What do liberal Christians believe?

Albion said:

Question: What do liberal Christians believe?

Answer: Anything they want to believe.

Click to expand...

Just like conservative Christians.

hedrick said:

The reason it's maybe this and maybe that is that we don't get a detailed, literal description of the last judgement. We get metaphors and symbolism.

I suggest to you that that may be because the truth is something we wouldn't understand.

I point out that there's a difference between being uncertain of the form accountability will take and believing that God doesn't hold us accountable. My understanding may be squishy, but I don't think God is.

Click to expand...

To take the Biblical account seriously is to KNOW that God is not squishy.
Metaphor, I think is more real than reality. One event is real enough, but stands on its own. Metaphor and symbolism are composites of of all those events to give a clearer understanding of what reality is being depicted. Metaphor does not make us less certain of the reality, but more certain.

I personally follow a less literal, less historic, less concrete reading of the Bible and its laws than virtually all liberals here.
Yet, I don't think that any liberal here would hold me to be like them, because it is the metaphoric reading of the Bible, the focus on metadata if you will, that brings about the understanding of the terribleness of God.
A father who is pleased with the crucifixion of his son is more terrible than any earthly father could be. Liberals( like Spong) would regard this as an archaic vision of God, lacking in love. Liberal Christians often object to the focus of this aspect of God by conservatives as cruel and unloving too.

JackRT said:

Just like conservative Christians.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. I like a good joke as much as the next man, but that comment isn't humorous and simply doesn't have anything to do with reality.

Theological liberals actually do make themselves the judges of all things doctrinal. That's what marks them as liberal in a religious sense. Theological conservatives by definition tend to hold to the established norms, just as is the case with political conservatives. In neither case, does this mean that there are no differences of opinion, though.

SolomonVII said:

A father who is pleased with the crucifixion of his son is more terrible than any earthly father could be. Liberals( like Spong) would regard this as an archaic vision of God, lacking in love. Liberal Christians often object to the focus of this aspect of God by conservatives as cruel and unloving too.

Click to expand...

I think many parents are proud of their children for making sacrifices if they are justified. In this case I'll speak only of myself. I accept that Jesus intended something that was later explained by the atonement, and that Rom 6 likely explains it. Other things being equal, obviously God wouldn't want Jesus to be crucified. But as a way to open salvation to us, yes.

What I think liberal theologians object to is the idea that God requires Jesus' death to forgive us, i.e. penal substitution. But this isn't the only model of the atonement, nor the earliest one. That the cross was an essential part of Jesus' mission of reconciliation, is perfectly acceptable from a liberal point of view.

hedrick said:

I think many parents are proud of their children for making sacrifices if they are justified. In this case I'll speak only of myself. I accept that Jesus intended something that was later explained by the atonement, and that Rom 6 likely explains it. Other things being equal, obviously God wouldn't want Jesus to be crucified. But as a way to open salvation to us, yes.
What I think liberal theologians object to is the idea that God requires Jesus' death to forgive us, i.e. penal substitution. But this isn't the only model of the atonement, nor the earliest one. That Jesus, in order to carry out his mission of reconciliation, had to accept crucifixion, is perfectly acceptable from a liberal point of view.

Click to expand...

I think that the more that a liberal Christian accepts the terribleness of God in the Old Testament, not just the authenticity and trueness of it as a Biblical interpretatoin, but in his own life too, the less that Christian becomes distinguishable from conservative Christians.

I used to be a Conservative Christian. I don't have problems believing in supernatural things, but the God in the Old Testament doesn't look like Jesus to me all the time. When Jesus disciplines he's calculated and patient. He can be aggressive, but with measure. I don't know how people can think these documents could be protected from corruption. God respects free will and prideful church leaders are way too common. God would need a physical castle and presence on earth to protect the bible.
But the bible didn't need to be perfect to be a teaching tool. It's like that teaching, know the nature of Jesus and you can find the truth. It still applies if some parts of the bible aren't truthful.

Aldebaran said:

Regarding the part of your post that I bolded--what does this mean in your life?

Click to expand...

It means that I submit myself to Jesus Christ as my lord and saviour and do my best to live by His example.

I'm getting the impression that liberal Christians think that a conservative Christian is one who admires the idea of punishment and legalisms, etc.

