On one hand, I understand WHY many people adopt some form of liberal Christianity. They are tired of Evangelical (which is Fundamentalist) Christianity and its attendant certitude and black and white thinking. They are tired of the culture war. They are tired of being viewed as mindless, knuckle dragging Bible thumpers.
So they “backslide” and join churches that are progressive/liberal in their view of the Bible. Terms like inerrancy, and sometimes even inspiration, are rarely mentioned when it comes to the Bible. Focus is on how a person lives rather than what they believe. The social strictures are few and many former Evangelicals love the freedom they have in Christ to pretty much do anything they want to do.
All in all, liberal Christians are good, honest, decent people. The ones who comment on this blog are great people. In most cases, liberal Christians also have liberal or progressive political views. They tend to support liberal causes like support for gay marriage and abortion. Years ago, they were at the forefront of the Civil Rights battle.
The United States would be better served if Evangelicalism died a quick death and liberal Christianity was embraced by the followers of Jesus. However, I have a growing problem with how liberal Christians view the Bible and how they tend to believe little or anything they are willing to die for.
It seems, for many liberal Christians, that going to church, believing in Jesus, are just culturally accepted things they do. They treat the Bible like they would any other literary work. Outside of, I believe in Jesus, there isn’t anything in the Bible worth believing.
Liberal Christians are known for reinterpreting the Bible to fit their own agenda. They write book after book to explain why the Evangelical interpretation of the Bible is wrong, misguided, or outdated. Never mind WHAT the text says. All that matters is making the square peg fit in the round hole.
Let me share a good example of this from Sojourners. Gary Tandy, Professor of English and English Department Chair at George Fox University, writes:
Some Christians use phrases like “The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is sinful.” I want to respond: Is it really, really so clear as all that? Don’t you want to open up some room for discussion here? Are you aware that some Christians who read the Bible arrive at a different place?
Instead of certainty, I want to argue for uncertainty. Instead of definitive positions, I wonder what would happen to the climate of discussion if more people said things like “I don’t really know what I believe about this issue” or “I would like to hear more stories from my gay and lesbian friends before I develop my position.” Or even, as President Obama said prior to his interview, “my position on this issue is evolving.”
What I’m suggesting here is that there is a cultural tendency in evangelical Christianity that does not leave room for “evolving” positions, complexity, uncertainty, or doubt. Rather the assumption seems to be that every Christian should have a clearly defined position on every social issue and even that for some issues there’s only one acceptable position to take. I wonder if conservative Christians were more disturbed by Obama’s lack of certainty on the issue prior to the interview than they were by his stated opinion in the interview.
So here’s my modest proposal. When discussing these controversial issues as Christians, can we exercise enough humility to temper our statements? Can we resist the temptations of certitude, realizing that it draws lines in the sand and reinforces stereotypes that non-Christians already carry about those of our ilk? Can we learn the use of conditional phrases like “Based on my understanding of scripture” or even “I might be wrong about this” or, God forbid, “my views on this are evolving”? Can we remember Anne Lamott’s friend, Father Tom, who suggests that the opposite of faith is certainty?
Here’s the problem…..society is rapidly evolving and changing when it comes to homosexuality, gay marriage, and a host of other sexual matters. Liberals like Tandy, and the people at Sojourners, want to be evolve with the times. To their credit they want to be thought of as people who promote civil rights for all. They are often at the forefront of the antidiscrimination battles in the United States.
However, they want to hang on the Christianity and Jesus at the same time. They want to give the appearance of believing the Bible. Result? When confronted with unambiguous teachings in the Bible that go against their social agenda they balk and attempt to reinterpret or explain away the clear teachings of the Bible.
The Evangelical Christian, and virtually all Christians for 1900 years, believe the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful. Let me remind you of what the Bible says on the issue:
- You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
- If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltness is upon them.
- Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
- For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.
Seems pretty clear, doesn’t it? Yes, I know of all the cockamamie reinterpretations and explanations that liberal Christians use in an attempt to justify their good, decent, human, loving approval of basic human and civil rights for homosexuals. I COMMEND them for their support of gay rights.
But, I know this is going to sound odd coming from an atheist, I deplore their abuse and misuse of the Bible. Like any work of literature, the text has meaning, words have meaning. I know liberal Christians hate to hear this but, The BIBLE says _____________.
Tandy wants a Christian environment where issues he finds uncomfortable are held in belief limbo. Tandy writes:
Is it really, really so clear as all that? Don’t you want to open up some room for discussion here? Are you aware that some Christians who read the Bible arrive at a different place?
Look at Tandy’s questions. He desperately wants to believe the Bible is unclear on the matter of homosexuality. But , it is not. He is an English teacher. He values words and their meanings. What does the text say? What would an every day, non-original language educated person, in other words, 99% of the people sitting in the pew, think these verses mean?
Tandy, in classic postmodern fashion wants to have a discussion. Perhaps some discussion is warranted. Like, does the Bible condemn homosexuality itself or the ACT of homosexual sex? What IS homosexual sex? What if a heterosexual couple performs anal sex or oral sex on their partner? Are they 1/2 homosexual? What about people who are bisexual or even asexual?
There are plenty of questions that could be raised BUT what the text says, and my implication, what GOD says, is not one of them.
Tandy, trots out the tired, old liberal Christian line, Are you aware that some Christians who read the Bible arrive at a different place?
