What is progressive Christianity and how should we respond to it?
Question 0015
Among the most significant challenges facing the contemporary church is a movement that calls itself progressive Christianity. Unlike obvious heresies that reject Christian vocabulary entirely, progressive Christianity retains traditional Christian language while systematically redefining its meaning. It claims to represent an evolved, enlightened form of faith appropriate for modern people—a Christianity liberated from outdated beliefs, oppressive hierarchies, and exclusionary doctrines. In reality, it represents not progress but regression, not liberation but captivity to cultural assumptions, not enlightenment but the abandonment of revealed truth.
Understanding progressive Christianity requires careful attention to both what it affirms and what it denies, for its method is typically reinterpretation rather than outright rejection. The movement encompasses diverse voices and varying degrees of departure from historic Christianity, but certain patterns are recognisable across its spectrum. Engaging this movement faithfully requires theological clarity, charitable understanding, and pastoral wisdom.
Defining Progressive Christianity
Progressive Christianity is notoriously difficult to define precisely because its proponents often resist systematic definition, preferring fluidity to fixed boundaries. However, several characteristic features appear consistently.
First, progressive Christianity typically denies or radically reinterprets biblical authority. The Bible is valued as a human document reflecting ancient people’s experiences with the divine, but it is not treated as divinely inspired, inerrant, or authoritative for contemporary faith and practice. Peter Enns, whose work influences progressive circles, argues that the Bible is “a thoroughly human book” that should not be read as divine instruction. This hermeneutical shift is foundational: once Scripture’s authority is relativised, any doctrine becomes negotiable.
Second, progressive Christianity typically redefines or denies core doctrines. The exclusivity of salvation through Jesus alone is frequently rejected in favour of pluralistic views acknowledging multiple valid paths to God. The substitutionary atonement—Jesus dying in our place to satisfy divine justice—is often replaced with alternative theories emphasising moral influence or divine solidarity with suffering. The literal resurrection may be spiritualised as metaphor for ongoing spiritual presence. Hell is either denied entirely or emptied through universalism (the belief that all will ultimately be saved). Sexual ethics are revised to affirm same-sex relationships and reject traditional teaching on marriage and gender.
Third, progressive Christianity typically prioritises current cultural values over scriptural teaching. Where Scripture and contemporary progressive values conflict, Scripture is reinterpreted, contextualised as culturally conditioned, or simply set aside. The practical authority shifts from “What does God’s Word say?” to “What do we now understand to be just, inclusive, and loving?” This represents not merely a different interpretation of Scripture but a fundamentally different epistemology—a different basis for knowing truth.
Fourth, progressive Christianity often emphasises orthopraxy over orthodoxy. Correct practice (especially social justice activism) matters more than correct belief. Doctrine divides; action unites. This sounds appealing until one realises that without doctrinal foundation, there is no basis for determining what constitutes just practice. Every ethical system rests on theological assumptions, whether acknowledged or not.
Prominent figures associated with progressive Christianity include Brian McLaren, whose A New Kind of Christianity explicitly calls for abandoning traditional doctrines; Rob Bell, whose Love Wins promoted universalism; Rachel Held Evans, whose writings questioned evangelical positions on biblical authority, gender, and sexuality; and various voices affiliated with organisations like the Westar Institute (which sponsors the Jesus Seminar) and The Liturgists podcast community.
Historical Roots
Progressive Christianity did not emerge from nothing. Its intellectual ancestry includes nineteenth-century theological liberalism, which sought to accommodate Christianity to Enlightenment rationalism by denying miracles, questioning biblical reliability, and reducing Jesus to an ethical teacher. Figures like Friedrich Schleiermacher, Adolf von Harnack, and Rudolf Bultmann pioneered approaches that progressive Christianity continues.
The difference today is largely rhetorical. Classical liberalism often presented itself as sophisticated, academic, and superior to popular piety. Contemporary progressive Christianity styles itself as compassionate, inclusive, and ethically superior to conservative Christianity. The former appealed to intellectual pride; the latter appeals to moral sentiment. But the substance is strikingly similar: Scripture demoted, Jesus diminished, doctrine dissolved, and cultural conformity crowned.
J. Gresham Machen’s 1923 classic Christianity and Liberalism remains remarkably relevant. Machen argued that liberalism was not a variation of Christianity but a different religion using Christian terminology. “The chief modern rival of Christianity is ‘liberalism’… Yet the liberal attempts to reconcile Christianity with modern science have really relinquished everything distinctive of Christianity.” This assessment applies with equal force to today’s progressive movement.
