The brilliant 18^th century theologian and preacher, Jonathan Edwards (not to be confused with the 21^st century Democrat Senator, lawyer, and notorious adulterer, John Edwards), is best remembered for his searing polemic titled, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”. Here he scathingly chastises Christians about the dangers of allowing our foot to slide and thus threaten the eternal wrath of God since his justice and righteousness carries the weight of discipline for disobedience.

My title is a tortured attempt at wordplay on the sermon’s title. The objective is to argue that the so-called “progressive Christian” – an oxymoron – has become an antagonist to the plans and desires of our Lord. Worse than that, they have become unwitting allies with the enemy with all the weighty implications that this entails.

I want to make it clear from the outset that while the target I am indicting in this article is the “progressive Christian”, I do not pretend to be above reproach in this regard or other moral failures. My purpose is not to engage in any form of sneering condescension or schadenfreude over those who have allowed cultural forces to corrupt their Christian witness. While my message is trenchant and unsympathetic, please keep in mind that my complaint is with the conduct and not the individual. In fact, that distinction is addressed as you will soon see.

Simp is a rather dated and nebulously defined term, so I will provide the definition I selected that best represents my critique, namely: “Someone who tries way too hard to impress the person they like, often going above and beyond to satisfy their every need. This, in turn, devalues them as a person, acting subservient to their crush or partner”.

I intend to make the case that the progressive church is a very powerful ally of those seeking to undermine the true message of scripture and Christian influence in the culture. In fact, they are a far greater impediment to God’s purposes than your run-of-the-mill unbeliever. This is because they adopt some elements of Christian piety while compromising on several core principles – thus making them malleable pawns in the culture war and an unwitting ally to the cause of the enemy.

First, let’s look at the ways that atheists and the “progressive church” (PC) partner in the cause of Satan to uproot truth and sow deception. Afterwards, I will address the damage uniquely brought about by the PC that goes far beyond those who hold Christ in contempt in that they actively hobble the Christian message to an unbelieving world.

• Both come to adopt a largely common set of assumptions about morality and social values.

Recently, Amy Grant (one of the original artists of contemporary Christian music) hosted a same-sex “wedding” for her niece and female “partner”. You can probably guess that she defended critics in the faith community in terms that affirm the prevailing secular paradigm. This is the embedded assumption that love must be expressed by approval and endorsement of the behaviour – even when such behaviour violates God’s standards. Of course, this is limited to what is sanctioned by society and is never a two-way street.

     The purveyors of tolerance are perfectly justified in discriminating against Bible-believing Christians because their moral pragmatism arises from a rejection of objective moral duties – which they inevitably recast to fit their own proclivities. The problem is that the PC tries to keep a foot in each camp.

     I expect Grant might bristle at hosting a polygamous ceremony, the wedding of a man and his golden Labrador, or a mother and her son. To this you might respond that these other unions are illegal, but that is not the argument. If morality is determined by what is legal, this creates confusion over an issue like abortion. Once righteousness is whatever is passed by legislation, the Christian is nothing more than a living sandwich board sporting the message, “I Support the Current Thing”. Once we reach that point, then what does it even mean to be a Christian? Based on this twisted logic, Grant ought to fight for the rights of everyone regardless of their sexual peccadillos as failing to do so would be to suggest that love is conditional. She might also be put on the spot if she was to officiate a sologamy ceremony (where a person marries themselves – and, yes, that’s a thing). Surely this would be seen as a mockery of matrimony by most, but this is merely an example of self-love taken to the its final endpoint and is legal.

This mentality doesn’t grasp that God sees any aberration that violates his divinely appointed standard of marriage, (and sexual activity), solely within confines of a union between a man and woman, as an affront. For those who insist that Jesus was not clear about marriage, simply refer to Matthew 19:4-6. Incidentally, this is a recitation of the words established by God in Genesis and, lest you forget: Jesus is God. It is such equivocations that lead PCs to adopt the secular contemporized version of morality which invariably flies in the face of the ethical standards set out in scripture.

This means that unbelievers and the PC are aligned against God and the Bible-believing church out of a shared view that humanity can evolve to become more moral than God. Man becomes the ultimate authority and he is free to take any new territory that he manages to move into the category of social approval.

• Both conflate what it means to love someone into endorsing conduct that God directly condemns.

     Alfred Kinsey, a botanist and gall wasp expert, published his deeply corrupted and deviant pseudo-science in his writings known as “The Kinsey Reports”. He purported to demonstrate that we are sexual from birth, bisexual by nature, and ultimately that most of us were sexual deviants – just like him. I’m not kidding. His results came about by heavily drawing from the prison population (notably, those charged with serious sexual crimes), prostitutes, and similar miscreants. Here is a brief summary of the lowlights – and much more could be said.

It should be noted that his conclusions about the premise that even babies were sexual from birth came from his reliance on pedophile “researchers” to bring these infants to orgasm – repeatedly. His vile and criminal conduct was brought to light by Dr. Judith Reisman who also exposed the fraud behind his research which has been kept hidden even while his “findings” are celebrated as ground-breaking to acolytes from among the godless left. For those who have the stomach, there is a link here.

