Since several self-identified (with enthusiasm) in the survey on religion and age . . . I have some questions for the liberal Christians among us.
What is liberal Christianity?
What is it that makes you enthusiastic for it?
I'm listening to understand.
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Since you put two words together that cannot possably co-exist, you may have created a temporal vortex that will consume us all.
Somebody hurry and expain how two such words can go together before the entire universe is destroyed!
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I am not a liberal, I am a top of the center radical, but I feel the conservatives would quickly lump me in with the liberals, so I shall answer.
I am Pro - Jesus.
100%. I love Jesus, I think Jesus was the Greatest Man ever to Live, and He was God embodied.
I do not understand how modern day conservatives have arrived at their beliefs.
Take Latter Day Saints as an example, they do not believe in drinking alcohol. Why? Jesus himself drank alcohol, and not only did he drink alcohol, He turned water into Wine. So to arrive at the conclusion that we should ban alcohol from our lives at The Lords request is false to me. We should live as good Men and Women, we should not be drunkards, but be in control of the alcohol we consume.
We should be able to use the fruits (alcohol) God gave us in a very moderate, controlled, good-descion way.
Or the Church of Christ, where they do not believe it is good Christian conduct to commune with God while playing a musical instrument. As an Artist, and a musician, this is also false, ART is a GREAT way to communicate with God and come to better understandings with the universe around us. How on Earth a church decided to turn it's back on musical instruments is outside my ability to reason.
Or the Catholic Church, they DO NOT ALLOW their priests to marry. How on Earth did they come to this conclusion? Marriage is one of the greatest gifts God has given his people, so to exclude the "Holiest" men in the religion from one of the Greatest gifts given will only lead men from the Path. or, I take issue with the Catholic Church's LOVE of uncalled for rituals. What is with all the hats and ceremonies that are not asked for in the Bible? How did they get to this point, is it divine revelation or tradition?
Many of the Churches of God have fallen from the Path of Jesus, they are imposing laws and ways of life that Jesus has not asked his people to live by, why?
Or take American Christianity as a whole, we have latched onto the issue of Homosexuality, but not dealt with the same issues of sin that heterosexuals have encountered.
The divorce rate is over 60%. When children are born do they pledge to God not to ever engage in homosexual activity? not that I am aware of. But Billions of People SWEAR to God to stay together as ONE in sickness and in health when they get married.
Why are Divorcees saved the "punishment" and scorn that homosexuals have to live with???
Or take heterosexuals actions. Millions and millions and millions of them have sex before marriage, or live a sexual lifestyle, or cheat on their wives.
Should these people be banned from marriage?
If the government is going to set up laws to save and protect marriage, should they measure heterosexuals with the same stick?
I also take issue with American Christians form of Capitalism. (conservatives especially). SEX sells almost EVERY product on the market. We embrace our form of capitalism with such open arms even though we know it uses such devious tactics.
I think the conservatives attitudes towards capitalism are almost satanic. They buy into and sell to others a very, very, very darwin system of "Make as much as you can, anyway you can within the written laws."
The way Bush, Delay, Cheney, and all the other Boys have rallied around tax cuts for billionaires makes me want to puke my breakfast,lunch and dinner out.
It's the oppositte of what Jesus calls for, yet they spout "They create Jobs and pay the most taxes" like it is The Gospel.
Or, the lets take issue with the conservatives love of GUNS.
GUNS. GUNS. GUNS. GUNS. GUNS
Jesus ain't a gun lover.
He is the Prince of Peace.
So to slide the PRO GUN agenda under the banner of Christ is totally false in my opinion.
There are many, many, many sins of Man that only GOD can judge, but from the looks of it many conservatives consider themselves God, so they feel totally fine judging others.
When I think of Conservative Christians, I get two things
#1 Gays shouldn't marry. Homosexuality is evil.
#2 Abortion is evil.
That's it. To me that's about the depth of the Conservative Christian understanding.
My Understanding of Christ runs much, much, deeper than that.
<T>
Posted by Exploding Monkey (Member # 7612) on :
Oh, I think I like this Silverblue Sun fellow. I really do.
As Jesus himself said: "You cannot have two Gods. Both God and money."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:When I think of Conservative Christians, I get two things
#1 Gays shouldn't marry. Homosexuality is evil.
#2 Abortion is evil.
That's it. To me that's about the depth of the Conservative Christian understanding.
Wow. You haven't been paying much attention if that's all you've picked up about conservative Christians during your time here.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Please Mr. Head, explain to me what I've missed.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
And thus the thread has derailed to a discussion about conservative Christianity. I for one don't want to hear about conservative Christianity right now, I'd still like to know what liberal Christianity is, first...preferably sans the emotional language and straw-man fallacies.
P.S. I know this is rather scathing of me, but I'd like the original topic to progress at least a little bit before bouts of insults start getting thrown around.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>I for one don't want to hear about conservative Christianity right now, I'd still like to know what liberal Christianity is, first...
