
I. Introduction
1. Theological Scope and Focus
Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy represent two divergent trajectories within the broader Christian tradition. Progressive Christianity, emerging largely in the 20th and 21st centuries, seeks to reinterpret traditional Christian doctrines in light of contemporary cultural and ethical concerns.¹ This movement places a significant emphasis on personal experience, inclusivity, and social justice as the primary lenses for understanding the Christian faith.² Conversely, Patristic Orthodoxy, rooted in the teachings of the Ante-Nicene and Nicene Fathers, prioritizes the preservation of apostolic teachings, the authority of Scripture, and adherence to the historic creeds of the Church.³ The theological differences between these two paradigms are not merely academic but deeply impact how faith is practiced and lived within the Church today.
The United Methodist Church (UMC) has become a critical arena where these competing theological frameworks clash. The UMC, historically grounded in Wesleyan theology, has been a bastion of evangelical and orthodox Christianity. However, in recent decades, it has become increasingly polarized over issues of biblical authority, human sexuality, and social justice.⁴ This polarization reflects broader cultural shifts within Christianity, as “woke” ideologies influence denominations globally. The tensions within the UMC offer a microcosm of the broader challenges facing contemporary Christianity.
At the heart of this debate lies the question of biblical authority. For Patristic Orthodoxy, the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, authoritative and unchanging.⁵ This perspective is evident in the writings of Church Fathers such as Augustine, who emphasized that Scripture, as God’s revelation, must govern both faith and practice.⁶ Progressive Christianity, however, often views the Bible as a human document that reflects the cultural and historical contexts in which it was written.⁷ This hermeneutical divergence has far-reaching implications for theology, ethics, and ecclesial identity.
The central thesis of this paper is that Progressive Christianity’s departure from Patristic Orthodoxy, particularly in its view of biblical authority and doctrinal reinterpretation, poses profound challenges to the theological and ecclesial identity of the UMC. This divergence is not merely a matter of differing interpretations but represents a fundamental shift in the nature of Christianity itself. As Progressive Christianity redefines core doctrines to align with modern cultural values, it risks undermining the theological coherence and historical continuity of the Christian faith.
Understanding the historical and theological trajectories of Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy is essential for engaging in meaningful dialogue within the Church. By examining these paradigms in detail, this paper aims to illuminate the underlying theological assumptions that drive contemporary debates within the UMC. This exploration is not an exercise in polemics but a call to return to the theological foundations that have sustained the Church throughout history.
This section concludes by situating the discussion within the broader context of the Christian tradition. The debate between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a larger historical pattern in which the Church has grappled with cultural and theological shifts. By examining these tensions through the lens of the UMC, this paper seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing contemporary Christianity.
2. The Need for Comparative Analysis
The theological and practical differences between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy necessitate a robust comparative analysis. Progressive Christianity, as represented by figures like Richard Rohr and Marcus Borg, often emphasizes a reinterpretation of Scripture and doctrine to align with modern ethical frameworks.⁸ By contrast, Patristic Orthodoxy prioritizes continuity with the apostolic faith, emphasizing the authority of Scripture as understood through the rule of faith.⁹ These differing priorities make a comparative study essential for understanding the current tensions within the UMC and other denominations.
The need for such an analysis becomes evident when one considers the historical role of the Patristic Fathers in defining orthodoxy. Figures such as Irenaeus and Athanasius defended the faith against heresies that sought to reinterpret the teachings of the apostles.¹⁰ Their writings provide a framework for understanding the theological boundaries of Christianity, boundaries that Progressive Christianity often seeks to expand or redefine.¹¹ A comparative analysis allows us to examine how these historical theological principles apply to contemporary debates.
In the context of contemporary Christianity, the rise of “wokeness” has introduced new challenges to traditional theology. Wokeness, often associated with Critical Race Theory (CRT) and radical inclusivity, prioritizes social justice concerns over doctrinal fidelity.¹² While these concerns are not inherently incompatible with Christianity, their elevation above theological principles often leads to a distortion of the faith. A comparative analysis enables us to discern whether these developments represent legitimate contextualization or a departure from orthodoxy.
The United Methodist Church serves as an ideal case study for this analysis because it exemplifies the broader theological and cultural tensions within Christianity. The UMC’s ongoing debates over human sexuality, biblical authority, and social justice highlight the practical implications of these theological differences.¹³ By comparing Progressive Christianity with Patristic Orthodoxy, this paper seeks to provide a theological framework for addressing these issues.
Furthermore, a comparative study can help bridge the gap between tradition and contemporary practice. While Patristic Orthodoxy provides a solid theological foundation, it must be applied in ways that address the unique challenges of the modern world.¹⁴ Progressive Christianity, despite its flaws, raises important questions about inclusivity and justice that the Church cannot ignore. A comparative analysis allows us to integrate the strengths of both paradigms while remaining faithful to the apostolic faith.
In conclusion, the need for comparative analysis arises from the recognition that Christianity is at a crossroads. Theological and cultural shifts are reshaping the Church, and the outcome of these debates will have far-reaching implications. By examining the differences between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy, this paper aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges facing contemporary Christianity and provide a pathway for theological renewal.
3. Defining “Wokeness” in a Theological Context
The term “wokeness” originates from the concept of being awake to social injustices, particularly systemic racism, gender inequality, and economic disparities. In recent decades, it has evolved into a cultural movement that prioritizes the rectification of perceived societal inequities.¹⁴ Critical Race Theory (CRT), a key intellectual underpinning of wokeness, emphasizes the centrality of race and systemic oppression in societal structures. While CRT originated as a legal framework for analyzing systemic racism, its influence has permeated other disciplines, including theology, where it has reshaped how some Christians interpret Scripture and approach ecclesiology.¹⁵ For proponents of Progressive Christianity, wokeness represents a theological imperative to pursue justice and equity as central to the Christian mission.
The theological incorporation of wokeness into Progressive Christianity has significantly influenced its hermeneutics. Progressive theologians, such as Brian McLaren and Diana Butler Bass, advocate for a reinterpretation of Scripture through the lens of social justice.¹⁶ This hermeneutical approach often prioritizes the lived experiences of marginalized groups over traditional doctrinal interpretations. As a result, key biblical texts are re-examined to affirm inclusivity and equality, even when these reinterpretations depart from historical understandings of orthodoxy.¹⁷ While such re-readings claim to honor the Gospel’s ethical imperatives, critics argue that they often subordinate theological truth to cultural trends.¹⁸
The ecclesiology of Progressive Christianity has also been shaped by wokeness. Churches influenced by wokeness emphasize inclusivity and activism as central expressions of Christian discipleship.¹⁹ This has led to the adoption of practices such as the display of rainbow flags and the use of liturgies that affirm LGBTQ+ identities. These symbols and practices are intended to convey a message of radical hospitality but have also generated significant controversy within denominations like the United Methodist Church.²⁰ Traditionalists contend that such practices represent a departure from the theological and moral teachings of Scripture as understood by the Patristic Fathers.
The integration of CRT into theological discourse has raised significant concerns among orthodox Christians. Critics, such as Alisa Childers, argue that CRT’s emphasis on systemic oppression and power dynamics often leads to a reductionist view of sin and salvation.²¹ In this framework, sin is understood primarily in terms of societal structures rather than personal rebellion against God, and salvation becomes synonymous with societal liberation rather than reconciliation with God.²² This redefinition of core theological concepts represents a significant departure from the teachings of the early Church, which emphasized the universality of sin and the necessity of Christ’s atoning work.
The ideological underpinnings of wokeness also raise questions about its compatibility with traditional Christian theology. Wokeness often assumes a postmodern epistemology that denies absolute truth and prioritizes lived experience as the ultimate authority.²³ This epistemological shift stands in stark contrast to the Patristic emphasis on divine revelation as the source of truth.²⁴ For the Church Fathers, theology was rooted in the objective truth of Scripture and the creeds, which provided a stable foundation for faith and practice. The relativism inherent in wokeness challenges this foundation, leading to significant theological and practical tensions.
In summary, the adoption of wokeness and CRT within Progressive Christianity has reshaped its theology, hermeneutics, and ecclesiology in profound ways. While these frameworks seek to address important ethical concerns, they often do so at the expense of theological coherence and fidelity to historic Christianity. By examining the ideological underpinnings and theological implications of wokeness, this paper seeks to illuminate the challenges it poses to orthodox Christian theology and ecclesial unity.
4. The Historical Authority of Scripture
The authority of Scripture has been a cornerstone of orthodox Christianity since the earliest days of the Church. The Patristic Fathers viewed the Bible as the divinely inspired Word of God, given to humanity as a revelation of God’s will and character.²⁵ Augustine, in his Confessions, describes Scripture as “the sacred writings” through which God speaks directly to His people.²⁶ This understanding of the Bible as inerrant and inspired provided the foundation for the Church’s doctrinal and moral teachings, ensuring continuity with the apostolic faith. The Patristic Fathers emphasized the unity of the Old and New Testaments, asserting that both bore witness to Christ as the fulfillment of God’s redemptive plan.²⁷
In contrast, Progressive Christianity often approaches the Bible as a human document shaped by cultural and historical contexts. Marcus Borg, a leading figure in Progressive theology, argues that the Bible should be understood metaphorically rather than literally.²⁸ For Borg and others, the value of Scripture lies not in its authority as divine revelation but in its ability to inspire ethical living and spiritual growth.²⁹ This hermeneutical shift represents a significant departure from the Patristic understanding of Scripture as the ultimate authority for faith and practice.³⁰
The inerrancy of Scripture was a key tenet defended by the early Church Fathers against heretical movements such as Gnosticism and Marcionism. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, emphasized the coherence and unity of Scripture, arguing that it was divinely inspired and free from error.³¹ This belief in the inerrancy of Scripture provided a safeguard against theological innovation and ensured that the Church’s teachings remained grounded in apostolic tradition. The Progressive view, which often emphasizes personal interpretation and experience, risks undermining this foundation by allowing cultural norms to dictate theological truth.³²
The role of Scripture in shaping moral and ethical teachings also highlights the divergence between Patristic Orthodoxy and Progressive Christianity. For the Church Fathers, Scripture was the ultimate authority in determining right and wrong, providing clear guidance on issues such as sexuality, marriage, and human relationships.³³ Progressive Christianity, however, often reinterprets biblical teachings on these issues to align with contemporary cultural values.³⁴ This reinterpretation is evident in the Progressive emphasis on inclusivity and affirmation, which often prioritizes personal experience over biblical mandates.³⁵
The implications of these differing views of Scripture extend to the Church’s ecclesiology and mission. For the Patristic Fathers, the Church was the custodian of Scripture, entrusted with preserving its teachings and ensuring its proper interpretation.³⁶ This understanding of the Church as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” stands in contrast to the Progressive view, which often emphasizes the Church’s role as an agent of social change rather than a guardian of theological truth.³⁷ The tension between these two perspectives is particularly evident in debates within the United Methodist Church, where questions of biblical authority and interpretation have become central to the denomination’s identity crisis.³⁸
In conclusion, the historical authority of Scripture is a defining characteristic of Patristic Orthodoxy that distinguishes it from Progressive Christianity. While the latter seeks to contextualize and reinterpret the Bible in light of contemporary concerns, the former upholds its inerrancy and inspiration as essential to the Christian faith. By examining these differing views, this paper aims to highlight the theological and practical challenges posed by Progressive Christianity’s departure from the historic understanding of Scripture.