Those of you who have been reading this blog for years know there used to be a frequent commenter named Grace who was the epitome of this line. She was like nailing Jell-O to the wall. Outside of, I believe in Jesus, she didn’t have one firm belief about anything. Every discussion with her was littered with obfuscation and “well I see things differently”, or “we will just have to agree to disagree.”
The last church I pastored was a Southern Baptist Church. The Adult Sunday School class was a case study in Gary Tandy, are you aware that some Christians who read the Bible arrive at a different place, thinking. Maybe we should call this kind of thinking Tandyism.
Every week, the class would read the Scriptures, read what the Sunday School Quarterly said about the passage, and then go around the table and say “what the passage of Scripture meant to them.”
Heresy was on display every week. Orthodoxy cringed in horror as people imported their own meaning and interpretation into the text. It didn’t matter what the text said. All that mattered was, “what does it mean to me?”
It seems the “are you aware that some Christians who read the Bible arrive at a different place” has no limits except one. Jesus is off limits. Question anything and everything in the Bible, reinterpret to fit the blowing cultural wind, but hands off of the eternally existent God, second member of the Trinity, creator of the world, virgin born, conceived by the third member of the Trinity, miracle working, dying on the cross for humanity’s sin, rising again from the dead, ascending backing heaven, returning to earth someday Son of God named Jesus, the Christ.
Why is Jesus off limits?
And herein lies the real issue.
I am of the opinion that a fair number of liberal Christians are actually agnostics or atheists who just so happen to like going to church on Sunday. They like the “idea” of being a Christian. They like the social benefits they gain from being part of a church. Simply put, they love Jesus but hate and dismiss the vast majority of the Bible.
People can do what they want, believe what they want. If liberal Christians derive some benefit, support, comfort or peace from being a part of a Christian church, I have no objection. It is their life, do with it what they will.
However, when they venture out into the world and attempt to put a good word in for Jesus by countering the certitude of Evangelicals, then it is proper and right to hold them accountable for how they trash, dismiss, and misuse the Bible.
I find myself in a strange place. On one hand, I know the liberal view of the Bible would make the world I live in a better place. However, I cannot live with what I consider intellectual delusion or dishonesty. If we are going to have a discussion about the Bible then let’s have a discussion about what it SAYS rather than what we WANT it to say.
People don’t like it when I suggest that the God of the Old Testament is a mean, vindictive, self-centered, capricious son-of-a-bitch. “Bruce, you got to understand…..” No, actually, I don’t. I can read quite fine, thank you. Ironic ,isn’t it, that an atheist has a higher view of Scripture than many Christians?
Personally, I would like to see liberal Christians come out of the closet and declare their true agnosticism or atheism. I would like to see them turn their churches into humanist centers for ethical inquiry. They could even still talk about Jesus, the great moral teacher. Lots of good things in the Bible. Lots of abhorrent things too.
Once freed from the strictures of the sect they are a part of they would then be free to say, “this part of the Bible is antithetical to human progress, decency and freedom.”
The Bible is the problem and the answer is NOT to reinterpret it or explain it away. The world would be a lot better off if the Bible was relegated to the Great Works of Fiction or Ancient Philosophy shelves in the Library. A progressive society, a true liberal society, doesn’t need an antiquated religious text as its guide. Humanism can, and does, provide for us a way for forward.
I once went to a church that’s socially and economically liberal, but treats the Bible more conservatively. The problem isn’t the Bible, really, but how some of the early writings (2nd-5th centuries) are taken literally. I’ve listened to interpretations of the Fathers, the saints, and the martyrs, but I read the relevant passages from their writings and find it was taken wrong about half the time. It’s basically the same problem everywhere: drawing conclusions without getting all the facts, whether it’s literalism, generalization, or whatever. Plus, in true Conservative fashion, any challenge to “the norm” meets “you’re wrong”, using that same passage I’ve caught the errors in. The truth is, it’s been out of control since the first Council in A.D. 325. Honestly, I don’t know what it will take short of God, Himself, condemning them to get the problems across to *any* church.
”
I am of the opinion that a fair number of liberal Christians are actually agnostics or atheists who just so happen to like going to church on Sunday. ”
Exactly … you got it. They are. They truly are.
That’s why I like Science of Mind.They down right tell you that there is NO GOD outside the material world. And that what they call GOD is the universe. Everything is GOD: flowers, dust, you, me. When you see it that way, a lot of Bible verses can be adopted, for example, “for in him we live and move and have our being.” Or, “The Father and Me are one.” (Basically, they teach that every person is an incarnation of god, just like Jesus is said to be, but in my opinion, it is just a way to interpret the world).
They use the Bible sometimes, as a metaphor only, ALL OF IT. They don’t believe in redemption or in heaven or hell or sin or any of that non-sense. They just help you learn positive thinking principles to live your life by, while accepting evolution and gay rights and women’s right to choose, etc.
Whereas people like Grace, have this complicated view in which, yeah we’re sinners, but not really. Yeah, the Bible is the word of god, but sometimes…. blah, blah, blah. Oh my gosh, it makes me ill just to think of it.
My belief is that at least the leaders are agnostics. The followers don’t really know. They just go to church on Sunday and have no interest in taking it any further.