All this to say that Kinsey became the father of the sexual revolution, Hugh Hefner proudly proclaimed that he was his pamphleteer, and the Haight-Ashbury hippy revolution were his step-children. These are the roots of our current compromises on approved sexual behaviours and normalization of gender dysphoria. Kinsey and his allies sought to create the impression that most people were engaged in activities that were the stuff of sexual fantasies from mainstream to the most perverted aberrations. It seems clear that several of those who reject God, do so because following his moral standards would harsh their mellow. They don’t expand their tolerance for licentiousness because they believe it to be moral, but because embracing a higher tolerance scratches an itch. In turn, they can assume the position of ally for those who go even further outside the norms; both to justify their deviations and because their conduct is “less objectionable” in comparison.

Some call themselves Christians while living lives of indulgence, but this demographic are wittingly or unwittingly self-deceived and more easily align with the unbelievers in every respect. The question is why the sincere professing believer who concedes that these are sexual no go zones, but make allowances for others.

Based on my observations, the genuine motives do appear to stem from a misguided sense of compassion. This is especially true when the violator is a friend or family member whom they recognise as decent and someone they care for. They don’t see deviancy in the other person and come to accept from the outside that their feelings are immutable and beyond their control. They distort their heartfelt desire to be accepting of the person into a belief that God can change them if he wishes or will adapt out of his loving nature to accept their friend or family member as they are. Both are borne of the mentality that God can see into their heart and see that it is possible to have a pure love that violates his standard or, since God made them as they are, he would have to be unloving – so he is the one at fault.

This is nothing more than the logical fallacy that love and acceptance go hand in hand. This is the favourite mind-trick of the devil; hearkening back to: “Did God really say?” The impression is created that having a peace about actions that God condemns nullifies their status as a sin; as though God is merely responding out of a visceral aversion to certain expressions of sexual fulfillment.

Instead, judgment is turned against the believer who does not compromise about what God makes clear is an abomination while loving the person enough to not lie to them. The believer who realigns their moral compass to fit the culture as an act of love is merely redirecting the object of their scorn. While the uncompromising believer seeks to, in the truest sense, love the sinner while hating the sin – as well as loving our brothers and sisters who hate our perceived stubbornness – the PC condemns the Bible-believer for refusing to throw off the shackles of antiquated views of immorality.

This applies more broadly to other aspects. For example, under Covid, professing Christians and unbelievers alike cast judgment on those who refused to mask, socially distance or jab for Jesus as their dissent was viewed as unloving. I wonder how many have boldly spoken against the unloving choice to kill the baby in the womb? Every believer should justly cringe and feel ashamed at anyone who treated someone who aborted their child with the dismissive and condemnatory reaction that they had no compunction about bestowing on their mandate-averse friends.

• Both have no respect for the supremacy and authority of God over his creation.

     Those who reject God don’t reject moral duties – they merely redefine them and impose them stringently and with an enforcement infrastructure that severely punishes anyone attempting to breach their revised demands. When you determine that the presumed spokespersons of the zeitgeist can adjudicate and moderate what aspects of God’s eternal law require a makeover, then you grant man the supremacy over objective standards.

After all, in every case where revised moral duties conflict with scripture, you are taking a side that directly opposes the living word of the God you claim to serve. This also nullifies your right to dissent on any moral position. For instance, if you take the attitude that it is wrong to endorse or compromise on issues like abortion, cohabitation, divorce, or the increasingly mainstreaming of pedophilia, you need to follow the “Love is Love” banner wherever it leads. The unbeliever is free to blow with the wind since they can justify the subjectification of morality for personal reasons, but the professing believer is tacitly acting as their own god and can expect to be judged accordingly.

• Both become natural enemies of the Bible believing church.

Those who take our guidance from scripture know that we are in conflict with the unbelieving world. “Progressive Christians” become undistinguishable from unbelievers even when they insist that they are not actually contravening God by endorsing behaviour of which he doesn’t approve.

Once you refuse to condemn what God establishes – even as a gesture of love – you are complicit in redefining morality. The true Christ-follower can make no such concessions. When Christ was perversely chastised (incidentally by fellow Jews and unbelievers) for hanging out with tax collectors and sinners; he did not say, “Don’t be so judgy because they are doing nothing wrong”. Similarly, his call to the Father to forgive the mockers and those calling for his crucifixion was actively forgiving us in our sins. He was not saying their sins were irrelevant. Quite the contrary. If their actions weren’t detestable to God, he wouldn’t have needed to die for us to experience his mercy.

Our sinful behaviours are what separate us from God and if we equivocate on the reality of sin, then there can be no forgiveness as there is no need for repentance. It is the Bible believing Christian who is capable of loving the sinner while condemning the sin because we acknowledge that our sins are similarly a stench to God and we deserve to be held to account for every one of them. A “progressive Christian” fails to recognise that our Saviour’s love is so profound because he can love us despite our rebellion. This is why a father or mother does not show love by approving of all their child does, but by guiding them in the right path and disciplining when they do wrong.