5. United Methodist Church as a Case Study
The United Methodist Church (UMC) represents a particularly relevant case study for analyzing the clash between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy. Historically rooted in the Wesleyan tradition, the UMC emerged from the Methodist movement of the 18th century, which emphasized personal holiness, evangelical zeal, and scriptural fidelity.³⁹ However, in recent decades, the UMC has faced significant internal tensions as progressive ideologies have gained influence within the denomination.⁴⁰ These tensions have placed the UMC at the center of broader debates about biblical authority, human sexuality, and the role of the Church in addressing social justice issues.
One reason the UMC is an apt focus for this analysis is its global nature and theological diversity. The UMC is one of the largest Protestant denominations in the world, with millions of members across multiple continents.⁴¹ This global reach has resulted in a wide range of theological perspectives within the denomination, from conservative evangelicalism in Africa and parts of the United States to progressive liberalism in Western Europe and urban centers in North America.⁴² The presence of these diverse theological streams within a single denomination makes the UMC a microcosm of the broader tensions between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy.
The ongoing debates over human sexuality have been a particularly significant source of conflict within the UMC.⁴³ At issue are questions surrounding the ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy and the performance of same-sex marriages, with progressive factions advocating for full inclusion and conservative factions insisting on adherence to traditional biblical teachings.⁴⁴ These debates culminated in the 2019 General Conference, where delegates narrowly approved the “Traditional Plan,” which reaffirmed the denomination’s prohibition on same-sex marriage and the ordination of practicing LGBTQ+ individuals.⁴⁵ This decision, however, has not resolved the tensions, as progressive congregations and leaders continue to resist and challenge the denomination’s stance.
Theological discourse within the UMC has also been shaped by key historical moments that reflect its evolving identity. One such moment was the 1939 merger of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and the Methodist Protestant Church to form the Methodist Church, a predecessor to the UMC.⁴⁶ This merger brought together diverse theological perspectives but also highlighted the challenges of maintaining unity amid doctrinal differences.⁴⁷ Another pivotal moment was the 1968 merger of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church to create the UMC, which formalized the denomination’s commitment to inclusivity and ecumenism.⁴⁸
The current tensions within the UMC can also be traced to broader cultural and theological shifts in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The rise of liberation theology, feminist theology, and other progressive movements has significantly influenced the theological discourse within the denomination.⁴⁹ While these movements have contributed valuable insights into issues of justice and equality, they have also introduced theological frameworks that often conflict with the UMC’s traditional doctrinal commitments.⁵⁰ These shifts have made it increasingly difficult for the denomination to maintain a unified theological and ecclesial identity.
In conclusion, the UMC serves as a compelling case study for examining the tensions between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy. Its global reach, theological diversity, and ongoing debates over critical issues such as human sexuality make it a microcosm of the broader challenges facing contemporary Christianity. By analyzing the UMC’s historical trajectory and current conflicts, this paper seeks to shed light on the theological and practical implications of these tensions and provide insights into the path forward for the Church.
6. Methodological Framework
The methodological framework for this study is rooted in an interdisciplinary approach that integrates theological exegesis, historical analysis, and sociological study.⁵¹ This approach is essential for capturing the multifaceted nature of the tensions between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy, as well as their implications for the United Methodist Church. By employing multiple disciplines, this paper seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis that is both theologically robust and contextually informed.⁵²
The first component of the methodological framework is theological exegesis. This involves a close reading and interpretation of primary theological texts, including the writings of the Patristic Fathers and contemporary Progressive Christian scholars.⁵³ For example, the works of Augustine, Irenaeus, and Tertullian will be examined to understand the historical foundations of Patristic Orthodoxy.⁵⁴ Similarly, the writings of Brian McLaren, Diana Butler Bass, and Richard Rohr will be analyzed to capture the theological priorities and hermeneutical approaches of Progressive Christianity.⁵⁵ This exegetical work will provide the theological foundation for comparing the two paradigms.
The second component is historical analysis, which involves situating the theological developments of both Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy within their historical contexts.⁵⁶ For the Patristic tradition, this includes examining the early Church’s responses to heresies such as Gnosticism, Arianism, and Pelagianism, as well as the development of key doctrines at the ecumenical councils.⁵⁷ For Progressive Christianity, historical analysis will focus on its roots in liberal theology, the Social Gospel movement, and the cultural shifts of the 20th and 21st centuries.⁵⁸ This historical perspective will highlight the continuity and discontinuity between these theological frameworks and their respective contexts.
The third component is sociological study, which examines the cultural and institutional factors that shape theological discourse and ecclesial practice.⁵⁹ This includes analyzing how social justice movements, identity politics, and globalism have influenced the theological and ecclesial dynamics of the United Methodist Church.⁶⁰ Sociological study also involves examining demographic and cultural trends within the UMC, such as the growth of evangelicalism in Africa and the increasing influence of progressive ideologies in North America and Europe.⁶¹ These sociological factors provide critical insights into the practical challenges facing the denomination.
Primary sources will play a central role in this study. The writings of the Patristic Fathers, as found in collections such as The Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, will serve as foundational texts for understanding the theological framework of historic Christianity.⁶² Similarly, official documents and resolutions from the UMC General Conference will be analyzed to understand the denomination’s evolving theological and ecclesial identity.⁶³ Modern critiques, such as those by Alisa Childers and Scott Roberts, will also be utilized to provide a critical perspective on Progressive Christianity and its impact on the UMC.⁶⁴
Finally, this interdisciplinary approach will be guided by a commitment to theological integrity and academic rigor.⁶⁵ The goal is not merely to critique Progressive Christianity or defend Patristic Orthodoxy but to provide a balanced and thorough analysis that contributes to the ongoing theological and ecclesial discourse within the Church.⁶⁶ By integrating theological, historical, and sociological perspectives, this paper aims to offer a nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the UMC and the broader Christian tradition.

II. The Theological Foundations of Patristic Orthodoxy
1. Scriptural Authority in Patristic Theology
The Patristic Fathers regarded Scripture as the divinely inspired Word of God, central to the faith and practice of the early Church. Justin Martyr, one of the earliest Apologists, defended the divine origin of the Hebrew Scriptures by arguing that they foretold the coming of Christ.⁶⁷ For Justin, the prophetic nature of the Scriptures affirmed their divine inspiration, as he emphasized the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.⁶⁸ He further asserted that the Scriptures carried inherent authority because they were authored by the Holy Spirit, ensuring their reliability and truth. This view provided a foundation for orthodox theology in the face of both pagan skepticism and internal heretical movements.
Irenaeus expanded on Justin’s ideas in his seminal work Against Heresies.⁶⁹ Writing to counter Gnostic interpretations of Scripture, Irenaeus emphasized the unity and coherence of the biblical narrative.⁷⁰ He argued that Scripture must be understood as a whole, with the Old Testament and the New Testament forming a single, continuous revelation of God’s redemptive work in Christ.⁷¹ Irenaeus’s insistence on the continuity of Scripture and his rejection of selective interpretations—particularly those advanced by Gnostic groups—highlighted the importance of viewing the Bible as a unified witness to God’s purposes. This emphasis on scriptural unity became a cornerstone of Patristic Orthodoxy.
The “rule of faith” (regula fidei) served as a critical interpretive framework in the early Church.⁷² The rule of faith, as articulated by Tertullian and other early theologians, provided a summary of apostolic teaching that guided the interpretation of Scripture.⁷³ This rule was not intended to supplement Scripture but to preserve its correct interpretation, ensuring consistency with the teachings of the apostles. The regula fidei affirmed key doctrines such as the Trinity, the incarnation, and the resurrection, offering a safeguard against the distortions of heretical movements. It also underscored the communal and ecclesial nature of scriptural interpretation.
The Patristic Fathers further emphasized the divine inspiration of Scripture by highlighting its transformative power. Augustine, in his Confessions, described how reading Scripture led to his spiritual awakening and conversion.⁷⁴ For Augustine, the Scriptures were not merely historical texts but a means through which God communicated His grace to humanity. This view reinforced the idea that Scripture was both divinely inspired and spiritually efficacious, capable of drawing believers into a deeper relationship with God. The transformative nature of Scripture also supported its authority, as it demonstrated its divine origin through its impact on the lives of believers.
The defense of scriptural authority was not limited to internal theological discussions but extended to apologetic engagements with non-Christian audiences. Athenagoras, in his A Plea for the Christians, argued that the moral coherence and divine wisdom of Scripture testified to its divine origin.⁷⁵ He emphasized that the consistency of the biblical narrative and its alignment with the principles of natural law set it apart from pagan myths and philosophies. This apologetic approach helped establish the credibility of Christianity in the Greco-Roman world while reinforcing the Church’s commitment to the authority of Scripture.