Too bad. This is a public forum and you're going to have to deal with thread drift. . . Such is life.
I don't know what a liberal Christian is; the more I think about it, the more I'm determined that the important word in that phrase has very little to do with the direction that one's political gate swings.
I am convinced that God will not divide the sheep from the goats based on political ideaology, but upon their actions.
quote:Take Latter Day Saints as an example, they do not believe in drinking alcohol. Why? Jesus himself drank alcohol, and not only did he drink alcohol, He turned water into Wine. So to arrive at the conclusion that we should ban alcohol from our lives at The Lords request is false to me. We should live as good Men and Women, we should not be drunkards, but be in control of the alcohol we consume.
I think some clarification is in order here, Thor. Mormons recognize that Jesus drank wine. We also recognize that the restriction against alcohol is a modern commandment, applicable to our day and situation. We recognize that it may be a temporary commandment-- the Lord gave the command "In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days."
I believe that the commandment against drinking alcohol will be rescinded some day; after all, Jesus promised to drink wine with the faitful at His coming. . .
If you want to read the whole Word of Wisdom, which is the Mormon law of health, find it here.
EDIT: As a side note, the Word of Wisdom was not initially a litmus test for being a Mormon. When it was given, it was given as counsel, not commandment. It became a commandment later, under direction of another prophet.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
As a non-Christian, I've always found the blog over at http://slacktivist.typepad.com/ an interesting place to read about liberal Christianity.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think the "Liberal Christians" here are identifying themselves politically... but there is also a movement in the Roman Catholic Church called "Liberation Theology" and sometimes "Liberal Theology" which has, as I understand it, more to do with Marxism than Catholicism. Since, however, I have no sympathy with Marxism, I haven't really bothered to learn much about it.
As much as I think Thor has been addled, he is right in that Christianity is an inherently liberal religion.
Finally, Thor, the Roman Catholic love of ceremony is precisely the antithesis of that thing you decry in the iconoclastic church that won't allow worship with Music or Art. The hats and ceremonies are a matter of celebration as much as the music and the stained glass.
It's funny that people will talk about "stained glass attitudes" as something drab and dreary... they have clearly forgotten what stained glass looks like with the sun behind it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Jim-me, Liberation theology and liberal theology are two different things, although liberation theology is a subset of liberal theology. And liberation theology is worth learning more about. It's based on cell groups studying the Bible (particularly the sermon on the mount) and applying it to their own situations. Is "blessed are the poor" automatically more marxist than Catholic?"
Liberal is NOT a political designator here, it has to do with theological method, particularly in relation to the enlightenment. The other end of the spectrum is not "conservative" it's "evangelical."
On the other hand, the labels are almost as useless for theology as they are for politics.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
There's a very indepth article about how liberal Christianity developed at the link below:
Since I am not a liberal Christian, in fact I consider myself a conservative reformed Christian, I would love for those that self-identify as liberal Christians to let me know if they agree with the characterization of their beliefs at that link. I've excerpted the major theological points.
quote:Major Theological Propositions of Liberalism
God: God is the loving immanent Father in constant communion with his creation and working within it rather than upon it to bring it to the perfection for which it is destined. God is the loving father who corrects his children but is not retributive in His punishment. “. . . The idea of an immanent God, which is the God of evolution, is infinitely grander than the occasional wonder-worker who is the God of an old theology.”28 Such a position breached the traditional barrier between the natural and the supernatural. “Miracle is only the religious name for an event. Every event, even the most natural and common, is a miracle if it lends itself to a controlingly religious interpretation. To me all is miracle”29
Man: No longer was man seen as radically sinful and in need of redemption. Rather he is in some sense in communion with God.. There was no infinite qualitative distinction between God and man. God was even to be known in measure and by analogy through study of the human personality. Emphasis was placed upon human freedom and ability to do all that God required, and eternity was interpreted as immortality of the spirit rather than the resurrection of the body.
Christ: Liberal Protestantism rediscovered the humanity of Christ, a truth that had been in practice ignored in previous generations. But, Liberalism went beyond a rediscovery of Christ’s humanity to a denial of his ontological deity. Instead of the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ became the perfect man who has attained divine status because of his perfect piety (god-consciousness). Jesus is the supreme example of God indwelling man. There is no qualitative distinction between Jesus and the rest of humanity. The distinction is quantitative; He is more full of God that other humans.
Religious authority: Whereas previous generations had seen the Bible as the ultimate practical authority for the Christian, Liberalism made authority wholly subjective based on individual spiritual experience. Ultimate authority was not to be found in any external source, Bible, Church, or tradition, but on the individual’s reason, conscience and intuition. The Bible became the record of man’s evolving religious conceptions. The New Testament was normative only in the teachings of Jesus. The rest of the New Testament falls victim to changing the focus of the gospel from the religion of Jesus to a religion about Jesus.
Salvation: Man is confronted with salvation in the person of Jesus. By following his teachings and the example of his life one enters into communion with him.
