Are there any actual liberals here?

[FireDragon76]

When I attended a UCC Church several years ago (with communion that particular Sunday) they had a different creed at the beginning of the service. I don't remember what it was called, though.

My Pentecostal (Assemblies of God) classmate thought the UCC service was very structured, from her POV.

Yes, it is very structured. Our older hymnal, which we still use from time to time, has an order of worship that's very similar to the 1928 Book of Common Prayer in the Episcopal Church. However, most of our clergy do not wear any vestments except a stole.

 

[RDKirk]

It claims Jesus was born of a virgin. It also claims he rose from the dead, and that he will return again. Many people do interpret those claims in terms of biology or cosmology.

If you have another explanation, it would be welcome.

Those are miracles...explicitly exceptions to the laws of biology of cosmology, so they actually say nothing about biology or cosmology at all.

 

[FireDragon76]

Those are miracles...explicitly exceptions to the laws of biology of cosmology, so they actually say nothing about biology or cosmology at all.

On the contrary, the fact some view them as exceptions potentially has everything to do with biology and cosmology.

 

[RDKirk]

On the contrary, the fact some view them as exceptions potentially has everything to do with biology and cosmology.

"The exception proves the rule," but first there must be the rule. What we can learn of biology and astronomy by creation's own revelation (Psalm 19) is the rule. Jesus was the exception, but we know Him as an exception only because of the rule.

If this were the universe as envisioned in the Graeco-Roman pantheon, there would be no rule...things happened according to the whimsy of the gods. It was necessary for the ancient Greek physicists and astronomers to be atheists in effect. Or tat least heretics worshipping an Unknown God of order and consistency.

That the universe of the God of Abraham operates primarily according to the rules He established, and that miracles are exceptions to the rule and not a matter of the universe operating willy-nilly according to a whimsical God, is the reason we can have sciences.

 

[RileyG]

Yes, it is very structured. Our older hymnal, which we still use from time to time, has an order of worship that's very similar to the 1928 Book of Common Prayer in the Episcopal Church. However, most of our clergy do not wear any vestments except a stole.

I remember seeing her (the pastor) wear a green 1970s style stole.

 

[hedrick]

An personal observation based on exposure to history.

World War 2 really changed culture around the world in a way that did not allow people to go back to the way things were.

I agree only in part. In college in the 60s I got the impression that liberal theology was dead. But it's not so clear that this was true. Karl Barth was highly influential. He condemned liberal theology, because he thought German liberals gave into Naziism. This has a major effect. But there were pronlems with this diagnosis:

• That may have been true in Germany, but in the US the liberal tradition has been much more inclined to find and oppose government abuse.
• By most criteria, Barth himself was engaged in the same enterprise as Schleiermacher.

I found that in the latter 20th Cent there was an increasing appreciation of the continuity between modern theology and the liberal tradition.

I believe the current culture wars have changed things more than World War 2. Almost all theology now, on both sides, seems to be focused on cultural wars. At least in the 1st World. There's still fine theology going on, but it's not visible here (nor would the rules allow it), nor in many churches.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree only in part. In college in the 60s I got the impression that liberal theology was dead. But it's not so clear that this was true. Karl Barth was highly influential. He condemned liberal theology, because he thought German liberals gave into Naziism. This has a major effect. But there were pronlems with this diagnosis:

• That may have been true in Germany, but in the US the liberal tradition has been much more inclined to find and oppose government abuse.
• By most criteria, Barth himself was engaged in the same enterprise as Schleiermacher.

Bonhoeffer, in some of his later works, does critique Barth, but on very different grounds. He thought Barth notion of revelation was misguided. From what I understand of Barth, his ideas about revelation would not be an alternative to Fundamentalism, but in some ways grounding the sentiments of Fundamentalist Biblicism in existentialism (which for Bonhoeffer is just another way of refusing to grow up intellectually and spiritually).

 

[FireDragon76]

That is an interesting statement. Where did you get it.
I think it may be true since it became clear that humanism and rationalism were incinerated.

I don't know about that... I think in alot of ways it actually elevated humanism to a quasi-religious status. The historian Tom Holland for instance notes how the horrors of the Third Reich and Fascism became so prominent, that it overshadowed traditional religious concerns in peoples imaginations in creating a narrative of good and evil.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I agree only in part. In college in the 60s I got the impression that liberal theology was dead. But it's not so clear that this was true. Karl Barth was highly influential. He condemned liberal theology, because he thought German liberals gave into Naziism. This has a major effect. But there were pronlems with this diagnosis:

• That may have been true in Germany, but in the US the liberal tradition has been much more inclined to find and oppose government abuse.
• By most criteria, Barth himself was engaged in the same enterprise as Schleiermacher.

