Progressive Christianity is retrograde or at least retrospective enough to be celebrating 100th anniversaries of events, notably the speech by Harry Emerson Fosdick.

"The Rev. Dr. Caleb J. Lines" resumed the line of demarcation as follows:

Christianity that is concerned only with biblical inerrancy, individual salvation at the expense of others, defining life at conception, denying science, discriminating against LGBTQIA+ children of God, and ignoring history is antithetical to the actual life and teachings of Jesus. Fundamentalist Christianity isn’t Christianity at all, and it’s turning droves of people away from Christianity while causing substantial church-induced trauma.

So, Fosdick claimed Fundamentalist Christianity isn't Christianity at all, and I'll take a look at each item in how he defines it.

"Christianity that is concerned only with ..."

C. S. Lewis remarked that "only" is a dangerous word.

Back when tithing mint and anise was part of the law, Our Lord spoke about:

Vae vobis scribae et pharisaei hypocritae, qui decimatis mentham, et anethum, et cyminum, et reliquistis quae graviora sunt legis, judicium, et misericordiam, et fidem! haec oportuit facere, et illa non omittere.
Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.
Matthew 23:23.

I think these days when Fundamentalists do "define life at conception" (as mentioned lower down) they cannot really be accused of leaving the weightier things of the law, judgement and mercy and faith.

But Fundamentalists also make a point against the evils of Lynchburg. Fundamentalists today and Catholics back then, ideally also Fundamentalists back then, opposed the Progressives who thought sterilising people was a good idea. And the ones who were these eugenistic progressives back then were in fact depending heavily on Darwin, whom Progressives to this day have not left.

"biblical inerrancy,"
"denying science,"

And avoiding Eugenics. Thank you.

"individual salvation at the expense of others,"

Given that defrauding others is antithetical to one's individual salvation, I don't know why they would say that.

"defining life at conception,"

Well, standing up for children targetted for slaughter kind of is one of the weightier things ...

"discriminating against LGBTQIA+ children of God,"

I am not sure what discrimination is supposed to mean here. OK, not strictly true, but that's how you tend to say a thing like this.

If LGBT etc are discriminated against by being less often heterosexually married, it is arguable that at least some of them are discriminating against themselves by not chosing that.

If certain people are concerned with stopping homosexuals from even trying, that would be the kind of progressives who think these determined by their homosexuality so as to be incapable of marriage. You know, the kind of people who are against denying science. Though in this case the science of determinism might not be the most recent word in psychological studies on homosexuality. IN the meantime, I think someone had made a study claiming lots of exclusive homosexuals find they are bisexual, and lots of bisexuals become exclusively heterosexual.

B u t - if it's about gay couples and lesbian couples not getting the same respect and dignity as married couples, able to procreate children, which is what I suspect, that's actually forbidden to heterosexuals too.

"and ignoring history"

I'm not sure what history we are supposed to be ignoring. Again, not strictly true, but that's how you tend to say a thing like this.

Let me guess ...

"The guys who canonised the 27 books were Catholics!"

That might bother lots of Protestant Fundamentalists, but doesn't bother this Catholic Fundamentalist the least.

"The reading where Scripture is upheld against discoveries in science is discredited by the Galileo case!"

I'd rather say it's the Heliocentric ideology (pertinent for Distant Starlight problem) that's discredited by the Galileo case.

You can define this as "denying science" (and I note the only Science* who warned against denying Him before men is different from the "Science" of Heliocentrism and Evolution), but you can hardly call it "denying history" ...

"The idea that sex is for marriage between a man and a woman historically involves banning contraceptives!"

That might bother Protestant Fundamentalists less than these guys think, and certainly bothers this Catholic Fundamentalist not at all.

But I am afraid that the history we are supposed to be ignoring is sth totally different:

"You cannot ignore the uncertainty about the source Q!"

I'm not certain it even exists such a thing. Definitely not as a demoted already unfaithful to fact substrate with accretions already happening, which is anterior to the Synoptics or Synoptics other than Mark. And I suppose that is how the phrase is most often used.

"You cannot ignore Genesis 1 - 11 as sequence of events was plagiarised on Babylonian myth! Only the different theology is what is inerrant."

So far no Babylonian originals** have been upcoming for Adam and Eve or for the Tower of Babel.

When it comes to the Ark of Noah vs giant coracle of Utnapishtim, while the texts of Gilgamesh may be slightly older than Moses, it's the text of Moses that is capable of providing realistic dimensions for an Ark that can actually float in a world wide flood.

"is antithetical to the actual life and teachings of Jesus."

Especially as summarised by people unwilling to look beyond their quotemining to see what their mined quotes actually mean.

Lonnie Frisbee can hardly be presented as taking too great a distance to sinners, but his views on some lifestyles that can be first and foremost thought of in relation to "Alphabet people" are hardly what Progressives would take as inclusive either. I'll trust him or Serafim Rose over Caleb Lines.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Annunciation to Our Lady
25.III.2023

* The Word of the Father also mentioned something which would in context mean that the timespan from the beginning of the universe, by creation from nothing, to the creation of Adam and Eve, is negligible compared to the 5200 or 5500 years plus from then to when He spoke. Mark 10:6.
** Fair warning to any Progressive who imagines I am speaking from ignorance - I am not just a Fundamentalist, but also a Mythology geek, and I know a thing or two about Babylonian myth. Norse myth (which I know even better) is closer than Christianity.