What is a "Moderate Christian" theologically?

[Tangible]

Welcome, Lazerboy!

What she said.

Thank you for the compliment, and... I wasn't seeking a debate.

I know you weren't debating. That was just my way of debating a little bit while saying that I wasn't! I'm a bad boy. :o

 

[JTornado1]

I'm theologically conservative about some things, but I am liberal about certain practices. For example, I believe in open communion, but my church practices closed communion.

 

[laconicstudent]

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

^^I like this. What he said. That is what I am. I have conservative beliefs theologically, but I realize that not everyone believes as I do, and that doesn't make them evil or any less valuable then me.

 

[Dark_Lite]

^^I like this. What he said. That is what I am. I have conservative beliefs theologically, but I realize that not everyone believes as I do, and that doesn't make them evil or any less valuable then me.

That is generally how I roll.

 

[Christos Anesti]

I understand the meaning of the terms liberal, moderate , and conservative in relation to politics but I would feel strange adopting any of them to actually define my spiritual worldview. Does anyone else feel that way? I know my Priest would often say that this isn't a conservative, liberal, traditionalist, modernist, moderate, etc.. Church, this is the Church of Christ and that labels of that nature have no place here. Did Christians ever think of themselves as being part of a specifically liberal vs conservative theology or church prior to relatively modern times? I don't see the early Christians talking (or rather writing because we have their writings and not recordings of their conversations obviously lol) in that manner for example.

Maybe in some instances it could be a useful designation though? I don't know. Just wondering what others thought.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I understand the meaning of the terms liberal, moderate , and conservative in relation to politics but I would feel strange adopting any of them to actually define my spiritual worldview. Does anyone else feel that way? I know my Priest would often say that this isn't a conservative, liberal, traditionalist, modernist, moderate, etc.. Church, this is the Church of Christ and that labels of that nature have no place here. Did Christians ever think of themselves as being part of a specifically liberal vs conservative theology or church prior to relatively modern times? I don't see the early Christians talking (or rather writing because we have their writings and not recordings of their conversations obviously lol) in that manner for example.

Maybe in some instances it could be a useful designation though? I don't know. Just wondering what others thought.

The terms conservative and liberal have a different, but similar meaning in the context of theology. Generally anything "liberal" is something that goes against what is traditional, or perceived to be "the norm." At this point in the story of Christianity on Earth, the traditional side equates to the types of theology found in churches that adhere to fully to whatever foundational doctrines their denominations set up during the Reformation, or long before that (i.e. Catholics, Orthodox, etc).

Extremely conservative Protestant theology is characterized by salvation only being possible via belief in Jesus. Nothing else. It is also characterized by an extreme adherence to traditional morality. That is: anti-homosexuality, no sex before marriage, etc. Liberal theology tends to be far more accepting of things like that.

The conservative-liberal scale in theology can, I think, be applied in two different places: doctrine and morality. Conservative doctrine is adherence to beliefs that have been traditional to Christianity for a long time, or from its beginning. Liberal doctrine is that which is less afraid of taking inspiration from other religions or systems and integrating them into Christian theology. Conservative vs liberal morality I already explained above.

Being able to measure conservative vs liberal on two scales (doctrine and morality) somewhat reduces the ambiguity of the terms. It's not perfect, but it does the job a lot better than lumping an individual Christian's beliefs entirely into "liberalism" or "conservatism."

 

[Zebra1552]

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.

So that's why you're a moderator. Right?

 

[Zebra1552]

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?

Wishy-washy, as defined by a good friend of mine:
When you're on either side of the road, you don't get hit by traffic. When you're in the middle, you become roadkill pizza: people and their views will run you down.

 

[Tangible]

Most people equate being theologically conservative with being moralistic. Moderate Christians generally realize that this is not true.

You could probably make a pretty good case that Moderate Christians are those who are doctrinally conservative, yet non-Pietistic in their practice of Christianity.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Most people equate being theologically conservative with being moralistic. Moderate Christians generally realize that this is not true.

You could probably make a pretty good case that Moderate Christians are those who are doctrinally conservative, yet non-Pietistic in their practice of Christianity.

That definition fits me pretty well.

Though actually I'm only really conservative on the core doctrines, such as expressed in the 1910 'five fundamentals' or the Nicene Creed. When we move beyond those, liberals and I agree on a lot. So calling me a Fundamentalist Liberal wouldn't be too far off, though it might make some people's heads explode.

Politically I'm not liberal at all, but libertarian-right, like Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul, Neal Boortz or Larry Elder.

 

[WannaWitness]

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.

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!)

 

[leothelioness]

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.

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.

 

[Shrader25]

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

That about sums me up.

 

[oryx]

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.

 

[Lemmiwinks]

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.

 

[JCFantasy23]

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.

 

[GordonUSC]

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.

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).

 

[WannaWitness]

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 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.

 

[lismore]

Moderate to me means that you look at what the bible says, but you also look at reason and commonsense.

Hey Lemmiwinks

That's a good definition

 

[Johnnz]

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