What’s the difference between a “liberal” and a “progressive?”

In my church experience, “liberal” became a pejorative term used by conservatives, so liberals started calling themselves “progressives”. In the same way, I’ve noticed many conservatives calling themselves “orthodox”. Both “progressive” and “orthodox” are subtle digs at the other side, suggesting either that your own group is moving forward (as opposed to the other group) or your own group is right (and the other group wrong).
I might characterize the difference between “liberal” and “progressive” as the former is more reactionary and the latter more constructive. It’s not enough to be a liberal and take a stance against conservatism; we must also move toward something new.

This is how I think of it – Liberals are the mirror-image of Conservatives – ultimately defenders of the status-quo, just different parts of it. Progressives are outside the status-quo, but share a lot of values in common with Liberals. They, however, are more focused on moving toward a new status-quo.
As for the definitions in the post – they don’t work for me, as I can think of Liberals and Progressives who are more position-based, or more process-based, etc. For me, the difference is the relationship to the status-quo. And this is a definition apart from the complex history of the two terms, just looking at their use now, and my own associations.

Q. What’s the difference between a Liberal and a Progressive?
A. A Liberal is a Conservative who hasn’t been mugged yet, and a Progressive is someone who treats the Mugger as the Victim.

I have to confess that I’m apparently not as well-read as most of your other commentators. I had been led to believe that there really wasn’t any distinction between “liberal” and “progressive” beyond perhaps a matter of preference (for example, the sense that it is currently safer to use “progressive” as a less loaded term than “liberal”). If one must define the terms separately, I have no great argument against your definitions.
Discussions like this remind me of Humpty Dumpty’s comment to Alice: “When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less” Finding a consensus on terms like these may well be impossible.

When one’s salvation theology is true to Jesus’ gospel, then one will know that Jesus is the truth, the light and the way. The glory of the gospel will transcend earthly ideologies.

I should add, that these Progressive Christians aren’t much interested in the debates and controversies of the Modernist and Premodernist forbears. In fact, if the debates of generations past continue much longer – such as ordination and marriage equality, we stand to lose a whole generation from the church who will write us off as another irrelevant institution that has ceased to be able to help give them and their friends and family meaning in the world. The questions of sex and gender, science, evolution, and creation, are falling on the deaf ears of a vast majority of our children’s generation. They want to know how one goes about following the challenging words of the Christ, or the Buddha, or Lau Tsu, and which path makes most sense for them in the world in which they find themselves.