The Kingdom: This is a moral kingdom with God ruling in the hearts of humans. The kingdom is also manifested in society by the establishment of justice and righteousness in the political sphere. It will be finally established as God works through man in the historical process.
Principles:
The guiding principles of were distilled by Harnack in his What is Christianity? These were:
1. Universal Fatherhood of God
2. Universal Brotherhood of Man
3. Infinite value of the individual human soul
Additionally, Jesus Christ served as the Supreme example, the man who was perfectly God-conscious at all times, in whom God was perfectly immanent. HE lived his life by a "higher righteousness" governed by the law of love, independent of religious worship & technical observance. He lived out in his life the perfect example of which we may all become.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No. I flat out deny that that quote describes liberal theology.
It describes one possible set of conclusions a liberal theologian might hold, but liberal theology, as I said early, is more about method than conclusions.
And many liberal theologians wouldn't agree with those conclusions. (And many would.)(I don't.)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
okay, dkw, thanks.
Can you point me to a source that does describe what you mean when you say liberal theology then?
Are we talking hermeneutics?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Having read the linked article, I can tell you my major disagreement with it -- it does a good job of describing several forms of liberal Christianity, and then draws all it's conclusions and theological points from one form (von Harnack's).
<deleted becaus it was not nice to the authors of Belle's article>
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
We're talking epistemology.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Belle doesn't care if you're not nice to the authors - I have no relationship to them and no stake in whether or not they're wrong or right other than my desire to learn, and you're helping with that.
Okay, thanks. Let me do some more reading.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What complicates this, IMO, is that many of the people who self-identified as "liberal Christians" on this board did not indicate whether they were theologically or politically liberal. The two things are quite different.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
dkw,
I was trying to make that clear... that what people on hatrack were referring to as "liberal christianity" was separate and political, but there was a "liberal theology" which was, to my estimation, most likely not what Jatraqueros were referring to.
Obviously there's nothing Marxist about "Blessed are the Poor" since Marxism seeks to eradicate poverty... I understood that liberation theology was marxist due to the Catholic priests who were excommunicated for taking their theology out of church bounds while leading Marxist revolutions in Central America... which is the only place I ever heard of it to begin with.
Thank you for clarifying about it and that there is a difference between the two (I had seen the terms used relatively interchangeably, though if one is the subset of the other, that might still make sense).
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
I would think the United Church of Christ (as a whole, not always in specifics) represents "liberal christianity" today. I really do love their "God is still speaking" campaign. This I think is trying to free up Christianity to be a living religion. One that assumes God isn't dead or out of our lives. I think that the Evangelicals typically see God speaking only in a 2000 year old text. What we know of God is in there and only in there. Whereas I think the UCC, and liberal Christianity in general, believes that God is still among us and speaks to us in ways beyond just quoting one source.
I think the real distinction of Liberal vs. Evangelical theology is that we choose the religion that meets our personal needs. If you don't like the religion that you find yourself in, you get up, walk out the door and into another church that meets your needs. I don't think people are trying to adapt to their faiths but more the opposite is happening; we are trying to adapt our faiths to what we already believe.
Look at the constantly splitting of churches going back to Martin Luther. His was the boldest split. Actually, I would say the split of Jesus from the Jews was probably the most bold. Actually, Jesus didn't split. He was born and died a Jew. It was only those that came after him that decided to add a new Testement and create a new faith. Anyway, there it is. We find a faith that fits our world view or create one if it doesn't exist. They might all quote from the same Bible but, like it was quoted about, you can choose to make one point more important than the other.
Some would see the Sermon on the Mount as being the most important teaching of Christ. Others might see the old laws in the OT to be the real core of Christianity and make that their focus.
Okay, maybe this wasn't the best definition of liberal Christianity. To me the question says more about the person asking it than about those and answer it. Maybe a less loaded question would be "What is the difference between various demoninations of Christianity? What makes a Baptist something different than a Methodist which is different from a Lutheran, Catholic, Congregationalist, Mormon, Nazarene, etc?"
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In being not nice to the authors, I gave an example of how one could describe evangelical theology in as biased a way as they describe the origins of liberal theology.
Then I decided that was potentially insulting to evangelicals. (Okay, very insulting, except that I didn't mean it except as a hypothetical example of bias)
I think that we will not be able to define the major theological points of liberal theology. In seminary I took a class called "liberal evangelical dialogue." It was co-offered by my (liberal) seminary and a conservative baptist seminary. One teacher and 12 students from each school. One day we did an exercise (thought up by one of the baptist students) -- we cleared out the desks, put a tape continuum on the floor, and asked people to stand where they'd place themselves on the spectrum of various theological issues.
I think many of us were expecting the UTS students at one end and the Bethel students at the other. Instead what we got was the Bethel students walking directly to a point on the line and the UTS students all over the map.