Theological Analysis
Progressive Christianity fails at the most fundamental level: its doctrine of revelation. If Scripture is merely human reflection on religious experience, then no theological statement has divine authority. Everything becomes provisional, negotiable, and ultimately subordinate to contemporary judgement. But if God has spoken—if the Bible is θεόπνευστος, breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16)—then we are not free to edit His words according to our preferences.
The progressive hermeneutic that distinguishes between the Bible’s human context and its divine message fails in practice because no objective criterion exists for making this distinction. What determines which parts of Scripture reflect authentic divine truth and which parts are merely cultural conditioning? Invariably, the parts that conflict with current progressive values fall into the “cultural” category, while the parts supporting progressive values are treated as timeless. This is not principled interpretation but circular reasoning that uses contemporary culture as the arbiter of Scripture rather than Scripture as the arbiter of culture.
The christological implications are equally serious. Historic Christianity confesses Jesus as fully God and fully man, whose death provides substitutionary atonement for sin, whose bodily resurrection vindicated His claims and secured salvation, and who will return bodily to judge the living and the dead. Progressive Christianity typically offers a diminished Jesus—an inspiring teacher, a revolutionary social reformer, a spiritual pioneer—but not the unique incarnation of the eternal God. This is not merely a different emphasis; it is a different Lord.
The soteriology follows accordingly. If Jesus is not uniquely divine, if His death is not atoning sacrifice, and if all religious paths lead to the same destination, then the urgency of evangelism evaporates. Why proclaim Jesus as the only way when He is merely one way among many? Progressive Christianity produces churches that no longer evangelise because they no longer believe there is anything uniquely saving about the gospel they once proclaimed.
The Deconstruction Phenomenon
Closely related to progressive Christianity is the contemporary phenomenon of “deconstruction”—a process in which individuals systematically dismantle their inherited faith, questioning and often rejecting doctrines they once held. Deconstruction narratives have become a genre unto themselves on social media, with influencers chronicling their journeys away from evangelical Christianity toward progressive beliefs or no religion at all.
Not all questioning is unhealthy. Genuine wrestling with difficult questions can deepen faith and produce more robust conviction. The Psalmists questioned God. Job questioned God. Even Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Honest struggle within the context of committed faith is different from systematic dismantling driven by desire to escape biblical constraints.
The deconstruction movement often presents itself as courageous truth-seeking, but much of it follows predictable patterns. The doctrines abandoned are precisely those most offensive to contemporary secular culture: biblical authority, sexual ethics, the exclusivity of Jesus, eternal judgement. The doctrines retained or emphasised are those culture approves: love, inclusion, justice (redefined in progressive terms). This suggests that cultural pressure, not honest investigation, drives many deconstruction journeys.
Alisa Childers, in Another Gospel?, notes: “Many people who deconstruct do so because they have encountered difficult questions about Christianity that they’ve never been taught to answer. They assume these questions don’t have good answers because no one ever provided them.” This highlights a failure in evangelical discipleship: we have often produced believers who know what they believe but not why, who hold convictions that cannot withstand serious challenge.
Responding with Truth and Love
How should faithful Christians respond to progressive Christianity? Several principles guide a biblical response.
First, we must maintain absolute commitment to Scripture’s authority. The battle is ultimately about the Bible. If Scripture is God’s Word, progressive Christianity is wrong. If Scripture is merely human words about God, then progressive Christianity might be right, but so might any other position. There is no middle ground on this foundational issue. We must not cede biblical authority in pursuit of cultural acceptance.
Second, we must actually know and articulate biblical teaching. Many progressive arguments succeed because Christians cannot explain why traditional positions are correct. Why does the Bible teach that Jesus is the only way? How do we understand difficult Old Testament passages? What is the biblical case for traditional sexual ethics? These questions deserve serious, thoughtful answers, not dismissive platitudes. The church must do better at theological education, equipping believers to give reasons for the hope within them (1 Peter 3:15).
Third, we must distinguish between people and ideologies. Many who embrace progressive Christianity are sincere individuals wrestling with genuine difficulties. Some have been wounded by legalistic, graceless environments. Some have encountered intellectual challenges they were never equipped to address. Some have gay friends or family members and cannot reconcile what they perceive as biblical harshness with authentic love. These are real people deserving compassion, patience, and careful engagement—not dismissive labelling or culture-war rhetoric.
Fourth, we must demonstrate that biblical Christianity is intellectually credible. Progressive Christianity often presents itself as the thinking person’s faith, implying that traditional Christianity requires intellectual suicide. This is false. The historic Christian faith has a rich intellectual tradition addressing every challenge progressive critics raise. From the early church fathers through the medieval scholastics to contemporary apologists and scholars, Christianity has never lacked intellectual firepower. We must recover and communicate this heritage.
