I begin nearly every religion course by asking a simple question: Should we allow people to self-identify as members of a particular faith community? Seems simple, right? If you say you're a Christian, you're a Christian. The American impulse toward individualism cringes at the idea of not allowing this simple exercise in self-determination, as if self-determination somehow trumps collective identity.
The question really arose from my journalism experience, because editors will occasionally ask questions about what the other perspective on a religion story is. Having read some inflammatory comments from a splinter group, one will ask, "What about this group of female Catholic priests?" I will patiently explain that there is no such thing as a female Catholic priest, and any group that claims to be ordaining women to the priesthood has placed itself outside the parameters of what is considered Catholicism. This is an easier taxonomic decision than broader terms like Christian and Muslim provide. Things get even more difficult when non-theological terms are used in the context of taxonomies in middle-tier Christian classification: progressive, liberal, conservative, evangelical, fundamentalist. I'll happily admit the latter two are, in order, sort of theological but really sociological, and theological as long as we're talking about the early 20th century Christian movement and its offspring. This confusion came to a head on Tripp Fuller's Homebrewed Christianity recently.
Tripp, long a friend of the parish, has a guest post entry that, although possibly not directly in response to a comment I left on his site, certainly refers to one of my positions, at least obliquely. The whole kerfuffle started because I took issue with evangelicals (yet undefined) attempting to co-opt C.S. Lewis yet again as a mascot in the "who's the best damn evangelical" game. Lewis, an Anglican, and in those days that actually meant Anglo-Catholic, at least theologically, was clearly not an evangelical by any definition I can think of, unless you choose to be so reductionistic in classification that JP II would also make the cut. Anyway, Deacon Bo (the author) and I exchanged friendly barbs, but I actually got too busy to get back to the conversation. One of the issues we had was over my weariness at the use of obscure terms like "progressive" and "missional." The former is a theological term according to Bo. As he defines it, it surely is, but he's one of about seven people who accept that definition. I tend to hear it used as a kinder, gentler euphemism for liberal, a position that Bo believes is a "flippant dismissal." He brings John Cobb into the fray for the sake of denotative definitions of the two terms.
Liberal simply means that one recognizes human experience as a valid location for the theological process. Progressive means that one takes seriously the critique provided by feminist, liberation, and post-colonial criticisms.
First things first. Why a process theologian gets to enter the fray over definitions discussed in the evangelical community is curious. I'll toss out a challenge that process is not equal to evangelical, not if you mean for the latter to actually have a definition that Bo believes is historically grounded. If we're letting Anglo-Catholics and Process theologians into the camp, your tent pegs might be a tad wide to maintain coherent definitions. This seems to be yet another case of evangelicals letting anyone in from whom they can borrow credibility, especially academic or theological credibility.
Second, I actually like Cobb's definitions. Too bad no one I know who uses the term Progressive means it like that. I suppose if you're smart enough to go to the American Academy of Religion's national meeting and actually understand what's being said, you might mean what Cobb says the word means. The funny thing about definitions though is that they aren't determined by some sort of authoritative book (dictionary) or person (theologian); they are determined by usage. In that sense, my comment remains intact. Since progressive is now largely within the domain of politics, and since it is typically used as a euphemism for liberal, you can't borrow the term without borrowing the grammar. Bo and Process friends can fight for the definition Cobb offers, and I happily predict they will be as successful as moderates who now fight for the term Evangelical. It's rare that I agree with Tony Jones, but in this case I do; the naming rights and definitional parameters of "evangelical" have been won by theological conservatives, and the rest of you might just as well move along. Find a new word.
Third, the definitions offered by Cobb seem to make more sense when Progressive is understood as a subset of Liberal. It seems clear to me that to take seriously the "critique provided by feminist, liberation, and post-colonial criticisms" at least means that you must take seriously the idea that human experience is "a valid location for the theological process." How else did theologians develop these criticisms if not within the domain of human experience? The definitions seem to be verging on a tautology, but there is enough nuance between them to prevent that, yet they are clearly a difference of degree, not kind.
I'm sympathetic to the Tripps and Bos and other friends I have who seek to be faithful to the Gospel while eschewing labels and associations that call into question their mission in the world. I'm pretty sure nothing is helped by the redefining of political terms, nor is the appropriation of nebulous labels (missional) all that helpful either. The obsession with naming has grown wearying in the past two decades, and terms like missional and emergent best illustrate the inability of what used to be centrist to left evangelicals to name themselves something that will help the rest of us, including journalists, know exactly who the hell they are and what the hell they believe. Their cause is not helped by marketing and fame whores who destroy the usefulness of the labels, and no one is more guilty of this than the Emergent leaders (notice the big E) and the publishers who sought to make money from the movement or to advance their voice/profile/name within the movement. Moneychangers, anyone?