I'm going to try to make a very simplified distinction -- Belle, tell me if you agree with it from the evangelical/conservative side -- In reacting to the questions raised by the enlightenment, Evangelical theology holds that if "natural evidence" (science, whatever) contradicts the Bible it is either wrong or misunderstood. Liberal theology is more open to the possibility that it is the Bible that is misunderstood or misapplied.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Okay, I'm a little lost, because much of this is beyond the scope of study I've done, which of course makes it fascinating to me.
My husband is considering going to seminary, and I told him that he would be doing it as much for me as for himself because I'd want to read every book and talk about every lecture with him.
Are we talking about human consciouness and whether or not the human will can be independent of God?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I wasn't, were you?
(You could go to seminary too, you know)
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Well I didn't see your answer before I posted my question.
Okay...I would say that that's pretty accurate, in what the evangelical side would say. I do believe it's possible for there to be mis-translations in the Bible, though. But if you're asking do I believe that if the Bible asserts something that's impossible in the natural world - like the parting of the Red Sea, then I do believe that it happened, because I believe God can do the miraculous.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yes, I could, but I couldn't be ordained, and certain classes are available only in the ordination track at the school hubby is considering.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> a tape continuum on the floor,
A what?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: In reacting to the questions raised by the enlightenment, Evangelical theology holds that if "natural evidence" (science, whatever) contradicts the Bible it is either wrong or misunderstood. Liberal theology is more open to the possibility that it is the Bible that is misunderstood or misapplied.
What if you think it's a 50/50 thing... that either is about as likely to be misinterpreted?
I know you are trying to overly simplify, but are you saying that liberal theology's chief trait is that it is not fundamentalist?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
So do I. I wasn't talking about the one-time miracles. More like *dun dun DUN* <whisper> evolution </whisper>
Okay, that was supposed to be right after Belle's previous to last post.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dana, two things:
1.) I'm very interested in hearing more about liberal theology. I have only the vaguest conception of what you might mean by "methodology," and I'd love to learn more.
2.) If Will B is asking his question based on the age and religion thread, I'm not sure liberal theology is at all relevant, because I'm not sure how many of the people who might have identified as "liberal Christian" were making the distinction you are. As you said, the labels are probably not very informative, anyway.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Scott R -- a line of masking tape with little cross-pieces of tape every foot or so. Like a ruler. One person stands at one end and says "I believe X" and someone else stands at the other end and says "I believe Y" where Y is assumed to be the opposite of X. Then everyone is supposed to stand where they fall on the continuum between X and Y.
The only problem was, a lot of us (mostly those pesky liberal students) never agreed that X and Y were opposites. Instead of on the tape line we'd stand several paces away from it at various angles, or on chairs (to get even another dimension) or out in the hall because we didn't agree with the question at all. Drove our Bethel brothers and sisters crazy.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Dag, I'd be happy to write more, but I have to go to work now. I'll come back to it, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The only problem was, a lot of us (mostly those pesky liberal students) never agreed that X and Y were opposites.
Hehe. I get into this in political and legal distinctions all the time, but usually it's me disagreeing that two concepts are opposites and the more "liberal" (however it applies to the area of thought being discussed) who think they are.
quote:Dag, I'd be happy to write more, but I have to go to work now. I'll come back to it, though.
Thanks!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
*looking forward to hearing more* *may turn out to be theologically liberal*
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
definitely looking forward to the discussion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
dkw-- Oh, good. I thought you Protestants had formed some sort of hidden. . . dimension. You know, to oppose the space/time continuum.
quote:Instead of on the tape line we'd stand several paces away from it at various angles, or on chairs (to get even another dimension) or out in the hall because we didn't agree with the question at all. Drove our Bethel brothers and sisters crazy.
Then again. . .
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
*tries oh so hard to resist*
*can’t*
Hypothetical situation –- God is calling Belle to ordained ministry. Belle shows all the gifts and graces of a good pastor, and possesses the intellectual gifts and theological curiosity to succeed in seminary. But Belle’s religious tradition does not allow women to be ordained. Is God wrong to call Belle? Or is the interpretation that women can’t be called by God to this particular ministry a misapplication or misunderstanding of the Bible?
(Interpretations that God is not really calling Belle are right out -- this is my hypothetical situation, and I get to define it! )
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
quote:Actually, I would say the split of Jesus from the Jews was probably the most bold. Actually, Jesus didn't split. He was born and died a Jew. It was only those that came after him that decided to add a new Testement and create a new faith.
I agree; Jesus didn't split - he was born and died a Jew, as you say. However, I would also claim that from the Christian perspective, the early Christians did not split either. Who "caused" the split depends on your concept of what the central authority is. If the central authority is the Jewish Temple leaders/Sanhedrin, then yes, the Christians split, because they departed from the teachings of the Sanhedrin. However the Christian claim is that the central authority of the Jewish religion was Yahweh himself, and when he was incarnated to earth, logically following the Jewish beliefs meant worshipping this incarnation. So from that perspective, following the Sanhedrin instead of Christ was a split on the part of the members of the Sanhedrin for setting themselves up as an authority above the God they claimed to follow. This is why the early Christians struggled initially with the issue of Gentile converts to Christianity - some early on were required to become Jews and follow Jewish laws before they could be considered Christians, because the Christians saw themselves as the true followers of the religion of Judaism, and the Temple authorities that rejected Christ as being the dissidents. Paul, whom many people attack for supposedly changing Christianity, also lived and died a Jew.