I found that in the latter 20th Cent there was an increasing appreciation of the continuity between modern theology and the liberal tradition.

I believe the current culture wars have changed things more than World War 2. Almost all theology now, on both sides, seems to be focused on cultural wars. At least in the 1st World. There's still fine theology going on, but it's not visible here (nor would the rules allow it), nor in many churches.

I get the sense that a lot of traditions (not just the liberal ones) are acting like nothing has changed, and dressing up today mannequins with previous era's clothes.

The dis-congruity is deeper than that, and it shows when we start to see "hyper" versions of theology appear. This happens because of this less than blissful ignorance of the changes that have occurred in the past.

In a sense, people believe something that isn't true, and their "trying too hard" really shows since it runs against the grain of reality.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

If someone is speaking about a current idea, there is no dis-congruity since the underlying premise is still widely known in society. (A/A) However as time changes the underlying premise of understanding changes on a number of levels. As the meaning of words change based on common use, this can cause misunderstandings, but people who still remember "how it was" because "they were there" it's not as difficult. However, since the young generation would actually need to take the older generation's word for it, there is still something lost in the explanation. (A/B)

As a century or two pass, no one remembers what premise A or B was all about, and only have recording of Idea A. (A/C)

Some more time passes and an event that is considered a societal tragedy occurs and becomes part of the underlying premise of understanding. This results in a logic where the original idea still exists, but the current premise cannot accurately translate what that meant anymore ... since things are different now. (A/Aa)

Since a number of tragedies and revolutionary events occurred over time and changed the way people perceive ideas, saying A/A is no longer possible, since the underlying premise is Rz. (A/Rz)

However, sometimes things are lost in translation. If translation from one or two different languages is required, even claiming idea A is incorrect, it may be any combination of letters since latin is not english, greek is not english, hebrew is not english .. and old english looks more like german than english for example.

 

[FireDragon76]

If someone is speaking about a current idea, there is no dis-congruity since the underlying premise is still widely known in society. (A/A) However as time changes the underlying premise of understanding changes on a number of levels. As the meaning of words change based on common use, this can cause misunderstandings, but people who still remember "how it was" because "they were there" it's not as difficult. However, since the young generation would actually need to take the older generation's word for it, there is still something lost in the explanation. (A/B)

As a century or two pass, no one remembers what premise A or B was all about, and only have recording of Idea A. (A/C)

Some more time passes and an event that is considered a societal tragedy occurs and becomes part of the underlying premise of understanding. This results in a logic where the original idea still exists, but the current premise cannot accurately translate what that meant anymore ... since things are different now. (A/Aa)

Since a number of tragedies and revolutionary events occurred over time and changed the way people perceive ideas, saying A/A is no longer possible, since the underlying premise is Rz. (A/Rz)

However, sometimes things are lost in translation. If translation from one or two different languages is required, even claiming idea A is incorrect, it may be any combination of letters since latin is not english, greek is not english, hebrew is not english .. and old english looks more like german than english for example.

With the passing of the Greatest Generation and Silent Generation, I don't think people have any real, tangible connection left to the horrors of WWII.

My grandfather was one of the first Allied troops to make contact with Buchenwarld, though his unit was instructed to feed the captives there nothing (due to the dangers of refeeding syndrome, something that had just been discovered by the University of Minnesota physiologist, Ancel Keyes, who would later go on to do groundbreaking research on heart disease). It made such an impression on him, he didn't talk about it until late in his life.

 

[RDKirk]

With the passing of the Greatest Generation and Silent Generation, I don't think people have any real, tangible connection left to the horrors of WWII.

My grandfather was one of the first Allied troops to make contact with Buchenwarld, though his unit was instructed to feed the captives there nothing (due to the dangers of refeeding syndrome, something that had just been discovered by the University of Minnesota physiologist, Ancel Keyes, who would later go on to do groundbreaking research on heart disease). It made such an impression on him, he didn't talk about it until late in his life.

I get the same thing regarding racism, when I hear young black people saying, "Nothing has changed since the 50s."

