What is a "Moderate Christian" theologically?

[FreeinChrist]

How is your theology "moderate"... or is it?

 

[DeanM]

I'm a liberal, but I think I can answer how I see moderates.

I think a moderate is someone who blends liberal acceptance and conservative beliefs.

But that's just my view . . .

 

[Qyöt27]

Well, the slated objective of the forum wasn't moderate theology, it was moderate behavior - i.e. acting civil without the sorts of flare-ups the liberal and conservative forums would have.

Not to say many here don't actually see themselves as more-or-less centrist, but some of the early polls showed a tendency toward traditional belief anyway.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'm a liberal, but I think I can answer how I see moderates.

I think a moderate is someone who blends liberal acceptance and conservative beliefs.

But that's just my view . . .

That at least approximately describes me.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Well, the slated objective of the forum wasn't moderate theology, it was moderate behavior - i.e. acting civil without the sorts of flare-ups the liberal and conservative forums would have.

Not to say many here don't actually see themselves as more-or-less centrist, but some of the early polls showed a tendency toward traditional belief anyway.

That's true too. When this forum was founded, most of us were conservatives who weren't as militant as the ones in the conservative forum, and who placed a higher value on civility. And we welcomed anyone with the same attitude, regardless of theology or politics.

Myself, I'm a blend of Anglican conservative (a la C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright) and post-charismatic Pentecostal with "emerging church" insights. Politically I'm libertarian, which can be thought of as conservative in some ways and liberal in others.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I find myself to be pretty much centrist. Certain areas of my theology and politics are conservative, but certain areas are not. And even then I try to take as balanced a view as possible.

All things in moderation.

 

[ziggy29]

I guess where I find "moderation" is that in terms of what I personally believe and how I choose to live my life I consider myself conservative according to "God's law." However, I respect the U.S. Constitution and the concept of free will, and it does not force people to live under God's law or my set of beliefs, so politically I tend toward libertarianism where "man's law" is concerned.

In other words, under man's law I support the right of individuals do things that are not compatible with God's law even as my own conservative values impose a higher and more rigid moral standard on myself and others who profess their faith in Christ. Did that make sense?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Yes, that makes sense.

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?

 

[ziggy29]

Yes, that makes sense.

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.

Is that statement correct?

Correct for me, but I suspect there are plenty of different ways one can be relatively moderate Christians. Some may find both conservative and liberal guidance in Scripture. Some may believe in following both some literal and some contemporarily interpreted passages of Scripture.

Consider, say, the recent ELCA vote to allow ordination of non-celibate gay clergy. A literal interpretation of Scripture (many on the "sola Scriptura" side of the argument against it as we Lutherans might say) is quite clear about the condemnation of the act of homosexuality. (Note I say the act, not the people who engage in it themselves; like all of God's children they are forgiven with repentance.)

Yet the other side can "interpret" Scripture to view the life and acts of Jesus Christ, and come to a reasoning that Jesus would not have had us shutting out a certain group of sinners from preaching the Word; after all, we are all sinners, not just those engaging in homosexual activities.

In terms of the Bible itself, the more liturgically "conservative" Christian may reject modern human interpretations of the Bible; the more liberal ones may believe that we are on a never-ending quest to better understand Scripture and not just accept how it has been interpreted and understood for centuries -- that is, there is room for interpretation based on modern cultural sensibilities. (These are obviously generalizations I usually observe them, and they don't fit all.)

So it doesn't have to be what you described (which does apply to me), but it could also be a moderate view of reading the Bible itself apart from any consideration of "man's law."

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Yes, that makes sense.

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?

That basically describes a moderately conservative but libertarian Christian, and that would be me. I'd be happy to go with that.

As ziggy says of some of us, I am open to reading the Bible in both liberal and conservative ways, guided by the principles of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. And there could be other kinds of moderate Christians.

I have seen several threads asking if moderates are lukewarm Christians... and every time I've answered that one emphatically in the negative. In my observation, moderate Christians don't seem to be any less zealous for the faith as they understand it than liberals or conservatives.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Ok. Thanks for the input!

I hope a few more give feedback.

 

[Zoness]

I think of myself is a political and theological centerist overall which goes back on the liberal acceptance idea but not as much the conservative beliefs, because that can vary considerably by church. I really don't know what I am anymore but I try to bridge the gap between the more conservative and liberal types. Needless to say that is harder tahn it sounds.

 

[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?

 

[NorrinRadd]

How is your theology "moderate"... or is it?

I guess in my case I'd say I'm "moderate" in that I regard Scripture as inerrant and authoritative, but I am not wedded to "traditions" or traditional translations and interpretations, nor to any particular theological "system."

