Today we are addressing Progressive Christianity. To be clear, we are not talking about politics, though they often go hand in hand. Progressive Christianity is an outgrowth of liberal Christianity, which accepted the modernist ethos of the Enlightenment and merged it with Christianity. Likewise Progressive Christianity brings the assumptions and moral commitments of postmodernism to Christianity. Thus, individual experiences and stories, especially from minorities, victims, and the disenfranchised have higher authority than scripture, history, or logic. As a result, Progressive Christians feel free to disagree with scripture if it seems to cause distress or difficulty for people. Our inner sense of goodness and personal purpose are the spiritual authorities that should guide us, not what Jesus said, not what the church says, not what the bible says.
Today I’m playing out a teaching by Mike Winger of Bible Thinker. He had served as a youth pastor and worship leader at a Calvary Chapel church in California before YouTube ministry became his full time focus. His YouTube channel currently has nearly half a million subscribers and his focus is on thinking biblically about life. I thought he made some great points in this presentation that will sensitize you to the cultural creep that is slowly adjusting all of our moral compasses.
4 thoughts on “448 What’s Wrong with Progressive Christianity? (Mike Winger)”
The fellow is a good speaker. However, I would suggest that his understanding of God and Jesus the Messiah is also progressive.
Sure, he has a more “conservative” view than most the people who he quotes, but there were a number of things he explained about progressive Christianity that I found myself saying, “Wow, he’s describing his own brand of Christianity and doesn’t realize it”.
To illustrate, my two questions to the speaker would be:
1. How many persons is God? (he would answer “three”).
3. Then why do you refer to God as “He”? Three persons are “they”.
His use of pronouns is as progressive as the people he analyzes/condemns.
Point taken, Bill – but personally, I’m not overconcerned if Mike Winger is a Trinitarian, just as long as he acts like a biblically informed Christian.
“Progressive Christianity” is essentially a Man-centred religion. Furthermore, it should perhaps, more accurately, be re-named as ‘ Regressive “Christianity” ‘ – as it very probably mirrors the mentality and the argumentation of the characters that Jude had to put up with (Jude, verses 3-19).
Hi Sean, great to see Mike Winger on here, I’ve been listening to his content for quite some time now. I think I might have even made a recommendation in an earlier comment, but I’m not entirely sure about that. Sure, we might disagree here and there, but overall I think he has high quality content.
The fellow is a good speaker. However, I would suggest that his understanding of God and Jesus the Messiah is also progressive.
Sure, he has a more “conservative” view than most the people who he quotes, but there were a number of things he explained about progressive Christianity that I found myself saying, “Wow, he’s describing his own brand of Christianity and doesn’t realize it”.
To illustrate, my two questions to the speaker would be:
1. How many persons is God? (he would answer “three”).
3. Then why do you refer to God as “He”? Three persons are “they”.
His use of pronouns is as progressive as the people he analyzes/condemns.
Point taken, Bill – but personally, I’m not overconcerned if Mike Winger is a Trinitarian, just as long as he acts like a biblically informed Christian.
Mike Winger makes some good points :
“Progressive Christianity” is essentially a Man-centred religion. Furthermore, it should perhaps, more accurately, be re-named as ‘ Regressive “Christianity” ‘ – as it very probably mirrors the mentality and the argumentation of the characters that Jude had to put up with (Jude, verses 3-19).
Hi Sean, great to see Mike Winger on here, I’ve been listening to his content for quite some time now. I think I might have even made a recommendation in an earlier comment, but I’m not entirely sure about that. Sure, we might disagree here and there, but overall I think he has high quality content.