I'm not moderate..

[Peripatetic]

There's another important distinction that moderates/bridge-builders often embrace in a natural way - maybe without even realizing it. That is, we seek the whole truth even if it means affirming more than one side of an argument at the same time. Most people on this forum would reject that possibility outright because they want to run to one side and denounce the opposite. This excerpt from a book called "Paul's Forth Missionary Journey: I Timothy, Titus, II Timothy" sums it up very well:

--

"The biblical doctrines related to the Christian life are difficult to explain because they are presented in typically eastern, dialectical pairs. These pairs seem contradictory, yet both poles are biblical. Western Christians have tended to choose one truth and ignore or depreciate the opposite truth.

1. Is salvation an initial decision to trust Christ or a life-time commitment to discipleship?
2. Is salvation an election by means of grace from a sovereign God or a faith and repentant response on mankind’s part to a divine offer?
3. Is salvation, once received, impossible to lose, or is there a need for continual diligence?
...
This is a perfect example of how theological systems abuse the proof-texting method of interpretation. Usually a guiding principle or chief text is used to construct a theological grid by which all other texts are viewed. Be careful of grids from any source. They come from western logic, not revelation. The Bible is an eastern book. It presents truth in tension-filled, seemingly paradoxical pairs. Christians are meant to affirm both and live within the tension."

--

The salvation examples from the quote above are shown as an example only. I don't want this to spark a salvation debate! There is a different sub-forum for that discussion.

But I do think it's really important to understand the Bible uses written forms that are easy to misinterpret when we approach them with a modern, Western viewpoint... not to mention our own bias.

So while some may say, "agreeing with aspects of both sides of the argument is a lukewarm cop out", I think the last line in the quote above sums it up perfectly: we are supposed to "live within the tension" of a multi-faceted truth. That is by no means easy or wishy-washy, but it really helps me to fully embrace scripture.

People who stay on the polar edges of doctrine arguments still retain some inner doubt when they read passages that seem to contradict them. The anger and bitterness that you see on debate forums here is a good indication of that below-the-surface discomfort coming out in unhealthy ways.

 

[FireDragon76]

P, I really like your post, and it sums up my feelings well, although I tend to come down on the "Arminian" side of things (I am not an Arminian per se but I believe our human freedom is important in our salvation), I don't pretend there is a true systematic theology like that one can derive from the Bible and still capture all of the nuances. I suppose my own attitude is a "generous orthodoxy". I don't see the tension being a bad thing, it is more a mystery and the nice thing about a mystery is that we don't have to figure it all out. We are free to play around with ideas but we should never take them too seriously in that context.

If you have not done so you'ld probably like reading Eastern Orthodox theology, if you can get past the occasional polemical nature of some of it. I also wonder if you have read anything from Emergent types like Brian McLaren? I wish I could just get more people to read his book and really think about what he says because it potentially could explode the way they are approaching Scripture and could only be a positive thing towards elevating the Christian conversation in this country.

 

[Peripatetic]

I don't pretend there is a true systematic theology like that one can derive from the Bible and still capture all of the nuances.

The key phrase there is "that one can derive". Some people call us Relativists, but I don't see it that way. I believe in one source of truth and one systematic theology. But it is MUCH bigger and more nuanced than any human (or computer) could document. The Bible is our window into it, but it can't possibly cover every circumstance, motivation, or state of mind.

I also wonder if you have read anything from Emergent types like Brian McLaren?

I have mixed feelings about the Emergent movement. A lot of what they teach is right on with my bridge-builder beliefs: acknowledging the mystery of the Bible, focus on others over self, skepticism of overly systematic literalism, etc. Most of all, they seem to be one of the only groups that isn't afraid to embrace brokenness and suffering instead of always running away from it and seeing faith as a means to reach long-term worldly comfort and certainty. On the other hand, I am concerned that their post-modern foundation could eventually take the focus away from the Bible. We need that anchor, otherwise we will eventually shift into relativism and/or humanism.

 

[FireDragon76]

I have mixed feelings about the Emergent movement. A lot of what they teach is right on with my bridge-builder beliefs: acknowledging the mystery of the Bible, focus on others over self, skepticism of overly systematic literalism, etc.

I suppose in some peoples eyes I'm a liberal, but I'm open to your comments here

After many years of debating the issues, I've come to the belief that same-sex relationships can be compatible with a Christian life for some people. Even though the Bible speaks out against what seems to be same-sex practices in some areas, I am not convinced this is any more absolute or applicable to modern life than the Bibles injunctions against women having short hair or the duty of Christians to obey the state (its a good thing the German Confessing Church didn't have a problem disobeying the Nazis, after all). Biblical theology, in my mind, is very complicated and there's lots of room for godly people to disagree (look at the early church, both Peter and Paul had disagreements, yet they both were godly and Spirit-filled individuals). Reason and experience are a huge part of my hermeneutic of the Scriptures.

