Progress: Do we want it and what is it?

[Kari Risher]

What is progress according to our society? Do you think there are guiding assumptions that lead our society inevitably towards something specific (perhaps not dreamt up or articulated by any one person but collectively followed)? Or do you think that our society marches forward blindly, led by no vision at all, but as a victim of its own momentum caused by industrialization and an obsession with making life “easier” and more convenient?

And what is progress according to Christianity? Did God embed into his “plan” for humanity the idea that we must progress towards something, or not? And what is that something? I believe that we are meant to progress towards a state of shalom, and probably many of you would agree but let’s elaborate.

I’m interested in a discussion regarding the vision or end point that guides us and the difference between ours and the one the guides the context in which we live.

[Mark Van Steenwyk]

Whoa. Kari, you raise some interesting and potentially fruitful questions.

I do think that our society is, in some ways, blindly pulled forwards by its own late-consumer capitalist momentum. However, within that, there is a concerted effort by many to move towards a global progressive society of mutual respect and care. I think that there are some beautiful things about this progressive vision--usually promoted by those on the political left, and often tied to socialistic and trans-national ideals.

However, I think the problem with most societal progressivism is that it is often naive about the corrupting effects of power--either political or economic. It tends to try to "push" a progressive vision in a way that is often blind to the darker shades of human nature and, at the same time, too trusting of one's own ability to effectively and ethically use political, economic, and social capital to promote progressive agendas.

Jesus' vision of shalom is progressive in that we are moving towards something. We are called to live in the Shalom of the Kingdom of God, and this isn't something that we long for in some sort of glowing afterlife. Rather, we can embody Shalom more and more in the here and now.

I'm not sure that this is achieved by influencing "society" as though the church--the people of God's shalom--are seasoning in the great global stir-fry of human societies and governments. Rather, I tend to think along the lines of anarchist thought that recognizes that many of the institutions of society are the problem. Rather than affecting change withing government, we should seek to organize ourselves in communities of mutual care and aid, to affect change through direct action as we call others to share in this Shalom with us.

[Michael McAleer]

There is no such thing as progress if you mean by that “moving society and human beings toward a higher good.” Progress was a cheap hat trick produced by the Enlightenment paradigm. If by better you mean a smart bomb is better than a dumb bomb is better than a club, well yes they are more efficient, but not a higher good. We have allowed technological efficiency and access to modern conveniences become a model for “progress”. We also allow progress to determine theological issues (Paul was so dumb), Scripture is antiquated, all progressive people know there really isn’t evil and if we just educate them enough they will become as smart as us. Efficiency, change over time, and convenience are not progress, just changes. Change is sometimes good and sometimes bad, but it does not make either man or society better. We never will, in spite of all our pride “get any better.”

God the Father through Jesus in the power of the Spirit is in the transformation business: changing something that is not, into something that is (see Abraham). Jesus transformed humanity by the cross/resurrection. We now live in the power of the transforming Spirit. Believers live in a strange intersection between God’s present future and our own reality. The Father produces a longing in us to see that transformation become a living reality in his church and in our society. We struggle (at least I do) everyday with living in the intersect and recognizing how far we are from what God truly desires.

If we can learn together that true martiria (witness) of the transforming power of the Father can be lived out in our communities and be a blessing to our society, we will have fulfilled one small purpose of the Father. Real shalom will only come with the new heaven and the new earth, but that doesn’t mean we cannot live it here and now and winess to its power in a society that has settled for a cheap substitute.

[Andrew Cornelius]

Christianity assumes progress. You move from women are property, jews vs. outsiders, YHWH vs. all other gods, even progress toward monotheism initially, to in Christ there is no jew or gentile and so on (not to mention a new covenant). Progress occurred after Jesus left earth (prior to that gentiles were not part of the messianic movement), expectations were formulated regarding new converts, and, of course, Christians today question (and rightfully so in my opinion) some first-century views regarding women, homosexuals, hell, etc. found in various new testament writings.

For Christians, progress is geared toward the imitation of the son. Ultimately, we are called to manifest God (to literally be His children) and to live according to the shema and love of neighbor. Our society, however, may make "progress" in certain respects but it is not pursuing this. The way of Christ sharply contrasts with the way of the world, especially imperial nations such as the United States.

[Nate Myers]

Kari,

GREAT questions!

