How Progressives Operate: A Case Study

One of the great disconnects of the liberal progressive mind (I have in mind both political progressives and theological progressives) is the inability to see in itself the evils it abhors in others. No better example is the endless cry for "fairness". Somehow I wonder if this is actually a disconnect or if it is instead a strategy.

I know I've picked on Tony Jones a lot in the past. I've occasionally engaged in the comments section on his blog, but usually found that to be a rather fruitless exercise. At one time, a long time ago, I thought there might be some openness to a more conservative viewpoint there, or at least room for discussion. What I have found instead is a steady pattern of dismissal of most conservative arguments and real discussion only of a range of arguments at varying points left of center. If you are right of center, your views will usually be ignored and when not ignored, characterized in the worst possible light. To avoid being accused of the same, I will provide links and quotes to my comments below.  (more)

A series of posts at the end of the 2013 year lead me to think that either by design or by habit, Tony Jones is exhibiting the standard modus operandi of the left. In particular, what caught my eye was the vehement, unbending, nasty, name-calling and in the end guerrilla tactics toward those who disagree with Tony regarding the issue of women in ministry. The tactic of the left is often to subvert, divide, ridicule and in the end silence the opposition. That is essentially what Tony has called for on this issue. What follows documents my analysis.

For context, Tony has long called anyone who does not agree with the full ordination of women haters. The definition of misogyny is "hatred of women". In calling complementarians "misogynist", Tony is hurling the "hatred" accusation at all who espouse complementarianism, with no room for nuance. There is no room in Tony’s mind for the possibility that physical and psychological differences between men and women can coexist with a genuine belief in equality on the part of a conservative. To take seriously the idea that men and women can be equal while not being the same seems incomprehensible to him, or more to the point, is a possibility he cannot allow.

So the question is, what is a good progressive to do?

For a bit more context, it is interesting to note the top five posts on Tony's site for 2013.

• 5. Premarital Sex — Maybe It’s Not So Bad
• 4. Rachel Held Evans: A Woman’s Voice
• 3. It’s Time for a Schism Regarding Women in the Church
• 2. Rob Bell Calls “Bullshit” on Christian Radio
• 1. Is It Time for Christians to Celebrate Premarital Sex?

That's a lot to be proud of for a Christian blog, right? Two posts pushing the limits on premarital sex, one calling for schism and another using four letter words against critics.

Tactic one for the radical is Subversion: Subversion of the establishment is a hallmark of liberalism, both political and theological. “Liberal” is defined as "favorable to progress or reform", hence the term "progressive" as an alternative to "liberal". A “conservative” by contrast is one "disposed to preserve existing conditions", and I would accept that label. I do want to preserve certain things that are, if not ideal, good - or at least better than the alternative. You would never know from reading liberal and progressive websites that a conservative wants to preserve anything. Instead conservative simply means full of venom and hatred and progressive simply means having the only rational understanding of fairness and justice. But I digress a bit.

Progress. Reform. If one believes progress is needed, by definition one must believe something is currently backwards and unjust. Pushing the limits on sexual mores seems a favorite part of Tony's agenda. He has pushed for gay marriage, and two of his top five suggest that "A new sexual ethic for Christians is desperately needed." So I think "progressive" is an accurate "label" for Tony, and indeed, his blog is on the "progressive" channel at Patheos. He wants change, because the status quo is bad.

But back to the issue of women-hating conservatives.

First tony suggests it is time to divide, time for a schism, on the issue of women in ministry, stage two in liberal tactics - divide.

When Tony called for “schism” many pointed out that "schism" makes little sense in the current era where there are already plenty of denominations that support all kinds of views on the issue. Here is the key question: Why is schism necessary if there are already multiple denominations that have ordained women for over a century? What is the point? Any egalitarian who is unhappy with a church that is complementarian can easily find another denomination or church that is in line with their thinking. Why call for schism?

I jumped into the discussion on Tony’s blog with the following:

"Maybe the agenda isn't really advancing women in ministry, because Tony makes it clear he grew up in a church that ordained women, allowed women preachers and that he never even meets complementarians in real life. Doesn't sound like the world is teeming with aggressive theological cave-men to me. And really, aren't there plenty of places to go? Isn't there already a schism on this issue? How do you start a schism when there are a zillion options already?

"So what is the point?

"Only one thing makes sense. The point is to use name-calling, character assassination, intimidation and false witness to try to force more conservative folks to change their mind. Since folks can already find lots of egalitarian churches, the call apparently is to raise an unholy ruckus in conservative churches, to split those churches, to divide and conquer. 'Agree with the progressive vision or we will tear your churches to shreds'."

Of course, my comments were regarded as harsh and unfair by other commentators, but as we shall see, my instincts were accurate.

What happened over the next few of Tony's posts only confirmed my suspicion. Instead of engaging with the substance of my point (and the points of others who disagree with Tony), the response was to continue character assassination and ridicule of the complementarian viewpoint, to continue to accuse the other side of hatred:

Key quote in his post on misogyny: "...those who readily contextualize the Bible’s position on slavery yet stand firm on the Bible’s misogyny are, in my opinion, steadfastly ignoring both rudimentary hermeneutics and the current movement of the Holy Spirit."

Hope everyone got that. It is not just that complementarians hate women, the Bible itself is contextually guilty of misogyny as well. I do not mean to say that Tony thinks the text is overtly misogynistic, he instead views the cultural context of the Bible to be misogynistic and thus the Bible reflects a backward culture of a bygone age. The only solution to this abject hatred of women is apparently one that is "progressive" or "favorable to progress or reform", and we have to somehow subjectively understand the "movement of the Spirit" because the culture-bound Biblical text itself is part of the problem. The evil is that conservatives want to preserve an outdated idea that is part of the misogyny of the first century itself.

