, and his wife, Kathryn, hosted a foreign exchange student last year. His name is Ahmed and he is from Egypt. When I first heard about him (just a few weeks ago - guess I’m out of the loop!) I thought to myself maybe he’s Coptic Orthodox or something… that’d make sense if he’s living with a Christian pastor… but nope - Ahmed is a Muslim. Some experience that must’ve been, I thought.

Then two weeks ago, after the sermon in our Sunday morning service, Pastor Robin invited Ahmed to join him on the platform and they spent nearly 15 minutes discussing Ahmed’s year here. Ahmed told the story of his initial trepidation of being hosted by a Christian pastor. He told a couple of funny fish-out-of-water stories that had everyone laughing. He admitted that American high school was a much more laid back and pleasant experience than his all-boys French Catholic high school back in Egypt. And he spoke proudly of the Egyptian people’s overthrow of the Mubarak regime in this spring’s revolution.

Then Robin invited Ahmed to share with us the basic beliefs of Islam, and asked him to talk a bit about how Muslims view Jesus and what some of the key differences are between Islam and Christianity. Our church listened intently as Ahmed described the Five Pillars of Islam and that the Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet though they don’t believe that he was crucified and resurrected.

When the discussion time was over, Pastor Robin prayed for Ahmed, asking God to guide him and watch over him as he returned to Egypt. Then Ahmed was presented with a parting gift: a McDonald’s gift card. (Apparently Ahmed has developed a taste for Big Macs.)

This, my friends, was a beautiful display of the right kind of tolerance. There was no pretense in the entire conversation (or, clearly, in the entire relationship between Ahmed and his “parents” Robin and Kathryn) that they agreed religiously. However, the love and respect between them as they discussed their differing beliefs and shared experience of the past year was evident and obviously real. Ahmed was also quite gracious in his willingness to be prayed for by a man who believes so differently. (I sometimes wonder whether I and my Christian brethren would be as gracious if the roles were reversed.)

That Sunday morning discussion between Robin and Ahmed was valuable for all of us in several ways. We learned a little more about Islam. We gained a better appreciation for seeing our own Christian practice through foreign eyes. And whenever some rabble-rousing politician or media fear-monger wants to stereotype Muslims, we’ll be able to look back to this handsome, genial, friendly young man and remember that those who follow Islam are, for the vast majority, like him, and not like those extremists that we are told to fear.

My friends, this is true and good tolerance, and I am all for it.

Back in August I linked to a piece by Brett McCracken wherein he decried what he sees as the evangelical temptation to “be cool” at the expense of real, genuine faith. My initial read resonated with the column, and I was a bit surprised when some folks I quite respect took issue with McCracken’s book.

I’ll admit that I haven’t read the book, and absent a copy finding its way into my hands for free, I probably won’t. However, I came upon an insightful review today that puts McCracken’s book in a different (and much less favorable) light.

James K. A. Smith, posting on TheOtherJournal.com, says that McCracken needs to add the word “poser” to his lexicon.

McCracken’s analysis ends up being reductionistic: he thinks anyone who looks like a “hipster” is really just trying to be “cool.” This, I think, tells us more about Mr. McCracken than it does about so-called hipster Christianity…

McCracken sets his sights on his own generation: hip millennials who are taken with incense, hemp clothing, Wendell Berry, and Amnesty International. McCracken is worried that this is just the next generation of cultural assimilation in the name of relevance.

But his analysis only works if, in fact, all hipsters are really just posers. That is, McCracken effectively reduces all hipsters to posers precisely because he can only imagine someone adopting such a lifestyle in order to be cool. Let me say it again: this tells us more about McCracken than it does about those young Christians who are spurning conservative, bourgeois values. [Emphasis in the original.]

Smith acknowledges that there are, indeed, Christians who are trying to be “cool” or “hipster” simply for the sake of being cool, but he asserts that they are the “posers” and are not representative of the “Christian hipsters” he knows:

In short, the lives of the Christian hipsters I know are a gazillion miles away from being worried about image or trendiness; they live the way they do because they are pursuing the good life characterized by well-ordered culture-making that is just and conducive to flourishing—and this requires resisting the mass-produced, mass-marketed, and mass-consumed banalities of the corporate ladder, the suburban veneer of so-called success, as well as the irresponsibility of perpetual adolescence that characterizes so many twentysomethings who imagine life as one big frat house.

I very much appreciate Smith’s review and analysis and recommend it as worthwhile reading.