Hey Bruce,
I tend to agree with Robert and Cary in their historical designations of the use of the terms, but as I have tried to make the distinction more alive for my congregation, I have made these observations. I will try to include links to the images I used there to help make my case. I hope they are available to all, but if not, just do a friend request on Facebook, where you can see them in my notes.
Polarities:
First, every culture makes categorizations about subgroups and movements within its culture. We live in a culture that finds the easiest categorizations to be made by polarizations. This is true both politically and theologically. See http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&note_id=487089916260
Diversity of Positions within Conservatism:
Second, there is a greater diversity within both Conservatives and Liberals, and perhaps even Progressives that is not recognized by the median and other commentators who wish to use the system of “divide and conquer” polarization to keep the conversation about those on the inside and those on the outside.
Both sides use this tactic, in order to move people towards “their end” of the spectrum, as if there were only two choices.
How the Polarities don’t make sense:
To upset this Polarity, however, there are both Conservative and Liberal members of both the Green and Libertarian Parties. This has become quite confusing recently as both Conservative and Liberal Libertarians have found a voice in a person such as Republican Paul Rand. Only recently do we find “Tea Party” members resonating with Conservative Libertarian ideals that Liberal Libertarians may find abhorrent as they have found their newfound voice nationally. Similarly, some conservatives who express their angst against the consumer culture for environmental and fiscal reasons find great resonance with Liberal Greens who desire a greater protection of the natural world.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&note_id=487097986260
I would propose that there is greater complexity in our culture than that found between Conservatives and Liberals, and that being a Progressive means more than being an updated Liberal.
Cosmological Complexity and Diversity:
Now some would say that the biggest rivals in Protestant Christianity today are Evangelicals and Progressives. But if you had to put both of them in this new spectrum, one would find that some Evangelicals find meaning in both the Premodern world and the Modern world. You could also say that some Evangelicals are better than others at accepting theological and racial/ethnic diversity than others. So rather than painting all Evangelicals in one way, we would have to express the movement along a continuum. This may not be a good final picture however.
Likewise, some self-avowed Progressives count themselves a part of the Modernist Liberal movement and others find greater continuity among Postmodern expressions of Christianity. Both groups tend to find greater comfort with theological diversity and racial/ethnic diversity, though not all.
Such a picture offers us greater complexity of the diversity in both movements, while recognizing the theological and cultural assumptions made by both groups.
Even Greater Complexity:
In this image, which begins to add increasingly divergent voices to the conversation, we see that the theological spectrum within Christianity is more complex than we can imagine. Perhaps it isn’t Evangelicals who are the most Premodern Christians who desire the most homogeneity, but biblical Fundamentalists, most of whom continue to find the greatest level of racial differentiation in our nation.
Such a spectrum recognizes the differences between Premodern and Liberal (or Modernist) Catholics, a movement which also has the greatest racial/ethnic diversity because of the number of immigrants within this communion. In fact, the spectrum of Catholics may be larger than this graphic describes.
While it is hard to place the “Spiritual but Not Religious” (SBNR) crowd, most of them are the formerly church, or their children. The “Church Hurt” also contribute to this number. While reported church attendance is greater in African-American and Hispanic circles, there is a considerable number of each constituencies among the SBNR.
The spectrum of self-described Progressives includes those who would call themselves Liberal, Emergent, and Postmodern. Among this group, the differentiation of self-description tends to be the greatest because of the new territory they are forming in this direction. This is another large spectrum that has much overlap with both Evangelicals and traditional Liberals – both Protestant and Catholic.
What may surprise some in this description is that Liberals tend to cluster among the Homogenous in the top scale and around the Enlightenment/Modernity scale in the middle of the left scale. Because of the history of religious liberalism in this country – Theological Liberals were an academic position that were late in joining the “Progressive Movement” made up of mostly Evangelicals working for the eradication of poverty and other social ills in the U.S.. As such, most Liberals tend to be more affluent, white, middle to upper class protestants who have found that the tools of Modernity has given them a window into a spiritual life that doesn’t offend rational explanations of life and faith.
Therefore, much of the religious debates of the last century have been between religious Fundamentalists and Liberals. While the overlap of Evangelicals in both camps have been a part of this discussion, the real heat has been between the Premodern conception of “the authority of scripture” for God of the Fundamentalists (a Reformation term that has sought authority in the Bible rather than the Roman Church’s Magisterium) and that of the Modernist reading of scripture in its historical context by the Liberals, attempting to show that one need not read the Bible literally (according to the hermeneutic of the of the Fundamentalists) in order to be a truly devout Christian.
Here is the rub, Conservatives or Fundamentalists have been fighting for years with the Liberals over the interpretation of scripture – and they have been fighting over a Premodern and Modernist interpretation of scripture. This is where most of the heat and light between, say, N.T. Wright and Bishop Spong has occurred over the last 20 years.
However, the children of these living patriarchs in the faith don’t entirely understand the debate. Because of the college educations, reading the stories of other ancient cultures, many of their children and grandchildren read the Bible as a collection of ancient stories that have meaning, but should never be taken literally. They know Gay and Lesbian couples that exemplify covenant fidelity in greater ways than the marriages of their heterosexual friends. And so, when they look at the ongoing debate between Conservatives and Liberals, they don’t get it. It has no meaning for them, because the diverse world they live in already expresses the divine love for all people that the church is still fighting over.
Yes, there is a difference between Liberals and Progressives. And it goes deeper than than the historical definitions of these groups, for a brand new group of Christians are looking toward the future in a different way than those who were seeking to create child-labor laws or establish the 40 hour work week. These new Progressives have moved beyond the theological wars to allow every person to claim where they are in their spiritual lives, without recrimination, recognizing that God may move in them in ways never imagined in any of the previous forms of Christianity expressed before them.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?created&&note_id=487113601260

it is indeed like having a live in encyclopedia!
and he is now laughing heartily.
and joel’s historical perspective fits nicely with tripp’s rather astute opening observation.

I tend to think people define progressive as the type of liberal they like. It seems like a little less dirty word in some circles.
Here’s my way of explaining it (at least theologically)….progressives are liberals who learned from all the liberal critiques (Niebuhr’s critique of over-optimism, feminist critique, and all the liberation theologians, etc). Then there are all the more recent criticisms and renewals to invite in to the conversation.

Byron – Yes. I was going to list those positions that I thought were “liberal” positions, but I think you are right on. I would guess it’s part of the reason “liberals” and “conservatives” are fed by the fight in so many ways.

Thanks Robert – Those are helpful. I often think of YOU as a “conservative progressive” if that makes sense. Not sure you can put that on your business card, but I think our shared yearning to see the world and our church moved towards God’s intentions, we have found a common posture and approach towards community.