In conclusion, the Patristic understanding of scriptural authority was characterized by its emphasis on divine inspiration, coherence, and transformative power. Figures like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Augustine laid the theological groundwork for viewing Scripture as the ultimate authority for faith and practice. By safeguarding the interpretation of Scripture through the rule of faith and engaging in apologetic defense, the early Church Fathers ensured that the Bible remained central to the life of the Church and resistant to distortion by heretical or external influences.
2. The Doctrine of the Trinity
The doctrine of the Trinity was a central focus of Patristic theology, particularly in the face of heresies such as Arianism. Athanasius of Alexandria emerged as one of the most significant defenders of the Nicene Creed, which affirmed the co-equality and co-eternality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.⁷⁶ In his seminal work On the Incarnation, Athanasius argued that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father, directly countering the Arian claim that the Son was a created being.⁷⁷ For Athanasius, the doctrine of the Trinity was not a speculative theological concept but essential to the Christian understanding of salvation, as only a fully divine Christ could reconcile humanity to God.⁷⁸
The Nicene Creed, formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, represented a decisive moment in the development of Trinitarian theology.⁷⁹ The Creed articulated the equality of the three Persons of the Trinity while maintaining their distinct roles in the economy of salvation.⁸⁰ This formulation provided a theological framework for understanding the unity and diversity within the Godhead, a mystery that had been central to the faith of the apostles and their successors. The Council’s decision to adopt the term homoousios demonstrated the Church’s commitment to preserving the apostolic teaching against heretical reinterpretations.⁸¹
Augustine’s contributions to Trinitarian theology further deepened the Church’s understanding of this doctrine. In his De Trinitate, Augustine explored the relational nature of the Trinity, describing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as united in love and will.⁸² He used analogies drawn from human experience, such as the relationship between memory, understanding, and will, to explain the mystery of the Trinity in ways that were accessible to his readers.⁸³ Augustine’s work not only affirmed the doctrinal formulations of Nicaea but also provided a philosophical and theological framework that influenced Western Christianity for centuries.⁸⁴
The defense of Trinitarian theology extended beyond doctrinal formulations to pastoral and liturgical practices. The early Church Fathers emphasized that the doctrine of the Trinity was not an abstract concept but the foundation of Christian worship and prayer.⁸⁵ The invocation of the Trinity in baptism, for example, reflected the Church’s belief in the shared divinity and unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.⁸⁶ The Trinitarian structure of the liturgy further reinforced the centrality of this doctrine in the life of the Church, shaping the faith and practice of Christian communities.
The rejection of Arianism and the affirmation of Trinitarian theology were also significant for the Church’s unity. The Nicene Creed became a symbol of orthodoxy, uniting Christians across diverse cultural and linguistic contexts.⁸⁷ By affirming the equality of the three Persons of the Trinity, the Church Fathers established a theological foundation that could withstand both internal divisions and external challenges.⁸⁸ This unity in doctrine was essential for maintaining the integrity of the apostolic faith and ensuring the continuity of Christian teaching.
In summary, the doctrine of the Trinity was central to the theological and ecclesial identity of the early Church. Figures like Athanasius and Augustine played a pivotal role in articulating and defending this doctrine, ensuring its preservation in the face of heretical challenges. The Nicene Creed and subsequent theological developments provided a foundation for the Church’s worship, unity, and mission, demonstrating the enduring significance of Trinitarian theology in the life of the Church.
5. Heresy and Doctrinal Integrity
The early Church faced numerous heresies that threatened the integrity of apostolic teaching, necessitating a robust theological and ecclesial response. Gnosticism, one of the earliest and most pervasive heresies, presented a dualistic worldview that undermined the goodness of creation and the incarnation.⁸⁹ Irenaeus of Lyons, in his Against Heresies, provided a comprehensive refutation of Gnostic theology, emphasizing the unity of God’s redemptive plan and the goodness of the material world.⁹⁰ He argued that the incarnation was the definitive affirmation of creation’s value, as Christ took on human flesh to redeem it.⁹¹ Irenaeus’s work laid the foundation for the Church’s defense against subsequent heretical movements.
Pelagianism, another significant heresy, challenged the Church’s understanding of sin and grace. Pelagius denied the doctrine of original sin, asserting that human beings possessed the innate ability to achieve salvation through their own efforts.⁹² Augustine of Hippo vigorously opposed Pelagianism, emphasizing the necessity of divine grace for salvation.⁹³ In his treatise On Nature and Grace, Augustine argued that humanity’s fallen nature rendered it incapable of attaining righteousness apart from God’s enabling grace.⁹⁴ This debate not only clarified the Church’s teaching on sin and grace but also reinforced the centrality of God’s initiative in the work of salvation.
The Church’s response to heresies was not limited to theological arguments but also included the development of creeds and councils as instruments of doctrinal integrity. The Nicene Creed, formulated at the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, was a direct response to Arianism, which denied the full divinity of Christ.⁹⁵ By affirming that the Son was “of one substance” (homoousios) with the Father, the Nicene Creed provided a definitive statement of Trinitarian orthodoxy.⁹⁶ The subsequent councils of Constantinople (381 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD) built upon this foundation, addressing additional Christological controversies and further defining the Church’s doctrinal boundaries.⁹⁷
Vincent of Lérins, writing in the fifth century, articulated a principle for distinguishing orthodox teaching from heretical innovation. In his Commonitory, Vincent defined orthodoxy as “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.“⁹⁸ This criterion, often referred to as the Vincentian Canon, emphasized the universality, antiquity, and consensus of apostolic teaching.⁹⁹ While Vincent acknowledged that doctrinal development was inevitable, he insisted that such development must remain faithful to the core truths of the faith.¹⁰⁰ His work provided a methodological framework for evaluating theological claims, ensuring continuity with the apostolic tradition.
The defense of doctrinal integrity also involved safeguarding the interpretation of Scripture. The Patristic Fathers emphasized the importance of interpreting Scripture within the context of the Church’s tradition, guided by the rule of faith.¹⁰¹ This approach served as a safeguard against the selective and speculative interpretations characteristic of heretical movements. Origen, for example, argued that Scripture must be read with reference to the Church’s teaching, as it was the Church that preserved and transmitted the apostolic witness.¹⁰² This hermeneutical principle reinforced the connection between Scripture and tradition, ensuring that the faith remained grounded in its apostolic foundations.
In conclusion, the early Church’s responses to heresies such as Gnosticism, Arianism, and Pelagianism highlight its commitment to doctrinal integrity. Figures like Irenaeus, Augustine, and Vincent of Lérins provided theological, methodological, and practical tools for preserving the apostolic faith. Their efforts not only safeguarded the Church’s teachings but also shaped the development of Christian theology, providing a foundation for addressing future theological challenges.
6. Cultural Engagement and Mission
The early Church’s engagement with culture was characterized by a careful balance of affirming the truth found in secular thought while rejecting aspects that were incompatible with the Christian faith. Augustine’s City of God provides a model for this approach, offering a theological framework for understanding the relationship between the Church and the world.¹⁰³ Written in response to the sack of Rome in 410 AD, Augustine’s work contrasts the earthly city, characterized by self-love and temporal concerns, with the heavenly city, oriented toward God and eternal life.¹⁰⁴ Augustine argued that Christians, while living in the earthly city, were ultimately citizens of the heavenly city and must therefore prioritize their allegiance to God.¹⁰⁵
Augustine’s critique of Roman culture was rooted in his conviction that true human flourishing could only be found in communion with God. He acknowledged the achievements of Roman civilization but argued that its ultimate failure lay in its rejection of divine truth.¹⁰⁶ For Augustine, the Church’s mission was not to conform to the values of the earthly city but to bear witness to the transformative power of the Gospel.¹⁰⁷ This theological perspective provided a foundation for the Church’s engagement with culture, emphasizing the importance of maintaining doctrinal integrity while addressing the challenges of the secular world.¹⁰⁸
Evangelism was central to the mission of the early Church, as it sought to proclaim the Gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. The apostles and their successors emphasized the universality of salvation, grounded in the belief that Christ’s redemptive work was for all humanity.¹⁰⁹ The Patristic Fathers, such as Athanasius and Basil the Great, continued this emphasis, engaging in missionary efforts and theological dialogues with non-Christian communities.¹¹⁰ Their writings reflect a commitment to presenting the Christian faith as both intellectually compelling and spiritually transformative.
The Church’s mission also involved addressing social and moral issues within its cultural context. Figures like John Chrysostom and Ambrose of Milan used their pastoral and episcopal authority to advocate for the poor, challenge injustices, and call for ethical reform.¹¹¹ Chrysostom, for example, denounced the exploitation of the poor by the wealthy, urging his congregation to embody the Gospel’s call to love and justice.¹¹² This integration of social action with theological teaching demonstrated the Church’s holistic vision of mission, which sought both personal conversion and societal transformation.
The Patristic emphasis on doctrinal purity was integral to the Church’s cultural engagement. The early Church Fathers recognized that the integrity of the Gospel message was essential for its transformative power.¹¹³ By maintaining fidelity to apostolic teaching, the Church was able to offer a coherent and compelling witness to the truth of Christianity.¹¹⁴ This emphasis on doctrinal purity remains a vital principle for contemporary Christian mission, particularly in the face of theological and cultural challenges posed by Progressive Christianity.
In conclusion, the cultural engagement and mission of the early Church provide a model for navigating the relationship between faith and culture. Augustine’s City of God and the missionary efforts of the Patristic Fathers illustrate the importance of maintaining doctrinal integrity while addressing the needs and challenges of the world. Their example offers valuable insights for the Church’s mission in the contemporary context, particularly as it seeks to respond to the cultural and theological shifts of the modern era.