And yet, at the same time I'm not comfortable with the liberal Protestant hermeneutic of Scriptures that tends to see humanism trumping all of the Bible's particularity. Some things I can't see myself budging on, like Gender-specific language for God (God is a He in my book, just because I believe to say otherwise denies the particularity of the Incarnation in Christ), and I still at heart like the energy of conservative Christians and their passion for godly lives, the need for repentance- all those things I think are important and missing from the liberal Protestant viewpoint (I like some things Jack Spong or Marcus Borg say, honestly, but I think they are needlessly polemical and naive in their liberalism at times). But still, on many other issues I know I'm closer to being a liberal.

 

[Esdra]

I suppose in some peoples eyes I'm a liberal, but I'm open to your comments here

After many years of debating the issues, I've come to the belief that same-sex relationships can be compatible with a Christian life for some people. Even though the Bible speaks out against what seems to be same-sex practices in some areas, I am not convinced this is any more absolute or applicable to modern life than the Bibles injunctions against women having short hair or the duty of Christians to obey the state (its a good thing the German Confessing Church didn't have a problem disobeying the Nazis, after all). Biblical theology, in my mind, is very complicated and there's lots of room for godly people to disagree (look at the early church, both Peter and Paul had disagreements, yet they both were godly and Spirit-filled individuals). Reason and experience are a huge part of my hermeneutic of the Scriptures.

And yet, at the same time I'm not comfortable with the liberal Protestant hermeneutic of Scriptures that tends to see humanism trumping all of the Bible's particularity. Some things I can't see myself budging on, like Gender-specific language for God (God is a He in my book, just because I believe to say otherwise denies the particularity of the Incarnation in Christ), and I still at heart like the energy of conservative Christians and their passion for godly lives, the need for repentance- all those things I think are important and missing from the liberal Protestant viewpoint (I like some things Jack Spong or Marcus Borg say, honestly, but I think they are needlessly polemical and naive in their liberalism at times). But still, on many other issues I know I'm closer to being a liberal.

So to conclude, you ARE a moderate!

I guess for me to be moderate means, not to be either ultra liberal, nor ultra conservative.

Comparable to Politics: Communists on the very far left and Nazis (to stay at Germany) on the very far right. And (Christian) Democrats more or less in the centre, moderate.

 

[WannaWitness]

I guess for me to be moderate means, not to be either ultra liberal, nor ultra conservative.

That's yet another meaning. Politically (completely aside from theological issues), I guess I could be considered moderate. This is because I honestly am not much for politics, and what I do understand is that my views in general are such a mixed bag that I don't relate to any one party. I just happen to believe that when it comes to true Christian values, no party cuts the mustard, not to mention the fact that politicians usually don't deliver 100 % on their promises (whether Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or whatever). But I do agree that the the government as a whole needs prayer, as well as everyone working in it.

Political-wise, I consider myself socially conservative yet pretty liberal when it comes to economy issues (health care for the needy, and such), and many other issues have me either somewhere in the middle or leaving me with mixed feelings with people on either end presenting valid arguments that are worth considering, therefore, something I need to look into a little deeper. Like I said, I'm not a heavily politically-oriented person, but I don't think that's exactly a handicap. It's just not my bag, that's all.

 

[Esdra]

That's yet another meaning. Politically (completely aside from theological issues), I guess I could be considered moderate. This is because I honestly am not much for politics, and what I do understand is that my views in general are such a mixed bag that I don't relate to any one party. I just happen to believe that when it comes to true Christian values, no party cuts the mustard, not to mention the fact that politicians usually don't deliver 100 % on their promises (whether Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or whatever). But I do agree that the the government as a whole needs prayer, as well as everyone working in it.

Political-wise, I consider myself socially conservative yet pretty liberal when it comes to economy issues (health care for the needy, and such), and many other issues have me either somewhere in the middle or leaving me with mixed feelings with people on either end presenting valid arguments that are worth considering, therefore, something I need to look into a little deeper. Like I said, I'm not a heavily politically-oriented person, but I don't think that's exactly a handicap. It's just not my bag, that's all.

"pretty mixed", yes indeed. Very well articulated. I guess this is also true for theological views. Some agreement with liberals, yet other points considered to be true from the conservative.

It is hard to vote,with such an attitude.
Always the lesser evil, as I keep saying.

