In this article Northwestern professor Kim Van Es, who is also chair of the Sioux County Democrats, offers a definition of what she refers to as “progressive Christians.” Instead of reminding us that Jesus’ death and atonement is the only way to get to heaven, she writes that ‘progressive Christians’ say Jesus is ‘primarily’ needed for His wisdom: and not for His atonement.
The article states: “Do you mean that I can be a Christian and still embrace science? Do you mean that I can be a Christian and not condemn people of every other faith to hell? Do you mean that I can be a Christian and see Jesus primarily as a source of wisdom rather than a source of atonement?” Many progressives would answer “yes” to these questions.”
That belief devalues the very heart of the gospel.
She also references how ‘progressive Christians’ deny the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to be the only rule of faith in the article:
“According to progressives, God’s revelation did not end centuries ago, but truth continues to unfold through new readings of the Bible and through study of the created world.”
Why would Kim Van Es, although technically in third person, be strongly advocating without a word of caution these heretical “progressive christian” views if they were not her own? Others also share our concern.
Doug Vande Griend left this message on the article Van Es wrote. His message is dated July 15, 2016.
“Respectfully, this article is making a political/worldview pitch (for the author’s preferred political/worldview disposition) more than it is helpful in finding the precise definition (or lack thereof) of the word ‘progressive.'”
We agree with Doug Vande Griend. We believe these are likely the views of Kim Van Es as well. If they are not, we welcome her to submit any previous writings she has published or let us know at PRI if these are not the views she holds.