Liberal Christianity vs Conservative Christianity seems to me to be an issue of doctrinal authority - whether the Bible is the complete Word of God and inerrant in some singular English Translation (such as KJV-onlyism) being one end of the spectrum for extreme conservatism (not even I go that far), to each individual being the only significant spiritual authority for his or herself being the other end for extreme liberalism. The latter seems to border on not being remotely Christian at all, such as the case is with former Bishop John Spong, who does not believe in a theistic God, which I would think is the central aspect of the JudeoChristian underlying beliefs. As said by many others, withing those frameworks, you can come up with a number of different doctines, some of which are more characteristically liberal, and some of which are more characteristically conservative, but this is what I think the underlying issue is, not homosexuality, abortion, marriage, guns, capitalism, politics, rights, or anything else.
One thing that I find interesting is that "Liberal Christianity" and "Liberal Catholics" seem to mean two different things. I would classify myself as a Conservative Christian, but if I were to ever join a Catholic church, I think I would be labelled a Liberal Catholic. I think that the way Catholics consider the words Conservative or Liberal is similar to how they are used in a political way as well - Conservative being preserving the existing traditions, no matter if those traditions are 20 years old or 2000 years old, and Liberal meaning wanting to change them, and no distinction seems to be made between wanting the change to be closer to Biblical Christianity or further away from it - any change at all is marked liberalism. If I am in error, by all means I would love to hear from someone who is Catholic what the distinction really is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
dkw -- in this hypothetical situtation, how do we know that God is calling her?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Caller ID?
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
quote:(Interpretations that God is not really calling Belle are right out -- this is my hypothetical situation, and I get to define it! )
You can define a hypothetical situation all you want, but that does not prevent Belle or anyone else from percieving this hypothetical situation as logically impossible. If Belle does not believe in the ordination of women (I'm personally indifferent to the issue) then she could claim that your hypothetical question is logically equivalent to the question "Could God create a rock so big he couldn't lift it?" The Christian answer to this question is that what you are asking God to do is logically impossible and God, while infinitely powerful, bounds his power to certain limits defined by his character (e.g. justice, reason, goodness) and so the answer is no, he would not do it. So to someone who did not believe in the ordination of women, your hypothetical situation would be requiring to do something that they believe is logically impossible for God.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Probably the most liberal thing I believe in is that the Bible should not be interpreted literally- especially not with our flawed translations. While this may seem pedestrian to some of you, it really gets under my much more conservative christian friends' skin.
A lot of my other beliefs flow out of this one. I have my doubts about the Trinity (but I haven't spent enough time researching or talking about it to really draw any sort of conclusion).
Otherwise, I'm also politically liberal. I am a borderline socialist with a lot of economic ideas that just don't jive with my very classically-conservative coworkers (I work for a financial services company).
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, let's say He appears to her in a vision... I would commend Belle to follow what she believed God to be telling her over any Church Authority, which was, after all, human. A thing to bear in mind is that scripture is general and written for general situations. Nothing says that God might not want to make a special exception on occasion.
Dana, your hypothetical has some interesting parallels to the story of Jeanne D'Arc (it still cracks me up that Bill and Ted are technically correct when they address her as "Miss Of Arc"...). I could see Belle condemned as witch and heretic and then later revered for her faith to God's word, were she to follow my advice.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If God is calling her, then it is a sin to not go where He calls.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Here's what I think I'm hearing so far: * Christianity + voting Democrat * Christianity + Marxism (liberation theology) (I'm guessing that most self-described liberal Christians don't mean politics, though)
* an understanding that mankind is inherently good * a dislike of the concept of miracles * the Bible as a good, but flawed, book
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I'm a Christian, and I consider myself both politically and theologically liberal.
What does theologically liberal mean to me?
I believe strongly in the ordination of women. In my church hopping early adulthood years, this was my "litmus test".
I believe much of the Bible is allegorical, and as such I can believe in both the natural evidence of evolution AND the Genesis account.
I am very "New Testament"; by which I mean I belive Jesus came to replace the Levitical, rule based life with one based on the two commandments "Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and love your neighbor as yourself".
I beleive social justice is both a political and theological/moral issue that CANNOT be seperated. To ignore the needs of the poor and oppressed is IMO sin.
I believe in the ordination of GBLT people, and church blessings for same sex marriages.
Belle, I would say I disagree with most of the article you posted. It mostly doesn't describe me, especially as far as the Godhood of Christ.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: dkw -- in this hypothetical situtation, how do we know that God is calling her?
How does one, personally, know some sacred literature is above individual interpretation?