Michael,

I think you're missing the forest for the trees, even as your "trees" display theological insight deeply informed by the Scriptures. You deeply handicap discussion and important reflection on progress by defining it as "a cheap hat trick produced by the Enlightenment paradigm." A comment like this seems to me to betray one of the deepest messages of the Bible; that human beings can emerge from chaos and darkness and set the goal before the world of seeking God's shalom. Or, as G.K. Chesterton says it a different way, "Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision." In this light, first the Israelites and then the church are called to be a witness to another way of living in the world that is in fact what we were created for.

It's very depressing to me to read your last paragraph and hear your statements of deep truths that you qualify with phrases like "one small purpose" and "real shalom will only come with the new heaven and the new earth." I wish that you could simply state, "If we can learn together that true martiria (witness) of the transforming power of the Father can be lived out in our communities and be a blessing to our society, we can witness to the power of shalom in a society that has settled for a cheap substitute." Now that's an abiding vision I can be gripped by, and the world can orient its focus towards! When we add that Jesus is the pinnacle of that vision, who commands us to fully obey his vision for humanity through suffering unconditional love, selfless humility, and rigorous moral accountability, and that progress is primarily defined by the standards set two thousand years ago rather than whatever johnny-come-lately philosophy or leader, then we've got a powerful foundation laid for true progress. At least that's the way I see it.

Mark,

I think your reflections are very, very wise. I say a hearty "Yes and Amen" to your critiques of blind late-consumer capitalist momentum and naive social progressivism and affirmation of a global progressive effort towards mutual respect and care.

I'm not sure I'm as harshly distinctive as you are between affecting change within government and affecting change through direct action. I think I see where your distinction comes from; that power corrupts, and the church in America (and the general Constantinian understanding) has historically focused on effectiveness and influence and seeking power to make change happen on a societal level. I could add an equally unwise focus; letting the society be and focusing on building our own society ourselves...historically the Mennonites and Amish have been this "quiet in the land" approach. While the latter seems more Biblical (and I think a wise approach to progress means erring on this side without going to the extreme), it doesn't take into account the opportunities presented by certain societies to have a voice in the process of governmental decision-making. One could make an argument from the Bible that we shouldn't get our hands messy in that stuff, but the teaching ministry of Jesus and the New Testament were written in a context of occupied, voiceless vassals of the Roman Empire, and the Old Testament largely is written in the context of absolute kingships where the people obey (and didn't God warn about that in 1 Samuel 8:9-18?).

I dare say if the New Testament were written in a present-day context, there would be more nuanced approaches to how we can influence our societies without being corrupted by influence and power. In that sense, then, I'm attracted to persons who maintain the centrality of the witness of the church while leveraging interfaith and other committed groups to speak to governments that welcome this; America's representative oligarchy included.

Andrew,

I agree that Christianity assumes progress. It's not even that hard to see in the letters of Paul how women and slaves are elevated simply by being spoken to...that we might read Paul's words in the greater context of the gospel to lead toward a world where slavery doesn't exist and women express gifts wisely and are affirmed. Some might call this a tortured reading of Paul, but that's where I'm at. But that's neither here nor there in this discussion.

Where I get uneasy and even outright disagreement with you is how you extend the idea of progress in your second sentence in the first paragraph. Sure, progress occurred after Jesus left earth (though on the issue of Gentiles, Jesus' message laid the foundation for the shift to include them in God's people), yet that progress should not imply that we somehow are progressively more Enlightened as time moves on in all arenas; that's the "cheap hat trick of the Enlightenment paradigm" that Michael made us aware of. Again, for Christians, progress is measured in light of Jesus and major moral decisions are rooted in our trust of the wisdom of the Biblical writers. In fact, some fundamentalist distortions of the role of women, of homosexuals, of hell, etc are rooted in a misinterpretation of the Scriptures, and more liberal Christians are reacting by and large to the distortions of fundamentalists rather than wise interpretation of the Scriptures. At least that's what I think.

I agree that progress should me measured toward the imitation of the Son. I would add that the church is literally called the "body of Christ," as in "we are Jesus in the world." I don't shy away from the massive implications of that statement, because that's what we're commanded to be, to seek full obedience of our Lord, to set the example he set, to be courageous examples of leaving sinfulness behind and embracing God's truth, to mark the boundaries of our community, and to display deep servant love for those not amongst God's faithful people. We primarily help progress by witness, we secondarily help progress by influencing incremental change amongst the pagans.

