Being a “progressive” isnt necessarily about progress

The political term “progressive” implies progress. It implies that those who adhere to the label, prefer change and improvement. But do they really prefer change and improvement as a goal in its own right? Will they to some extent never be satisfied with a status quo? Or is the label just marketing to obscure that are they really just people who like leftist views, and who prefer the label ‘progressive’ because it sounds positive and productive rather than being simply partisan?

We see the same thing in this article, which refers to “A progressive theological current that emphasizes the Catholic Church’s closeness to the poor and the marginalized …” Surely that’s a traditional theological current!

——

For those who want to know more about being ‘progressive’, this video is insightful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwK7VRkbGiU&feature=player_embedded

Share this:

Like this:

Related

2 Comments on “Being a “progressive” isnt necessarily about progress”

I find this SO funny that you point to this article did you read this paragraph

“So how shall we live? More to the point, how shall we live as those who are drawn to the God of Jesus Christ? We must move forward with the confidence and the humility that characterize Jesus in the gospels. When someone is abused by religious intolerance, we must stoop down and lift that one up with the good news of God’s unconditional love. Then we must live that same love in our own lives. We must heal the sick, feed the hungry, raise the dead, pronounce liberation, and remain steadfastly noncompliant with injustice. If we are going to progress in our life in Christ it will only be as we live our lives in imitation of the God of Jesus Christ.”

Your blog is all about religous intolerance (although you probably think that means only intollerant of YOUR religion. Actually, thats when someone is being intolerant on the basis of religion) Which don’t know if you have noticed but you are way obsessed with what gay people do. So you are being conditional not UNCONDITIONAL as God is mentioned in the article. It also says that you should be against injustice, well I don’t think that gay people that don’t practice YOUR religion should have to have laws that treat them differently than you are.

By the way when is the last that you healed the sick or fed the hungry? You aren’t really pronouncing liberation by stopping others from being able to marry who they want. You seem to be nothing like how this article (that YOU referenced) says you should be. If that were the case you would probably be a progressive.

It was a while ago, but yes, I think I read that paragraph as part of reading the entire piece.

I disagree that my blog is all about religious intolerance, but you are entitled to your opinion. You call me ‘obsessed’, but I prefer the term ‘specialising’. On what grounds do you feel im obsessed rather than specialising? Do you feel that those at say, the Human Rights Campaign or GLADD are likewise obsessed?

I dont grasp what you mean when you wrote “So you are being conditional not UNCONDITIONAL as God is mentioned in the article”, particuarly how the second half of your sentence relates to the first half. If you could clarify, I will consider this further.

To a large extent I agree with you that gay non-Christians should not be under laws that treat them differently than me. Im disappointed that you want to bring up the topic of marriage here though. This post is not about marriage. Rather it’s about whether ‘progressive’ is a political euphamism. I have other posts on this blog about marriage, where it would be more suitable to discuss marriage further.

I visted a sick friend in hospital yesterday, and I will be feeding a hungry person today, and I support those values because they are Biblical values. But please dont think I consider myself a ‘Progressive’. I dont. I generally dont support specifically ‘Progressive’ views, and my external link to that article was not an endorsement of the article. Not all of the links on my blog should be considered endorsements of those links. In the same way that sometimes gay websites link to conservative pages to prove a point, I do the reverse.