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
Sorry, that doesn't work. It's once again a question of authority. What you are trying to get at I think is what authority is sufficient for her to change her beliefs? Because if your authority is not dependent on your own experiences or dreams, etc, then having a vision is not going to change anything. You will just attribute that vision to Satan or some such thing.
To use something I have a definite belief about, I know that Bishop Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual, claims that he and his ex-wife prayed to God and recieved personal instruction that they should get a divorce and that he should live a homosexual lifestyle. Under my beliefs, I think it is impossible for God to want such a thing, so I believe that Robinson's personal instructions from God were faked, demonic, a result of psychological issues, or some combination thereof. Similarly, Mohammed made the claim to have had spiritual encounters that divulged to him truths that I believe to be false. Therefore, I have a similar opinion of his visions; they were faked, demonic, the result of psychological factors, or some combination. To illustrate an example from the opposite perspective, the early Christians claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. This however is consistent with my beliefs, so I accept this claim. If I had visions or felt compelled to do something that went against the authorities I trust for my beliefs (which for me is the Bible), I would reject it.
A Catholic may not disagree with the ordination of women on Biblical grounds but on the grounds of authority of their Church's tradition, but this too is an external authority. This too is above personal revelation, so personal revelation that counters this is ignored.
Another closely related question is: on what grounds would you change your authority for beliefs? A person who would change their authority with little reason is probably also going to closely related to a person who regards personal feelings/revelation as being the highest authority.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:How does one, personally, know some sacred literature is above individual interpretation?
I don't understand what you are asking.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm sorry you don't.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
He's basically asking "if you received a personal visitation from God that told you that certain parts of the Book of Mormon were false, and that the prophet were in fact apostate, how would you react?"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I hope I'd do whatever He told me to do.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is the question. In that case, you choose to believe that your personal revelation supercedes the doctrines and scriptures of your religion. Other people would make the opposite decision.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I do know the Catholic Church teaches that personal revelation, even on such a mundane level as conscience, supercedes church authority... but emphasizes that personal revelation is not binding on anyone else at all.
Which only makes sense... if someone says God told them to do something weird, well, you can't prove He didn't so the person has to make their own decision about it... on the other hand, you don't have to go off changing your life everytime someone says "God told me..."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If God told me that my religion was false, it wouldn't be my religion anymore.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
*raises hand*
It's perfectly in line with my theological beliefs to ignore what I feel might be personal revelation if it contradicts the doctrine and scripture. I believe man is flawed (including me) and God is not. Therefore if I think I've gotten a message from God, to say, drown my kids in a bathtub, I'm going to be on the phone with a psychiatrist seeking help, because that "revelation" is contrary to God's teaching so it did not come from God, it came from me, and I obviously need help.
Scriptural authority matters to me more than any personal feeling, because emotions and feelings can be manipulated and aren't the most reliable method for determining God's will.
Now, does that mean I don't think people can receive personal revelation directly from God? Certainly not, I believe they can and I believe I have. But, in every case what I felt and believed lined up with scripture and so I was confident it was genuine. I think we should always test these type things against scriptural authority.
Where it gets fun is when there are different interpretations of what scripture is saying.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote: Evangelical theology holds that if "natural evidence" (science, whatever) contradicts the Bible it is either wrong or misunderstood. Liberal theology is more open to the possibility that it is the Bible that is misunderstood or misapplied.
Going by this, I could consider myself a "liberal Christian". This is going to kill my Mom.
Dana, in your hypothetical situation, some Christians could claim, that yes, Belle had been called to the ministry, but not as an ordained minister. Perhaps she was called to be some type of teacher, but she convinced herself that God wanted her to be a minister.
I would tend to agree with you on this. Just being the 's advocate.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: As a non-Christian, I've always found the blog over at http://slacktivist.typepad.com/ an interesting place to read about liberal Christianity.
Whoa, another Slacktivist reader. His Left Behind posts are awesome, ain't they?
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
OK, first, sorry if I was a bit snipety earlier, its not my place to moderate someone elses argument.
Secondly, the hypothetical question with Belle being called by God to the ministry is tied directly to whether or not you believe God is the source of moral authority, or if God presents certain morals because they are inherently good. To quote Socrates, "is it good because it is God-loved, or is it God-loved because it is good?"
In this case, God making some form of revalation that seems to contradict the teachings and beliefs of "His" Church calls severely into question whether God can be said to be the ultimate authority. Testing out a revalation against existing scripture may not work, especially since there are many religions that believe in lost scripture of one form or another.
Anyway, that's my two cents Do what you will with it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
To answer Socrates... "yes". Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
okay I'm reading the slacktivist Left Behind stuff and having a blast. I love that it's being attacked on both fronts - the theological problems and inconsistencies and the writing (which is just plain bad)
Since I recently had a discussion with my brother on whether or not it was okay for Christians to drink alcohol, I found this to be particularly funny:
quote:Allow me to explain for those unfamiliar with the American evangelical subculture. Evangelicals read the Bible literally. Thus whenever the Bible says "wine" they read this as "nonalcoholic grape juice" -- unless the passage seems to say something negative about wine, in which case they read it to mean "wine."
