Hi Brad:

I see hardly any difference between the two.

When we go deeply within ourselves, in prayer, contemplation or meditation, then we get down to the unitive state of synthesis in which all is one. This causes us to be compassionate, whether we are affiliated with a religion or not. Even as a "mere" ideology, humanism is a good idea.

Secular humanism may be preferable to religious humanism because it is free of cumbersome doctrines. One can, however, get rid of doctrinal baggage and remain within religion. Within the United Church, anyway.

Woah woah woah. Progressive just means we're cool with lesbian reverends and pot and gender equality and stuff. You can be very bible-y and come away with that. Part of my belief is that rules aren't particularily important, loving your neighbour is. The emergent church, for example, is very Jesus-crazy and progressive. It's a big tent .

Of course, Kinst, one can be very "bibley," and still be progressive, and the progressive tent is indeed a big tent, housing both the "emerging" and the "emergent" progressive movement. I read Brian McLaren's "Everything Must Change," and was impressed!

"My father's house has many mansions," eh?

Kinst,

I realized the breadth of the "Progressive" label, which is why I did quickly emphasize the "radical" in my post.

Before de-converting, I went through several stages of "liberal" Christianity myself. Formerly a conservative evangelical, I had a paradigm shift based on my studies on the Sermon on the Mount which moved me towards a "liberal" Christianity - but it was still conservative in all aspects theological. I merely would focus on empathy and mercy over justice and, well, "conservative values." Perhaps I would even vote - gasp - NDP. But I still believed in the divinty of Jesus Christ, the doctrine of original sin and sola fides. I suppose this is the "liberal" Christianity you speak of, and I still have many friends that fit that mould. I also understand that mold.

I don't understand the other aspect of "Progressive Christianity" - the theologically liberal. I don't say this with any sort of condenscation. I am merely trying to grasp it. It is extremely hard with someone from my background to do so. Evangelical Christianity is not a balancing act. It is all or nothing. It is very cultish in its manifestation. And I mean this as objectively as I can (which is why I have spent many years studying various forms of New Religious Movements).

Hello again, Brad:

Why do Spong and Vosper bother with the name Christian if they are spiritually minded atheists?

Why not? The name "Christian" has never been copyrighted. Anyone who wants to can call themselves Christian by self-definition.

Moreover, although we don't know much about the historical Jesus, it seems quite clear that he welcomed people unconditionally, without asking for their religious affiliations. Unconditional inclusiveness seems to have been the spirit of the original movement around Jesus. Why should such inclusiveness not be practiced by a modern day Christian denomination? 

hey Brad - Go SEE Spong -  I read his books and found them cold, but when you see & hear him talk, his faith & his spirit is warm & excited & contagious. 

I'd have to say what defines him as more "Christian" than secular is that he has tuned into & followed a tranformational connection with the Spirit (as anyone might define it) and he has willingly dedicated himself to exploring & expressing it.  We came to know God through the Christian faith, and have discovered much to continue following, even as we set aside (or throw away gleefully!) useless stuff.

 I find the more I dig into my faith & tradition, and other understandings & the more I let go of useless things, the more I find the Spirit/connection between people to be hopeful, inspiring, peaceful, transforming.  So I choose to follow along in that Spirit.  I can make room for many people who don't believe the same as me, because I love their journey & their energy doing good things. 

Gretta V is demanding about getting rid of God-language.  I hear what she is saying, because it confuses some people.  I could live that way, but  I think there is a dishonesty about it and that it is somewhat unnecessary.  We do have to be clear about what we believe or don't though.

Jesus spoke of justice, but also of relationship with the Spirit and with each other.  I think progressive Christians find their "Christianity" in that, rather than literal faith or Christ's divinity.  (And maybe we're a little frustrated that the term has been twisted to mean literal faith & holy rollers only.)

Is there a similar willingness to transformative journey & relationship for Secular humanists?  If not, maybe that defines the difference?