I totally agree with this concept of “God IS the universe.” But where I’m less certain than you is in whether our apprehension of that (as human beings) has meaning or not. I guess our difference is that I feel: it could. Consciousness and apparent “free will” are really fascinating seeming miracles in the universe. Language adds to consciousness (and perhaps it is language that allows consciousness) a second-order critique of the universe (in other words, human beings have this amazing capacity to COMMENT on the universe, i.e, to make generalizations over the material universe– Mars is like Venus because they are both planets) that is seemingly “miraculous.” But what we make of this I don’t know. I don’t think anyone CAN know. And that’s my definition of agnosticism.
First, sorry, but I couldn’t understand your comment. It went completely over my head. I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Second, I didn’t say I believed the stuff. I just described it. I see it as a feel-good alternative for those who need some sort of god. I don’t know if I believe it because I’m not sure I understand it. That’s why I won’t argue with anyone about it
Toumuthafuckinche, Bruce!!!
**
but hands off of the eternally existent God, second member of the Trinity,**
It’s ironic that the Trinity and Jesus as God is so off-limits, considering neither is clearly stated in the Bible. And that it took a good 300 years or so to iron out the whole Trinity idea, so you’d think that would be one of the things open for re-interpretation.
The good thing I do see about liberal Christianity and question what the Bible says about homosexuality is that it’s a great way to see how unconcerned the Bible is with homosexuality. It has a few mentions at most. Yet if you were unfamiliar with Christianity, you would think the main focus points where about abortion and homosexuality, and so if you were to read the Gospels for the first time, you’d think that Jesus was mentioning both those topics left and right.
Well, hey, Bruce, I still hang out and read your blog, just don’t comment, not wanting to “drive you up the wall. ” But, I wouldn’t say I don’t have a firm belief about anything.
I completely affirm the Nicene Creed of the church which I think is an essential statement of Christian faith. It’s my hill to die on, I suppose.
But, I do have to agree with this guy from Sojourners. HIs statement seems right on to me. There are tons of passages in the Scripture that sincere Christian people might interpret and apply differently which I feel don’t directly impact the gospel at all.
Also, I think much depends on how one views the term “liberal.” I know you have always felt that I’m a liberal Christian. But, my views are very far from folks like Marcus Borg or Jack Spong who I would consider to be more unitarian in their beliefs., Perhaps there’s a spectrum in this, though.
I think anyone who affirms the creeds of the church in the historical sense is an orthodox Christian.Can someone be orthodox and progressive at the same time? I’m not sure. What do you think?
Our minds see things differently. Why not just accept this, and relax into it? We can still share and learn from each other. I’ve never understood the frustration. I just can’t. Why do I have to be nailed to the wall?
But, I can share that there are plenty of more progressive Christians who have a deep trust in God, and faith in Jesus Christ. They are definitely not closet atheists or agnostics.
Grace, aka, Becky.
Posting from my husband’s computer.
Here is the bottom line….if it doesn’t matter then why bother? If what the Bible says, what people believe, don’t matter then why bother?
Here is my problem with you and others like you. You want to have intellectual discussions where facts matter. You have the right to believe whatever you want to believe but you don’t have the right to make facts say something they don’t say. It is intellectually dishonest to do so.
Here’s the deal, if it doesn’t matter why do you comment on blogs? If personal belief equals truth then why engage anyone in an intellectual discussion?
But it does matter to you. You believe certain things about Jesus. You believe certain things about salvation and the afterlife. These things matter to you and you want people to see things your way. If you didn’t you wouldn’t bother commenting.
So, if you are going to come out and play you should expect to play by the rules. You don’t get to make it up as you go. You don’t get to call dogs cats.
Pretty much where I am as when we parted company a good while ago. Difference now is this….I no longer have a need to correct you or try to get you to see your view is theologically and intellectually unsustainable. You believe what you believe….if others want to do the Jello toss with you they are welcome to do so.
Thanks for commenting.
Bruce
**
Our minds see things differently. Why not just accept this, and relax into it? We can still share and learn from each other. I’ve never understood the frustration. I just can’t. Why do I have to be nailed to the wall?**
And I shall dive in.
Say you’re approached by someone who tells you they have this world-shattering awesome truth to tell you. You listen, and the truth is 2+2 = 4. Awesome! The truths are the same.
Then you point out that this truth also states that the grass is green. Which you can verify for yourself, as you’re standing on green grass.
And then the person tells you that this source of truth doesn’t actually mean “green.” It could mean blue. Or white. Or purple. Green means no longer means green.
That’s why a lot of people can’t accept a liberal Christian position, and do need to nail the theological statements to the wall. Because it says that the Bible says that 2+2 = 4, and end of discussion. The Bible clearly states that. Yet while the Bible clearly states that grass is green, that is suddenly up for discussion and doesn’t actually matter. Even though the text is very clear, and you can see yourself that the grass is green.
You can argue that green grass. Except you get the gospel from the Bible — that’s what is used to define what the gospel is. The all important, most pivotal decision a human can ever make, and that decision is based on what’s in the Bible. The same Bible where liberal Christians suddenly insist that green means whatever the hell you want it to mean.
How does one learn from a person who insists that green has no set definition? That green could actually mean blue? How does someone not get frustrated by that, especially when this same insistence is followed by the fact that this other statement — from the same source — is an absolute, dead-on truth?
One, I hear what you’re saying. First, you know, I don’t know that I’m really a liberal Christian. Honestly, this is a discussion in and of itself. What does it mean to be liberal? Can people be orthodox and liberal at the same time? I really would like to hear your thinking in this.
