The Church is not a zoo ... and that is why unity, not diversity, is its communal value.   As Aristotle rightly noted, ethics develop from clarity about what is our end or goal ( Nicomachean Ethics 1094a).   To make diversity our end rather than unity will produce an entirely different ethic for the Church.   The present essay will, positively, explore the significance of unity—and a particular unity in Christ—as the Church’s moral end by considering Paul’s words on the matter in 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12.4-7, and Ephesians 4.1-6.18.   It will also address, negatively, the errors that result when diversity replaces unity as the Church’s community value—including when unity is regarded as a product of diversity seen as a value in itself (e.g., ecclesial multiculturalism).   The essay functions as a plea for a Biblical understanding of the Church at a time when our Christian ecclesiology is in tatters and many are advocating an error stemming directly from the culture rather than Scr

[This series of essays seeks to define Progressive Theology and offer a critique of it.] Progressive Theology,  Ethic of Diversity, and Revelation 7.9 Rudolf Bultmann famously asserted that ‘‘Every assertion about man is simultaneously an assertion about God and vice versa .’ [1]   His actual understanding of this necessary relationship emphasized the anthropological far more than the theological, since his concern to demythologize Scripture leaned heavily into a scientific rather than theological understanding, and his existentialism meant that theology was meant to answer the question of human existence.  While Bultmann’s anthropocentric existentialism focussed more on the individual in light of the human condition, Progressive Theology, also anthropocentric, is focussed more on the social condition in light of power dynamics.  The language often used for this is ‘social justice’, which is understood in reference to group identities and their relationships. One trajectory for Progr

[This essay continues an attempt to define and offer a critique of Progressive Theology.] The Hermeneutics of Listening and Creative Appropriation In matters of interpretation, Progressive Theology is characterized by listening and creative appropriation.  ‘Listening’ in postmodernity replaces interpretation and research in traditional, Renaissance, and Enlightenment scholarship.  It does not seek some objective truth, whether held by tradition or subjected to rational and scientific enquiry.  Its goal is much more experiential, diverse, and empathetic, listening to the experiences of a variety of persons invited to the discussion, particularly those whose voices have not been heard.  The intended (or pretended) goal is non-judgemental love and compassion, as in the latest document of the Church of England—‘Living in Love and Faith’, rather than faithfulness to Scripture or the orthodox Church. [1]   Scripture is used (isolated quotes, values, themes) to present an ethos made up of l

[This is a continuation of a four-part essay on Progressive Theology that seeks to explain what it is and to show its faults.] Understanding Progressive Theology as Art The work of theology has been understood as the interpretation of sacred texts, God’s revelation in Scripture.  Tools and methods for this study involve learning Greek and Hebrew, studying ancient literature to understand the historical and cultural context, and the intertextual study of Biblical texts within the canon of Scripture.  It has also been understood as the clarification of Scripture and the Church’s teaching at different times and in different cultures.  Such theological study requires an understanding of official Church teaching in its history.  Progressive theology, on the other hand, understands theology as activism, a response to social injustices and an up-to-date articulation of contemporary beliefs to support the activism.  What is allegedly needed for such an undertaking is a Critical Theory to mar