Of course, none of this discussion would be necessary if complementarians were not characterized as haters. It is absolutely necessary to characterize the opposition in the worst possible terms to make sure sympathetic loyalists to the cause will be motivated to act.

So, what to do? The next step is infiltration and influence. Tony followed up with a guest post from Shirley Taylor about how to infiltrate the rest of the larger church to win the day. "Steps for the schism" was the title. Play hardball was the tactic.

Here is the key point from Tony

"Because there isn’t a Baptist church anywhere near her in Texas that allows women to lead, she and her husband attend their local Methodist church, where she reports that they have been “welcomed with love and acceptance.”

Now I am going to stretch just a bit here, but please follow through to the end. Note that the guest was involved in a church that accepted her viewpoint. She was not out in the cold with nowhere to go. She had a place. But that is not enough for the true equality the progressive envisions, for true "fairness". As I suggested in my earlier comment posted on Tony's blog, it isn't enough for Ms Taylor to attend a church that welcomes her with love and acceptance, she must find a way to make sure Baptist churches she does not attend change their viewpoint. How? By contacting bookstores and getting Gender Equality books stocked, by targeting women's ministry groups, and youth programs. Clearly if she is in a church that welcomes her, the changes called for must be agitated for in churches she does not attend.

Am I reading too much into this? No.

After a lot of pushback on the topic, Tony later suggested schism was the wrong word to use. But he did not mean to say that he was pulling back on the aggressive stance or any of the larger agenda, to the contrary, he confirmed what had been my hunch all along. In a dialog with another blogger who felt Tony was going a bit too far and that it might be possible to actually dialog with those whom he disagreed, Tony revealed his ultimate goal in start terms.

"While I don’t want you to skip Thanksgiving dinner with your family over women pastors, I would like us to collectively suffocate those churches and ministries that marginalize women. I’d like to deprive them of oxygen by depriving them of people. Because I think that in the coming years, men and women who value equality will leave churches that do not. People will leave, because they will find those churches to be so out-of-step with what they know in their hearts to be true.”

I don't really need to point out what the reaction would be if a conservative used words like "suffocate" or "deprive of oxygen" to refer to a group he or she disagreed with. Charges of hatred and violence would abound.

But Tony feels free to not only seek a theological circle that agrees with his view, he wants to make sure another viewpoint is utterly squelched, suffocated, silenced and decimated.

This, ultimately is the meaning of progressive tolerance. Tolerance means if you agree with the progressive view you are enlightened, if you do not you are deficient and need to be buried in the rubble of the past.

The irony and hypocrisy of this stance is that conservatives are quite regularly castigated for being obsessed with "certainty" and for imposing their viewpoints on others as if they had a corner on truth.  Yet Tony feels free to pronounce that "The full equality of women and men, however, is an issue that has long since been settled."   The theologian who announced that there is no such thing as Orthodoxy tells us this issue is settled.  Certainty?  Hows this:  "Those who continue misogynistic practices in the church are not being faithful to the Bible or the Spirit of Christ, they are perpetuating retrograde and archaic beliefs and are doing great violence to women and men and the cause of Christ."

And later, to finish off the flourish, Tony repeats a blanket accusation: "In the end, this: Women are not ontologically inferior to men. That’s what complementarians teach. "

Really? Quotation please? Not that I don't think some pastors in some churches teach that, but that is NOT the default position of complementarians.

The default position of complementarians is that men and women are equal in value but different in ways that are real, obvious and in ways that matter to reality. In multiple searches of the definition of the word complementarian, one typically finds as the first statement that men and women are equal in essence, equal in value, equal in person-hood. This always precedes any statement of differences in physical features, psychological makeup or biblical roles. One also routinely finds the specific rejection of patriarchal oppression of women. One routinely finds all kinds of issues where the difference between egalitarians and complementarians is almost non-existent. It does not matter what any complementarian actually teaches, as far as Tony's agenda goes, it is necessary to characterize all complementarians as haters who teach that women are inferior by nature. To win, lying is acceptable to those who do not believe in objective truth.

Characterizing complementarians as “haters” and “oppressors” is necessary for a progressive to win the day. All this in the name of “fairness”.

Now please understand, I do not think all egalitarians are like Tony, nor have I yanked Tony's comments out of context. I have not done to Tony what he has done to complementarians. He has repeatedly referred to complementarians, those he disagrees with, with the label "misogynist" which by definition means one who "hates women". That is well documented. He has specifically called for schism on this issue, though he later reconsidered the word schism. He called, very strongly, for actions that would in essence deprive complementarian churches of members. Those are his words. I am not mischaracterizing his stance, while he has repeatedly mischaracterized that of his opponents.

I have never considered women's ministry roles an essential to the Christian faith. I am a soft complementarian - I believe the command in Ephesians 5:21 to "be submissive to one another" is the context for any discussion of men loving wives or wives submitting to husbands. I think this is an issue good Christians can honestly disagree on.

What I object to is the libelous name calling and hypocritical divisiveness that Tony engages in on this and other topics. What I object to is the tactic of bullying his opponents. Honest debate is a good thing. It just doesn't happen much in progressive circles if a conservative tries to engage.

And I suspect it is because truth, to a progressive, is not something that can be discussed. If truth is a cultural construct, as I have argued elsewhere, one side simply has to win.

Which is why I will never be a progressive.