I don’t think that this Dr. Tandy is saying that Scripture can mean anything that we want it to mean, or that truth doesn’t matter. But, I think he is saying that in certain matters, how can we be certain that our interpretation is correct when there are sincere and very learned Christian people who might disagree?
For instance, there are many, including Biblical scholars who feel that the Scripture is not addressing the whole issue of what we understand today as innate sexual orientation, and out of that speaking of gay people in loving, life-long committed relationships. Now they could be wrong. But, it does seem presumptuous to me to suppose that there is no doubt,and that this isn’t even a discussion that can be had at all.
Several weeks ago, I was in a yoga class with one of my daughters-in-law. Trust me, it was something else. I deluded myself into thinking I was in great shape. Forget it. It’s one thing to touch your toes. Another to be in some of these positions for minutes at a time.
But, one thing the instructor shared struck me as truth. Our perceptions can shape our reality. It seems to me that fundamentalists and people who are more liberal have a different kind of way their minds are wired. This is true whether they are religious or not.
As Dr. Tandy shared, there is this issue with letting go of control, and being open toward doubt or ambiguity in their view. Everything has to fit into these neat and defined boxes. Of course,as Bruce has pointed out some liberals can run to the opposite end of the spectrum and be open to anything under the sun. There is no hill worth dying for or on. It seems to me that we need to find the balance. I’m sure I’m not there yet.
It seems to me that the key to not becoming frustrated is to feel that we don’t have to “win,” and that it’s simply ok to share and to try to honestly understand and learn from the other person’s perspective. For me, I just think that in some measure God is in, and works through everything. It’s more important to love each other than to be
proven right about every issue.
One, what would you define as the essentials of Christian faith?
For me,one issue would be the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I certainly don’t think the Scripture is ambiguous in this issue, or open to other interpretations. I wouldn’t waste two minutes of my time in the church if I thought the empty tomb was a hoax. If you see this differently, please feel free to share.
Rebecca.
This isn’t an issue of the fundamentals of Christian faith, or what is a liberal vs orthodox. This isn’t even a matter of being right is the most important thing. Dealing with those questions is not address the main part of the post. Again, it comes down to the text clearly stating “The grass is green,” and someone arguing that “green” here can actually mean blue. Or white. And what you are arguing is that “Well, learned Christians disagree that the word “green” actually means “green,” so shouldn’t we keep our minds open?”
No. Green means green. Words have meanings. And what you are saying is that those who insist that green actually doesn’t mean green is that people who hold the word “green” to it’s actual definition are in a narrow box, not open to doubt or ambiguity. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? How ridiculous it sounds to say “Well, our perceptions shape our reality, so you see green as green, but I see green as blue.”
Simply because one is sincere and learned does not mean that the position they hold has merit. There are sincere and learned people who believe that women have no place in the workplace, and should stay home with babies. Doesn’t mean their position is valid.
But, One I think it is so much deeper than this. I’m not the best communicator across these blogs.
But, I think we have to consider the cultural context when attempting to come to a right understanding of Scripture, and how this applies to us today. Here is an example of how some scholars take a hold of Romans 1, relating to Paul’s knowledge and concern around same sex relationships. There is serious debate about whether he even knew of such concepts as innate sexual orientation, or of people involved in loving, committed unions.
Romans 1:26-27Pagan “women exchange natural use for unnatural and also the [pagan] men, leaving the natural use of women, lust in their desire for each other, males working shame with males, and receiving within themselves the penalty of their error.” GENESIS 1:27GENESIS 19 (cf. 18:20)LEVITICUS 18:22 (20:13)DEUTERONOMY 23:17-18ROMANS 1:26-27I CORINTHIANS 6:9 & TIMOTHY 1:10SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
THE REAL CHANGES TAKING PLACEHomeFurnish gives us perspective in turning to the writings of Paul. “Since Paul offered no direct teaching to his own churches on the subject of homosexual conduct,” says Furnish, “his letters certainly cannot yield any specific answers to the questions being faced in the modern church. … For Paul, neither homosexual practice nor heterosexual promiscuity nor any other specific vice is identified as such with ‘sin.’ In his view the fundamental sin from which all particular evils derive is idolatry, worshipping what is created rather than the Creator, be that a wooden idol an ideology, a religious system, or some particular moral code.”In Romans 1, Paul is ridiculing pagan religious rebellion, saying that the pagans knew God but worshipped idols instead of God. To build his case — which he’ll turn against judgmental Jews in chapter 2 — he refers to typical practices of the fertility cults involving sex among priestesses and between men and eunuch prostitutes such as served Aphrodite at Corinth, from where he was writing this letter to the Romans. Their self-castration rites resulted in a bodily “penalty.” Catherine Kroeger comments in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society that ‘Men wore veils and long hair as signs of their dedication to the god, while women used the unveiling and shorn hair to indicate their devotion. Men masqueraded as women, and in a rare vase painting from Corinth a woman is dressed in satyr pants equipped with the male organ. Thus she dances before Dionysos, a deity who had been raised as a girl and was himself called male-female and ‘sham man.”‘ Kroeger continues: “the sex exchange that characterized the cults of such great goddesses as Cybele [Aphrodite, Ishtar, etc.] the Syrian goddess, and Artemis of Ephesus was more grisly. Males voluntarily castrated themselves and assumed women’s garments. A relief from Rome shows a high priest of Cybele. The castrated priest wears veil, necklaces, earrings and feminine dress. He is considered to have exchanged his sexual identity and to have become a she-priest.” As such, these religious prostitutes would engage in same-sex orgies in the pagan temples all along the coasts of Paul’s missionary journeys. ‘Paul’s conception of homosexuality,” as Thielicke points out, “was one which was affected by the intellectual atmosphere surrounding the struggle with Greek paganism.” Says Scroggs: “The illustrations are secondary to [Paul's] basic theological structure” (Cf. 3:22b-23, Paul’s own summary), and Furnish adds: “homosexual practice as such is not the topic under discussion.” Doesn’t what Paul says in the beginning of Romans better describe these pagan orgies he meant to ridicule than it does the mutual love and support in the domestic life of lesbian and gay male couples today?
