Liberal Christians

[listed]

After only reading the first page, I certianly agree the organized church is in a very sad state of afairs. Years ago my brother said it was only a social thing. I think I agreee more than ever. Who talks about Jesus at church except maybe in the class type setting even if there.

The interaction I get is about the same as I get from the clerk at the store. As a single male holding on to what I think are Biblical values I sure don't get much attention if any. Yeah in the singles aspect of a church I get hit on and usually by females desiring benefits. Nothing about Jesus. Sure I'm interested in other people and their needs, but I'm also interested in mine getting met.

 

[A New Dawn]

After only reading the first page, I certianly agree the organized church is in a very sad state of afairs. Years ago my brother said it was only a social thing. I think I agreee more than ever. Who talks about Jesus at church except maybe in the class type setting even if there.

The interaction I get is about the same as I get from the clerk at the store. As a single male holding on to what I think are Biblical values I sure don't get much attention if any. Yeah in the singles aspect of a church I get hit on and usually by females desiring benefits. Nothing about Jesus. Sure I'm interested in other people and their needs, but I'm also interested in mine getting met.

I think that there are two different things going on here. One is the teachings that the pastor(s) are teaching (in class and from the pulpit), and the other is the social interaction going on on the personal level. I do agree that the social level is a different type of interaction from the teaching level, but do you really not expect people at church to be friends with one another and be concerned about each others lives? I'm sure if you spoke with the pastor and expressed an interest in meeting with people on a deeper level, he could set you up with a class that could meet your needs, or suggest a mentor. When I think of the church as a social gathering, it's more along the lines that the church teaches a social gospel rather than a Biblical gospel.

 

[katautumn]

As much as I hate bumping this thread back up to the top, my heart was burdened about this last night. I don't know if he'll see it, but I wanted to apologize to Jase if I was unkind in rebuking his tone both here and in WWMC. I don't think we've ever had words with one another, even if we disagree on certain issues. I don't want to see strife between the conservatives and liberals in our fellowship areas. We already butt heads enough in the theology and open debate sections of the site. We don't need an all-out war between the two fellowship forums. That's why I don't post over in WWMC. I didn't even as a liberal non-christian, save for a rare handful of occasions.

Anyway, I cannot apologize for defending my conservative "fundie" stance on doctrine, but I will apologize for my attitude as it was unchristlike.

 

[David Brider]

I can only answer for myself, not all liberal Christians everywhere, but here goes:

1. Do liberal Christians reject the concepts of regeneration of the Holy Spirit, eternal separation from God due to rejecting Christ (hell), the in errancy of the Scriptures, rebuking sin in another believer, and striving for holiness as Christ called for?

regeneration of the Holy Spirit No, I believe in this.

eternal separation from God due to rejecting Christ (hell) No, again I believe in this. It wouldn't, however, be something I'd emphasise in, say, evangelistic outreach, as I believe the positive (eternal life with Christ) is more important than the negative.

the inerrancy of the Scriptures I'm not convinced that there's a Scriptural case for the Scriptures being inerrant, so yes, that's a concept I reject.

rebuking sin in another believer I think that except in the context of church discipline, we're all responsible for our own sin, not other people's. So yes, I'd reject that.

striving for holiness as Christ called for No, I emphatically wouldn't reject that! It's vital that we, as Christians, live lives of holiness.

2. Do liberal Christians reject the concept of sin altogether and claim it's merely "personal interpretation"?

I don't reject it, but I do believe - as I said before - that we're all responsible for the sin we perceive in our own lives, not the sin we perceive in other people's lives. My sin is between myself and God.

3. Do liberal Christians bash evangelicals about striving for holiness?

Well, I certainly don't. See above.

4. Do liberal Christians believe the only passages in the Bible that pertain to them are the ones in red print and everything else was merely the jaded opinions of men?

I think that all of the Bible needs to be read with at least some attempt at understanding the context - the time in which it was written, the audience for which it was written, what that audience would have understood by it. Is something that was written in the Bible necessarily something that pertains to us today - regardless of who said it? Was an instruction given by Jesus to the teachers of the law meant just for them, or should it be obeyed by us?

5. Do liberal Christians believe all paths lead to heaven, even if they are paths that blatantly disregard God's authority and supremacy?

I believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that noone shall come to the Father except by Him.

6. Do liberal Christians believe all one must do is believe Jesus existed and be tolerant in order to profess Christianity?

No, I believe we must be born again.

7. Do liberal Christians believe it's okay to support things that are the complete antithesis to the Scriptures, all for the sake of being tolerant and loving?

No, but then I'm aware that there are some things I support which other people would regard as people antithetical to Scriptural teaching. I think we should be loving 100% of the time, regardless of any other factors.

8. Do liberal Christians act and speak in a manner befitting of a Christian (being separate from the world, being in the world, but not of the world), or would no one readily identify them as a Christian based on the words and deeds alone? Would someone be shocked to discover this person is a professing Christian?

One of my daily prayers is that I would conduct myself in a manner befitting a professing Christian, and not bring shame to the name of Christ. Whether I succeed in that is something you'd have to ask my friends, family and work colleagues.

9. Do liberal Christians prefer the company of liberal non-christians, because they're so open-minded, than actual believers?

I have no real preference.

David.

 

[A New Dawn]

I can only answer for myself, not all liberal Christians everywhere, but here goes:


I don't reject it, but I do believe - as I said before - that we're all responsible for the sin we perceive in our own lives, not the sin we perceive in other people's lives. My sin is between myself and God.

David.

So, rather than being our brother's keeper, you prefer to keep the philosophy "I'm OK, You're OK"?

I don't know you, I've vaguely seen you around the boards but don't know what you believe, but I have posted (for years) with other liberal Christians, and they definitely believe in the 'I don't have to change, God loves me just as I am' philosophy, and extends that same philosophy to others. This is so completely contrary to what is talked about in the Bible that it leaves me wondering where sanctification comes in. Do you believe that once one has been "saved" (for lack of a better word) that they are free do do what they wish and ignore what God wishes? Yes, my sin is between me and God, but I know for myself, I have been extremely grateful for when others stepped in and made me look hard at myself. How can I grow and put something off if I don't see it as the sin it is, or perhaps don't even know I am doing it?

 

[David Brider]

So, rather than being our brother's keeper, you prefer to keep the philosophy "I'm OK, You're OK"?

It's more a case of "I'm not OK, so why should I presume to interfere with other people's lives?" I'm fully aware of my status before God - a sinner saved by grace. To go up to a fellow Christian and say, "you're doing this wrong, you're doing that wrong, you're doing the other wrong, you're a sinner, get right with God..." would be the height of hypocrisy, as far as I can tell. If someone comes to me for help, I'll do what I can to help - but I won't go striding in all guns blazing just because of perceived sin in someone else's life. What if I'm not right - what if either what I think is sin, isn't? Or I think that person's doing something that he or she isn't doing?

I don't know you, I've vaguely seen you around the boards but don't know what you believe, but I have posted (for years) with other liberal Christians, and they definitely believe in the 'I don't have to change, God loves me just as I am' philosophy, and extends that same philosophy to others.

I know I have to change, and I know I have to be open to God working change in my life. I just don't presume to tell others that they need to change, or how they need to change. That's between them and God.

This is so completely contrary to what is talked about in the Bible that it leaves me wondering where sanctification comes in. Do you believe that once one has been "saved" (for lack of a better word) that they are free do do what they wish and ignore what God wishes?

No.

Yes, my sin is between me and God, but I know for myself, I have been extremely grateful for when others stepped in and made me look hard at myself. How can I grow and put something off if I don't see it as the sin it is, or perhaps don't even know I am doing it?

I think every Christian is more than capable, through the working of the Holy Spirit, to discern sin in their own lives, and to be aware of what God would have them do to change their lives. I don't rule out the value of the input of other Christians - but then being part of a Christian church, being part of a house group, being part of a prayer partnership, being under the authority of a good eldership team, all those things will put a person in a position where such input can happen. But that doesn't mean there's any value in someone - known to you or otherwise - being a busybody, making assumptions about your life or about God's will for your life.

David.

 

[lismore]

So, rather than being our brother's keeper, you prefer to keep the philosophy "I'm OK, You're OK"?

Perhaps this scripture will answer your question:


4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else.

Galatians 6.

 

[A New Dawn]

Perhaps this scripture will answer your question:


4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else.