If this thread is going to go on about some vision of conservative Christians as held by liberal Christians rather than what the topic is supposed to be, you all could take a look at the SOP for the forum, 'Conservative Christianity,' before going further.

Albion said:

I'm getting the impression that liberal Christians think that a conservative Christian is one who admires the idea of punishment and legalisms, etc.

Click to expand...

Punishment yes. Note the criticism that we think God is squisy because we accept accountibility but not eternal punishment in hell. Note also that one of the "fundamentals" is penal substitution. This is based on the concept that for forgiveness it's essential that someone be punished.

On legalism, it depends upon definitions. Conservative Protestants believe in justification by faith, so in theological terms they don't believe in legalism. But how many times have I heard from conservatives that the Bible is an operating manual and I can read commands directly from it. When liberals talk about legalism that's probably what they mean. Liberals look at much of what Paul said in his letters as specific advice to the people he was writing to, not eternal law. So we look to the NT as establishing principles that may be embodied differently in different situations, while conservatives more often see it as the source of laws. That's the sense in which we see them as legalistic. That's not to challenge your adherence to justification by faith.

drjean said:

I personally shy away from calling myself "Christian" because the term has been highjacked by liberals who are not following Christ. This includes 70% of those who say they are "Christian" but believe you can get to heaven without Jesus.

I use the term believer (in Christ).

Click to expand...

I know liberals who are uncomfortable with the term "Christian" because the term has been highjacked by right-wing Christo-fascists who are not following Christ. This includes 70% of those who say they are "Christian" but believe you can get to heaven without loving your neighbor.

hedrick said:

Punishment yes.

Click to expand...

What nonsense. Conservative Christians are nothing more than Christian traditionalists who favor retaining the 'faith of our fathers' against rationalistic innovations.

OR is it preferable to talk like another poster chose to do:

right-wing Christo-fascists who are not following Christ

Click to expand...

?

Obviously, I'd say, it's better to have a level-headed and mutually respectful discussion.

Albion said:

What nonsense. Conservative Christians are nothing more than Christian traditionalists who favor retaining the 'faith of our fathers' against rationalistic innovations.

Click to expand...

This sounds like 16th Cent Catholics' reaction to Luther.

hedrick said:

This sounds like 16th Cent Catholics' reaction to Luther.

Click to expand...

I'll say it again. It would be better to have a serious and mutually respectful discussion.

Albion said:

I'll say it again. It would be better to have a serious and mutually respectful discussion.

Click to expand...

That is serious. I see a lot of similarities. Luther rejected traditional interpretations based on new scholarship and a willingness to reassess what the Biblical authors actually meant. The new scholarship was based on better knowledge of the original history and languages. The Reformers also changed the way the Bible was understood, moving from an approach that used allegory widely to "plain sense."

A lot of modern liberal theology is based on new understandings of what 1st Cent Judaism was like, and a willingness to reassess traditional beliefs. There are also changes in how the Bible was understood, moving from a traditional Protestant approach to one based on assessing the nature of the documents.

16th Cent Catholic answers were based on a confidence that 16 centuries of tradition couldn't be wrong. Your response showed the same kind of confidence that your tradition couldn't be wrong. Look at your original response. "What nonsense. Conservative Christians are nothing more than Christian traditionalists who favor retaining the 'faith of our fathers' against rationalistic innovations." Doesn't it look just like what 16th Cent Catholics said to Protestants?

hedrick said:

That is serious. I see a lot of similarities.

Click to expand...

What a shame. I had hoped that we could discuss the topic here without turning it upside down in order to vilify and stereotype people who are NOT religious liberals.

Do you think that's asking too much of liberals?

cloudyday2 said:

When I have talked to liberal Christians, I am confused.

Click to expand...

There is no need to.
It happened to every religion.
It even happened on yours.

hedrick said:

Punishment yes. Note the criticism that we think God is squisy because we accept accountibility but not eternal punishment in hell. Note also that one of the "fundamentals" is penal substitution. This is based on the concept that for forgiveness it's essential that someone be punished.

.....

Click to expand...

That is not quite it.
Not eternal punishment in hell. That was not the contention.
But just hell, period.
And not even Hell, really, but the God of the Old Testament especially, who dealt with any who crossed him severely and with great terribleness.

