“The Cult of Progress regularly shames Christians for not being “Christian” enough while simultaneously denouncing most facets of the doctrine as “restrictive,” “oppressive,” or suspect in some other fashion. I believe that their perspective on both Christianity and love is extremely parochial and fails to provide a holistic account of both Christ’s teachings and human purpose.”
On April 8th, 2024, reporters from the Cougar Chronicle had the amazing opportunity to meet with and interview Michael Knowles at a YAF lecture at the University of Utah. The interview included questions on Christianity in a secular world, making a difference despite adversity, and Knowles’ experiences in politics. While each question prompted a fruitful conversation, one in particular stood out to me. Our reporter asked the following: “In recent years, there’s been increasing attempts to accommodate progressive leftism to Christianity, especially by redefining the commandment to love one another. How can we as Christians effectively stand up and fight this progressive misinterpretation of Christianity?” This is one of the most important questions of the age for Christ’s followers, and learning how to combat such misinterpretations effectively is paramount to defending the faith from a dangerous form of mimicry.
This mimicry of Christianity has taken the minds of many academics, politicians, and other leaders by storm. Some call it wokeness, others call it Marxism, but those terms fail to encapsulate this phenomenon in my view. It is not inherently Marxist and is far older than “wokeness.” I’ve taken to calling this force the “Cult of Progress.” For the adherents of this cult, universal love is the ultimate end of mankind. They believe that we can only be moral so long as we exhibit a particular type of love towards those labeled as downtrodden. Many of the cult’s tenets are fundamentally Christian in parentage and stem from the secularization and isolation of the Christian value of love, which is why they find it so easy to steal Christian ideas and repackage them with a secular ribbon.
The Cult of Progress gets its name from the elusive concept of “progress,” which it uses to measure society’s “love.” In the cult’s view, the more progressive reforms we implement, the closer we inch toward paradise, where universal love for all mankind is ubiquitous. While Christianity lacks legitimacy in the modern political arena (with those professing an explicitly Christian perspective frequently being accused of “Christian Nationalism”), the Cult of Progress regularly appropriates Christian ideas and even Christian identity as rhetorical aids in their fight for “progress.” To add insult to injury, cult adherents regularly tout how much more “Christian” they are than actual Christians because they “love” others more.
In addressing the subversion of Christian love, Knowles remarked that religious authority, particularly the kind found among the leaders of the Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, safeguards against attempts to mislead Christians through the appropriation of Christian doctrine and sentiments. His answer was well-stated, and I agree with his argument, but I wish to add to it. Church authority is a great boon in our efforts to protect against ideologues but is not a panacea for ideological subversion. In addition to church authority, we can benefit greatly from actively guarding against falsehoods and choosing to discern between Christian love and the ruinous altruism espoused by those seeking to manipulate our faith with the language of love.
This begs the question, however, why do progress cultists zealously fixate on love? And what’s wrong with that? There’s nothing wrong with love, right? The Cult of Progress regularly shames Christians for not being “Christian” enough while simultaneously denouncing most facets of the doctrine as “restrictive,” “oppressive,” or suspect in some other fashion. I believe that their perspective on both Christianity and love is extremely parochial and fails to provide a holistic account of both Christ’s teachings and human purpose. Without a solid comprehension of human purpose that extends beyond trite exhortations to “love everyone,” we’re easily swayed by power-mongers and ideologues who use Christian love as a rhetorical tool to dupe us. Once the duping is done, of course, these ideologues regularly discard any facade of Christian piety and hastily return to denouncing Christianity’s dogma and restrictive rules.
Further, the cult’s interpretation of love is profoundly narrow. To truly be capable of love under their definition, one must love all equally. For instance, one cannot love their community more than those outside of it; one cannot love the members of their nation more than another nation, etc. Under this definition, love must be universal, encompassing all humanity equally. This sentiment has ironically unchristian results, as it abstracts love and care to levels exceeding human comprehension and capacity. Love becomes a global force that one must merely passively support rather than a virtue that one practices through daily action. Christ taught us to love all mankind, but not at the expense of all other virtues and under such restrictive terms.
“Instead of proclaiming their love for all mankind and lecturing Christians about their failures to live up to universalist standards of love, I implore progress worshippers to exhaust their energies helping those they can first, and to worry about saving the world and harassing the insufficiently progressive later.”
Because love is appropriated as a political tool and aligns with a specific set of policy proposals, acting in love becomes the purview of government agencies and international organizations rather than the responsibility of each individual. Instead of donating to charity or serving at a soup kitchen, the cult mandates universal participation in their love through redistribution programs and mandatory training to ensure compliance. By merely demanding that others proclaim “love” just as they do, cultists are emancipated from the responsibility of caring for those in need nearby. They can engage in activism to further various causes that emerge on social media rather than taking real action that tangibly affects those who truly need help.
Likewise, the cult often malforms love into hate. In loving the poor, many are led to hate the rich, who hoard their wealth. In loving women, many are led to hate all men for oppressing them in the past. In loving the person of color, many are led to hate the white person for their “privilege.” In finding excuses to love one group over another for the sake of social progress, the cult mysteriously twists all of their collective “love” into some of the most virulent hatred mankind has ever exhibited. This is not love but a sickness of the heart.
Many of the great egalitarians from Marx to Rousseau spoke so affectionately of mankind and the need to liberate us from the chains of oppression yet treated those nearest to them with the utmost disregard. While Marx dedicated much writing to the cause of the downtrodden, he allowed his own children to starve. Rousseau, similarly, abandoned his children while spending his remaining career writing extensively on the need for social and political reforms. Such behaviors follow from a mindset that prioritizes good feelings and advertisable virtue over actual love and service. Being egalitarian or supporting progress alone does not make you a good person. Many are not cognizant of this or embrace such beliefs as a form of repentance for their otherwise abysmal performance.
Instead of denouncing others as un-Christian for their insufficient faith in student loan forgiveness or progressive immigration policy, I encourage members of the Progress Cult to exhibit real Christian love, rather than the kind you can brag about online. We should all make greater efforts to donate our time and energy to feeding the hungry in our own cities and building better relationships with our neighbors and family members. That is love, not fighting a quixotic crusade against abstract ideas of oppression or inequality. Instead of proclaiming their love for all mankind and lecturing Christians about their failures to live up to universalist standards of love, I implore progress worshippers to exhaust their energies helping those they can first, and to worry about saving the world and harassing the insufficiently progressive later.
In writing this article, I hope that I effectively articulated why the subversion of Christian love should be checked and why those who hollow out and appropriate Christian ideas of virtue for their political gain should be viewed with suspicion. I wish you the best in guarding against subversion by any political faction and encourage readers to remember that just because someone espouses Christian doctrine does not mean they do so in good faith.
Written by: Jackson Berthold
Editor at the Cougar Chronicle
The opinions in this article are those of the author.
The Cougar Chronicle is an independent student-run newspaper and is not affiliated with Brigham Young University or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Cover Photo Credit: Henri-Paul Motte