I know my previous post is a lot to read and digest. It’s taken from the “Evangelicals Concerned” website.
One, my heart is to view the Scripture quite seriously and respectfully, but I know from my studies that things are not always so clear cut as my fundamentalist’s brothers and sister suppose. I guess it’s true that I think what they interpret as green, may not be green.
These are really good thoughts. It’s no shame to be a little uncertain when confronting vast cosmic processes! I love the eclectic community that hovers around Bruce’s writings, it is really wonderful to have a space where one can HONESTLY address one’s take on life, and I sincerely hope you’ll continue to participate!
Thank you.
“How does one learn from a person who insists that green has no set definition?”
This conundrum is not limited to liberal Christians. Just try talking to a theoretical/quantum physicist!
But isn’t that no set definition built into the whole quantum physics?
I don’t get liberal Christians either. Once I saw that the Bible was not the complete inerrant word of God (how was I ever fooled into thinking it was…), then it was out the window with the whole Christian thing, entirely and immediately. No going back. Why would I? FREEDOM!!!
Deb, it is because their faith is not based in the inerrancy of Scripture. For them, this is a different issue. This notion of inerrancy was not even discussed in the church until about the time of the reformation.
Also, they do not come from a faith background, in general, where they found their freedom to be taken away from them, but have found joy and abundant life in following Jesus Christ.
Rebecca.
Bruce, I’ve just discovered your blog and like what I’ve found on this page. When you say “People don’t like it when I suggest that the God of the Old Testament is a mean, vindictive, self-centered, capricious son-of-a-bitch.”, I agree so much that I’ve published a web page about it at http://www.whatkindofgod.org.
Although I’ve been a devout Christian for 70 years and first a Catholic priest and then a United Methodist clergyman most of my adult life, I share your belief that the trouble with “liberal” Christians is that they are almost as hung up about the bible as their conservative counterparts. My http://liberalslikechrist.org/inerrancy.html shows how rediculous it is to imagine that the bible doesh’t have ANY errors, when it has SO MANY of them. My http://liberalslikechrist.org/Paulvsall.html shows that one of the single GREATEST problems with the bible is “St. Paul of Tarsus”.
http://liberalslikechrist.org/Christlike.html, on the other hand, makes it obvious why liberals love Jesus, because he was ONE OF THEM.
As for liberals not believing anything, I agree that many DON’T KNOW what they believe because they have had no recognized leader since MLK. But see my next post.
I didn’t know if I might run into a limit so I broke my prior post because I had the following long addition to my postings here, i.e proof that with proper leadership, today’s liberals could do what their liberal ancestors did early in the last century. Here is agreat example of Liberal Christians spelling out WHAT THEY BELEIVED at that particular time in the history of our country:
The Federal Council of Churches
“Social Creed” of 1908
We deem it the duty of all Christian people to concern themselves directly with certain practical industrial problems. To us it seems that the churches must stand —
For equal rights and complete justice for all men in all stations of life.
For the right of all men to the opportunity for self-maintenance, a right ever to be wisely and strongly safeguarded against encroachments of every kind.
For the right of workers to some protection against the hardships often resulting from the swift crises of industrial change.
For the principle of conciliation and arbitration in industrial dissensions.
For the protection of the worker from dangerous machinery, occupational disease, injuries and mortality.
For the abolition of child labor.
For such regulation of the conditions of toil for women as shall safeguard the physical and moral health of the community.
For the suppression of the “sweating system.”
For the gradual and reasonable reduction of the hours of labor to the lowest practicable point, and for that degree of leisure for all which is a condition of the highest human life.
For a release from employment one day in seven.
For a living wage as a minimum in every industry, and for the highest wage that each industry can afford.
For the most equitable division of the products of industry that can ultimately be devised.
For suitable provision for the old age of the workers and for those incapacitated by injury.
For the abatement of poverty.
To the toilers of America and to those who by organized effort are seeking to lift the crushing burdens of the poor, and to reduce the hardships and uphold the dignity of labor, this Council sends the greeting of human brotherhood and the pledge of sympathy and of help in a cause which belongs to all who follow Christ.
I think the baptismal covenant of the Episcopal church also puts it beautifully.
Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?
People I will, with God’s help.
Celebrant Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
People I will, with God’s help.
What more can be said? Although, I don’t think it’s just liberal Christians who are affirming this promise. We all need to “walk out the talk.”
Rebecca.
Ray, your website is a beautifully crafted exposition of the problems with a “literal” interpretation of the Bible.
Liberal Christians have always reminded me of Buddhists. Completely secular in the way they go about living their lives, morally and otherwise, but then clinging to some archaic superstitious beliefs.