Some examples: Ephesians 5:18 says "Do not get drunk on wine [Greek: oinos], which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit." For evangelicals, the word "wine" here refers to wine, which is evil. But in the second chapter of John's Gospel, when Jesus changes some 30 gallons of water into "wine" [oinos] that's really just nonalcoholic grape juice -- because what's a wedding feast without at least 30 gallons of nonalcoholic grape juice?
Although, he's applying the word "Evangelical" in a way that I think is too broad. I consider myself evangelical and I don't agree with the Biblical hermeneutic he's referring to. He's railing against Pre-Millennial Dispensationalists and I'm a believer in amillennial Covenant Theology, yet both are considered "evengelical"
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
*Must now read slacktivist left behind stuff*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Belle, Left Behind is written from a dispensationalist perspective, right?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Belle, Left Behind is written from a dispensationalist perspective, right?
Yes, absolutely. Pre-trib rapture, literal fulfillment of all prophecies, seven year tribulation period, etc.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
This thread is growing so fast, but I wanted to answer the original question since I was one of the posters who mentioned liberal and Christian in the same post.
1. I originally posted it because I identify myself as a political liberal. Christianity in America is identified with political conservatism and that drives me crazy. Other well-meaning Christians often assume that I must be a political conservative because I believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. I'm not. It was very eloquently posted on the first page how political liberalism can beautifully match the social beliefs of Christianity; thank you, and I won't repeat it.
Belle, what is amillenial Covenant Theology?
2. I'm also theologically liberal as defined by dkw.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Liz this might help, I've got to go take kids to gymnastics so no time to do anything but quick links
This is a totally awesome thread. Wow. Thanks.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
*Nods enthusiastically in agreement with CT*
I'll say
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote: Evangelical theology holds that if "natural evidence" (science, whatever) contradicts the Bible it is either wrong or misunderstood. Liberal theology is more open to the possibility that it is the Bible that is misunderstood or misapplied.
Caveat: I'm evangelical, and I am very open to the idea that the Bible can be misunderstood or misapplied.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: *raises hand*
It's perfectly in line with my theological beliefs to ignore what I feel might be personal revelation if it contradicts the doctrine and scripture... Where it gets fun is when there are different interpretations of what scripture is saying.
So if you felt God revealing something that you felt was not explicitly unscriptural, but your studies led you to think that it could be, where does that come into play?
We're not talking about murder. We're talking about interpretations that still may or may not rock your theological world. Revelations that 'technically fit', but don't necessarily line up with your own personal interpretation.
The question is where do you draw the line?
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Thank you very much, Belle. The first link was especially helpful. dkw can surely clarify if this is "liberal" Christianity or not, but my interpretation of the Revelation is within the context of its literary genre of apocolypticism.
I had an interesting conversation last night with my husband and some friends from our church, regarding how nonliteralism can be very very difficult. As in, "All this stuff is symbolic, but these PARTICULAR four books, especially these chapters, ya gotta believe. Then it gets symbolic again toward the end." It's at least more straightforward (I won't insult anyone by saying it's simpler) to say that it's all 100% literally true.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
But you couldn't, really, could you? Jesus said he was the gate to the sheepfold; nobody could really wonder where the hinges are installed! He said he was the vine, but we don't expect to see him sprouting leaves. We can't take it all literally.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Taalcon "Where do you draw the line?" is indeed the question.
There are certain things that to me are not questionable. Then there are things, like ordination of women, that I believe good people can differ on and both still be believing Christians. That is the result of two people sincerely reading the Bible and getting a different interpretation.
If it's something for which there is no firm scriptural foundation either way, then I go with what I believe sincerely to be the truth based on prayer and study. For example, the hermeneutics issue. I believe the Covenant hermeneutic is the most scipturally correct one. But if God revealed himself to me in a manner that left no doubt that it was indeed Him and said "You know, Belle, you're wrong on this covenant stuff. The dispensationalists actually have it right," then I'd be a dispensational protestant. The reason why is because both dispensationalism and covenant theology have scriptural foundation, and either one could be correct and people who follow either one are still Christians.
So where it's not cut and dried, then yes, personal revelation does play a role because I think that's one of the functions of the Holy Spirit, is as a teacher that reveals truth to us through scripture.
Of course I've been talking about personal revelations and scripture as if they're two separate things. I don't believe that. I think you receive revelation on issues while you're studying the scriptures.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Perhaps I should say historically true, rather than literally true. For example, I believe that the death and resurrection of Christ are historically, literally, and metaphorically true. I believe that the two different creation stories in Genesis are metaphorically true. Those two parts of Genesis can be read as if they are history, so there many people who prefer to believe them as historically true (along with other major sections of the Hebrew Bible).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The question is where do you draw the line?
