Book Club Questions for Another Gospel?

1.Childers describes her upbringing in a Christian home where faith was both believed and lived out — her parents fed the hungry, clothed the homeless, and loved the outcast. Why do you think a robust, active faith background did not protect her from the disorientation she felt in the think tank? What does that suggest about the kind of faith formation most of us receive?

2.The progressive pastor at the think tank called himself a 'hopeful agnostic.' What do you think he meant by that phrase? Does it strike you as honest, evasive, or something else — and why?

3.Childers recalls that the questions raised in the think tank weren't new — many had been asked for centuries — but the way they were framed made them feel destabilizing. What is the difference between asking a hard question in order to find truth and asking a hard question in order to undermine confidence? How can you tell the difference in a conversation?

1.Childers acknowledges that 'progressive Christianity' is a broad and slippery term. How does she attempt to define it, and what distinguishing markers does she identify? Do you think her definition is fair to those who identify with the movement?

2.She draws a distinction between progressive Christianity (which she sees as a departure from orthodoxy) and progressive politics or social concern (which she sees as compatible with orthodox faith). Why is this distinction important? Have you seen these two things confused in your own experience or community?

3.Childers notes that progressive Christianity often emphasizes social justice, inclusion, and compassion — values that sound deeply Christian. Why does she argue that appealing to good values is not enough to determine whether a theological movement is sound? What else must be evaluated?

1.Childers introduces the concept of biblical inerrancy — the view that Scripture, in its original manuscripts, is without error in everything it affirms. How does she define and defend this view? What do you make of it?

2.She describes the progressive approach to Scripture as treating the Bible as a 'human book' — a record of people's evolving understanding of God, rather than God's authoritative self-disclosure. What are the practical consequences of adopting that view? How would it change the way you read the Bible?

3.Childers discusses the concept of the 'Wesleyan Quadrilateral' — Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience — and how progressive Christianity tends to elevate experience and reason above Scripture. Do you think experience and reason have a legitimate role in theology? What should that role be, and what keeps it from becoming a way to override Scripture?

1.Childers describes the cultural pressure toward religious pluralism — the idea that all sincere spiritual paths lead to God. Where do you encounter this pressure most often — in media, in relationships, in your own heart? How have you responded to it in the past?

2.She examines the progressive Christian tendency to hold onto Jesus while emptying His exclusive claims of their force — treating Him as 'a way' rather than 'the way.' What specific strategies does she identify for how this is done? Which do you find most persuasive or most dangerous?

3.Childers addresses the objection that a God who sends people to hell simply for not knowing Jesus cannot be a loving God. How does she respond to this objection? Do you find her response satisfying, and what questions does it leave you with?

1.Childers examines how progressive Christianity tends to celebrate Jesus as a moral teacher, social revolutionary, or inspiring example while downplaying or denying His divine nature. What is lost if Jesus is reduced to a great human teacher? Why is the distinction between 'a teacher from God' and 'God in the flesh' so significant?

2.She traces the historic orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation — that Jesus is fully God and fully human — and explains how this was hammered out in the early church councils. Why did those early believers think it was worth fighting over? Does the theological precision of Chalcedon and Nicaea feel irrelevant to daily life, or does it actually matter? Why?

3.Childers points out that the Jesus of progressive Christianity often looks remarkably like a 21st-century progressive — affirming of all people, reluctant to condemn, primarily concerned with social equality. How do we guard against remaking Jesus in our own cultural image? What disciplines or checks help us encounter the Jesus of Scripture rather than the Jesus we prefer?

1.Childers introduces the progressive critique of penal substitutionary atonement — particularly the charge, associated with theologians like Steve Chalke, that the idea of God punishing His Son constitutes 'cosmic child abuse.' How does she respond to this charge? What do you make of her response?

2.She explains that the doctrine of penal substitution — the idea that Christ took the punishment our sins deserved — is not the only atonement theory in Christian history, but argues it is the one most thoroughly grounded in Scripture. What is the difference between rejecting penal substitution outright and holding it alongside other complementary views of the atonement?

3.Childers points out that progressive Christianity often favors the 'moral influence' view of the atonement — the idea that the cross primarily demonstrates God's love and inspires us to love likewise — while downplaying or denying the idea that sin required a penalty to be paid. What is valuable about the moral influence view? What is missing from it if it stands alone?

1.Childers acknowledges that the Bible does not explicitly call for the abolition of Greco-Roman slavery in the way modern readers might expect. Why does she argue this does not mean the Bible endorses slavery? What distinction does she draw between description and prescription, and between the Bible's specific commands and its underlying principles?

2.She explains that the slavery of the ancient Greco-Roman world was different in significant ways from the race-based chattel slavery of American history. Why does this distinction matter for how we read the New Testament's household codes? Does acknowledging the difference feel like excuse-making to you, or like responsible historical reading?