Galatians 6.

Actually, that doesn't speak to the subject at all.

 

[BondiHarry]

I think every Christian is more than capable, through the working of the Holy Spirit, to discern sin in their own lives, and to be aware of what God would have them do to change their lives.

Yet Jesus spoke of the Matthew 7 'Lord, Lord' folks who are firmly convinced they are faithful, SAVED servants of the Lord yet are denied by Jesus because THEY DID NOT DISCERN THE SIN IN THEIR OWN LIVES and were workers of iniquity. As the saying goes, there are none so blind as he who will not see.

 

[David Brider]

Yet Jesus spoke of the Matthew 7 'Lord, Lord' folks who are firmly convinced they are faithful, SAVED servants of the Lord yet are denied by Jesus because THEY DID NOT DISCERN THE SIN IN THEIR OWN LIVES and were workers of iniquity. As the saying goes, there are none so blind as he who will not see.

But is that because they're not capable of being led by the Holy Spirit, or because they're not willing to be led by the Holy Spirit? I suspect it's more likely the latter...and I'd suggest that anyone who's in that position today is unlikely to be influenced by anything you or I or anyone else says to them.

David.

 

[A New Dawn]

I think every Christian is more than capable, through the working of the Holy Spirit, to discern sin in their own lives, and to be aware of what God would have them do to change their lives. I don't rule out the value of the input of other Christians - but then being part of a Christian church, being part of a house group, being part of a prayer partnership, being under the authority of a good eldership team, all those things will put a person in a position where such input can happen. But that doesn't mean there's any value in someone - known to you or otherwise - being a busybody, making assumptions about your life or about God's will for your life.

David.

I think that even though we try to cooperate with the HS's guidance, that our old man is still in there fighting against it, and we are blind in many areas in regards to ourselves. Many times God uses other people, even people we don't know, to convict us of our sins. Regarding someone as a busybody just because they have pointed out a sin you might be struggling with could mean you are turning away the help that God sends.

 

[sealacamp]

I think that even though we try to cooperate with the HS's guidance, that our old man is still in there fighting against it, and we are blind in many areas in regards to ourselves. Many times God uses other people, even people we don't know, to convict us of our sins. Regarding someone as a busybody just because they have pointed out a sin you might be struggling with could mean you are turning away the help that God sends.

I learned a long time ago that everyone who is Christs is given a bit of the truth, that none of us are given the same bit, and that it takes all of us together to see the largest piece of truth that God will allow us to see. That said, it is as Dawn has stated, people see things in us that we do not see and vice versa. As brothers and sisters it is out duty to help each of us to see our blind spots. As for those that have not surrendered to the Lord it is out duty to point them to the truth, even if they don't listen or appreciate it. There is nothing busy body about showing love for each other and the lost in this world by trying to keep each one in the light of the Lords truth that makes us all free.

Sealacamp

 

[A New Dawn]

I learned a long time ago that everyone who is Christs is given a bit of the truth, that none of us are given the same bit, and that it takes all of us together to see the largest piece of truth that God will allow us to see. That said, it is as Dawn has stated, people see things in us that we do not see and vice versa. As brothers and sisters it is out duty to help each of us to see our blind spots. As for those that have not surrendered to the Lord it is out duty to point them to the truth, even if they don't listen or appreciate it. There is nothing busy body about showing love for each other and the lost in this world by trying to keep each one in the light of the Lords truth that makes us all free.

Sealacamp

You know what I don't understand? I don't understand people whose relationship with God is so uninspired that they don't feel it is worth sharing with other people. I burst at the seams with joy, not just because God reached down and made me His, but because falling in line with His will brings its own joys and peace. I just don't understand how people are so uninspired about this.

 

[sealacamp]

You know what I don't understand? I don't understand people whose relationship with God is so uninspired that they don't feel it is worth sharing with other people. I burst at the seams with joy, not just because God reached down and made me His, but because falling in line with His will brings its own joys and peace. I just don't understand how people are so uninspired about this.

I don't either but I have my theories. Unfortunately I can't share them here without repercussions. Suffice it to say that I agree with you in that we should witness every chance we get, first by our actions and then, when called for, with our words.