That is the contention that a respectful discussion needs to hold fast to.

The contention by (some)liberals here is that they love more.
But that really depends upon the understanding of what love is. There is a cruelty to the idea of God instructing Abraham to sacrifice his son. It is a horrific demand. There is a cruelty to the way that God tests us, and even tests his own son. There is a cruelty in God taking his people into the desert and not providing water until they are in a panic.
When liberals understand that behind this cruelty is not a God who loves his children less than your typical father, but more, then liberals will be in a position to understand what conservatives may mean by love.
Compassion definitely is an element of the love of God. Mercy is soft, and God is definitely a merciful God, and so ought we to be. God has a feminine side, a doting hen providing for her brood.

But there is more to God's love than compassion. God is ultimately a Father. God who does not test his children is a God who does not truly love his children, for it is only by pushing a child to his or her limits that people are capable of fulfilling their destiny to the fullest. The greatest spiritual revelations often come only upon the brink of death, as the ascetic spiritual experience reveals.

When liberals understand that conservatives are not being loveless in their demands for consequences, then they will understand that it is not the liberals great compassion that brings up the criticism of marshmallow Christians. It is the liberal rejection (even here in this thread) of God who continually tests his children with harsh consequences that gives that criticism its teeth. God who tests simply is not a perversion of the text.
Consequences are more than punishments, by the way. Not every suffering is a punishment, nor every pleasure a blessing.

SolomonVII said:

That is not quite it.
Not eternal punishment in hell. That was not the contention.
But just hell, period.
And not even Hell, really, but the God of the Old Testament especially, who dealt with any who crossed him severely and with great terribleness.

That is the contention that a respectful discussion needs to hold fast to.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to go through this and identify specific things that are commonly raised as problems.

Why is hell not a legitimate issue? It's certainly a major concern of many liberals.

As to how God dealt with those who "crossed him." You're right that people often think the OT picture is vengeful. The most common accusation I see is based on genocidal commands for conducting war. (I should note that there's significant question whether Israel actually engaged in that kind of war, but the OT at least indicates that they were supposed to.)

The contention by (some)liberals here is that they love more.

Click to expand...

Sure. There's lots of stupid rhetoric. On the conservative side there are equally common accusations that liberals are just giving in to the culture. Neither of these claims is helpful.

In fact if God is actually as conservatives think he is, there's nothing unloving to warning people. I don't think most conservatives like the idea of 90% of the race ending up in eternal torment.

Consequences are more than punishments, by the way. Not every suffering is a punishment, nor every pleasure a blessing.

Click to expand...

Of course. But I don't think you'll find liberal theologians who object to the idea of justice and accountability. That's an accusation I've seen here, but I don't think it's right. The specific objections I've identified are to eternal torment and the assumption behind penal substitution, that God can't forgive without punishing someone.

Incidentally, I agree with you that if God is omnipotent, it's reasonable to think that he created a world with serious challenges and at times deadly consequences. The typical reaction I've seen is that that was the only way to develop the kind of people he wanted to develop.

As I'm sure you know, there are liberal Christians who don't think God is omnipotent, but the argument in the previous paragraph is acceptable among liberals, as far as I know.

But creating a world with real consequences doesn't require either eternal torment or God commanding genocidal war.

Incidentally, I checked Gerrish's Dogmatics in Outline, because he represents the mainstream of theology among the PCUSA leadership. He accepts some kind of omnipotence for God, but he also thinks that humans have real freedom. That the world has sharp edges is obvious.

One difficulty here, as in many places, is that Scripture doesn't really answer all the questions we want to ask. Omnipotence in Scripture is about God's ability to save Israel and us, his superiority to other gods, in short his ability to do what he wills. But none of this talks about what kind of decisions about the nature of the world God could or could not have made. Scripture doesn't, at least directly, answer the question of why God either designed or allowed a world with suffering in it, nor even whether he had an alternative. Job raises that question, sort of, but the answer to Job is meeting God personally.

Hence Gerrish looks at Hicks (who makes that argument that God created the world in order to develop responsible persons) and Griffin (who champions a limited view of God), and isn't wholly convinced by either. However that doesn't prevent Christians from having practical answers to people going through suffering.