In all of the above, the professing believer who equivocates on God’s ethical standards is indistinguishable from the unbeliever; even if their basis for forming this alliance may not line up with each other. God will not care whether your defiance against his authority was well-intentioned or an act of willful defiance. In fact, it is to be expected that those who reject him will behave in egregious ways.

As I hinted at, I have listed the ways that the secular left and “progressive church” are working in tandem to erode godly direction in the culture. Atheists, agnostics, and those who hold to false religions can be expected to subvert God’s message since, ultimately, they are following the voice of the enemy. Now I want to address what makes the “progressive church” a uniquely nefarious adversary to the remnant church.

Note that there is some overlap with what I addressed above, but I think the repetition is necessary.

1. They divide the church and ultimately water down the message to the point where Christians no longer influence the culture, but instead the culture drags the church.

     Once the general public sees division within the church, it fuels their self-serving claims that the holdouts are driven by antiquated and barbaric beliefs that are not only irrelevant but perilous. The notion of cheap grace is an easy sell when those who claim to be part of the fold are affirming the defamatory account. Neither unbelievers nor the timid within the church want to stand up on principle while facing such headwinds of opposition. We can see how this can influence pastors wanting to be “seeker sensitive” to measure their words and compromise their message for fear of losing attendees or coming under withering attacks arising from a social justice-led culture. It also puffs up the congregant to behave like the Pharisee in Luke 18:11, only, they cast the contrite believer trying to influence the culture for Christ in the role of the extortionists, unjust, adulterers and tax collectors.

1. It severely handicaps the efforts of those wanting to witness to their neighbour.

     This is a sensitive point for me as I long ago saw the way that anti-Christian propaganda was being applied to not only shift cultural values, but embed them into a hive mind. I could see how radical and increasingly risible the far-left influencers had become. I wanted to dispel the caricature of Christianity by contrasting true standards with the absurdity of secular fundamentalism that were gaining hold over our institutions.

Over my lifetime, Christian values went from being the assumed foundation to a source of ridicule and contempt. We were cowed into not imposing our morality on others as they eroded moral standards and imposed their own through deception, intimidation and indoctrination. I then knew that I needed to teach the church about the deceptions. I’m now largely writing off the progressives and am seeking to encourage genuine believers to not use false narratives as a starting point to dispel lies, but expose the deceivers and the deceptions by a frontal assault on their nonsense; as warriors prepared for open warfare using the weapon of boldly speaking truth and dispelling darkness.

By allowing the narrative to stand that equates love of one’s neighbour with tolerance for or endorsement of their sin, it makes those who keep to the biblical message and God himself into a hater. Sin doesn’t need to be forgiven and the sinner doesn’t need to repent where there is no acknowledgment that biblical principles are still germane. In fact, one who is actively sinning can feel more righteous than the bigoted Christ-follower who has not recalibrated his moral compass to embrace the new normal. They are justified in feeling this way because they are being affirmed by false teachings that claim to be acting as God’s representatives. This virtually guarantees that an unbeliever will not change course from an eternal destination in hell. It sounds harsh, but is true.

We owe the fact that “Christian” has become a byword in the current milieux to the milquetoasts that have abrogated their calling to be salt and light and instead throw shade on their brothers and sisters in Christ.

1. It grants the premise that human and cultural forces are the final authority, thus making the church (and God himself) answerable to their precepts.

     If the enemy is distorting the teachings and maligning God’s true nature, our duty is to correct their heresies, not try to convince them we are not domestic terrorists because of our dissent. A handful of designated “experts” claimed the right to close our churches and keep our distance from one another and the response was, “As you wish”. When safety was elevated to the status of the highest moral good; then surrendering our God-given freedoms was venerated as tantamount to religious piety. This was inevitable once we permitted radical forces to shape not only the direction, but the arbiter of virtue and truth.

I mean it when I say that many in the PC camp live lives more virtuous than me and many other committed believers in the remnant church. I know I can lack grace in how I express myself and my natural tendency to bluntly confront lies and deceptions can come across as unloving. What I am asking is that we can be gracious with one another and draw each other to be better Christian examples.

Speaking as I do is neither intended to be condemnatory nor to suggest any personal higher moral stature. I would be lost without the true north of Christ’s teaching, unchanging nature, love and forgiveness to direct me. This cannot be sacrificed for my sake or anyone else’s since all this would accomplish is to set us all adrift.

“The Jesus Project” was an attempt by so-called biblical scholars to work their way through the scriptures and determined what aspects could be trusted and which should be dismissed. Those responsible for this heresy may have been sincere, but even if we believe they were driven by good intentions, their hubris is on a par with those behind the scheme to build what became known as the Tower of Babel.

God’s perfect nature, unconditional love, and immutable standards are the only true foundation for a godly people. We need to keep ourselves in check whenever we are tempted to imagine we can improve on God’s handiwork. Not only is it futile, but the eternal ramifications are beyond anything we can imagine. Instead of being on the right side of others, we must first ensure we are on the right side of God.