People see the word "moderate" in different ways, whether it's theologically or politically. Some view it in a negative light, and think it means "lukewarm", or not being serious about Christianity. Some think on the positive side, and look at it as merely trying to hold their cool and stay as peaceful as possible in the middle of some of Christianity's most controversial topics, the so-called "gray areas" where opinions vary so much.
Although I personally consider my theology and Scripture interpretation views to lean somewhat on the conservative side, there are others who would have different takes on this. Some would consider me more moderate (or maybe even liberal) because I have openly stated that politics and faith don't really belong together. Some ultra-strict types would view me as liberal (or "lukewarm") because I do not hold the KJVO view, am musically versatile, and I don't wear only skirts. On the other side of the coin, some would view me as strict (and even "legalistic") because I hold the Young Earth Creation view and choose not to drink nor smoke. This only goes to show that the word "moderate", in itself, is somewhat controversial.
To conclude, all believers have a duty to follow the Bible as best they know how, and should follow any conviction they might have, taking care not to condemn or judge other people for not having the same convictions. Romans 14 is one of my favorite Scriptures because it encourages us all to be able to agree to disagree (even though I see nothing wrong with reasonable debating) on our differing convictions and the way we see things theologically. And this is what "moderate" really means to me.
__________________ "Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever." -- Psalm 136:1
WannaWitness, I appreciate the fact that you mention convictions. There are so many times where people mistake a command for a conviction, and a conviction for a command. The Bible makes many commands that we are all to follow, yet just because someone has a conviction doesn't mean you're unChristian. I think having a moderate outlook helps you discern the difference.
__________________ Dana (possessed by Zuul): Do you want this body?
WannaWitness, I appreciate the fact that you mention convictions. There are so many times where people mistake a command for a conviction, and a conviction for a command. The Bible makes many commands that we are all to follow, yet just because someone has a conviction doesn't mean you're unChristian. I think having a moderate outlook helps you discern the difference.
Thanks for your input. I can even relate when it comes to actually having known such people personally. I knew a family once, and the father used to brag about what a holy family he had, how they dressed holy and that they thought CCM "wasn't anointed". The old "holier-than-thou" bit. I mean, I'm open to the fact that this (and other things) are honest-to-goodness convictions that people have, and if that's what they feel, then they should all follow through, but being careful not to brag, or "rub it in others' faces", just because one doesn't share their views. It's a trap anyone can fall into, if not careful.
__________________ "Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever." -- Psalm 136:1
Kinda like the convictions of wearing a headcovering for gals, reading the Bible everyday, going to church every Sunday, dressing nicely for church, having long hair for gals, abstaining from drinking alcohol, etc.? Oftentimes many people believe the above are all Biblical commandments, when we can see that they are convictions. Oftentimes people also believe that convictions "make you better" than other people who don't do them. I would wonder what their true motives are.
__________________ Dana (possessed by Zuul): Do you want this body?
So a moderate Christian is one who can be traditional in belief, but are open as to how to apply that faith in everyday life. Moderate Christians prefer to show their faith by example and to not impose that faith on others by legal means.
Is that statement correct?
It is correct for me for the most part.
I personally have a hard time taking sides when it comes to a lot of things. I tend to be a fence sitter. I can usually take a side when it comes to my own personal beliefs/standards, but I cannot bring myself to impose those on others as law or rule. Abortion for example. I'm against it and would never get one myself and I would encourage others to consider other options. But on the other hand, I'm against making it illegal and if I have a friend who chooses to have one, I'll go to the clinic with her and hold her hand and support her.
__________________
“True individualists are always at odds with the universe. Set adrift by their peculiar tastes and interests, they spend their lives searching for kindred spirits and a compatible mate. They are hopelessly out of step with the business world and its trivial urgencies. Their priorities are not the priorities of their neighbors. They are unique; therefore they are alone.” – Rick Bayan, Down With Nat
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I personally have a hard time taking sides when it comes to a lot of things. I tend to be a fence sitter. I can usually take a side when it comes to my own personal beliefs/standards, but I cannot bring myself to impose those on others as law or rule. Abortion for example. I'm against it and would never get one myself and I would encourage others to consider other options. But on the other hand, I'm against making it illegal and if I have a friend who chooses to have one, I'll go to the clinic with her and hold her hand and support her.
I think there's a definite difference between truly fence sitting and what merely appears to be such as far as others are concerned.
If we're going to use that subject as the example, what one personally believes is right may be at odds with what they believe is the proper course of action to ultimately resolve it, or how it fits into the difference between personal morals and the role of the State. There's quite a bit of realism and futilism mixed together on that particular issue - it's a no-win solution whether you look at the ramifications of the pro-choice or pro-life view. When looking for solutions, one side is too short-sighted and rash, and the other doesn't do enough to curb the numbers. And it won't be truly resolved until something comes along to satisfy the main concerns of both camps - what that requires is something neither one seems all that enthusiastic about (funding toward proper research to avert this issue in the first place), as they're too busy trying to manage themselves while attempting to undermine the other. Nothing good comes out of that conflict.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Is the pain of not knowing, worth the price of saying nothing?
That's what is tough about being a moderate Christian with many issues-- you're either viewed as a wishy-washy or an uptight fundie. Abortion is never going to be a win-win situation. There will always be arguments. How we chose to engage in them and let them be, I think, is often just as if not more important than the issue itself.
__________________ Dana (possessed by Zuul): Do you want this body?
A person can have a very closed set of beliefs. Anything that does not fit is deemed wrong. That is a characteristic of fundamentalists.
Then, there are those who have fairly similar doctrines, but within a much wider intellectual framework that allows for shades, complexities, a preparedness to understand other's viewpoints and to revise one's thinking if that is required. They are often reviled by fundamentalists for being less 'definite' about what the bible really teaches, but only because of the narrowness of fundamentalist thinking.
If abortion is not the legal murder of an innocent pre-born infant, why should anyone oppose it at all?
If abortion IS such legalized murder, how can anyone say they would not try to change the laws to proscribe it, or that they would accompany and support someone intending to commit the murder?
__________________ "I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage
"Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt
"Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody
That's the problem. It's about who sees it as murder and who does not. Currently, legislation does not define abortion as murder and abortion is legal. Is changing the laws really the best way to go about doing that? There are countries in Europe which have even more liberal laws regarding abortion yet have some of the lowest rates of abortion in the world. For example, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Germany have half the rates of abortion compared to the United States.
I really don't want this thread to turn into a pro-choice vs pro-life showdown because these are the types of issues we are struggling to grapple with in a civilized, moderate manner that examines the complexities of situations. We are not always going to like what others believe or do.
__________________ Dana (possessed by Zuul): Do you want this body?
Linear Mode
