The Progressive Boogeyman, Pt. 2
By Travis Scott, September 24, 2021. Click here for Part 1 of this series.
Opening the door is a simple strategy employed by parents everywhere to prove there aren’t any monsters, or boogeymen, hiding inside the closets of their children. Sometimes you have to move hanging clothes around a bit to prove you’ve done due diligence in investigating the concern – but in general you basically just need to open the door.
In essence that’s what we need to do with all boogeymen. Since they’re all fictitious one would hope a demonstration that there’s nothing actually in the closet would be enough to allay all fears. However, while I’ve found this to generally work with children, opening the closet on the boogeymen of adults can be much more difficult.
In my last post, I made the point that there are no real theological Progressives in my denomination, the PCA. There are instead Progressive Boogeymen, strawman caricatures used as propaganda to stir people to action, and rally them to a culture war that’s been imported into the Church. I concluded by saying we should seriously question those who believe in the Progressive Boogeyman. More importantly we should vigorously question those who use such figments of imagination to frighten, coerce, and create division. In essence we need to open the door on them and require them to prove that their boogeyman is real.
The reason we need to open the door on this boogeyman is because Progressive and Progressivism are not merely labels – they are charges requiring action. A true Progressive is one who denies core tenets of the Christian faith and who should not be allowed to minister in an orthodox denomination. Charges against ministers in good standing are serious matters. So much so that the Book of Church Order of the PCA (BCO)states the following in regards to someone prosecuting a charge: “if he fails to show probable cause of the charges, he may himself be censured as a slanderer of the brethren.” (BCO 31-9) A lot is at stake when serious charges are made.
So how do we open the door on the Progressive Boogeyman in the PCA (or any other denomination or organization)? It’s as simple as asking and requiring answers of those who continue to misapply the term and use it to denounce people for whom they have no real cause to do so. The next time you hear someone make claims about Progressives or Progressivism in the PCA, or perhaps before the next time you make such claims, ask the following questions.
1. Who do you think is a Progressive?
This is a critical question to start with. If someone is claiming there’s Progressivism in the denomination ask them who it is they know to be promoting and teaching it. If they can’t give a name, or if they refuse to, then you should disregard the claim as nothing more than rumor. Simply saying it’s a known fact or some other such deflection should cause us to be more concerned about the integrity of the one making the claim than about the claim itself. Remember, a claim is not proof and insinuation is not substantiation.
If the person persists in their claim you should warn them that they are violating their own membership or ordination vows by not living as becomes a Christian in their rumormongering and are actually disturbing the peace and unity of the church. Both of which are subject to the discipline of the church.
2. Where did they promote what you’re calling Progressivism?
Now let’s suppose that a claim of Progressivism is made against an actual person or institution. In that case you should ask them to direct you to the source of this person’s, or institution’s, Progressive teaching. Whether it’s a sermon, an article, an interview, or something else – there must be evidence to substantiate the claim. In the modern parlance, ask them to show their receipts.
Remember, to identify a minister as a Progressive is a serious charge and therefore should be accompanied with serious evidence. Again the PCA BCO speaks clearly here: “The testimony of more than one witness shall be necessary in order to establish any charge; yet if, in addition to the testimony of one witness, corroborative evidence be produced, the offense may be considered to be proved.” (BCO 35-3) This requirement is given in accordance with 1 Timothy 5:19. And remember, “if he fails to show probable cause of the charges, he may himself be censured as a slanderer of the brethren.”
At this point in your questioning it must be stressed again that a claim is not proof and insinuation is not substantiation. Simply saying, “He said” or “They teach” is not evidence. Unless the person can show or direct you to a source where theological Progressivism is being taught or promoted they are simply spreading rumors and engaging in slander.
3. Is this actually an area of theological Progressivism or a place of legitimate disagreement on a secondary or tertiary matter?
This may be the most critical question of all, mainly because people aren’t asking question #2. Most of the boogeymen allegations being thrown around in the PCA right now are nothing more than vacuous catchphrase sloganeering. Indeed, that’s basically how the words Progressive and Progressivism are used, but when asked for evidence of Progressivism other boogeymen words are usually substituted for real evidence. Words and phrases like Side B Gay Christianity, Revoice Theology, Woke Theology, Critical Race Theory are thrown out as boogeymen but are never themselves defined. So we need to question whether the evidence provided actually demonstrates that a minister’s belief or teaching is a form of theological Progressivism; or whether it’s simply a position or application their critic doesn’t agree with.
To help in answering this question I’d encourage you to read the Kruger and Childers articles mentioned in Part 1 of this series. For further help, here are a few particular things to keep in mind that DO NOT make a person or position Progressive:
- A different view on the days of Creation.
- A different position on Sabbath observance
- A different approach to how we submit to our Confessional documents.
- A different emphasis on how to missionally engage culture with the Gospel.
- A different application of complementarian practice.
- A different understanding of racial sin and reconciliation.
- An emphasis on the lifelong nature of struggle with sin.
- Speaking at any particular gathering (what matters is what the person actually taught).
- Having a higher appreciation for Common Grace/General Revelation insights from non-Christians and non-Christian theories.
- And maybe most importantly in this current denominational moment, someone voting differently than you on a motion, overture, or whatever doesn’t make someone Progressive, even if you can’t conceive of any good reason they might vote differently.
4. If something is Progressivism, how will you now use the proper Presbyterian channels to address it?
This one may vary depending on your denominational tradition. But, within my denomination, let’s suppose that someone tells you about Progressivism in the PCA, then they are able to identify its source for you, then they can also provide sufficient evidence and upon investigation of the evidence you think it may be true that a minister is promoting theological Progressivism – the next question for you to ask the critic is what they plan to do about it. The Presbyterian Church in America has a robust system of checks and balances and a clear process for prosecuting heresy. If someone is suspected of actual theological Progressivism they should be charged, and tried. Their ecclesiastical trial will be conducted in order to determine their guilt or innocence in relation to the charges. It is true that from time to time pastors and elders do deviate from the Faith handed down from the ages. When that is the case they should be removed from office, but only after being proven guilty.
This is the process for dealing with legitimate claims of heresy – a proper investigation and trial; not a trial by public opinion, speculation, mischaracterization, exaggeration, and gossip through social media and conferences. The level of a critic’s concern is not relevant to issues of truth.
5. How will you demonstrate genuine repentance if this isn’t Progressivism and you’ve tarnished the name of a minister, presbytery, or institution of the denomination?
As is pretty clear from the title of this series, I don’t believe there’s actually a Progressive Boogeyman in the PCA’s closet. But, if we ask all the questions above and they prove my assumption correct there really is a final question to ask as we open the door and engage with those who use such figments of imagination to frighten, coerce, and create division and disunity: How will you repent?
To be sure, actual theological Progressivism is a serious error that should be dealt with seriously. However, it’s not the only serious error, nor is it the one posing the largest threat to the peace and purity of the PCA in this moment. The Scriptures speak clearly about those who abandon the faith. But they also speak clearly against those who trouble the Church of Christ with lies, gossip, slander, contentiousness, and divisiveness.
Remember, a claim is not proof. And insinuation is not substantiation. If those promoting the myth of the Progressive Boogeyman cannot prove its existence - they should beware lest in pursuing what they thought was a righteous cause for God they find themselves facing judgment. Be merciful with them, but speak the truth in love. Open the door to reveal their error, and then encourage them to repent and find forgiveness and freedom in Christ from their destructive ways and for believing in boogeymen.