Living in Japan for over half a decade now, I think this comparison stands up. The only difference is that the radical Buddhists, far and few between, don’t run the show. They, for the most part, are so fringe that the fringe doesn’t even know about them. So there you have it. My two cents.
What do you think of Japanese Buddhism? And do you distinguish “Zen” from “Buddhism”?
I don’t get the liberal Christian thing either. Doesn’t being Christian mean anything? They don’t generally stand for anything at all.
It seems that all forms of sex, lying, cheating and stealing, being greedy and wanting plenty of worldly are given a pass but they are showing up in church every Sunday, or maybe just every so often, so they must be Christians. The lack of thought involved is sort of staggering. The Bible really is pretty ugly and should be overlooked but to then say you are a Christian seems odd to me.
They just sit in the pew every Sunday and don’t give a thought to why they are Christians. Wouldn’t it just make more sense to say “The Bible is a myth no different than other myths and I don’t believe those myths have a deep meaning for my life and neither does the Bible, really!”?
Can’t we try to come up with a new and improved framework to work our lives around? I am certainly hoping that is the case.
Though it’s completely subjective, my sense is that liberal Christians tend to lie, cheat and steal LESS than fundamentalist Christians, and to live a more altruistic life than the average fundamentalist Christian, who seems to feel a need to engage in endless jihad and is utterly uncaring about anyone who is not in his club. I think another flaw in the discussion here is the sense that one must have some kind of fundamental belief in the Bible to be a Christian. I think this is a post-Luther way of construing faith.
So, then, am I a Buddhist because I think that guy named Buddha said a few really great things? I’m not although I like a lot of the Buddhist sayings. If you don’t have any belief in the Bible except, for Sandy for instance, it is Jesus died and rose from the grave but for someone else it is that Jesus said love your neighbor as yourself even though the rising from the grave is patently false along with most of the rest of the Bible, are they Christians? They get to self identify but I think the whole deal becomes a bit silly at some point. If you don’t believe the Old Testament is accurate then how silly is it to believe that Jesus rose from the dead to save us from the Old Testament curse and the Old Testament isn’t historically accurate and much of it is allegory?
Why not just become humanist or call yourself an explorer trying to learn what is good and right or any number of titles you can give yourself instead of being a Christian who doesn’t really believe what the Christian texts say?
I am not actually out to deconvert people but I really don’t respect some of the mental gymnastics used to stay a Christian despite not really believing in much of the Christian texts and making up reasons not to believe this but to believe that not based on any real scholarship but the fact that people just can’t let the religion they were born into go. Christians want to convert people to this nonsense and I think that is just horrible.
Pingback: Looking for a good Bible believing church? « A Twisted Crown of Thorns ®
Much to my own amazement, I think I’m going to put in a good
word for the liberal Christians here.
I think Bruce is right, mostly. I think a lot of liberal Christians are
probably agnostic at heart, maybe even atheistic, though I also think more of
them are truly theist than he believes. The question is this: what is a
Christian?
For many conservative Christians, being a Christian not only means believing in
Jesus-died-for-your-sins and the so-called “inerrancy” of the bible,
but believing very specific interpretations of said “inerrant” bible,
as well as in very specific interpretations of theology (Calvinism vs. Armenianism,
immersion vs sprinkling, etc.). Thus the many splinter groups, many of which
believe that the correct interpretation of the Last Supper (wine or grape
juice? Transubstantiation or remembrance?) is actually a *prerequisite* to
eternal salvation. Or whether atonement is governmental, substitutional, or
satisfactional. Or whether unmarried people can frickin’ *dance* together.
With this outlook, you could split hairs forever. Maybe some liberal Christians
go too far the other way, but I think most just realise that things are just
both more complicated and simpler than fundamentalists want them to be. More
complicated in that many passages of the Bible are *not* crystal-clear (what
exactly does John’s Revelation really mean, anyway?), and simpler in that maybe
it all just boils down to Jesus’ injunction to love god and one’s neighbor.
(Seriously, if the bible were that cut and dried, why are there so many
translations?)
I think this sense of simplicity is what makes many liberal Christians seem
wishy-washy to both fundamentalists and to agnostics/atheists. Okay, they say:
Jesus said to be good to each other. Does denying homosexuals the right to
marry measure up, then? Most then say, “no, it doesn’t.” Well, what
does the bible say? Well, that passage in Leviticus is pretty clear, but that’s
the Old Law, which Jesus fulfilled and superseded (and besides, who doesn’t
love linen-polyester blends?). Paul is problematical, but there are many ways
around Paul — going back to the original Greek; arguing that Paul was writing
for his time, not ours (this also works for the Old Testament); pointing out
that *Paul is not Jesus,* etc.
In essence: What would Jesus do? I think that if you’re “relativistic”
on the rest of the bible but hold WWJD as your hill to die on, then you deserve
to call yourself a Christian. What is a Christian but a follower of Christ,
right?
And now, just to be perverse, let me take on that green
grass. Words have meaning, right? Well, yes and no. If all words had
unequivocal meanings, there would never be any misunderstandings in the world,
which is clearly not the case. Even something so apparently obvious as “green”
isn’t that obvious, really; just ask any man shopping with a woman what color
that dress is. (Green? Blue? No! It’s *turquoise.*) Now, if you were to try to
argue that the grass reflects light on a wavelength of 600 nm when repeated
scientific measurements confirm it reflects light at 510 nm, then you’re out of
luck, but “green,” though generally well-defined in English, is not an
absolute.