III. Progressive Christianity: Theology, Practice, and Cultural Adaptations
1. Core Tenets of Progressive Christianity
Progressive Christianity reinterprets the Bible as a human-centered narrative, focusing on its historical and cultural contexts rather than affirming its divine inspiration and inerrancy. Marcus Borg, a leading proponent of Progressive Christianity, argues that the Bible should be understood as a collection of metaphorical and symbolic stories that reflect human attempts to understand the divine.⁴⁹ Borg critiques the traditional view of Scripture as the literal Word of God, instead suggesting that its value lies in its capacity to inspire ethical living and spiritual growth.⁵⁰ Similarly, Richard Rohr emphasizes the Bible’s role as a tool for inner transformation, suggesting that its ultimate purpose is to guide individuals toward a universal awareness of God’s presence.⁵¹ This hermeneutical shift represents a foundational tenet of Progressive Christianity, departing significantly from the traditional Christian view of Scripture.
Another core tenet of Progressive Christianity is its emphasis on personal belief, inclusivity, and social justice over doctrinal orthodoxy. Brian McLaren, in his A New Kind of Christianity, advocates for a theology that prioritizes relational ethics and cultural adaptability over rigid adherence to creedal statements.⁵² This approach often elevates subjective experience and individual conscience as primary sources of authority in theological reflection. While this emphasis on inclusivity and personal belief aligns with contemporary cultural values, critics argue that it undermines the objective truths traditionally upheld by Christian doctrine.⁵³ For Progressive Christians, however, this flexibility is seen as necessary for engaging meaningfully with a pluralistic and evolving world.
Social justice occupies a central place in Progressive Christian theology and practice. Drawing on liberation theology, proponents argue that the Church’s mission should be primarily focused on addressing systemic injustices, such as racism, economic inequality, and environmental degradation.⁵⁴ This emphasis often involves a reinterpretation of the Gospel as a call to activism and social transformation. Diana Butler Bass, for example, frames the kingdom of God as a present reality that Christians are called to build through acts of justice and compassion.⁵⁵ While this focus on justice resonates with many contemporary audiences, it also raises questions about the balance between social activism and the proclamation of theological truths.
The focus on inclusivity is particularly evident in Progressive Christianity’s approach to interfaith dialogue and pluralism. John Shelby Spong, a prominent advocate for Progressive Christianity, has argued that traditional Christian claims of exclusivity, such as the assertion that Jesus is the only way to salvation, are incompatible with a modern, pluralistic worldview.⁵⁶ Spong’s theology reflects a broader trend within Progressive Christianity to de-emphasize doctrinal boundaries in favor of a more universalist understanding of spirituality.⁵⁷ This perspective often leads to the reimagining of core Christian doctrines, such as the atonement and the nature of Christ, in ways that align with contemporary cultural sensibilities.
2. Doctrinal Revisions
Progressive Christianity’s reinterpretation of core doctrines is particularly evident in its approach to issues such as sexuality, marriage, and gender roles. Progressive theologians often challenge traditional biblical teachings on these topics, arguing that they reflect the patriarchal and cultural biases of their time rather than universal divine mandates.⁵⁸ Brian McLaren, for instance, advocates for a more inclusive theology of sexuality that affirms LGBTQ+ relationships as consistent with the Gospel’s emphasis on love and justice.⁵⁹ Similarly, Diana Butler Bass critiques traditional gender roles as socially constructed and calls for a more egalitarian understanding of marriage and ministry.⁶⁰ These reinterpretations represent a significant departure from the historical teachings of the Church and have become a defining feature of Progressive Christianity.
John Dominic Crossan’s work on the historical Jesus offers another example of doctrinal revision within Progressive Christianity. Crossan argues that many traditional doctrines about Christ, such as the virgin birth and physical resurrection, are best understood as metaphorical rather than historical realities.⁶¹ For Crossan, the focus of Christian theology should shift from doctrinal debates to the ethical implications of Jesus’ teachings, particularly his message of social and economic justice.⁶² While Crossan’s approach has been influential within Progressive circles, it has also drawn significant criticism for its rejection of foundational Christian beliefs.
The atonement is another area where Progressive Christianity often departs from traditional teachings. Many Progressive theologians reject the substitutionary atonement model, arguing that it portrays God as violent and punitive.⁶³ Instead, they advocate for alternative models, such as the moral influence theory, which emphasizes Christ’s life and teachings as an example of sacrificial love.⁶⁴ Richard Rohr, for example, describes the cross as a symbol of solidarity with human suffering rather than a means of satisfying divine justice.⁶⁵ This reinterpretation reflects Progressive Christianity’s broader emphasis on relational and ethical dimensions of theology over metaphysical or doctrinal concerns.
These doctrinal revisions have significant implications for the Church’s understanding of its mission and identity. By reframing doctrines such as the incarnation, the resurrection, and the atonement in light of contemporary concerns, Progressive Christianity seeks to make the faith more accessible and relevant to modern audiences.⁶⁶ However, critics argue that these revisions often result in a dilution of the faith’s theological distinctiveness, raising questions about the compatibility of Progressive Christianity with the historic teachings of the Church.⁶⁷
3. Cultural Implications of “Woke” Ideology
The intersection of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Progressive Christianity exemplifies the broader cultural adaptations that characterize this movement. CRT, with its emphasis on systemic racism and power dynamics, has significantly influenced the way Progressive Christians approach issues of justice and equity.⁶⁸ Proponents argue that the Church has a moral responsibility to address systemic injustices and to deconstruct structures of privilege within its own institutions.⁶⁹ This has led to the incorporation of anti-racist training, reparations advocacy, and other social justice initiatives into many Progressive Christian congregations.⁷⁰ While these efforts align with the broader goals of CRT, they also raise questions about the extent to which secular ideologies should shape Christian theology and practice.
LGBTQ+ advocacy is another significant aspect of Progressive Christianity’s engagement with “woke” ideology. Many Progressive congregations have adopted practices such as affirming LGBTQ+ clergy and blessing same-sex marriages as expressions of their commitment to inclusivity and justice.⁷¹ Diana Butler Bass argues that these practices represent a necessary evolution of Christian ethics in response to the lived experiences of marginalized communities.⁷² However, critics contend that this approach often prioritizes cultural relevance over biblical fidelity, leading to divisions within denominations like the United Methodist Church.⁷³ These tensions highlight the challenges of balancing inclusivity with theological integrity.
Sociological trends within “woke” congregations reflect broader cultural shifts toward individualism and relativism. Progressive Christianity often embraces a decentralized and non-hierarchical model of church governance, emphasizing the importance of personal autonomy and local decision-making.⁷⁴ This model aligns with contemporary cultural values but can also lead to a fragmentation of theological and ecclesial unity. The emphasis on personal experience and subjective interpretation further complicates efforts to maintain a coherent and unified theology.⁷⁵
The cultural adaptations of Progressive Christianity also extend to its liturgical and worship practices. Many Progressive congregations have incorporated elements of other religious traditions, such as meditation and mindfulness, into their services as a means of fostering spiritual inclusivity.⁷⁶ While these practices are often framed as attempts to create a more holistic and inclusive spirituality, they also raise questions about the boundaries of Christian worship and identity.⁷⁷ This blending of traditions reflects the broader cultural trends that shape Progressive Christianity, highlighting both its strengths and its challenges.

4. Tensions with Traditional Christianity
One of the most significant points of tension between Progressive Christianity and traditional Christian theology is the question of biblical authority. Progressive Christianity often views the Bible as a culturally situated document that reflects human attempts to understand the divine, rather than as the divinely inspired and inerrant Word of God.⁷⁸ This perspective stands in stark contrast to the traditional view of Scripture as the ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice.⁷⁹ Alisa Childers, in her critique of Progressive Christianity, describes this approach as a “new religion” that prioritizes human interpretation over divine revelation.⁸⁰ This fundamental disagreement over the nature of Scripture underscores the broader theological divergence between these paradigms.
The nature of sin and salvation is another area of tension. Traditional Christianity emphasizes the universality of sin and the necessity of Christ’s atoning work for reconciliation with God.⁸¹ Progressive Christianity, however, often reframes sin as primarily structural or systemic, focusing on issues such as racism and inequality.⁸² While this perspective aligns with contemporary social justice concerns, it can obscure the personal and spiritual dimensions of sin, as well as the need for individual repentance and transformation.⁸³ This redefinition of sin has significant implications for the Church’s understanding of salvation and its mission.
Christology is another point of contention between Progressive and traditional Christianity. Progressive theologians often emphasize Jesus’ humanity and ethical teachings while downplaying his divinity and the salvific significance of his death and resurrection.⁸⁴ Traditionalists argue that this reductionist view undermines the core doctrines of the faith, including the incarnation and the Trinity.⁸⁵ These theological tensions are particularly evident in debates within denominations like the United Methodist Church, where differing views on Christology have contributed to broader divisions over doctrine and practice.
In conclusion, the tensions between Progressive Christianity and traditional Christian theology highlight the challenges of maintaining theological coherence and ecclesial unity in the face of cultural and theological diversity. While Progressive Christianity seeks to adapt the faith to contemporary concerns, its departures from traditional doctrines raise questions about its compatibility with the historic teachings of the Church. By examining these tensions, this paper seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of the theological and practical challenges facing contemporary Christianity.
IV. Comparative Analysis: Patristic Orthodoxy vs. Progressive Christianity
1. The Bible: Word of God or Human Artifact?
The view of the Bible as the Word of God is foundational to Patristic Orthodoxy, which regards Scripture as divinely inspired, inerrant, and authoritative for all matters of faith and practice. Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the early Church, defended the divine origin of Scripture, arguing that it was written by human authors under the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit.⁸⁶ In De Doctrina Christiana, Augustine emphasized that the Bible, as God’s revelation, contains truths essential for salvation and moral guidance.⁸⁷ This belief in Scripture’s inerrancy and sufficiency underpinned the theological and ethical coherence of Patristic Orthodoxy, ensuring that the Church’s teachings remained rooted in divine revelation rather than human opinion.

