Defining 'Progressive'

I love the terms "reproductive freedom" and "marriage equity" The true progressives of the early 20th century were interested in economic equity and economic freedoms for the less priveleged. I can relate to progressives on economic issues; I certainly can't relate when it comes to social issues, especially when abortion doctors make a lot of money off their "work", supported by our tax money; and Jesus talked about marriage as a "man and a woman"

If the "purist progressives" don't have any use for moderate voices, this only weakens their credibility and narrows their audience.

I personally have found the term "progressive evangelical" somewhat useful in describing myself because it's quicker than saying "theologically conservative but politically liberal, most of the time." The term also helps to remind people that contrary to urban legend, a substantial political spectrum exists within American evangelicalism.

One-word descriptions like conservative, liberal, evangelical, progressive and postmodern have become increasingly unhelpful until you can determine whether theology, political views, or both are being described.

"Postmodern progressive" sounds trendy in the blogosphere, but has too many connotations of theological liberalism for my (theologically, not politically) evangelical perspective.

There are very few Americans not quite committed to the ideal of progress.

There are zero political activists not interested in power.

Self-described progressives are as prone to fundamentalist dogma as are Fundamentalists.

"We typically seek to define the world in order to control the world."

That's an interesting thought.

People are threatened by what they don't understand. If you can label someone

I love the terms "reproductive freedom" and "marriage equity" The true progressives of the early 20th century were interested in economic equity and economic freedoms for the less priveleged. I can relate to progressives on economic issues; I certainly can't relate when it comes to social issues, especially when abortion doctors make a lot of money off their "work", supported by our tax money; and Jesus talked about marriage as a "man and a woman"

That was a good follow-up. I think labels can be helpful, but when a label is all you use to either define yourself to to pinpoint an ideological opponent, it shows immaturity and lack of developed thinking. I call myself "libertarian" but that's only helpful so far as it gives a general idea where I come from. I'm foremost a follower of Christ, which has "veto power" (so to speak) over any libertarian axiom I come across that goes against Christ (Ayn Rand's stuff comes to mind).

In any case, I despise the word progressive because it is an arrogant term used to positively define oneself while implying a negative adjective ("regressive," but simply not being PROgressive is bad enough, right?) on those who don't adhere. Who is against progress? It's a power-over ideological label. Progressivism, historically, is an illiberal ideology anyway.

I would take issue with your last sentence. My state, Wisconsin, was at the forefront of the Progressive movement in the early 2oth century, leading to many needed changes in our society. The Wisconsin Idea was also developed, where the borders of the university were the borders of the state; thus the idea of University Extension going out to teach new methods of farming, food preservation, homemaking skills, etc. God can use government for good, especially when the Church fails at its mission. He certainly used it for His purposes in the Old Testament to bring justice on occasion.

And, of course, the other side, being so perfect in nature, would never stoop so low as to label conservatives as the Religious Right, especially if they're anti-abortion and pro traditional marriage. Just because you don't like conservatives, blue deacon, doesn't mean they don't have at least a few ideas to change society. Not all modern "progressivism" is a good thing.

We all bring a different perspective to the table, we all have different gifts. Assigning a label to ourselves - as if a few words could meaningfully represent who we are, what we believe, and what we value

Doesn't any cultural authority become resistant to change or relinquishment of its authority???

As it relates to Christianity--I think of my two hometowns, Minneapolis and Montgomery,AL and then Boston. I assess them to be about equally shaped by Christian thought, politics, and institutions. But the cultural/civic life is each unique as they developed with different threads of Christianity being a dominant influence. The liberalism of Minnesota is every bit as much related to the influence of Lutheran/Catholic Christian world as Montgomery's conservatism is shaped by Baptist/Methodists or Boston being shaped by Catholics. I think it difficult to view any of them as being particularly friendly about giving up cultural authority.

In the words of Joe Strummer, "He who f...."

Let's just say that I see RCIA in your future.

Now, repeat after me; Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee...

"I'm foremost a follower of Christ, which has "veto power" over any [political] axiom I come across that goes against Christ."

Good. The association between liberalism and abortion/gay marriage is getting tired - or, if you prefer, I'm getting tired of having it forced down my throat (not directed at you, xfree9).

My politics are largely based on the social justice teachings of the Catholic Church, so I really can't defend any politician or political platform.

FWIW, I agree with some elements of libertarianism, just as I agree with some elements of conservatism. I am not one to toe any party line.

I suppose I could be 'labeled' as an independent, but even that has partisan connotations. Besides, Louisiana residents have to register party affiliation to vote in the primaries. Those registered as independents are not permitted to vote.

While we're on the subject of nomenclature, are 'criticism' and 'bashing' synonymous?

Do you feel that you are guilty of 'bashing' the right?