Sealacamp

 

[keepcalmdrinktea]

Err... I dunno exactly how old fashioned I am... But I consider myself pretty conservative. I need conservative friends too. Hit me up!

 

[christdiedforus]

I'm new here and have tried to participate in the liberal (what ever that means) forums only to find that there is really no room for open differing pointed opinions. I went there because I thought that was the open minded forum but I guess I was wrong.

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm new here and have tried to participate in the liberal (what ever that means) forums only to find that there is really no room for open differing pointed opinions. I went there because I thought that was the open minded forum but I guess I was wrong.

It's true. Liberals like to think that they are liberal, but they are only liberal to those who agree with them. What that makes them, really, is conservatives with a different focus. I have met very few truly liberal people. And both of them I have had a good relationship with.

 

[hedrick]

I'm new here and have tried to participate in the liberal (what ever that means) forums only to find that there is really no room for open differing pointed opinions. I went there because I thought that was the open minded forum but I guess I was wrong.

There are limits, but I'm still not sure you've gone over them.

The name of the group has turned out to be misleading. As far as I know, none of us was involved in choosing it. You'd think from the name that it's a group where anything goes, and so we're open for discussions of all points of view.

In practice that's not it. There's an actual liberal approach to theology and Scripture, just as there's a conservative approach. It's not that anything goes, although I will say that we probably do have more variations than conservatives. But the main thing is that we operate on different principles.

If you want a place to talk about the difference between the approaches, General Theology seems to have developed into that. But people often find it useful to go into more depth about their theology, without having to defend its basic positions all the time. That's why we have congregational forums like this one. So this is the equivalent of OBOB for Catholics and the fundamentalist group for fundamentalists.It's a place for exploring liberal theology.

It's perfectly OK for people from other viewpoints to observe, and if it's not clear what we're saying, to ask for clarification. It's not OK to challenge the basic liberal approach there, any more than it's OK to challenge the basic assumptions of any of the congregational groups. For that, we have General Theology.

I'm just not sure you've violated the rules. I can tell you, however, why some people are reacting to you. You've been saying you don't understand things that many of our participants find hard to believe. They're assuming you're a conservative being obstructionist. I'm assuming you're a young Christian who has never run into the liberal approach before and genuinely doesn't understand how his postings are likely to be interpreted. If you want to understand, you're welcome there.

[Incidentally, I sort of hate the term liberal. I think it's really misleading. But that's what CF seems to use.]

 

[hedrick]

So, rather than being our brother's keeper, you prefer to keep the philosophy "I'm OK, You're OK"?

The answer he gave you was a good-faith attempt at reconciling various NT statements about not judging others and our responsibility not to compromise the witness of the Church. Note that he made an exception for Church discipline. That seems like a straightforward way to read Jesus' and Paul's statements about not judging. I would extent the exception for church discipline to other relationships where we have a specific duty to deal with offenses. That would include, obviously, parents, police and others. You note below that you've been helped by friends stepping in when you're going astray. I personally think that's part of the responsibility of being a friend. But a friend is in a more ambiguous position than a parent. You generally have to be a lot more careful about criticism, and it's a lot easier to step over the line between helping and judging.

I don't know you, I've vaguely seen you around the boards but don't know what you believe, but I have posted (for years) with other liberal Christians, and they definitely believe in the 'I don't have to change,

The problem with the term "liberal" is that it covers quite a range. As used by typical conservatives (which make up the bulk up CF), it means anyone who rejects the 5 "fundamentals", including inerrancy. Thus it includes both the mainline and more far-out folks.

I'm part of the mainline. I certainly don't think any of us should say that we don't have to change. As far as I know, others in my church don't either. I think Jesus was very clear that we have to obey him, and that it matters whether we do. I do differ from conservatives on some specifics of what has to change. The differences, however, tend to be in areas where I'm not permitted to post my position in CF. I will simply say, without being able to defend it, that I believe my position is based on Scripture.

 

[hedrick]

More spin. See, you even attempt to spin my mention of spin. It's okay, it's a typical liberal trait so I'll overlook it and attempt to get to my point. Since you cannot answer my very simple questions, I'll post them again so as not to be missed among a giant wall of text:

1. Do liberal Christians reject the concepts of regeneration of the Holy Spirit, eternal separation from God due to rejecting Christ (hell), the in errancy of the Scriptures, rebuking sin in another believer, and striving for holiness as Christ called for?