True, but there’s a huge difference between debating green vs light green vs a combination of green/blue, and then arguing that when it says the grass is green, saying that green actually means white is also a valid interpretation.
Well, yes — that’s an extreme. I’m not saying some liberal Christians aren’t extreme. I’m just saying that there’s more too it than that and that “liberal Christian” is not an oxymoron.
While I love this blog and Bruce’s good mind, I find myself a bit frustrated with the format of a blog. The problem is that any thoughtful presentation, such as the one Bruce puts forth here, provokes a response pretty much at least equal to, if not exceeding, Bruce’s original post. As I read this post, all I can say is Where to Begin? And not to CORRECT anything necessarily, but just to share thoughts. So just a couple of thoughts.
1. Bruce has pointed out many positive things about the people at Sojourners, which I completely agree with. I subscribe to their magazine, I give to their funding drives for the impoverished, etc. And I feel certain resonance with their spirits because in my bones I think it is better to help people than to oppress them, and I think the Sojourners-type people are among the most helping communities in America. Sojourners is mostly, to me, about liberation theology, i.e., the idea that loving one’s neighbor entails working for social justice. So whatever the motive, these guys tend to do things I admire and want to do myself, and I like them for that. But that’s a big difference with fundamentalists, who cringe at the thought of the “social gospel,” since it invokes the specter of armies of godless (ethnic) communists.
2. I think people coming from a fundamentalist background give the Bible too much place in the lives of people from liturgical traditions, such as Anglicans (which I know best). Of course there are high church and low church Anglicans. My guess is that most people in such churches don’t know the Bible very well, certainly that was my experience in many years of Anglican community involvement. The lectionary readings take bits and pieces, and while it goes through everything over several years, it doesn’t encourage assiduous rational assessment of the connected contents of the Bible. So I would say this about Bruce: he cares very much about the Bible, he seems to make the Bible a litmus test for reality, based on a rational assessment of it as historical fact and spiritual truth (negatively, of course!). But some kinds of Christians don’t.
3. In Ojibwe, an American Indian community, there is a story about the trickster Nanabozho. He tricks some geese and ducks into dancing in his lodge with their eyes closed, and then strangles large numbers of them. Afterwards he is exhausted, so he puts his geese in the sand to roast, and being alone, instructs his rearend to keep guard over the geese. Well, the rearend gets tricked by some people who come along and offer it face paint to improve its look. When Nanabozho wakes up, he is outraged when he sees his geese are gone and then confronts his rearend and sees it dolled up in face paint, so he stands over the fire and burns his ass to punish it, until he realizes, “Hey, I’m burning my own ass!”
I doubt this story “really” happened. But that doesn’t make it “not true.” In fact, I think it’s deeply true about some aspects of life–we all do stupid things that hurt ourselves, in spite. I think the U.S. is doing that right now with its endless attacks on public sector workers–you’re burning your own ass!! I think the story of Adam and Eve has value in terms of recognizing that being human is to be both moral and mortal. So while I don’t think there was literally a garden of Eden, or an Adam and Eve, or a god who walked around in the garden, I see value in the story.
4. While the Bible has value, it’s full of evil, too. The story in Genesis 19 of the Moabites and Ammonites coming from Lot’s daughters’ incestuous sex with their drunken father is classic ethnic garbage. A lot of the Hebrew Bible concerns itself with such slander.
The Bible is full of errors. The gospels are inconsistent and contradict each other on key matters, especially the resurrection of Jesus. The genealogies, the “fulfillment” of prophecy in Matthew (out of Egypt have I called my son) seem laughable efforts to provide dubious credentials. At the same time, some of Jesus’ teachings are resonant with our deepest sense of justice.
So the Bible has value, but it’s not factual truth value. It is a record of various people (often) seeking truth. Its value is at some other level, the level where myth has value. But don’t confuse the trickster’s ass with historical truth.
5. The last thing I’ll say is that the Christian community is about many things: a. the historical community of ancestors through the millennia; b. the artistic excellence of great church music and architecture, which speaks to our hearts in some deeply meaningful way; c. the beauty of the liturgy, Merton, St. John of the Cross, the many mystics, etc; d. the pageantry of smells and bells, funny hats and charming processions. The seasonal calendar, Advent, Lent, etc., and don’t forget that Christianity pretty well lines up its liturgical year in mythic meaning with the winter solstice and the vernal equinox, points in the year where humans seem to find great meaning. So the ritualizaton of our lives and the cycle of our years is something many people find value in. It’s VERY different from a fundamentalist “study” of the Bible as the basis for getting together.
Bottomline for now, I guess: it’s not about rationality.
Thank you, Bruce, as always, for a great opportunity to engage ideas.
I enjoyed your thoughtful comments very much.
I absolutely fit the liberal Christian definition. The distance between hard liner fundie and atheist is a continuum, and I’m somewhere In the middle looking toward agnosticism. At this stage, I believe some of the bible, but not most of the old testament. I feel the OT is a mixture of myth, poetry, and a lot of chronicles where a king wants to justify killing a neighbor. The NT has many pearls of wisdom, but also has some added ‘clarifications’ meant to discourage following teachers that disagree with orthodox ways.
It’s an evolutionary process for me.
Hi Bruce,
One problem with liberal Christianity is the wide range of views from Barth, Bonhoeffer and Brunner at the neo-Orthodox end down to Spong and the Jesus seminar people at the other end, so that it is hard to get a grip on what they are all saying.
