A month off has been both a gift and a trial. My surgery went well and recovery has been swift and complete. But laying around constantly is more exhausting that actually working and functioning. I am tired of being tired. Friend Wes from Wisconsin suggested that I should just load past blogs and a few themes into ChatGPT and let it spit out some interim thoughts, but I’m not there. I’m too old. When I write I want it to be ME, though I am not sure I add more to the conversation than an AI drone. Oh, well.

Thanks to Steve for finding and sharing the article I wrote in 2003, and I was able to retrieve an email between Cynthia Astle (bless her soul) and myself that sets a bit more context to my reflections here. In 2003, Cynthia wrote to me, “Dan, you did an awesome job last week and I was struck by how much you pissed off everyone in the room by answering a simple question. (The question was, “In your opinion, how are progressive Christians shooting themselves in the foot?”) You nailed some really important issues. Are you willing to write an article?”

I have now reread the article and while there is nothing to earth-shattering in 2026, I am actually impressed by what I said in 2003. I am often my worst critic, but rarely my biggest fan. However, I would not change a thing I said 23 years ago, and actually think I hit the nail on the head.

Rather than reprint the article, I will simply hit the highlights (something I should have done last blog but was really fuzzy about what I had really said). Again, setting the frame from Cynthia’s perspective – “Can you say more about the things you raised as concerns? Specifically, labeling and extremism, elitism, reductionist “either/or” thinking, and focusing on fear rather than faith?”

The essence of my lament and analysis in 2003 was about liberal thinking in general (including politically) as well as within The United Methodist Church. Much of what I reflected on was as pertinent to conservative/traditional/Republican thinking as to progressive/liberal/Democrat thinking, but my assignment was to speak to my feelings about where progressives were doing themselves damage.

I already wrote about focusing on the worst-case scenario and fueling fear rather than encouraging solutions and favorable responses. I went on to talk about binary thinking and reductionist reasoning, using race and racism as my example. Think for a moment: what is the intrinsic and lasting value of the following phrase: “Everyone is racist.” Now, when it is reduced/focused further to “all white people are racist.” What is the expected positive outcome to such a declaration? Don’t worry about whether it is true or not (I believe it is true, myself) but think about being on the receiving end of such a judgment. If you are labeled in a negative, derogatory, and dismissive way, how open are you to peaceful, reasonable, and collaborative engagement? Progressives have had for decades an opportunity to cast a positive vision for racial justice, interracial respect, and intersectional understanding. Have we maximized that potential? No, we have adopted a reductionist and antagonistic binary position: you are racist or not (in more current terms, more racist or anti-racist). This is designed to fail, to breed negative feelings, and to cast opponents as enemies. All of the best research and exploration of racism show that it is a broad spectrum rather than an “either/or” simplistic duality. Some racism is due to ignorance, some to lack of experience and interaction. Some is psychological, some overt, some violent. Some racism is subliminal, some cultivated. Some is intentional, some accidental, some institutional. Racism is real and it is a problem, but it is a problem for all of us, and creating unnecessary adversarial relationships will not help solve it. Racial justice is a positive; racism a negative. Human rights is a positive; prejudice and bigotry negatives. A fair, inclusive, and just society is a positive; segregation and hammering on past injustices and atrocities a negative. My concern in 2003 was that if progressives continued to focus on all that we have done wrong, it would prevent us from engagement with conservatives about what we could do right. In 2003 I wrote, “If our opponents get tired enough of being labeled as villains, they might just become the villains we fear and try to eliminate and erase all our efforts for inclusion, justice, and a truly respectful and welcoming understanding of diversity.” Hmmm.

I also noted that the extreme voices of liberal and progressive Christianity were sounding more and more like the strident and exploitive voices of the conservative wing. Here is a picture I used:

For most of the 20th century, the bell curve was an appropriate representation of the widening gap between liberals and conservative. However, in my observation, we had shifted to a “C” shape where the extremes were closer to each other than the majority of people in the moderate-to-leaning reality. To argue against your opponent was popular and got lots of press and attention, but it did very little to reach any kind of collaboration and consensus. Only highlighting difference prevents any serious attempt to discover commonality.

Liberals and progressives by 2003 had not learned an important lesson from the 2000 election: intellectuals, the educated, and the culturally elite cannot/must not/should not/shall not look down on their opponents. I was seeing a developing contempt for learning, education, science, expertise, and reason. In my article I asked, “What makes something true? There is a fast-rising segment of our society that claims that a) if we say it often enough, and b) if we say it loud enough, and c) if we make it wild enough, then everyone will believe us.” My concern then was that it might split our church; my concern now is that it is splitting our country.

My last point in my 2003 reflection was a concern that progressives would adopt the reductionist, “either/or” thinking of the right. In my estimation, there is never a simple answer to complex issues. If we are not willing to take the time to explore the height, breadth, length, and depth of critical issues, we are dead in the water. In 2003, I used 9/11 as an example; today I would use – immigration, Iran war, Venezuela, Gaza/Israel, Russia/Ukraine, government spending, the Epstein files, the Ballroom/Arch/Reflecting Pool/Dulles Airport/new Air Force One/blah, blah, blah as the example. All our “news” is superficial and subjective. Few people fact check ANYTHING! With so much information available to us, we choose to live in ignorance. True in 2003, very true in 2026. It does not take a college graduate to determine if something is true, valid, accurate, or politically motivated. We are collectively choosing ignorance and too often, stupidity.

Progressives need to reclaim and redeem their definition: moving forward in a positive way. We have got to cast a vision for what we can be instead of spending so much time repenting of all our flaws, failings, and defeats. What we want to be, what we should be, is so much more important than what we are not, and what we have done wrong. Let’s acknowledge and accept what we have done wrong but from the position of strength of doing something significantly better. Get off accusing others of maleficence and maliciousness and invite them into restorative and redeeming work.

The aggressive and accusative approach of progressives has not yielded good results – not in 2003 and not in 2026. Taking the high road, staying focused on the positive, looking toward the well-being of all, and celebrating the possibilities instead of lamenting the failures has great potential to redeem the liberal and progressive voices in the church, in the country, and in the world.