What is a "Moderate Christian" theologically?

I understand what you mean. And I know a couple of examples as to how one might think that way.

Politically, I find myself in the middle due to my embracing of the better ideas of both main parties. Like many Republicans, I am strongly against ungodly lifestyles such as gay marriage, and like many Democrats, I believe that there should be programs in order to help many of the poor, the sick, and other unfortunate people to get on their feet, and I also disagree with the unfair assumption that most of them "did it to themselves" through careless and reckless living (although there are undoubtedly some who have). I have also voiced what I have thought of each of these issues, which have irked people from both ends of the spectrum (especially the extremists). Another thing that places me in the middle, politically, is I simply don't think true morals can be connected with any political party. Politicians, no matter what party they're from, have agendas that I don't believe God would be happy with. So every Christian voter, no matter what affiliation they are, should go with their conscience come voting time, then pray for whomever makes it in office, whether they care for the person, or not.

And then there are non-political issues that are more related to theology, such as how to dress modestly and ladylike as a Christian woman. One end of the spectrum thinks that it should only be dresses and skirts (long, of course), and no pants whatsoever; but another group gives little or no thought on how to dress modestly. Again, I'm somewhere in between. The strict group would view me as "lukewarm" while the other group would think I'm "frumpy" for choosing to wear longer skirts (when I wear skirts) and pants that are not "painted on". But the way I dress is my conviction, and I realize everyone has their own, and I leave that to God to deal with each person as He sees fit.

And these are but a couple of the commonly debated issues among Christians. And because there are different takes on what "moderate" means, we end up making peace, being jumped at from all sides, or merely being overlooked. It all depends on how we choose our words.

(Being moderate is not as easy as one thinks!)

__________________
"Oh, give thanks to the Lord, for He is good! For His mercy endures forever." -- Psalm 136:1

Agree.

I consider myself to be moderate. Theologically I'm pretty conservative, but socially I'm more moderate meaning I agree with both conservatives and liberals at times. Overly zealous Christians get on my nerves and IMO push people away rather than to the faith.

__________________
"To have beautiful lips, say beautiful things; to have beautiful eyes, look at people and see the good in them; to stay thin, share meals with someone who is hungry." - Audrey Hepburn

That about sums me up.

I guess, politically, I am a libertarian. I don't believe that politics, whatever side, actually helps makes a better world because you can't impose a decision to treat people respectfully. On all sides, even with an actual libertarian party, is lead by flawed people who fall for our various temptations and cut deals. Its human nature. I consider myself a moderate because I've found that I can read both conservative and liberal arguments and understand where they are coming from.
As with the abortion issue, for me, its either killing or its not. If its about personal circumstances rather than the nature of the unborn(human) and what abortion does to them(make them dead without their expressed consent) then, without hypocrisy, the right to life is not inherent and no-one is safe. I don't believe in making it legal just like that because, again, thats a top-down solution and I understand why someone would want to go with their friend to an abortion clinic.

Moderate to me means that you look at what the bible says, but you also look at reason and commonsense. I require both. If what the bible says doesn't go against my own internal sense of right and wrong, then fine. IF you just obey the bible word for word then you end up doing crazy things like beating your child to death or dying for lack of blood transfusions, telling beaten women they can't leave their abusive husbands, etc. etc.

Originally Posted by dusky_tresses

How can you be a moderate politically or theologically without being wishy-washy? For instance, like you can't make up your mind? For instance, I hold steadfast to the beliefs that Jesus was resurrected in body, was born of a virgin, and was the son of God. However, I don't believe when the Bible says that a wife is to be submissive to her husband does that mean she is subordinate, a doormat, or has to submit to the will of all men on the planet. Does this equal wishy-washy?

No, not wishy-washy at all because of that. The scripture can be interpreted different ways without coming off as trying to change the meaning, just because of the word "submitting". People think of the word as meaning different things.

__________________

"If I can laugh, I can live." - Christopher Reeve
"Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and that which cannot remain silent." - Victor Hugo
"There is no joy in the soul that has forgotten what God prizes." - Oswald Chambers
Please pray for the soul of my recently departed friend, John Gugie, Nov. 2, 2011

Hi all,

I really like this particular discussion and I thank everyone who has contributed. I also like the civil and measured tone that has prevailed.

Hopefully in that spirit I can state that I'm not sure I quite understand where you are coming from here and seek some further clarification. I grew up in home and family that took the Bible as the inerrant word of God (and I still do). We view obeying Biblical commands as part of the core of the Christian walk/struggle, yet none of these things seem to apply to our beliefs.

As I understand it (and perhaps I simply do not fully understand), part of accepting the Bible as the inerrant word of God is to accept it in its wholeness, by which I mean that Biblical Truth and revelation is far more organic and dynamic then any individual scriptural reference can convey and that all scriptural commands/Truths/etc. connect to others to create a greater picture of God's relationship to his creation. Under this understanding the Bible has challenged my internal sense of right and wrong on too many occasions (the story and message of Job being an excellent and commonly used stand-by example).

That being said, I think that you may not disagree with the Bible as inerrant Truth, or that you do not believe that those who do believe it are prone to the actions you listed. I am mainly wondering to what extent we may have a differing viewpoint on the prioritization between our own internal sense of right and wrong and "what the Bible says". I am also wondering to what extent this difference (if there is one) is part of the difference between moderate Christianity and more conservative Christianity.

I ask this because I have always considered myself a conservative Christian who is failing to be radical and is uncomfortable with the adjective "moderate", yet if moderate Christianity primarily sees itself as conservative theology (including Biblical inerrancy and Biblical supremacy) that is trying to be civil, then I can find a lot more common-ground with so-called moderates (though I will still dislike the adjective).

I think that's why the subtitle of this forum is "Bridge Builders" -- because there are (what seems like) many interpretations of the word "moderate" alone, seen from both negative and positive perspectives. "Moderate" (at least what this thread might be meaning by it) is seeking to separate from both extreme ends, and merely wishing for Christians to be at peace (agreeing to disagree) with one another despite varying convictions (Bible versions, music, politics, and so on) and place our main focus on the one thing we know we have in common - our faith in Jesus Christ. Some think the word "moderate" refers to lukewarmness, or an excuse to live in deliberate sin.

My comment I made earlier in this thread (November 1, 2009) will explain a couple of examples as to how many would view someone like me as a so-called "moderate", using both political and theological (non-political) issues as an example, and how some would think of me as "too strict", and others would say I'm "not strict enough", receiving flack from both extremes, showing that being moderate (that is, in the middle on different "iffy", debatable issues), is not as easy as one might think.

Hope this helped.

Hey Lemmiwinks

That's a good definition

__________________
Maranatha

Hermeneutics refers to the ways we interpret Scripture. It's here than many Christians differ.

a) There is the fundamentalist, who adopts a 'bible only' framework, rejects or at least ignores good Christian scholarship, and forms self referencing understanding of doctrines that consigns any disagreement as 'wrong'. There is little contact with and understanding of non Christian society and ideas.

b) There are those whose framework is wider who still see the Bible as the authentic basis for forming one's beliefs. But they are more informed biblically, think more widely, accept the challenge of understanding and responding to non Christians.

c) Then there are those within b) who seek to understand Scriptures within their original context before drawing their conclusions about their meaning and application for today. Their understanding of inspiration can include a writing process that involves a Divine oversight in some way, but not a kind of 'dictation' that some views of inspiration imply.

d) The Catholic approach, that gives a very high place to human reason (natural theology) in addition to revelation.

Thus behind many of the same the same labels (evangelical, bible believing etc) there can be quite different types of approaches in reaching their doctrines.

John
NZ