 

[BT3241]

I consider myself a centralist I can't agree on all the policies of both parties.Some I like some others I don't its tough casting a vote keeping to my values.Sometimes I just abstain because I don't want either they both seem bad.I turned into a independent they did it to me because I can't agree in giving one party full control it was never meant to be that way.I am not a American but did not some of the founding fathers say political parties would one day destroy the country whether that was prophetic or not I do not know.

 

[PloverWing]

Is there actually anyone here who is liberal theologically and/or politically, or is this forum just conservatives arguing against liberalism?

I'm maybe...moderately liberal, theologically. I generally accept modern science, and I accept higher criticism as one valid way to study the Bible. I think Schleiermacher made some excellent points, though I like Rudolf Otto's analysis better. Rauschenbusch changed the way I look at Christian ethics. On the other hand, I don't go as far in rejecting the supernatural as some liberal Christians do. I'm mostly good with the Nicene Creed.

That's liberal enough that I'm pretty comfortable in WWMC, but I can certainly think of theologians who are more liberal than I am.

I will say, though, that at an earlier point in my life, liberal Christianity saved me from atheism. When I could no longer be an Evangelical (by the American definition), liberal Christian theology was the safety net that caught my fall, that showed me a way to be Christian and still have intellectual integrity. I will forever owe a debt there.

 

[FireDragon76]

I consider myself a centralist I can't agree on all the policies of both parties.Some I like some others I don't its tough casting a vote keeping to my values.Sometimes I just abstain because I don't want either they both seem bad.I turned into a independent they did it to me because I can't agree in giving one party full control it was never meant to be that way.I am not a American but did not some of the founding fathers say political parties would one day destroy the country whether that was prophetic or not I do not know.

Liberal theology doesn't necessarily means liberal politics. They tend to be associated more now days only because theologically conservative white Evangelicals have wedded their movement to the political Right. However in actual liberal Mainline Protestant churches, you'll find a variety of political parties represented in clergy and especially in the pews. For instance, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg are both Episcopalians, but on different sides of the aisles politically.

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm definitely a Progressive Christian, but that's not the same as being a Liberal Christian. I also happen to be mostly liberal politically, but that doesn't necessarily have to follow.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is there actually anyone here who is liberal theologically and/or politically, or is this forum just conservatives arguing against liberalism?

I suppose I could pass as a form of theological "liberal." But my liberality is more a patchwork of epistemic appraisals about the Christian faith than anything else.

 

[FireDragon76]

I suppose I could pass as a form of theological "liberal." But my liberality is more a patchwork of epistemic appraisals about the Christian faith than anything else.

You seem to be closest to the Neo-Orthodox, because you're primarily interested in looking at Christian theology from an existentialist perspective. The old naive orthodoxy died with Nietzsche, Darwin, Hegel, and Feuerbach, and was replaced either by existentialist, liberal, or fundamentalist theology, IMO.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You seem to be closest to the Neo-Orthodox, because you're primarily interested in looking at Christian theology from an existentialist perspective. The old naive orthodoxy died with Nietzsche, Darwin, Hegel, and Feuerbach, and was replaced either by existentialist, liberal, or fundamentalist theology, IMO.

I suppose you're right that I'm not far in conceptual proximity from the Neo-Orthodox position. As you know, I've had a few influences from them over the years.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I'm maybe...moderately liberal, theologically. I generally accept modern science, and I accept higher criticism as one valid way to study the Bible. I think Schleiermacher made some excellent points, though I like Rudolf Otto's analysis better. Rauschenbusch changed the way I look at Christian ethics. On the other hand, I don't go as far in rejecting the supernatural as some liberal Christians do. I'm mostly good with the Nicene Creed.

That's liberal enough that I'm pretty comfortable in WWMC, but I can certainly think of theologians who are more liberal than I am.

I will say, though, that at an earlier point in my life, liberal Christianity saved me from atheism. When I could no longer be an Evangelical (by the American definition), liberal Christian theology was the safety net that caught my fall, that showed me a way to be Christian and still have intellectual integrity. I will forever owe a debt there.

Even within "liberal" there is diversity. I am currently reading Otto The Idea of The Holy.

I finished David Tracy, Analogical Imagination, Blessed Rage for Order and Naming the Present. He references just about every theologian and position that has ever been/ Tracy sees pluralism and something that enhances Christianity. He advocates for a "Revisionist" theology that is more to the Liberal side but with appreciation for ne-conservativism also.