I have never bashed the right, though I certainly am very, very critical of it. The difference is that when you bash someone it's only because that person exists. Legitimate criticism, however, is based on whatever the person or group has said and/or done.

That is the difference between the "left" and the "right" in this country. For example, you rarely saw any criticism of GWB simply because he subscribed to conservative ideology; rather, people were angry about the suspect way he got into office, plus his handling of the war in Iraq and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina caused his ratings to tumble. On the other hand, just weeks after Bill Clinton's first inauguration in 1993, bumper stickers saying "Don't Blame Me -- I Voted for Clinton" started popping up, and there's already a Facebook group "Nobama in '12." That's bashing. (Had 9/11 taken place during the watch of a liberal president the conservatives would not give the same respect to him/her as Bush.)

Had to get that another dig in, didn't you! Gosh, I'll be so much more careful next time, as one never knows who will be lurking around the lexicon corner.

That was a good follow-up. I think labels can be helpful, but when a label is all you use to either define yourself to to pinpoint an ideological opponent, it shows immaturity and lack of developed thinking. I call myself "libertarian" but that's only helpful so far as it gives a general idea where I come from. I'm foremost a follower of Christ, which has "veto power" (so to speak) over any libertarian axiom I come across that goes against Christ (Ayn Rand's stuff comes to mind).

In any case, I despise the word progressive because it is an arrogant term used to positively define oneself while implying a negative adjective ("regressive," but simply not being PROgressive is bad enough, right?) on those who don't adhere. Who is against progress? It's a power-over ideological label. Progressivism, historically, is an illiberal ideology anyway.

Ando,

On a recent thread (http://blog.sojo.net/2009/04/13/celebrating-eas...) you accused me of making disparaging comments about you, an allegation that I challenged and you withdrew.

Perhaps BlueDeacon should issue the same challenge; for you to review his DISQUS profile and find specific examples of what you consider 'bashing the right.'

And, of course, the other side, being so perfect in nature, would never stoop so low as to label conservatives as the Religious Right, especially if they're anti-abortion and pro traditional marriage. Just because you don't like conservatives, blue deacon, doesn't mean they don't have at least a few ideas to change society. Not all modern "progressivism" is a good thing.

And you spend your time bashing the Right. So what's the difference? Frankly, it's getting really old. Time to give up beating a dog when it's down.

The "Christianity" that developed in each city where you lived was far
different and influenced by the culture from which it came. The South was,
and still is, full of anti-authoritarian resisters, owing to the Scots-Irish;
not so with the Scandinavians who settled in Minnesota or the Irish Catholics
who came to Boston.

I'm not sure what about your description makes my last sentence incorrect. I'm sure strides were made in Wisconsin, and if Progressives were to thank for that, fine. But that doesn't mean what I said was incorrect. In general, Progressive ideology is about seeing a future goal and pursuing that goal at the expense of liberty. Hence it is an "illiberal ideology." I'm not saying the goals reached were wrongheaded, but if they were reached at the expense of the freedom of others, I don't find that "progressive" by any stretch.

The right hasn't changed. In fact, I've noticed a palpable rage on the part of members of my own congregation toward Obama -- and this considering that the congregation is interracial and multi-cultural.

I think today that the term "progressive" lacks any clear meaning at all. It is used primarily in terms of politics rather than religion, and now when it is used in a religious context it usually seems to involve hijacking religion for partisan political purposes.

There is a rather wide spectrum who use "progressive" to mean whatever they support. So you have "progressives" on both sides of many political issues and partisan approaches. It's pretty meaningless.

At one time, I considered myself a progressive. But in recent history, it seems that the majority of "progressives" have been associated with supporting one of the two major political parties that represent the military-industrial complex. They have been in the position of supporting "the seamless shroud" - militarism, abortion and the death penalty (many of them claim to oppose two or all three of these, but they zealously campaign for those who support them all). I can not identify myself with progressives if that means supporting violence as the "solution" for most problems.

Christians serious about being disciples of Jesus Christ should not be identifying with political parties or movements that stand in clear opposition to the gospel.

I have never bashed the right, though I certainly am very, very critical of it. The difference is that when you bash someone it's only because that person exists. Legitimate criticism, however, is based on whatever the person or group has said and/or done.

That is the difference between the "left" and the "right" in this country. For example, you rarely saw any criticism of GWB simply because he subscribed to conservative ideology; rather, people were angry about the suspect way he got into office, plus his handling of the war in Iraq and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina caused his ratings to tumble. On the other hand, just weeks after Bill Clinton's first inauguration in 1993, bumper stickers saying "Don't Blame Me -- I Voted for Clinton" started popping up, and there's already a Facebook group "Nobama in '12." That's bashing. (Had 9/11 taken place during the watch of a liberal president the conservatives would not give the same respect to him/her as Bush.)