This is, in fact, the central moral question for any situation.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I get you, Liz. I think "historically true" is a pretty clear term -- I'm going to start using it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Belle, re: kids in the bathtub...or people cutting off their own genitalia, etc.
There actually are Biblical precedents for that. Quite literal ones too: Hey, if Abraham was called on to sacrifice Isaac in order to demonstrate obedience...
And, if thine eye offends thee, ...
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Yah, but Bob (with whom I probably ultimately agree):
Isaac said "God will provide." Not "Ah . . . let's just keep a'climbin'." Isaac WASN'T sacrificed.
And Jesus' teaching about plucking out one's own eye has never been presented as history.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Silverblue Sun: Or the Catholic Church, they DO NOT ALLOW their priests to marry. How on Earth did they come to this conclusion? Marriage is one of the greatest gifts God has given his people, so to exclude the "Holiest" men in the religion from one of the Greatest gifts given will only lead men from the Path. or, I take issue with the Catholic Church's LOVE of uncalled for rituals. What is with all the hats and ceremonies that are not asked for in the Bible? How did they get to this point, is it divine revelation or tradition?
::jumps into discussion:: I wrote a paper on the Catholic church and sexuality so here's my brief answer as far as I could gather from the Catholic church documents:
a) you shouldn't be having sex if you aren't married b) the act of sex with an ultimate end (such as creating a child) is considered one of God's greatest gifts - but only if it has that end, anything that prohibits the creation of a child is bad c) by giving up sex, priests and nuns make a greater commitment to God d) they can't have sex, therefore they shouldn't be married
I liked your post btw. I can link to documents if you really want to know more about that ::jumps out of discussion::
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Liz B:
But, if Abraham was figuring God would NOT allow the sacrifice to be completed, it sort of takes all the wind out of the message of faith there, right? "I'll do whatever God wants <wink wink>"
It's probably a good thing Isaac wasn't being a little snot that day, that's all I'm saying...
As for the old "pluck it out" thing...I'm not sure if we have any strict Biblical literalists here, but for those folks, the fact that it is in the Bible makes it historical fact. Not that anyone DID pluck out their eye in the story, but that we are literally called to do that rather than risk eternal damnation.
Or...it's all a metaphor subject to interpretation.
The bathtub scenario mentioned by Belle has been repeated periodically in our society. Usually the moms. Usually with a history of depression. But the voice told them to "save their children" and so they did -- all the while thinking that the Bible (or at least their view of it) backed them up.
I find it very difficult to argue these things with people. Mainly because if one takes the Bible as literal truth in all its words, then they aren't just acting out the insane ideas of their own mind, but behaving exactly as their faith has taught them.
Belle has more the idea that I was taught -- if you have a "personal revelation" you check it out against scripture and if it is inconsistent, you know your own mind probably fabricated it. But someone following the literalist tradition could just as easily say that the Scripture backed them up on this.
It's how I arrived at the conclusion that the message of love in the Bible is the central over-riding consideration. And there is no "I so loved my children that I killed them so they wouldn't misbehave and go to Hell" message in there.
Anyway, I think there's no escaping a lifetime of struggling to interpret the meaning of Scripture for each believer on a very personal level. I think study can help and so can being in a community of believers (if they aren't untutored, of course).
But it still, for me, always comes down to whether you understand the message and can incorporate it into your life.
I'm not sure if that's a liberal Christian theological stance. It sounds to me like I'm more liberal than most in what I include mentally under the heading "this is okay for Christians to believe."
Posted by Avin (Member # 7751) on :
The issue of "where do you draw the line" in what to take literal or not has come up a few times here. I posted on another thread recently where I draw the line, because I believe the whole Bible to be inspired by God, and "literally" true - to the way the original audience would have interpreted it.
That's the clinching factor; I believe in order to interpret the Bible consistently in a literal way, you have to understand its original context. Therefore, passages that are clearly historical are intended to be literally true in their historical accuracy. Metaphors are intended to be literally true in their metaphoric or spiritual meaning. LizB, you posted that Revelation is in the genre of Apocalypse; so interpret it like an apocalypse. This is why I also hold an Amillenial preterist view - I believe that the original audience of the book of Revelation would have looked for certain events described there to be fulfilled in a metaphoric way in their own time, the First Century AD. And I believe the events there and in Mark 13 and parallel passages in Matthew and Luke were indeed fulfilled in the 7 year Jewish wars (corresponding to what dispensationalists look for in the future 7 year Tribulation) and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. However in these texts that speak of the Son of Man riding on the clouds, and all sorts of cosmic cataclysms occuring, I understand that the original audience would have looked at these as metaphorical, just as similar passages in the Old Testament referring to the judgement of neighboring nations would have been interpreted metaphorically. However, the historical sections of the Bible, such as the book of Genesis or the book of Acts, were clearly intended to be history so I believe their events to be literally true, as Jews (and Christians for Acts) clearly believed them to be.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
's advocate.