Fifth, we must show that biblical Christianity is genuinely loving. The progressive critique that conservative Christianity is loveless and judgmental sometimes has validity. When Christians fight culture wars with more zeal than they show compassion to struggling sinners, when doctrine becomes a weapon rather than a gift, when truth is proclaimed without tears, we have failed to represent Jesus faithfully. The same Lord who said “I am the way, the truth, and the life” also wept over Jerusalem and touched lepers and welcomed sinners.
Sixth, we must call progressive teaching what it is: a departure from Christianity. This is not arrogance but fidelity. If words mean anything, Christianity has content. Denying the deity of Jesus, the authority of Scripture, the exclusivity of salvation, and the reality of judgement does not produce a different version of Christianity; it produces a different religion. Clarity on this point is not unloving but necessary. To tell someone that their path is compatible with Christianity when it leads away from Jesus is the most unloving thing we could do.
The Dispensational Perspective
From a dispensational, premillennial viewpoint, the rise of progressive Christianity fits within the broader pattern of apostasy that Scripture predicts for the last days. Paul warned Timothy that “the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions” (2 Timothy 4:3). The characteristics of the last days include people “having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power” (2 Timothy 3:5).
This does not mean we respond with fatalistic resignation. The same Paul who predicted apostasy charged Timothy to “preach the word” regardless of the reception (2 Timothy 4:2). The prophetic trajectory does not excuse inaction; it contextualises our labour. We work knowing that ultimate victory belongs to Jesus at His return, not to human effort before it.
The dispensational understanding of the church’s distinct identity also provides perspective. The church is not called to transform culture or build the kingdom through political or social action. We are called to proclaim the gospel, make disciples, and live as witnesses until Jesus returns. Progressive Christianity’s conflation of the gospel with social activism confuses the church’s mission with what only Jesus can accomplish at His coming.
Pastoral Considerations
Those wrestling with progressive questions deserve patient pastoral care, not dismissive condemnation. Several approaches prove helpful.
Listen genuinely. Understand what specific difficulties drive their questions. Is it intellectual doubt, personal pain, relational conflict, or moral desire to escape biblical constraint? Different root issues require different responses.
Address questions seriously. If someone has genuine intellectual objections, provide serious intellectual engagement. Recommend good books. Work through arguments carefully. Don’t resort to “just have faith” when thoughtful answers exist.
Acknowledge where evangelicalism has failed. Some who leave for progressive Christianity do so because they experienced genuinely harmful environments—legalism, hypocrisy, abuse, anti-intellectualism. Acknowledging these failures is not capitulation; it’s honesty that builds trust.
Emphasise Jesus Himself. In every conversation, return to Jesus: His words, His works, His character, His claims. Progressive Christianity offers a diminished Jesus; we offer the actual Jesus of the Gospels, who is infinitely more compelling than any theological reconstruction.
Maintain relationship. People rarely change their minds through arguments alone. They change through ongoing relationships with people who demonstrate authentic faith. Stay connected, keep loving, keep praying, keep hoping.
Conclusion
Progressive Christianity presents a serious challenge precisely because it wears Christian clothing while promoting anti-Christian content. It speaks of Jesus while denying His unique deity. It quotes Scripture while rejecting its authority. It emphasises love while redefining love according to cultural preferences rather than divine revelation. It promises freedom while delivering bondage to the spirit of the age.
The response must be neither accommodation nor antagonism but faithful witness. We hold firm to Scripture’s authority because God has spoken and His words are life. We proclaim Jesus as the only Saviour because there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. We call people to repentance and faith because eternity hangs in the balance. And we do all this with gentleness and respect, with tears and prayers, with hope that the same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead can raise spiritually dead sinners to new life.
The church has faced such challenges before. Gnosticism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Socinianism, and classic liberalism all appeared formidable in their day. All promised a more enlightened, reasonable Christianity. All were ultimately exposed as departures from the faith once delivered to the saints. Progressive Christianity will suffer the same fate, for the gates of hell cannot prevail against the church Jesus is building.
Until that day, we watch, we warn, we work, and we wait for His appearing. May we be found faithful when He comes.
“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Titus 2:11-13
Bibliography
- Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993.
- Childers, Alisa. Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2020.
- Enns, Peter. The Bible Tells Me So. New York: HarperOne, 2014.
- Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923.
- MacArthur, John. The Truth War. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007.
- McLaren, Brian. A New Kind of Christianity. New York: HarperOne, 2010.
- Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999.
