In what ways are you a liberal Christian ?

I mean that I apply a consistent methodology to ALL biblical texts. There are no sacred cows. This is an interdisciplinary effort with dialogue between the text and a number of contexts. For example, there is the context of foreign languages. Some word meanings have changed in all cultures. Just knowing the "meaning" of the English word is insufficient for determining the intent of the author. We have to see other biblical uses of the word and secular uses as well. Strong's dictionary is not a good one, but the fave of many fundamentlists. It does not take into account secular usage.

Another context is culture. We must understand the culture as best we can from the biblical text and other sources. Otherwise we miss important facts. For example, women were the property of men. This must be kept in mind when reading laws about women. They were often property laws. We might also miss the paganism in the culture, the barbarism, what a "covenant" really means, etc.

Another context is literary form and style. Truth is communicated as poetry, as narrative, and as myth. You have to know what you are reading and why.

When I read the text this way, I discern certain priorities and principles behind the specific actions and choices made. I discern that these priorities are violated by the breaking of some rules and restrictions. These priorities and principles are what we must apply to culture today, and not the "plain sense" reading of the text. If we apply the straightforward English meaning of the text, we might actually be violating the principle behind it. A good example of this is divorce. The plain reading of the text is that divorce is not allowed except possibly for adultery. So a woman with a man who abuses her is not free to divorce. But the spirit behind Jesus' prohibition of divorce was actually a protection for women, who were being abused by men taking the dowry and their virginity and abandoning them. The priority was the protection of women, but a straightforward application today would actually harm many women.

Now most fundamentalists will do this kind of study and scholarly analysis on the topic of divorce. They will do the same to explain why women can talk in church and not have to be quiet in the back. But they balk at the application of the same scholarship to the doctrine of hell and homosexuality, because the results challenge deeply held beliefs. I don't hold back. I liberally apply scholarship to the entire text, not picking and choosing which parts to believe.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You say you were toilet trained at gunpoint? Hmmm.... this might explain a few things.

Pastor;
no im not joking. the simple facts are that most babys born to heathen parents end up heathens themselfs, so allowing them to abort if they want just prevents another human from being cast into hell. if christians had more babys and the unsaved had less then the world would be in a lot better shape and the unsaved would have a better chance at getting saved.
I figure God aborts children all thetime. babys that are born and die in say crib deaths are probably spared going to hell for all eternity and will wind up instead as going to heaven , although they wont be the bride of christ it sure a lot better than hell.well likewise never having been born is a lot better than having been born and living a life without chirst and going to hell for all eterenity.
you gotta look at it with your eyes open , real life , the way things are.

look its like this the unsaved are living in sin anyway so if they wanna commit abortion, well its not murder so why try and stop um. i mean adultry is wrong too but i don't see christians picketing whore houses.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You say you were toilet trained at gunpoint? Hmmm.... this might explain a few things.

You should be.

__________________

Pastor, thanks. That was very helpful.

What dictionary(ies) do you use for your studies?

__________________

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
1 Corinthians 13:1-3

I voted for all of them, though it felt kinda weird to do so. Living in Texas, it's just sort of unsettling to actually read and take into account how different you are from all those around you.

I'm pretty liberal concerning politics, but then again, my knowledge of the subject isn't as exhaustive as it could be, so I shouldn't really place my bets just yet. I took the political compass quiz though, and it placed me fairly liberally, between Mandela and Gandhi. If that's any indicator.

Also, I am uncertain as to what exactly the worship one was. I guess in my experience I have never been to a smells and bells service. But if the opposite of that is something like Acquire the Fire, then I guess I would like smells and bells, cos I hated Acquire the Fire.

__________________
Iraq, WMDs, Katrina, NSA warrantless surveillance, Jack Abramoff, Torture, Guantanamo Bay, Science censorship and distortion, Secret CIA prisons, Downing Street memo, Valerie Plame, Nigerian uranium forgeries, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Abu Ghraib, Halliburton no-bid contracts and vanishing tax money, Politically-motivated attorney firings, Harriet Miers cronyism, Gay escort and White House reporter James Guckert/Jeff Gannon, Death of Corporal Pat Tillman

Politcally - Niether liberal conservative. My libretarian sensibilities gets offended by both political sides.

Biblically - Liberal. I believe the Bible to be an important set of writings recording the relationship of the Biblical authors with God not a verbally dictated, innerrant in every sense book. I believe that many of the messages of the Bible are obscured by language and history.

Theologically - Somewhat liberal. I believe that homosexual acts are okay within the context of a homosexual marriage. I lean toward anihilation over universalism because I think universalism contains an implicit denial of free will. Also, I tend to accept traditional doctrines unless I have reason to reject them. For example, I believe in the virgin birth even though I understand the reasons why some would think that it didn't happen.

Church politics - Fairly liberal. I support woman pastors but would honestly change my mind if someone could give me a good reason for a male-only priesthood. I support the celibate priesthood and religious orders but would like to see some expanded roles for married persons, such as an expanded deaconate. I believe homosexuality is not a reason to bar someone from the priesthood and would hold homosexuals to the same standards as heterosexuals (no extramarital sex but allow homosexual marriage).

Attitude - Liberal. I believe that it imperitive that Christians remain approchable by those outside of the Church. People should feel welcome even if Christians do not approve of their sin. Also, Christians need to listen to people in order to figure out to help them and be willing to help others out as they work to overcome their sins. It is easy to condemn prostitutes and exotic dancers but hard to help them find ways to make good money and still have time to be with their children. It is easy to pray for the women entering an abortion clinic but hard to help the mother find alternatives and support her as she implements them.

Worship - Fairly conservative. I guess I'd fit under "smells and bells." Traditional liturgy is as it is partially because it is what Christians have found to work over the centuries. One needs to remain reverent and conscious of what is going on. Some experimentation and adaptation to local culture is appropiate, but it is very important that one understands why things are the way they are and the implications of the changes. For example, seeing liturgical dancers at a service bothers me it often turns into a performance because our culture has no methods of conveying messages through dance. People can worship in whatever way they desire, but individual roles within communal worship need to interact with the rest of the community in some way, such as communicating a message to them or serving them in some way.

I like Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon for Hebrew Bible word studies. I like Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament for Greek Bible word studies. But I admit, it is a lot harder to use. If you want the nuances of word use, these are better than Strong's, which draws heavily on the KJV version of the Bible.

I like the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible for culture and background studies. I also like several of IVP's products such as the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters and the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels and the Cultural Background Commentary. I think I have those titles correct. Sorry if I don't. And I have the Dictionary of Evangelical Theology from Baker that helps me understand the fundamentalist perspective sometimes.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You say you were toilet trained at gunpoint? Hmmm.... this might explain a few things.

I'm moderate and an independent politically. I tend to vote for candidates, not for parties. The music thing is not all that important, if you ask me, so I'm neutral there. I'm liberal in the rest of the categories. Thanks for asking!