Cameron, I think it's theoretically and exegetically possible to come to an affirming position on LGBTQ even withiin a fundamentalist approach to Scripture so long as one takes seriouslqy qreading a givien text in its original historical-cultural-gramatical-literary context. It's impossible not to be excluded from evangelical and fundamentalist organizations with this position, however. I think the other problem is the corollary of Sola Scriptur known as perspicuity--that the meaning of Scripture on matters essential to faith and morality is clear to the average person. I think thats practially an indefensible position, but one might say the myth of Sola Scriptura is deeply imbedded in evangelicalism. I think it's very difficult to agree on a definition of "progressive" in a theological context. For example, you are including the early 20th Century of inevitable progress--the one that came crashing down with WWI, followed by WW2, folllowed by Holocaus, Followed by nuclear proliferation. Some who are identified as theologically progressive (maybe like myself) see Scripture as unveiling the scapegoat mechanism. A major proponent of this view, Renee Girard, expects that as the scapegoat mechanism becomes more transparent, it also becomes less effective. Scapegoating looses it's function of offering a temporary peace to communities in conflict and this introduces a period of escalating violence (such as we are in now.). No sense of inevitbale progress in that view. Instead, it's apocalyptic: either we pursue the non-rivalous path of the Sermon on the Mount, or we self destruct.