Liberals have various sources of theology including the bible, reason, experience and church tradition. They do not adhere to the bible as the supreme authority in theology as Evangelicals do. For many Jesus is the Word of God and the bible simply a fallible human witness to the Word of God.
The greater flexibility in theology among Liberals has both its advantages and deficiencies, in my opinion. Liberalism tends to welcome diversity whereas many forms of Evangelicalism do not, especially Evangelicalism’s Fundamentalist wing. The welcoming of diversity in Liberal circles creates greater tolerance towards divergent views.
On the other hand, there is more certainty in Evangelicalism (or at least within its many subsets: e.g. Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Arminianism to name the most popular) and these types of Christians often have a more vibrant faith based on this certainty. But its downside is that it so often creates intolerance: intolerance not only towards Liberals but also towards other Evangelicals with whom they disagree.
The most dedicated Christians are usually Evangelical but their intolerance towards dissenting views so often creates an ugly brand of Christianity.
I am now personally being torn between Evangelicalism and Liberalism after the sudden death of my younger brother. I do not know if it is a subconscious fear of what might happen to me after I die (brought on by my earlier years in Evangelical Christianity) or not. I am toally confused. Sometimes, I think that I am an agnostic, at other times a liberal Christian with a hankering for some form of evangelicalism (small “e”). I just wished Chrstians would be compassionate and merciful people and loved others regardless of their religious affiliation. or beliefs. i just wished more Christians would see our COMMON HUMANITY first.
Shalom,
John Arthur
I attended a Methodist church for a time, and as a new Methodist, attended the pastor’s class for new members, rather than regular Sunday School, for a time. He said the Methodist church teaching on what was right or wrong was based on a combination of the Bible, reason, experience, and tradition, just as you said. For instance, he admitted that the Methodists had always supported the temperance movement, not because they believe the Bible said it was wrong to use alcohol, but because of the societal damage they saw caused by alcohol. Of course, the younger the Methodist, the more likely they are to drink alcohol. The older ones, not so much.
I’m so sorry to hear about you brother, John. Your family is in my prayers. My he rest in peace, and rise in glory.
Hi Becky,
Thanks for your kind comments.
John Arthur
Could all this possibly be filed under the heading of ‘what happens in the last days’?? Sure, we don’t know exactly how many days till the end, but scripture does give some pretty darn good clues doesn’t it? A falling away? Who’s falling away? Does it not include some of the very people mentioned here? Claiming Christ, but only claiming the part that makes them feel justified in their sin, with a little ‘twist’ of the scripture. Jesus told us to spread the gospel message. Yet today ,doing so in the most compassionate, loving style brings wrath upon you more likely than not. You’re considered hateful for no other reason than spreading the gospel. Yet it’s the same gospel that was spread 100 years ago, and met with much more respect from even the non-saved. I feel the non saved population has been conditioned and tainted by half-baked, non saved church goers who haven’t truly accepted Christ..they’re just playing the part. I agree with James…there’s too many people out there muddying the water confusing people in regard to the role/walk of the Christian. Such are the times. We must do right however, especially in this sea of wishy-washy Christianity in which we find ourselves .We’re not called to be popular, just obedient.
Joe,
You do know, I am an atheist?
That said, as a pastor and a Christian, I did not subscribe to the any notion of the “last days.” My take on the “last days” was that we have been in the “last days” since the resurrection of Jesus.
Hi Bruce,
Glad to see your blog back up. I missed it–didn’t see it listed for awhile, and thought you quit.
I’ve been sort of an atheist for awhile now. I couldn’t deal with the antipathy toward gays. My best friend was gay. He died 2 years ago, and I miss him. He was a good man, and he was good to his family and to his partner. My friendship with him lasted for over 17 years–longer than my marriage lasted.
In part, the difficulty in reconciling Christianity’s antipathy toward homosexuality was why I began withdrawing from religion. As an atheist, I think Christianity’s teaching against homosexuality is wrong. And even the somewhat fluffier Catholic stance–”it’s ok to be gay, it’s just wrong to have sex” does not sit with me either. The anti-sex stance is just strange.
Regarding drunkards not entering heaven: I think this is a wrong stance by the writers of the Bible. It can’t be an “inerrant teaching.” Why? We now know that there are many who are “drunkards” because they are medicating themselves. They experienced something horrific, couldn’t deal with it, and so drink to blot out the memories. We know this from war veterans who are homeless and can’t hold a job, and who have PTSD. I have reflected on a very famous drunkard–Huck Finn’s father. My guess is that he witnessed something horrific involving his family and Indians. But who knows? But Huck’s dad was a famous falling-down drunk who should probably be viewed more with compassion than with condemnation.
What does this show? We know more today than we knew in Mark Twain’s time. Does it then follow that we know even more today than in the Bible writer’s time? Probably. Will the drunkard not enter heaven? I don’t know. If there is a heaven, and if there is grace and compassion, then I certainly hope so.
Thanks Karen!!
I covered similar ground as you when I began to deconvert. When I was a flaming homophobe, I didn’t know any homosexuals personally. Then…I met a few. Then…two men who used to be in our Christian school contacted me and told me they were gay. For the first time, my view on homosexuality had a face to it. Were these good people I knew headed for hell? Were they every vile thing I said they were in my preaching? They were not and this forced me begin reevaluating my moral beliefs. Of course, losing God altogether has made it a lot easier.