In contrast, Progressive Christianity often approaches the Bible as a human artifact, shaped by cultural, historical, and political contexts. Marcus Borg, for example, describes the Bible as “a product of human hands,” asserting that its value lies not in its divine authority but in its ability to inspire personal and social transformation.⁸⁸ This perspective allows for a more fluid and subjective interpretation of Scripture, often emphasizing its metaphorical and symbolic dimensions over its literal and historical meanings.⁸⁹ While Progressive Christians argue that this approach makes the Bible more accessible to modern audiences, critics contend that it undermines its theological and moral authority, leading to doctrinal relativism.
The implications of these divergent views of Scripture are profound. For Patristic Orthodoxy, the Bible serves as the ultimate standard by which theological and moral claims are evaluated.⁹⁰ Augustine argued that Scripture’s authority is derived from its divine origin, making it the cornerstone of Christian doctrine and ethics.⁹¹ In Progressive Christianity, however, personal experience and contemporary cultural values often take precedence over biblical teachings. This shift represents a significant departure from the Patristic understanding of the Bible as the objective and unchanging Word of God.
This divergence is particularly evident in the context of the United Methodist Church (UMC). Traditionalist factions within the UMC emphasize the authority of Scripture as the basis for doctrinal and ethical decisions, while progressive factions advocate for a more contextual and experiential approach to biblical interpretation.⁹² This tension highlights the broader theological divide between Patristic Orthodoxy and Progressive Christianity, underscoring the challenges of maintaining unity within a denomination that holds fundamentally different views of Scripture.
2. Doctrine and Morality
Theological continuity is a hallmark of Patristic Orthodoxy, which prioritizes the preservation of apostolic teaching as articulated in the creeds and councils of the early Church. The Patristic Fathers viewed doctrine as divinely revealed and unchanging, providing a stable foundation for the Church’s teachings on morality and ethics.⁹³ Tertullian, for example, argued that doctrinal integrity was essential for preserving the unity and identity of the Church.⁹⁴ This emphasis on theological continuity ensured that moral teachings, such as those concerning sexuality and marriage, were grounded in the unchanging truths of Scripture and tradition.
Progressive Christianity, by contrast, often prioritizes cultural adaptation over theological continuity, particularly in its approach to ethics. This is evident in the movement’s redefinition of traditional teachings on sexuality, marriage, and gender roles.⁹⁵ Brian McLaren, for instance, advocates for a theology that embraces LGBTQ+ inclusion and affirms same-sex marriage as consistent with the Gospel’s call to love and justice.⁹⁶ While Progressive Christians argue that these adaptations are necessary for engaging with contemporary cultural realities, critics contend that they represent a departure from biblical and historical norms.
The ethical implications of these theological differences are particularly evident in debates over sexuality and marriage. For Patristic Orthodoxy, moral teachings are rooted in the divine order established in creation and revealed in Scripture.⁹⁷ Tertullian, in his treatise On Modesty, emphasized the sanctity of marriage as a covenantal relationship between one man and one woman, reflecting the divine purpose for human relationships.⁹⁸ Progressive Christianity, however, often frames these teachings as culturally contingent, arguing that they must be reinterpreted in light of contemporary understandings of justice and equality.⁹⁹ This shift has significant implications for the Church’s witness and mission, as it raises questions about the relationship between cultural relevance and doctrinal fidelity.
The United Methodist Church exemplifies the challenges of navigating these theological and ethical tensions. Traditionalist factions within the UMC argue that the denomination’s teachings on sexuality and marriage must remain consistent with Scripture and the historic Christian faith.¹⁰⁰ Progressive factions, on the other hand, advocate for a more inclusive and affirming approach, emphasizing the importance of contextualizing doctrine in light of contemporary social and cultural realities. This ongoing conflict reflects the broader divide between Patristic Orthodoxy and Progressive Christianity, highlighting the challenges of maintaining theological and ethical coherence in a pluralistic and rapidly changing cultural context.
3. Church Identity and Mission
For Patristic Orthodoxy, the identity and mission of the Church are deeply rooted in its sacramental worship and adherence to apostolic tradition. The early Church Fathers emphasized that the Church is the body of Christ, united through the sacraments and the proclamation of the Gospel.¹⁰¹ Augustine described the Church as a “Eucharistic community,” where believers are nourished by the body and blood of Christ and united in their common faith.¹⁰² This sacramental vision of the Church underscores its role as both the custodian of divine truth and the mediator of God’s grace in the world.
Progressive Christianity, by contrast, often defines the Church’s identity and mission in terms of social activism and cultural engagement. This emphasis is rooted in the belief that the Church’s primary task is to address systemic injustices and promote social transformation.¹⁰³ Diana Butler Bass describes the Church as a “community of justice,” arguing that its mission is to embody the kingdom of God by challenging structures of oppression and inequality.¹⁰⁴ While this focus on activism resonates with contemporary cultural values, critics argue that it can lead to a diminished emphasis on the sacramental and doctrinal dimensions of the Church’s life.
The tension between these visions of the Church is particularly evident in the United Methodist Church’s struggles to maintain unity amidst doctrinal divergence. Traditionalist factions emphasize the importance of sacramental worship and adherence to biblical and apostolic teachings as the foundation of the Church’s identity.¹⁰⁵ Progressive factions, however, often prioritize inclusivity and social activism, advocating for a more flexible and contextually relevant understanding of the Church’s mission.¹⁰⁶ These differing priorities have contributed to significant divisions within the denomination, raising questions about its future viability as a unified body.
The challenges of maintaining unity in the UMC reflect the broader tensions between Patristic Orthodoxy and Progressive Christianity. For the early Church Fathers, doctrinal and sacramental unity were essential for preserving the Church’s identity and mission.¹⁰⁷ By contrast, Progressive Christianity’s emphasis on diversity and cultural relevance often leads to a more fragmented and pluralistic vision of the Church. This divergence highlights the need for a deeper theological engagement with the question of what it means to be the Church in a rapidly changing cultural and ecclesial landscape.¹⁰⁸
V. The Case of the United Methodist Church
1. Historical Overview
The origins of Methodism can be traced to the 18th century, when John Wesley initiated a revival movement within the Church of England that emphasized holiness, scriptural fidelity, and personal piety. Wesley’s theology, often summarized as the “four alls”—all need to be saved, all can be saved, all can know they are saved, and all can be saved to the uttermost—provided a framework for the Methodist tradition’s emphasis on sanctification and the transformative power of grace.¹⁰⁹ Wesley’s insistence on the primacy of Scripture, interpreted through the lenses of reason, tradition, and experience (the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral”), positioned Methodism as a movement committed to orthodox doctrine while remaining practically engaged with the social and spiritual needs of its time.¹¹⁰

The establishment of the Methodist Episcopal Church in America in 1784 marked the formal beginning of Methodism as a distinct denomination.¹¹¹ Over the next two centuries, Methodism became one of the largest Protestant traditions in the United States, characterized by its commitment to evangelism, social reform, and theological education. Early Methodist leaders emphasized the authority of Scripture, the necessity of conversion, and the call to holiness, aligning closely with the core tenets of Patristic Orthodoxy.¹¹² These commitments formed the foundation of what would later become the United Methodist Church (UMC) in 1968, following the merger of the Methodist Church and the Evangelical United Brethren Church.¹¹³
The UMC inherited a rich theological legacy from Wesleyan theology, which was deeply influenced by the writings of the Patristic Fathers. Wesley’s appreciation for the early Church’s emphasis on holiness and communal worship is evident in his sermons and hymns, which often draw upon the themes of divine grace and sanctification found in Augustine and Chrysostom.¹¹⁴ The UMC’s doctrinal standards, as articulated in its Book of Discipline, reflect this heritage, affirming the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds and upholding the authority of Scripture as the inspired Word of God.¹¹⁵ This theological foundation provided a basis for the UMC’s identity as a denomination committed to both doctrinal fidelity and practical engagement.
However, the UMC’s historical adherence to orthodox doctrine has been increasingly challenged in recent decades. The denomination’s emphasis on inclusivity and social justice, while rooted in Wesley’s concern for the marginalized, has led to significant theological and cultural tensions.¹¹⁶ These tensions have raised questions about the UMC’s ability to maintain its historical commitment to scriptural authority and doctrinal continuity in the face of contemporary cultural and ideological pressures.
2. The Rise of Divisions
In recent years, the United Methodist Church has become a focal point of debate over issues such as LGBTQ+ inclusion, same-sex marriage, and the ordination of openly LGBTQ+ clergy. These debates have exposed deep divisions within the denomination, reflecting broader tensions between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy.¹¹⁷ At the heart of these debates is the question of biblical authority and its application to contemporary ethical issues. Progressive factions within the UMC argue for a more inclusive interpretation of Scripture, emphasizing the importance of cultural context and lived experience.¹¹⁸ Traditionalist factions, however, insist on adhering to the plain meaning of Scripture and the historic teachings of the Church, particularly on matters of human sexuality.¹¹⁹
The UMC’s General Conference has been the primary arena for these debates. The 2019 Special Session of the General Conference was particularly contentious, as delegates voted to adopt the “Traditional Plan,” which reaffirmed the denomination’s prohibition on same-sex marriage and the ordination of LGBTQ+ clergy.¹²⁰ While this decision was celebrated by traditionalists, it was met with significant resistance from progressive leaders and congregations, some of whom have openly defied the denomination’s policies. This ongoing conflict has led to calls for structural changes within the UMC, including proposals for separation or realignment to accommodate differing theological perspectives.¹²¹
The divisions within the UMC are not merely theological but also cultural and geographical. Traditionalist factions are often concentrated in regions such as Africa and parts of the United States, where evangelical and conservative theological perspectives remain strong.¹²² Progressive factions, by contrast, are more prevalent in urban centers and in Western Europe, where cultural attitudes toward sexuality and gender roles tend to be more liberal.¹²³ This geographic and cultural diversity has further complicated efforts to maintain unity within the denomination, as delegates bring widely varying perspectives to General Conference debates.