And I fully am aware that much of what I say sounds utopian, because we the church have too often been spineless cotton-headed ninnymongers...we have royally sucked at seeking the wise balance of a community rooted in Christ proclaiming God's works to each succeeding generation with passion and purpose. But this should not lead us to lower our goals for the sake of effectiveness. I suggest more people in our society should say, "Those Christians are utopian idealists," to which we say, "Your imagination has been darkened by the chaos, selfishness, and violence of this world."

Respectfully,
Nate

[Michael McAleer]

Nate, I wasn’t ignoring you I didn’t have a chance to respond last week.

Nate: I think you're missing the forest for the trees, even as your "trees" display theological insight deeply informed by the Scriptures. You deeply handicap discussion and important reflection on progress by defining it as "a cheap hat trick produced by the Enlightenment paradigm." A comment like this seems to me to betray one of the deepest messages of the Bible; that human beings can emerge from chaos and darkness and set the goal before the world of seeking God's shalom. Or, as G.K. Chesterton says it a different way, "Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision." In this light, first the Israelites and then the church are called to be a witness to another way of living in the world that is in fact what we were created for.
Nope, not missing any forest here and I don’t want to “handicap” discussion, but move it beyond Enlightenment ideas. I want to shift the discussion which is what Kari called for, by making it a less Enlightenment locked idea. Yes, we are called to be witnesses, and that is my point. Witnessing to the power of transformation is totally different for me than believing in progress. Scripture indeed talks about profound change that can take place. I am sorry, I see no “we are moving towards the kingdom in Scripture.” What I do see is a breaking in of God’s grace that transforms people into the image of his Son and allows them to participate in a radically transformed community. I disagree with Mark here, the Bible does not assume progress, but it does assume transformation and it assumes that the world system will always remain just that until divine grace transforms and encloses it within itself.

The idea of inevitable progress, or the bettering of the world is just not true. We are so wrapped up in that idea, that we cannot see how much a grace intervention by the Father into this world is different from we are progressing towards some “telos” that somehow will happen if we can change something. That something to be changed ranges frankly from individuals on the theological right, to economic systems on the theological left. I believe that we can witness to the power of transformation of both of those only in radical communities of faith. That witness will have both individual and collective impact, but it is not dependent upon or defined by either one. In Church History sometimes the most faithful people witnessed while neither one was changed.

Nate: It's very depressing to me to read your last paragraph and hear your statements of deep truths that you qualify with phrases like "one small purpose" and "real shalom will only come with the new heaven and the new earth." I wish that you could simply state, "If we can learn together that true martiria (witness) of the transforming power of the Father can be lived out in our communities and be a blessing to our society, we can witness to the power of shalom in a society that has settled for a cheap substitute." Now that's an abiding vision I can be gripped by, and the world can orient its focus towards!
“One small purpose”, yes it is just that. It really shouldn’t be depressing, except to the point that it throws out other grand schemes. That I qualify things comes perhaps with age. But alas, I am not without hope. I really believe that discussions like this move us forward in our understanding. I am also seeking to follow the Father by creating a network of witnessing communities in Central Texas. Don’t look for things to get better, look for grace just around the next bend in the road.

[Andrew Cornelius]

yet that progress should not imply that we somehow are progressively more Enlightened as time moves on in all arenas; that's the "cheap hat trick of the Enlightenment paradigm" that Michael made us aware of.

I never claimed such an implication.

Again, for Christians, progress is measured in light of Jesus and major moral decisions are rooted in our trust of the wisdom of the Biblical writers. In fact, some fundamentalist distortions of the role of women, of homosexuals, of hell, etc are rooted in a misinterpretation of the Scriptures, and more liberal Christians are reacting by and large to the distortions of fundamentalists rather than wise interpretation of the Scriptures. At least that's what I think.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fundamentalist distortions." There are certainly views, regardless of the enlightenment, within the canon that I contend do not reflect the mind of the historical Jesus. Of course, these are debatable matters, but the wisdom resides with God and Christ themselves, not fallible humans. I do think there are certain things within the scriptures that ought to be seen for what they are and not somehow softened to appear more humane or godly. If this makes me a "liberal" according to some, so be it, but it's not a term I use myself. I strive to read the scriptures on their own terms, but I am not defined by the words of men but rather by the living word of God. As a result, I have long felt the Brethren and Quakers incorporated something into their respective approaches that was lacking within particular Mennonite circles-- namely, a continued openness to the spirit and extrabiblical wisdom. I think some anabaptist groups live by the letter to their own detriment.