A Typology: Part Seven

The Progressives
This lot are particularly hard to pin down.  They share some of the same underlying assumptions as the OSLs, but don't always have the long experience or the academic rigor, or the sort of unifying systematic theology. In fact, this group contains all sorts of different theological and pseudo-theological types: process, liberation, rationalist, social activist, universalist, unitarian, anarchist, libertarian.
At their best, they are question askers and searchers.  They have a heart for the poor and sense that the church should be engaged in the work of justice and mercy above all things.  At their worst they are a dissolute lot of theoretically obsessed non-starters.  Questions become hedges against actually saying anything of value and can suffer from a sort of self-reflective freeze up.
I can't really believe I'm saying this, but there may be such a thing as being too introspective.  Franciscan poster boy for progressive spirituality, Richard Rohr, has pointed out that the weakness of progressives is that they don't know how to do accountability.  It comes from this intentional open-ness to the possibility of being wrong, sooner or later naming things good and bad seems like a sin of being judgmental.  Individual progressives will flock to spiritual directors and coaches, mentors and gurus, because they long for someone to tell them that there is such a thing as truth and help them get pointed towards it.  However, outside of the Catholic Church there isn't a strong enough figurehead in the entire movement to play the shepherd.  You have your Rohr and Merton, but they can be awfully abstract, in their monastic discipline, to your average Presbyterian with a wife and two school aged kids (yeah that's me) who has to cut throats to keep a sabbath on a regular basis.
I read them, I feel a resonance with what they're saying, but I know they have a certain pattern of life that that gives them structure and accountability, but it's the kind of structure and accountability that I just don't think I could deal with.
I like progressives, almost as much as the Old School Liberals, but they frustrate me, because it's hard to get them to commit.  This is a thing I deal with mostly in peer groups and collegial relationships, trying to cultivate community is tough when people can't even take the time to have an honest conversation over a cup of coffee without constantly checking their phone and frequently bailing altogether because they needed to "attend to their self-care."
You just can't count on progressives in general, they're just too flaky and wrapped up in their own stuff.  They're great for talking things through if you can get them to sit still, they have some good ideas and can conceptualize, analyze and diagnose, but when it comes time to actually do?
Let's just say that's been sort of a weak spot for the progressives of late, and it has led to a winter of discontent within the Mainline churches.  People who are frustrated by the "Yeah, but on the other hand..." sort of attitude that often buffaloes some good ideas, will shelve some of their questions and head for an evangelical church that seems to have their act together.  People who experience this lack of progress from people who are intellectually progressive will think it's hypocrisy and either leave altogether or go to the Unitarian Universalists, where it's just all about justice and ethics and anything goes theology-wise.
Sometimes I think that if we could just get the progressives to actually progress the whole world would be a better place... at least the church would be.  But maybe that's their role, maybe they are the impulse control of the Body of Christ, the part that says, hey maybe you shouldn't put your tongue on that, or maybe you ought to think that through a little more before you say it.
I think you see where I'm going with all this, or at least I hope you do: that maybe the diversity and the variety of the church is a good thing.