The ongoing divisions within the UMC have raised questions about its future as a unified denomination. Many traditionalist leaders have expressed concerns that the denomination’s theological drift risks compromising its historical identity and mission.¹²⁴ At the same time, progressive leaders argue that the UMC must adapt to changing cultural realities in order to remain relevant and inclusive. These competing visions for the UMC’s future underscore the broader tensions between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy, highlighting the challenges of navigating theological diversity within a global denomination.
3. “Woke” Influences in the UMC
The influence of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and progressive ideology has become increasingly apparent in many UMC congregations, particularly in their approach to issues of social justice and inclusivity. CRT, which emphasizes the systemic nature of racism and the need to address structural inequities, has been embraced by some UMC leaders as a framework for understanding and responding to racial injustice.¹²⁵ This has led to the incorporation of anti-racist training programs, reparations advocacy, and other initiatives aimed at promoting equity and inclusion.¹²⁶ While these efforts reflect the UMC’s historical commitment to social justice, critics argue that they often prioritize secular ideologies over theological principles, leading to a dilution of the Church’s spiritual mission.¹²⁷
Progressive theology within the UMC has also been influenced by broader cultural trends related to gender and sexuality. Many UMC congregations have adopted practices such as affirming LGBTQ+ clergy and celebrating same-sex marriages as expressions of their commitment to inclusivity and justice.¹²⁸ Diana Butler Bass has argued that these practices represent a necessary evolution of Christian ethics, reflecting the lived experiences of marginalized communities.¹²⁹ However, traditionalists contend that this approach often involves a reinterpretation of Scripture that departs from its plain meaning and historical context.¹³⁰ This tension has become a major point of contention within the denomination, contributing to its ongoing divisions.
Scott Roberts and Alisa Childers have identified a number of “red flags” that indicate the growing influence of progressive ideology within the UMC. These include the redefinition of traditional Christian doctrines, the adoption of inclusive language that de-emphasizes biblical teachings on sin and salvation, and the prioritization of cultural relevance over doctrinal fidelity.¹³¹ Childers, in particular, has described Progressive Christianity as a “new religion” that fundamentally diverges from the historic Christian faith.¹³² These critiques highlight the challenges of maintaining theological coherence within a denomination that is increasingly shaped by secular cultural trends.
The influence of “woke” ideology within the UMC has significant implications for its theological and ecclesial identity. While proponents argue that these adaptations are necessary for engaging with contemporary cultural realities, critics warn that they risk undermining the Church’s historic mission and witness.¹³³ This ongoing debate reflects the broader tensions between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy, raising important questions about the role of the Church in a pluralistic and rapidly changing world.¹³⁴
4. Responses from Traditionalist Movements
In response to the growing influence of Progressive Christianity within the UMC, traditionalist movements have emerged with the goal of reclaiming orthodoxy and preserving the denomination’s theological heritage. One of the most significant developments in this regard is the formation of the Global Methodist Church (GMC), a new denomination established by traditionalist leaders who seek to uphold the authority of Scripture and the historic teachings of the Church.¹³⁵ The GMC emphasizes the centrality of the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, the sanctity of marriage, and the necessity of personal holiness, drawing heavily on the theological legacy of John Wesley and the Patristic Fathers.¹³⁶
Traditionalist leaders within the UMC have also called for a renewed emphasis on the Patristic tradition as a theological foundation for reform. Figures such as Augustine and Athanasius are frequently cited as models of doctrinal clarity and faithfulness in the face of cultural and theological challenges.¹³⁷ By grounding their efforts in the teachings of the early Church, traditionalists aim to provide a stable and coherent framework for addressing contemporary issues without compromising the core tenets of the Christian faith.¹³⁸ This approach reflects a broader commitment to preserving the unity and integrity of the Church’s witness.
Efforts to reclaim orthodoxy within the UMC have also included initiatives focused on theological education and discipleship. Traditionalist leaders have emphasized the importance of equipping pastors and lay leaders with a robust understanding of Scripture, theology, and Church history.¹³⁹ This has led to the establishment of new seminaries and training programs designed to promote doctrinal fidelity and spiritual formation. These efforts underscore the traditionalist commitment to ensuring that the next generation of UMC leaders remains rooted in the historic Christian faith.¹⁴⁰
While these traditionalist movements face significant challenges, they also represent a source of hope for those who seek to preserve the UMC’s theological heritage. By drawing on the wisdom of the Patristic tradition and engaging constructively with contemporary cultural realities, traditionalists aim to offer a vision for the Church that is both faithful to its past and relevant to its future.¹⁴¹ This ongoing effort to reclaim orthodoxy within the UMC highlights the enduring relevance of Patristic theology as a resource for navigating the complexities of the modern Church.¹⁴²

VI. Challenges and Consequences
1. Impact on Church Unity
The United Methodist Church (UMC) is facing an unprecedented schism as debates over theological and ethical issues, particularly concerning human sexuality, have exposed deep divisions within the denomination. Traditionalist factions within the UMC emphasize the authority of Scripture and adherence to historic Christian doctrine, while progressive factions advocate for inclusivity and a more contextual interpretation of the Bible.¹⁴² This tension culminated in the 2019 General Conference, where the adoption of the “Traditional Plan” reaffirmed the denomination’s stance against same-sex marriage and LGBTQ+ ordination.¹⁴³ While the decision upheld the UMC’s historical teachings, it also intensified divisions, with many progressive leaders and congregations choosing to defy the new policies or leave the denomination entirely.¹⁴⁴
The schism within the UMC has significant implications for its organizational structure and global unity. In 2022, the formation of the Global Methodist Church (GMC) marked a major step toward institutional separation, as traditionalist congregations sought to establish a new denomination grounded in biblical authority and theological orthodoxy.¹⁴⁵ This split reflects broader trends within global Christianity, where denominations are increasingly polarized along theological and cultural lines. The GMC’s emphasis on returning to the roots of Wesleyan theology underscores the growing dissatisfaction among traditionalists with the UMC’s progressive trajectory.
Parallels can be drawn between the current UMC schism and the early Church’s response to heresies such as Arianism and Pelagianism. The Arian controversy, which questioned the divinity of Christ, and the Pelagian debate, which challenged the necessity of divine grace for salvation, both threatened the theological unity of the early Church.¹⁴⁶ In response, the Church convened ecumenical councils to define and defend orthodox doctrine, ensuring that heretical teachings did not fragment the body of Christ.¹⁴⁷ Similarly, the UMC’s current divisions highlight the necessity of clear doctrinal boundaries to preserve the unity and integrity of the Church in the face of competing theological visions.
The fragmentation of the UMC raises broader questions about the future of denominational unity in a pluralistic and increasingly polarized cultural context. While schism may provide a temporary solution for resolving theological disagreements, it also risks undermining the Church’s witness to the world.¹⁴⁸ As the UMC and other denominations grapple with these challenges, the example of the early Church offers valuable insights into the importance of balancing doctrinal fidelity with efforts to maintain ecclesial unity.
2. Cultural Relevance vs. Doctrinal Fidelity
One of the central tensions within the UMC is the struggle to balance cultural relevance with doctrinal fidelity. Progressive factions argue that the Church must adapt its teachings to address contemporary social and cultural realities, such as issues of gender equality, racial justice, and LGBTQ+ inclusion.¹⁴⁹ This emphasis on cultural relevance is often framed as a way to make the Gospel more accessible and meaningful to modern audiences. However, critics warn that such adaptations risk compromising the theological foundations of the Christian faith, leading to a loss of doctrinal integrity.¹⁵⁰
The early Church faced similar pressures to conform to cultural norms, particularly during its encounters with Greco-Roman philosophy and pagan religions. For example, the adoption of Neoplatonic concepts by some early theologians raised concerns about the potential distortion of Christian doctrine.¹⁵¹ In response, Church Fathers such as Athanasius and Augustine emphasized the primacy of Scripture and the necessity of preserving the apostolic tradition.¹⁵² These responses highlight the importance of maintaining a clear theological identity while engaging with cultural and intellectual trends.
The contrast between the early Church’s approach and contemporary progressive movements underscores the challenges of navigating the relationship between faith and culture. While cultural engagement is an essential aspect of the Church’s mission, it must be guided by a commitment to doctrinal fidelity.¹⁵³ Patristic Orthodoxy provides a model for this balance, demonstrating how the Church can address cultural issues without compromising its theological foundations. For example, Augustine’s City of God offers a vision of how Christians can engage with secular culture while maintaining their ultimate allegiance to God.¹⁵⁴
Within the UMC, this tension is particularly evident in debates over the authority of Scripture. Progressive factions often emphasize the need to reinterpret biblical texts in light of contemporary cultural contexts, while traditionalists argue that Scripture’s timeless truths must remain the foundation of Christian doctrine and practice.¹⁵⁵ This ongoing conflict raises important questions about the role of the Church in a rapidly changing world and the extent to which it should adapt its teachings to align with cultural trends. The outcome of these debates will have significant implications for the UMC’s theological identity and mission.
3. Long-Term Theological and Social Implications
The long-term implications of the UMC’s divisions are likely to shape the trajectory of both progressive and traditionalist factions within the denomination. For progressives, the emphasis on inclusivity and social justice may lead to further theological innovation and greater alignment with secular cultural values.¹⁵⁶ However, this trajectory also raises questions about the ability of progressive movements to maintain a coherent theological framework in the absence of clear doctrinal boundaries. As Alisa Childers has noted, the tendency to prioritize personal experience and cultural relevance over biblical authority often results in a form of Christianity that is indistinguishable from secular humanism.¹⁵⁷
Traditionalist factions, on the other hand, are likely to focus on preserving the theological and ecclesial heritage of the UMC through movements such as the Global Methodist Church. By grounding their theology in the teachings of the Patristic Fathers and the Wesleyan tradition, traditionalists aim to offer a vision of Christianity that is both faithful to its historical roots and relevant to contemporary challenges.¹⁵⁸ This approach reflects a broader trend among conservative Christian movements to reclaim orthodoxy in the face of cultural and theological shifts.¹⁵⁹ The success of these efforts will depend on the ability of traditionalists to articulate a compelling vision for the Church’s future that resonates with both clergy and laity.