After reading Vosper, I stopped using the term 'progressive' because I don't want to be identified with her position.  There are days I identify best with Brian McLaren's self-definition which he uses in his book

A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN

This is kind of coming back to one of the questions in my old UU and Progressive Christianity thread: at what point do progressive Christians of the Vosper school become virtually indistinguishable from Unitarian Universalists, many of whom self-identify as either secular or religious humanists? I'm now 2/3 of the way through With or Without God and I'm certain that I would be quite at home in West Hill United Church (or any other church that chose to adopt her model) if I was looking for a church today. The only thing that I would find missing there that I get in UU'ism is the diversity (i.e. the ability to draw on a multitude of spiritual sources). However, both Unitarianism and Universalism began as liberal theological movements in American Christianity in the 18th-19th centuries so the possibility that Vosper's brand of progressive Christianity could evolve along similar lines certainly has a precedent.

Mendalla

When I was into Spong's and any other books which use the term " progressive" , I felt the same way Brad does. I love their idea of a progressive approach, but still wonder why they keep the label, "christianity." I assumed that they kept the label jsut because they were already christians before they turned. I don't know if this makes sense. If an institute like UCC accepts all different forms of beliefs, why are people in there still categorized as christians? Why not label themselves just as "progressive belivers" who believe in the humanity that people like Spong emphasize? Why not combine the main root of each religion if they differenciate themselves from secular humanists?

Hi mosaic62 -- let's make a clear distinction between the United Church of Canada as a whole, and Gretta Vosper.  The UCC is clear about being a Christian church  -- not just "remembering our Christian roots," but actively seeking to follow in the way of Jesus.  However, the UCC also deeply respects the right of individual congregations to determine their own theological stance, which has meant that Ms. Vosper can continue to be a minister even though she wants to toss Jesus, the Bible, and pretty much any personal God idea out the window.  That frustrates me greatly, I have to tell you!

So yes, the UCC respects all faith paths that are life-giving, but it is clearly identified as following the Christian path.

shalom!

I think there is a real difference between being a progressive Christian and a secular humanist. A ProgXn still finds the symbols of the tradition to have meaning and purpose.  Secular humanists do no believe in any transcendent experience, which we sill call the Holy, the Divine, or God. Some even still dare to use the traditional language of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as a meaningful way of encountering it.

Hi Brads ego, 

Gretta Vosper is further out on the branch than Spong, I would say, although Spong has become more radically progressive in recent years.  In my experience (I am a former member of Gretta's congregation), her position does not equate to secular humanism.  Religious humanism would probably be a more accurate way to describe it. 

In With or Without God, Gretta describes the non-theistic gatherings which are being offered at West Hill.   Elements of these gatherings are outlined in the Toolbox.  Some Christian symbols are retained, although they have been reinterpreted. 

why not throw the word "Christian" out the window?  This is why.

Yes, RevJames, I quite agree. Secular humanism tends to disregrad spiritual or transcendental experience as the root of humanism. Gretta Vosper's humanism is not the humanism that arises from spiritual experience, but humanism as a purely intellectual idea and ideal.

There is nothing wrong with such an ideal; it is very laudable indeed, but it has lost the experientially spiritual foundation of religion.

But Gretta is about to write a second book. Maybe we'll be in for a "surprise, surprise!"

Yes, Birthstone, justice, and a relationship with Spirit and each other—This, is what modern or "progressive" Christianity is, or ought to be, about.

Psst..don't tell Spong and Vosper...but   I hear that in the 1970s, the cheap doobies made their current ideas seem quite novel.

Hi Melchizedek: Welcome to wondercafe; I'm glad you joined us!

How did you come by your avatar? Are you a Priest of the Order of Melchizedek?

Brad I am part of a theological movement called process theology - given philosophical form in 1920's by AN Whitehead ( to give a date for progressive) and shares much with bergson and James and Pierce ( american pragmatist) In the late seventies we used the term post modern and some began to use the term progressive to move beyond liberalism - I do not find either spong or vosper to be progressive but modernists ( that is not post modern) - while some of spongs stuff has been important and helpful.  Check out Process and Faith web site.