Partly yes and partly no.
Regeneration, yes.
Almost by definition liberals reject inerrancy.

To be honest, I'm unclear on what exactly hell is, and how many people (if any) will end up there, if it's even a place one can end up in. Jesus certainly warned people that they had better be fruitful or they were likely to end up in God's garbage heap (note the meaning of Gehenna). But this was typically a warning to Jewish believers, not to what we'd currently called unsaved.

Rebuking sin, yes, in relationships where this is appropriate. However where we don't have a specific responsibility or relationship where this is appropriate, the responsibility not to judge governs. It would be very unusual for rebuke to be appropriate in an Internet forum.

Holiness, I have issues with. I've looked through the NT. Typically holiness is seen as a property of God, and if we're lucky, the Church. Jesus seems to say that Christians can't expect to be holy. They can only strive to be obedient. A focus on holiness characterized Jesus' opponents.

2. Do liberal Christians reject the concept of sin altogether and claim it's merely "personal interpretation"?

No. We may, however reject *your* concept of sin and believe that it's a personal interpretation. Unfortunately the situations where this is most likely to be true are also ones that the rules of CF prohibit discussion on.

3. Do liberal Christians bash evangelicals about striving for holiness?

I don't bash anyone. I respect evangelicals for striving after Christ. I feel that sometimes the way they do it is misguided.

4. Do liberal Christians believe the only passages in the Bible that pertain to them are the ones in red print and everything else was merely the jaded opinions of men?

This is far more extreme than I or other liberal Christians would say. I accept God's authority. I think it shows through Scripture in a variety of ways, from direct speech with the prophets and Jesus, to accounts of how he dealt with Israel, from which we are left to draw our own conclusions (although with guidance from the prophets and various NT writings).

In today's climate, a few passages from Paul's letters seem the most contentious. I don't believe Paul claimed that everything he said was a prophetic word. Indeed he denied it in one place. So I see his role as the earliest witness to Jesus' teachings, and how they were interpreted in the early church.

5. Do liberal Christians believe all paths lead to heaven, even if they are paths that blatantly disregard God's authority and supremacy?

Absolutely not. Many paths lead away from God. Whether God will find some way to reconcile people on those paths with himself is up to him. But there is definitely a difference between right and wrong, and following God and rejecting him.

6. Do liberal Christians believe all one must do is believe Jesus existed and be tolerant in order to profess Christianity?

No. I think we have to acknowledge him as Lord. I may however permit a wider variation in what that means than you do. I would not, however classify a non-Christian such as Gandhi who admired Jesus as a Christian.

7. Do liberal Christians believe it's okay to support things that are the complete antithesis to the Scriptures, all for the sake of being tolerant and loving?

No. However we may think that some of what you support is the antithesis of Scripture.

8. Do liberal Christians act and speak in a manner befitting of a Christian (being separate from the world, being in the world, but not of the world), or would no one readily identify them as a Christian based on the words and deeds alone? Would someone be shocked to discover this person is a professing Christian?

I am quite sure that everyone around me knows I'm a Christian. I would expect that would be true of most Christians. I'm not sure that I'd agree with you on all specifics of what is befitting a Christian.

9. Do liberal Christians prefer the company of liberal non-christians, because they're so open-minded, than actual believers?

Boy, that's complex. There's good and bad open-mindedness. Everyone needs to be open to correction, in both behavior and beliefs. And closed mindededness is often a part of a kind of pride that I think the Bible has problems with. But there's a difference to being open for correction, and humble, and being indifferent. I suspect it's the latter you're concerned about.

I find people attractive for all kinds of reasons, including shared interests, and a shared approach to life. There are many conservative Christians I run into who I wouldn't be likely to be friends with. But there are many that I would. Ditto with non-Christians. Open mindedness is just one of my criteria, and it's of the modest sort I just mentioned.

When I was in college I got to know members of other religions. I found I was closest to those who took their religion seriously, although not in such a way as to reject members of other religions.

My closest friends are other members of my church. I am also naturally friends with people I work with, although probably not quite as close. A lot of the people I work with are also Christian. My closest friend is both, i.e. a member of church and someone who is working with me.