 

[debateableduck]

I think some Catholics are true believers. Does that make me moderate?

 

[Tigger45]

I think some Catholics are true believers. Does that make me moderate?

I am interdenominational and consider myself to be a bridge builder and believe it's not what name is on the building but Who's name is written on the persons heart.

 

[debateableduck]

I am interdenominational

I personally wonder the value of my own interdenominational-ism and God's view of sin. Those seem in tension, at least in my mind.

and consider myself to be a bridge builder

I think of myself as a bridge builder, too. I like seeing interdenominational harmony in spite of differences. I like practicing love in spite of differences.

and believe it's not what name is on the building but Who's name is written on the persons heart.

I think I agree. Haha.

Whelp, I may be moderate myself afterall. Haha.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Being that I do not feel like a moderate as I am enthusiastic about Christ I do not like the term.I prefer another. I am no liberal in any venue. Somewhat conservative politically but certainly not in my faith life. How about a Committed but not Calcified Christian. Committed because not luke warm as some suggest that moderate connotes and not calcified because not tied to past worship modes or so invested in a theological philosophy as to be totally unreceptive to new ideas or ways of looking at scripture. Moderate always makes people think compromise and that is unacceptable in faith. One may become convinced that a previous belief was mistaken but there is no give and take to faith you either believe or you do not you cannot split the difference.

 

[debateableduck]

Moderate always makes people think compromise and that is unacceptable in faith. One may become convinced that a previous belief was mistaken but there is no give and take to faith you either believe or you do not you cannot split the difference.

As of today, I never knew moderate Christianity existed. I thought moderate means "bridge builder", not "I'm going to compromise my core beliefs."

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

As of today, I never knew moderate Christianity existed. I thought moderate means "bridge builder", not "I'm going to compromise my core beliefs."

I do not understand moderate Christianity to mean a compromised Christianity. Rather, I think making Christianity conform to one's conservative or liberal ideas is a compromised Christianity. So, when I say I'm a moderate Christian, I mean I go by my best understanding of what the Bible really says, and not by what conforms to what conservative or liberal commentators insist that it says. So I don't consistently agree with one side or the other. So be it! I am not compromising between the two sides, but disregarding both for the sake of the truth.

 

[WannaWitness]

I do not understand moderate Christianity to mean a compromised Christianity. Rather, I think making Christianity conform to one's conservative or liberal ideas is a compromised Christianity. So, when I say I'm a moderate Christian, I mean I go by my best understanding of the Bible really says, and not by what conforms to what conservative or liberal commentators insist that it says. So I don't consistently agree with one side or the other. So be it! I am not compromising between the two sides, but disregarding both for the sake of the truth.

Great way of putting it.

 

[Peripatetic]

I go by my best understanding of the Bible really says, and not by what conforms to what conservative or liberal commentators insist that it says.

I agree, and would add, "... and I will readily admit that 'my best understanding' of Biblical truth has some errors and plenty of partial truths that are a bit skewed." One of the most important traits of a moderate/bridge builder is to listen and try to understand different perspectives. So we are certainly no less engaged and enthusiastic in our pursuit of understanding.

 

[Norah63]

This thread needs to be bumped back up to the top, cause there is good stuff here.
That last line says it best, "it's not what name is on the building but Who's name is written on the persons heart.

 

[Tigger45]

Amen Norah. That's why I'm glad my church offers Communion to all professing Christians.

 

[Esdra]

As of today, I never knew moderate Christianity existed. I thought moderate means "bridge builder", not "I'm going to compromise my core beliefs."

Don't be deceived. Sadly enough there are such"Christians" around.
They're called cafeteria Christians or Christians by name only or Christians on the paper only. They're usually only one step away from atheism or agnosticism.

 

[Tigger45]

I agree, and would add, "... and I will readily admit that 'my best understanding' of Biblical truth has some errors and plenty of partial truths that are a bit skewed." One of the most important traits of a moderate/bridge builder is to listen and try to understand different perspectives. So we are certainly no less engaged and enthusiastic in our pursuit of understanding.

I agree that we are no less engaged and I would take that a step farther by saying we are more engaged bc I not only chalenge other peoples perspectives but I'm always chalenging my own. Some times it helps solidifiy my current belief and other times I grow in understanding of a broader spectrum of thought. By doing that I've found where scriptures I though were diametrically opposed come together for a more clearer sense of what the Word intended in the first place. To summerize a biblical teaching is typically not either/or but a more balanced perspective.

 

[bonaventure]

Stay open-minded and thank God, that he sent a lot of good and different people.