3.Childers argues that the seeds of abolition are embedded in Scripture itself — in the image of God (imago Dei) applied to all human beings, in Paul's declaration that in Christ there is 'neither slave nor free,' and in the letter to Philemon, which is effectively an appeal to free a slave. How strong do you find this argument? What does it suggest about the relationship between the Bible's explicit commands and its deeper moral logic?

1.Childers surveys the range of positions on hell within progressive Christianity — from annihilationism (the wicked are destroyed rather than tormented) to universal reconciliation (everyone is eventually saved) to a complete rejection of hell as a concept. What are the primary arguments she identifies for each position? Which do you find most emotionally compelling, and which do you find most biblically compelling?

2.She notes that Jesus Himself spoke about hell more than almost any other figure in the New Testament — more than He spoke about heaven. What is the significance of that fact? How does the fact that the most loving person who ever lived also warned most urgently about hell affect your thinking about the doctrine?

3.Childers engages with the universalist argument — that a God of love will ultimately save everyone, perhaps through a process of post-mortem refinement. What is the emotional appeal of universalism? What does she argue is theologically at stake if universalism is true?

1.Childers makes a point of affirming that caring for the poor, fighting injustice, and loving the marginalized are genuinely biblical mandates — not progressive inventions. How does she distinguish between biblical justice (which she affirms) and the ideological framework she is more cautious about? Is her distinction clear to you?

2.She raises the concern that in some progressive Christian circles, social justice has effectively become the gospel — the thing the church exists to do — rather than a fruit of the gospel. What is the difference between seeing justice as the gospel and seeing justice as a fruit or expression of the gospel? Why does that distinction matter practically?

3.Childers draws on the history of her own family — parents who fed the hungry and clothed the homeless — as evidence that caring for the poor is not a progressive invention but has always been a hallmark of orthodox Christian practice. Do you have examples in your own life or community of social concern flowing from orthodox faith? What does that look like?

1.Childers traces the progressive Christian revisionism on marriage and sexuality — arguing that the biblical texts which seem to prohibit same-sex sexual relationships have been misread, or that the 'trajectory' of Scripture moves toward full affirmation. How does she evaluate these revisionist arguments? Which do you find most important to engage carefully?

2.She grounds the biblical view of marriage in the creation narrative — in the complementarity of male and female as image-bearers together, and in the one-flesh union as a picture of Christ and the church. How does rooting marriage in creation theology rather than just Levitical law change the nature of the argument? What is the significance of Jesus citing Genesis rather than Leviticus when asked about marriage?

3.Childers acknowledges that same-sex attraction is a real and often deeply painful experience, and that many people who experience it have suffered at the hands of the church. How does she balance truthfulness about the biblical teaching with genuine compassion for those who experience same-sex attraction? Where do you see that balance being struck well in your own community — and where is there room to grow?

1.Childers offers several markers that she argues characterize progressive Christianity as a system: a low view of Scripture, a revised understanding of Jesus, a denial or redefinition of the atonement, a rejection of hell, and a reordering of the gospel around social transformation. Looking back over the book, which of these markers do you find most significant? Which do you think is most foundational — the one that, if changed, changes everything else?

2.She acknowledges that none of these issues exists in isolation — that they form a coherent (if wrong) system, and that once a person accepts the progressive approach to Scripture, the rest tends to follow. Do you agree that these positions form a logical package, or do you think it is possible to adopt one without the others? Why?

3.Childers revisits the concept of 'orthodoxy' — not as a dirty word for rigid traditionalism, but as the carefully discerned, communally tested, historic consensus of the church about the essentials of the faith. How do you relate to the idea of orthodoxy? Does it feel like a constraint or a gift — and why?

1.Childers describes the process of reconstructing her faith not as returning to naïve certainty, but as rebuilding on a firmer and more examined foundation. What is the difference between the faith she had before the think tank and the faith she has at the end of the book? What did she gain, and what did she have to grieve?

2.She describes her rebuilt faith as more costly but more real — that having tested it, she holds it with a different quality of conviction. Have you ever had your faith tested and come through it stronger? What did that process feel like, and what did it require of you?

3.Childers talks about the role that the community of the historic church played in her reconstruction — discovering that the questions she was wrestling with had been wrestled with before, and that faithful believers across centuries had found them answerable. How does the breadth and depth of the Christian tradition function as a resource in your own faith? Are you drawing on it, or does it feel inaccessible to you?

1.Looking back across the entire book, which chapter or theme had the greatest impact on you? What made it hit hardest — was it new information, an argument you'd never encountered before, a story that resonated, or a question that named something you'd been carrying?

2.How has your understanding of progressive Christianity changed through this study? Do you have a clearer sense of what it is, what it gets right, and where Childers argues it departs from historic Christianity? Are there areas where you found her analysis unfair or incomplete?

3.Childers's journey forced her to ask why she believed what she believed — not just what her parents or her church had told her. How has this study shaped what you believe, and — more importantly — why you believe it? What doctrines do you now hold with greater clarity or personal ownership?