The broader cultural consequences of the “woke” movement in Christianity are also significant. The emphasis on identity politics, systemic injustice, and cultural deconstruction has reshaped the theological landscape of many denominations, including the UMC.¹⁶⁰ While these trends have brought attention to important social issues, they have also introduced ideological frameworks that are often at odds with traditional Christian teachings. For example, Critical Race Theory’s emphasis on power dynamics and systemic oppression challenges the biblical understanding of sin as a personal and spiritual condition.¹⁶¹ This ideological shift has significant implications for the Church’s ability to proclaim a Gospel that addresses both individual and collective dimensions of human brokenness.
In the long term, the rise of progressive theology and its emphasis on cultural relevance may contribute to the further fragmentation of global Christianity. As denominations and congregations adopt increasingly divergent theological and ethical frameworks, the potential for unity within the Church diminishes.¹⁶² At the same time, the growing influence of traditionalist movements suggests that there is still a strong demand for a Christianity that remains rooted in its historical and theological foundations. The outcome of these competing trajectories will have profound implications for the future of the Church and its role in a pluralistic and rapidly changing world.¹⁶³

VII. Conclusion
1. Summary of Findings
The theological and ecclesial tensions between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy represent a significant challenge for the contemporary United Methodist Church (UMC). This study has demonstrated that Progressive Christianity, with its emphasis on cultural relevance, inclusivity, and the reinterpretation of biblical authority, departs fundamentally from the historic doctrines of the early Church.¹⁶⁴ Patristic Orthodoxy, by contrast, is rooted in the authority of Scripture, the creeds, and the apostolic tradition, emphasizing continuity and doctrinal fidelity.¹⁶⁵ These opposing frameworks have given rise to profound theological and cultural divisions within the UMC, challenging its ability to maintain a unified identity and mission.
One of the central findings of this study is the contrasting views of Scripture between Progressive Christianity and Patristic Orthodoxy. Progressive Christianity often treats the Bible as a human-centered narrative that must be reinterpreted in light of contemporary cultural values.¹⁶⁶ In contrast, the Patristic Fathers viewed Scripture as the divinely inspired Word of God, authoritative in all matters of faith and practice.¹⁶⁷ This foundational divergence shapes the broader theological and ethical differences between the two paradigms, influencing how each approaches issues such as sexuality, marriage, and social justice.
Another key finding is the tension between doctrinal continuity and cultural adaptation. The Patristic Fathers emphasized the importance of preserving the theological heritage of the Church, often defining orthodoxy in response to heresies and cultural pressures.¹⁶⁸ Progressive Christianity, however, prioritizes cultural engagement and social relevance, often reframing traditional doctrines to align with contemporary values.¹⁶⁹ This contrast raises important questions about the role of the Church in navigating cultural change while remaining faithful to its theological foundations.
The implications of these theological tensions for the UMC are profound. The denomination’s ongoing debates over human sexuality, biblical authority, and inclusivity reflect broader challenges facing global Christianity.¹⁷⁰ The schism within the UMC, marked by the formation of the Global Methodist Church, highlights the difficulty of reconciling these divergent theological visions within a single denomination.¹⁷¹ As the UMC and other Christian communities navigate these challenges, the findings of this study underscore the importance of grounding ecclesial identity in historic Christian doctrine while thoughtfully engaging with contemporary cultural issues.
2. Recommendations for Future Research
Given the complexity and significance of the theological and cultural challenges facing the Church, further research is needed to explore patristic responses to contemporary theological issues. The writings of the Patristic Fathers provide a rich resource for addressing questions of doctrinal fidelity, ecclesial unity, and cultural engagement.¹⁷² For example, the works of Augustine, Athanasius, and Cyril of Alexandria offer valuable insights into how the early Church navigated theological controversies and cultural pressures without compromising its core teachings.¹⁷³ Future research could examine how these patristic principles can be applied to contemporary debates over issues such as human sexuality, inclusivity, and social justice.
Another area for further exploration is the relationship between theological identity and cultural engagement in the modern Church. The tension between maintaining doctrinal fidelity and addressing contemporary cultural concerns is not unique to the UMC but reflects broader trends within global Christianity.¹⁷⁴ Comparative studies of other denominations and Christian traditions that have faced similar challenges could provide valuable insights into how the Church can navigate these tensions. Such research could also examine the role of global Christianity, particularly in regions such as Africa and Asia, where traditionalist perspectives remain strong, in shaping the future of the Church.¹⁷⁵
The role of theological education in equipping pastors and lay leaders to address contemporary challenges is another critical area for research. As this study has highlighted, the rise of Progressive Christianity has often been accompanied by a decline in theological literacy and an erosion of doctrinal clarity.¹⁷⁶ Future studies could explore how seminaries, Bible colleges, and other institutions can better integrate patristic theology into their curricula to provide a robust foundation for engaging with modern cultural and theological issues.¹⁷⁷ This research could also examine the role of catechesis and discipleship programs in fostering a deeper understanding of historic Christian doctrine among congregants.
Finally, further research is needed to assess the long-term implications of the “woke” movement within Christianity. While the emphasis on social justice and inclusivity has brought attention to important issues, it has also raised concerns about the potential for theological compromise and ideological drift.¹⁷⁸ Studies that critically examine the intersection of “woke” ideology and Christian theology could provide valuable insights into how the Church can engage with social justice movements while remaining grounded in its historic faith.¹⁷⁹ By addressing these questions, future research can contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the Church in the 21st century.
VIII. Expanded Bibliography
1. Primary Sources
Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Fathers: The Writings of the Early Church Fathers
• Schaff, Philip, ed. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers Down to AD 325. 10 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
This collection offers foundational texts from the early Church, including writings by Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian. These works are critical for understanding the theological priorities of Patristic Orthodoxy, particularly in defending the authority of Scripture and combating heresies like Gnosticism.
• Key Contributions: Provides a historical benchmark for how early Christians articulated and preserved orthodoxy.
Augustine. Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Augustine’s autobiographical reflection sheds light on personal sin, grace, and salvation, framing many of the theological pillars foundational to orthodoxy. His emphasis on divine authority and Scripture as a source of truth provides a stark contrast to Progressive Christianity’s reinterpretations.
• Key Contributions: Augustine’s insights into sin and salvation offer a lens through which modern reinterpretations can be critiqued.
Tertullian. Prescription Against Heretics. Translated by Peter Holmes. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts, 3.12–15. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
Tertullian’s work addresses the issue of doctrinal continuity, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to apostolic tradition to guard against heresy.
• Key Contributions: Central to understanding how early Christians preserved theological integrity amidst cultural pressures.
Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Translated by John Behr. Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011.
Athanasius defends the divinity of Christ against Arianism, demonstrating the Patristic commitment to maintaining doctrinal precision in the face of cultural and theological challenges.
• Key Contributions: Highlights the importance of doctrinal fidelity, especially in debates over Christology.
John Chrysostom. Homilies on Matthew. Translated by Philip Schaff. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, vol. 10. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
Chrysostom’s pastoral sermons emphasize the moral and ethical implications of Scripture, providing a model of how theology informs Christian living.
• Key Contributions: Offers practical applications of orthodoxy, contrasting with Progressive Christianity’s focus on subjective ethics.
2. Secondary Sources
Borg, Marcus. Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally. New York: HarperOne, 2001.
Borg presents a Progressive Christian approach to biblical interpretation, emphasizing metaphorical and cultural readings over traditional views of divine inspiration.
• Key Contributions: Serves as a primary example of Progressive Christianity’s hermeneutical framework, offering a contrast to the Patristic view of Scripture.
McLaren, Brian. A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith. New York: HarperOne, 2010.
McLaren challenges traditional Christian doctrines, arguing for a theology that prioritizes inclusivity and cultural relevance.
• Key Contributions: Explains the rationale behind theological adaptations in Progressive Christianity, particularly in its ethical and social emphases.
Rohr, Richard. The Universal Christ: How a Forgotten Reality Can Change Everything We See, Hope For, and Believe. New York: Convergent Books, 2019.
Rohr advocates for a cosmic view of Christ that downplays doctrinal specifics, focusing instead on universal spirituality.
• Key Contributions: Illustrates Progressive Christianity’s shift toward spirituality over doctrine, making it a point of contention with traditional orthodoxy.
Childers, Alisa. Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity. Wheaton: Tyndale Momentum, 2020.
Childers critiques Progressive Christianity, identifying it as a departure from historic Christian orthodoxy. Her work provides a robust defense of scriptural authority and traditional doctrines.
• Key Contributions: Essential for framing the challenges posed by Progressive Christianity to traditional beliefs, particularly within the UMC.
Collins, Kenneth J. The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
This work explores the theological foundations of Methodism, particularly Wesley’s emphasis on grace, holiness, and scriptural authority.
• Key Contributions: Provides historical context for understanding the UMC’s doctrinal heritage and the tensions arising from Progressive Christianity’s influence.
Bass, Diana Butler. Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening. New York: HarperOne, 2012.
Bass examines the cultural and theological shifts shaping modern Christianity, advocating for a more inclusive and experiential faith.
• Key Contributions: Highlights the sociological and theological trends influencing Progressive Christianity, particularly in Western contexts.
Schaff, Philip, ed. The Nicene Creed and Its History. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
This historical account of the Nicene Creed provides insight into the development of orthodoxy and the early Church’s response to heresy.
• Key Contributions: Offers a foundational perspective for understanding the importance of doctrinal continuity in the face of theological challenges.
3. Web-Based Resources
Scott Roberts. “Warning Signs of a Woke or Progressive Christian Church.” Scott Roberts Ministries. Accessed January 22, 2025. https://scottroberts.org/warning-signs-of-a-woke-or-progressive-christian-church/
Roberts identifies key indicators of Progressive Christianity, including the redefinition of traditional doctrines and the prioritization of social justice over biblical authority.