 

[NorrinRadd]

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. "Wishy-washy" means that you don't have any beliefs that you hold firmly; your mind is easily changed. If you have some firm "left" views and some firm "right" views, you would be moderate and/or eclectic (for which Izzy is sort of the Poster Girl), but not wishy-washy.

 

[ziggy29]

How can you be a moderate politically or theologically without being wishy-washy? For instance, like you can't make up your mind?

That's a common misconception about moderates, be it theological or political.

It doesn't have to mean being "in the middle" on all the issues. I am quite conservative about some things and quite liberal on others. But I don't believe one should "pick a team" -- be it conservative or liberal -- and automatically take their side. Politically, for example, I find the "groupthink" mentality -- pick a side and always stay with it -- as a poor and unappetizing substitute for independent thought.

It is more work this way; some of us can't go to the ballot box and just automatically punch the name next to the "D" or the "R".

 

[Qyöt27]

Also, there is such a thing as being in the 'radical middle' - in other words, positions that seem to fall halfway between left and right (or held by neither left or right) and are still held firmly. Generally speaking, this trend in U.S politics tends to reflect old-style populism (however, because the U.S. political landscape is so rigidly two-party, this means those that support it generally tend to still be Democrat or Republican, just that they lean strongly toward the center). The most visible candidate closest to this in the last election was probably Edwards, as he made direct reference to populism and Teddy Roosevelt's trust-busting initiatives, but we all know how that turned out. It also includes viewpoints that switch sides from left to right and back with a certain level of frequency - fair/flat tax propositions tend to do this, for instance. I do particularly like a quote attributed to Jefferson, to the effect of being in the middle is preferable because then you aren't in the gutters.

'Centrism' really is a better term when talking of that sort of thing. 'Moderate' tends to evoke a toned-down demeanor, and the way the modern church culture has distorted what people are supposed to perceive as proper faith into one highly-charged emotional high, being toned-down or solemn or so on starts looking flimsy or lukewarm. 'Centrist' doesn't, but it's a much more politically-oriented term.

I see myself as traditional, post-modern, and centrist, if I had to really come up with a description. Namely this is because while growing up we were raised with light quasi-fundamentalist beliefs, with a couple extreme examples which swung way to that side of the scale, and as I got older and looked more at church history, I 'liberaled up', when compared to what we were raised believing. However, the beliefs I came to are still very firmly traditional. But due to all that I see the term 'conservative' more or less affixed to the extremely reactionary side, and thus traditionality looks pretty moderate. Thinking seriously about it, which would people be more likely to label as 'conservative' - evangelical churches of varying sorts, or the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church? It depends on how you define the term 'conservative' in the first place, or what it connotes in your mind.

The post-modern aspect has less to do with throwing away tradition and more to do with how to broach the subject of correcting the problems associated with the fruit of modernism. In addition to being a gross overreaction to modernism, IMO, Fundamentalism created numerous problems in both relating to the people being witnessed to, and within the people raised in that system who became disillusioned with it all. It was far more damaging than helpful, as far as I'm concerned. So trying to move beyond that and find meaning in what one believes in relation to today's world is pretty well-described as 'post-modern' (or 'Emergent' if you will).

I already described centrism, so there's no need to repeat that.

 

[Yab Yum]

Moderate Christians prefer to show their faith by example and to not impose that faith on others by legal means.

Hm: I wonder if Christ would say his death was a "legal means" (substitution) or "example" (moral example)? In which case would he say he was "moderate"?

 

[dusky_tresses]

Wasn't Jesus quite radical for his time though? I mean going up to people telling them they can't just stone women "who without sin cast the first stone", along with allowing Mary and Martha to sit at his feet and listen, say that "one must be like a child before entering the kingdom of heaven", stuff like that? Or even saying "love thy neighbor"? Considering how people used to treat each other (women, children, neighbors especially)?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Hm: I wonder if Christ would say his death was a "legal means" (substitution) or "example" (moral example)? In which case would he say he was "moderate"?

John 8 - Christ is confronted by the Pharisees who bring to him an adulteress, saying "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

How does He respond? "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

He wasn't legalistic ('she needs to be stoned'), nor does he deny that she sinned ('but she loves him - love makes it okay'). Instead, He convicted the accusers, deals with her kindly - "Neither do I condemn thee:" but also states "go, and sin no more." To me, that is "moderate Jesus" - shows love and compassion, doesn't deny the sin, but is not legalistic in carrying out punishment according to the Law.


Jesus's death satisfied a legal requirement so to speak in order to cleanse from sin - but still, it was God Himself providing the sacrifice because of His great love and our salvation is due to His grace being given to us.