Woodrow Wilson and Progressivism

I watched a weekend edition of Glenn Beck about the issue of progressivism and found the discussion most interesting. That led me to read some articles on-line that deal with Wilson and his concept of progressivism. One of the issues caught my attention particularly. It had to do with the view of progressives and the Constitution. One blogger, G. Stolyarov II wrote the following:

Wilson's progressivism challenged the very construction of the Constitution itself. Wilson considered the Constitution to be based on the old Newtonian scientific paradigm-whereby the Framers are alleged to have seen the government as "mechanical" and subjecting it to pre-planned checks and balances. But Wilson wished to base government on the principles of Darwin rather than those of Newton; he saw government as a "living thing" and believed that "no living thing can have its organs offset against each other as checks and live." He wanted to replace the system of checks and balances with a system of cooperation among the branches of government.

Progressives believe that they must fundamentally change government and the way it operates. Part of the rationale behind this is that humankind is growing, changing, becoming closer to perfection. It is this idea that intrigued me. Largely because it has a theological basis. One of the primary differences between a theology based upon progressive principles and a theology based upon the Bible as the Word of God is that the Bible teaches that mankind is a sinner and that everyone sins. Even within the Holiness movement, which teaches that sanctification "perfects" believers, there is a real debate about whether we are perfected in this life or in the next. Progressive theology believes that the development of human beings is largely a task given to us. We must act holy (i.e. acts of service, compassion, kindness) and that human beings have the capacity to become greater, more closely aligned with perfect action, even though they are hopelessly entwined in their sins. In other words, progressive theology believes we are getting better as humans and more conservative theology says that humanity is the same today as it was in Biblical times.
One of the ways this has been played out is in the theology of the second coming. There used to be a popular idea called, "post-millennialism." In this theology, the world was going to get better and better, more and more Christian, until the gospel would reach and impact every person and, at that moment, Jesus would return to rule over a Christian world. You can still see some vestiges of this in pre-millennial thought when it talks about reaching the whole world (usually as an appeal for funds to support their TV ministry) before Jesus can return. Another way it comes up is in the actions of human beings. For instance, the recreating of Israel as a nation is a key issue, the Battle of Armageddon has to take place in a certain way with certain nations in conflict, etc. All these actions are initiated by human beings and they make God's will come about. By the way, no one believes in post-millennialism any more. The world is not getting better. Sin has not changed. The church still has a huge mission.
Another way the discussion intrigued me was the way Progressives dismiss the Constitution because it is an old document. Progressives look to the future not the past for understanding. This is the same argument that is brought against the Bible. It is 2,000 years old. What does it have to say to a modern world? As a Practical Theologian, I believe that the church gets itself in trouble when it either leaves the Bible out of its practice or leaves the current actions of the Holy Spirit out of the equation. Both are important for how we understand the will of God. Fortunately, God has determined that he will not ask us to do the will of God while violating the word of God. Both are in harmony. For those who leave the Bible behind, there is a high price to pay for that kind of "progressivism." It sounds as if we are progressing but in reality we are leaving behind truth as it has been revealed. Fundamentally, that is something I cannot accept either politically or theologically. I still believe it is hard to improve on the Constitution and the documents of the Founding Fathers (though they can be added to rather than thrown out) and that it is hard to improve on the Word of God (though our witness and testimony can add to its power and understanding).