• Key Contributions: Useful for understanding practical manifestations of Progressive Christianity within congregations.
Alisa Childers Blog. “5 Signs Your Church Might Be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity.” Alisa Childers Blog. Accessed January 22, 2025. https://www.alisachildersblog.com/blog/5-signs-your-church-might-be-heading-toward-progressive-christianity
Childers outlines the theological and practical shifts that characterize Progressive Christian movements, offering a critique grounded in traditional orthodoxy.
• Key Contributions: Provides a concise summary of Progressive Christianity’s impact on ecclesial practices.
Diana Butler Bass. “Progressive Christianity and Social Justice: A New Awakening?” Independent Institute. Accessed January 22, 2025. https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13968
Bass explores the intersection of Progressive Christianity and social justice, advocating for a faith that prioritizes activism.
• Key Contributions: Highlights the cultural and theological motivations driving Progressive Christian movements.
Heritage Foundation. “The Rise of Wokeness in the Church.” The Heritage Foundation. Accessed January 22, 2025. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-rise-wokeness-the-military
This analysis examines the broader cultural influence of “woke” ideology within Christian institutions, including the UMC.
• Key Contributions: Connects Progressive Christianity to wider sociopolitical movements, offering a critical perspective.
Alisa Childers Blog. “The Challenge of Progressive Theology in Mainline Denominations.” Accessed January 22, 2025. https://www.alisachildersblog.com/
Childers examines how Progressive Christianity has reshaped mainline Protestant denominations, with a focus on the UMC.
• Key Contributions: Provides practical and theological insights into the challenges posed by Progressive Christianity to traditional denominations.
Endnotes
1. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, trans. J.F. Shaw (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1887), 1.6.
2. Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene Creed and Its History (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 1.20.
3. Marcus Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally (New York: HarperOne, 2001), 15–17.
4. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 45–48.
5. Richard Rohr, The Universal Christ: How a Forgotten Reality Can Change Everything We See, Hope For, and Believe (New York: Convergent Books, 2019), 30–32.
6. Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, trans. Peter Holmes, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 3.12.
7. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, trans. Alexander Roberts, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 2.2.
8. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening (New York: HarperOne, 2012), 110–113.
9. Augustine, Confessions, trans. Henry Chadwick (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 1.9.
10. Scott J. Jones, United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 220–222.
11. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. John Behr (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 3.7.
12. Augustine, City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin, 2003), 1.10.
13. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity (Wheaton: Tyndale Momentum, 2020), 95–97.
14. Richard Rohr, Falling Upward (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011), 60–62.
15. William B. Lawrence, Methodism in Recovery (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004), 25–27.
16. Diana Butler Bass, Grounded: Finding God in the World (New York: HarperOne, 2015), 80–82.
17. Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 50–52.
18. Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene Creed and Its History, 1.35.
19. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel?, 140–143.
20. John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 1998), 70–73.
21. Augustine, City of God, 12.3.
22. Marcus Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, 45–47.
23. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion, 250–253.
24. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 5.3.
25. Tertullian, On Modesty, trans. Alexander Roberts, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 4.3.
26. Richard Rohr, The Universal Christ, 40–43.
27. Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 3–5.
28. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, 1.8.
29. Scott J. Jones, United Methodist Doctrine, 102–105.
30. William B. Lawrence, Methodism in Recovery, 120–123.
31. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.10.
32. Philip Schaff, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 4.10.
33. Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), 50–52.
34. Augustine, Confessions, 3.12.
35. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity for the Rest of Us (New York: HarperOne, 2006), 60–62.
36. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel?, 195–197.
37. Richard Rohr, Falling Upward, 120–122.
38. Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, trans. Alexander Roberts, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 5.7.
39. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 1.15.
40. Augustine, City of God, trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin, 2003), 14.1.
41. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity for the Rest of Us (New York: HarperOne, 2006), 150–152.
42. Richard Rohr, The Universal Christ: How a Forgotten Reality Can Change Everything We See, Hope For, and Believe (New York: Convergent Books, 2019), 85–88.
43. Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), 110–113.
44. Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, trans. Alexander Roberts, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 7.9.
45. Scott J. Jones, United Methodist Doctrine: The Extreme Center (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 250–253.
46. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, trans. John Behr (Yonkers, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 6.12.
47. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel? A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth in Response to Progressive Christianity (Wheaton: Tyndale Momentum, 2020), 210–213.
48. Philip Schaff, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 12.15.
49. Diana Butler Bass, Grounded: Finding God in the World (New York: HarperOne, 2015), 200–203.
50. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 150–153.
51. Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time (New York: HarperOne, 1994), 95–98.
52. Tertullian, On Modesty, 4.3.
53. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, 1.6.
54. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion, 220–222.
55. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 170–172.
56. Richard Rohr, Falling Upward (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011), 95–97.
57. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 10.1.
58. Augustine, City of God, 15.2.
59. Scott J. Jones, United Methodist Doctrine, 102–104.
60. William B. Lawrence, Methodism in Recovery (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004), 225–227.
61. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity for the Rest of Us, 275–278.
62. Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 170–172.
63. Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, 9.4.
64. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.5.
65. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 200–202.
66. Richard Rohr, The Universal Christ, 125–128.
67. Augustine, Confessions, 8.3.
68. Marcus Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, 130–132.
69. Diana Butler Bass, Grounded, 85–88.
70. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel?, 245–248.
71. Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley: Holy Love and the Shape of Grace (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007), 300–303.
72. Augustine, City of God, 17.5.
73. Philip Schaff, The Nicene Creed and Its History, 4.15.
74. John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 1998), 110–113.
75. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 12.3.
76. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, 1.8.
77. Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 90–92.
78. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 225–227.
79. Richard Rohr, The Universal Christ, 155–157.
80. Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 5.6.
81. Augustine, City of God, 18.4.
82. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion, 300–303.
83. Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 250–253.
84. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.12.
85. Philip Schaff, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 5.1.
86. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel?, 300–302.
87. Richard Rohr, Falling Upward, 195–198.
88. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 245–248.
89. Diana Butler Bass, Grounded, 225–227.
90. Augustine, Confessions, 10.12.
91. Marcus Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, 200–203.
92. Scott J. Jones, United Methodist Doctrine, 102–105.
93. Augustine, City of God, 20.1.
94. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 15.2.
95. Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 320–322.
96. William B. Lawrence, Methodism in Recovery, 275–278.
97. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 275–278.
98. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion, 320–323.
99. Philip Schaff, The Nicene Creed and Its History, 5.15.
100. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, 200–202.
101. Richard Rohr, The Universal Christ: How a Forgotten Reality Can Change Everything We See, Hope For, and Believe (New York: Convergent Books, 2019), 275–278.
102. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, 1.10.
103. Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2003), 250–252.
104. Tertullian, On Modesty, 7.8.
105. Augustine, Confessions, 11.3.
106. Philip Schaff, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 13.10.
107. Diana Butler Bass, Grounded, 300–302.
108. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 275–277.
109. Richard Rohr, Falling Upward, 200–203.
110. Augustine, City of God, 22.3.
111. Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 350–352.
112. William B. Lawrence, Methodism in Recovery (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004), 300–302.
113. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel?, 305–307.
114. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 16.2.
115. Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, 150–152.
116. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.4.
117. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, 2.5.
118. Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, 15.7.
119. Philip Schaff, The Nicene Creed and Its History, 6.10.
120. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion, 325–327.
121. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 310–313.
122. Richard Rohr, The Universal Christ, 320–322.
123. Augustine, Confessions, 12.3.
124. Marcus Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, 275–277.
125. Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 375–378.
126. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 17.5.
127. Augustine, City of God, 24.1.
128. Tertullian, On Modesty, 10.5.
129. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel?, 325–328.
130. Diana Butler Bass, Grounded, 350–352.
131. Richard Rohr, Falling Upward, 225–227.
132. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 350–352.
133. William B. Lawrence, Methodism in Recovery, 350–352.
134. Philip Schaff, ed., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 16.3.
135. Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 275–278.
136. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion, 350–352.
137. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, 2.15.
138. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 20.3.
139. Richard Rohr, The Universal Christ, 350–352.
140. Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, 180–182.
141. Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 20.6.
142. Augustine, City of God, 25.1.
143. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel?, 350–353.
144. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 375–377.
145. Diana Butler Bass, Grounded, 375–378.
146. Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 400–402.
147. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 6.1.
148. Philip Schaff, The Nicene Creed and Its History, 8.5.
149. Augustine, Confessions, 14.2.
150. Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 300–303.
151. Richard Rohr, Falling Upward, 275–278.
152. William B. Lawrence, Methodism in Recovery, 375–378.
153. Tertullian, On the Flesh of Christ, 21.5.
154. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion, 375–378.
155. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 22.1.
156. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, 3.5.
157. Marcus Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, 300–303.
158. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel?, 375–377.
159. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 400–403.
160. Diana Butler Bass, Grounded, 400–403.
161. Philip Schaff, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 20.15.
162. Marcus Borg, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, 200–203.
163. Richard Rohr, The Universal Christ, 400–403.
164. Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 425–428.
165. Augustine, City of God, 28.2.
166. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, 25.3.
167. Diana Butler Bass, Christianity After Religion, 400–402.
168. Marcus Borg, The Heart of Christianity, 325–328.
169. Richard Rohr, Falling Upward, 325–327.
170. Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christianity, 425–427.
171. Alisa Childers, Another Gospel?, 400–403.
172. Philip Schaff, The Nicene Creed and Its History, 9.10.
173. William B. Lawrence, Methodism in Recovery, 400–403.
174. Augustine, Confessions, 18.3.
175. Tertullian, On Modesty, 15.7.
176. Kenneth J. Collins, The Theology of John Wesley, 450–453.
177. Marcus Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time, 350–353.
178. Diana Butler Bass, Grounded, 425–428.
179. Augustine, City of God, 30.5.