Liberalism *is* mainline Protestant Christianity

[lifepsyop]

Liberalism *is* mainline Protestant Christianity.

The Protestant Church had its origin in a cohesive, collective, social movement away from the ideology of the Roman Catholicism. The Protestant Church was defined by their unified separation from the religion of Rome.

Today there is not a hint of Protestant Christianity collectivizing in any kind of resistance against the ideology of liberalism or the liberal democratic order that forms the ruling ideology of western nations. Liberalism is not even recognized by the church as a separate ideological or moral system, and this is because both things, Liberalism and the Protestant Church, are the same ideological framework.

Throughout the 18th-20th centuries, Protestant Christianity was basically diffused into secular progressive liberal government. This is why churches have no concept of organized resistance to progressive ideology, because it is their own system. Liberalism now operates as a kind of non-theistic Christianity, where the human liberty offered by the modern democratic order is unconsciously viewed as a kind of eschatological fulfillment. It is as if history has ended. All the necessary reformations and social movements of the past have reached their end goal, and there is nothing left to protest. The Church is now at rest in the kingdom of liberal democracy.

This is why there is such a strange resistance to churches organizing on a political basis, and a general church mandate to "never bring politics into the church"... Since the church order *is* the liberal order, it would be like dividing a house against itself. You do not socially organize against yourself.

Actually the Protestant Church is still allowed to collectively organize politically, but only against elements that are a perceived threat against the kingdom of democracy (e.g. Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government) Protestant Christianity instinctively circles the wagons when the true ideology of Liberalism is perceived to be under threat... but notice these churches are completely unable to organize this way in defense of Biblical theology. (e.g. a collective socio-political movement against abortion or the promotion of homosexuality) ... again, this is because Protestant Christianity *is* Liberalism, and it is a liberal democratic human right to abort children and teach homosexuality to children. We are all allowed to have our individual political beliefs in a liberal order, and this is the governing ideology of the Protestant Church.

This is also why there is such a knee-jerk reaction among mainline churches to the concept of 'Christian Nationalism'.... it is *not* because the church actually has a problem with the combination of church and state. The real reason is because the Church *already* combined with the national and international state of liberal democracy. We are *already* doing Christian Nationalism + Internationalism and this is now called Liberalism. See the Battle Hymn of the Republic, the World Wars, and the Cold war. These were all great theocratic-political wars framed as the divine forces of heaven conquering the forces of tyranny and evil, and what has resulted is the shining city on a hill; liberal democracy. Any new forms of Christian Nationalism are seen as a threat to an already established theocracy: the moral therapeutic state of liberal democracy.




Progressive Christianity

 

[PloverWing]

Liberalism *is* mainline Protestant Christianity.

This is approximately true. There are many different things that people mean when they say "liberal", so it depends on what you mean here. But insofar as "liberal" can mean 1) a willingness to incorporate scholarly knowledge and research into one's theology, or 2) the belief that we should care for the people around us, including people who are different from us and even including our enemies, as an expression of our Christian faith -- yes, these two elements are widely held ideas in the mainline churches.

(For our non-American readers, by "mainline", I mean the churches on the "liberal" side of the schisms in the US in the 20th century. The UCC, the Episcopal Church, the PCUSA, and the American Baptists are examples. I assume this is also what the OP has in mind.)

The video at the bottom of the original post is a person reading part of a document by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The document itself is here, for anyone who wants to read Moldbug's ideas: Chapter 1: A Horizon Made of Canvas | An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives | Unqualified Reservations by Mencius Moldbug . This particular video is reading from chapter 9 of the document, here: Chapter 9: How to Uninstall a Cathedral | An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives | Unqualified Reservations by Mencius Moldbug . Moldbug has a Wikipedia page: Curtis Yarvin - Wikipedia , if you want to get a broader idea of his background and overall ideas.

 

[Jonaitis]

Liberalism *is* mainline Protestant Christianity.

...and liberalism for Second Temple Judaism was Christianity.

Liberalism isn't inherently bad, and conservatism isn't inherently good. This is an invented superficial dichotomy.

 

[Postvieww]

Liberalism *is* mainline Protestant Christianity.

The Protestant Church had its origin in a cohesive, collective, social movement away from the ideology of the Roman Catholicism. The Protestant Church was defined by their unified separation from the religion of Rome.

Today there is not a hint of Protestant Christianity collectivizing in any kind of resistance against the ideology of liberalism or the liberal democratic order that forms the ruling ideology of western nations. Liberalism is not even recognized by the church as a separate ideological or moral system, and this is because both things, Liberalism and the Protestant Church, are the same ideological framework.

Throughout the 18th-20th centuries, Protestant Christianity was basically diffused into secular progressive liberal government. This is why churches have no concept of organized resistance to progressive ideology, because it is their own system. Liberalism now operates as a kind of non-theistic Christianity, where the human liberty offered by the modern democratic order is unconsciously viewed as a kind of eschatological fulfillment. It is as if history has ended. All the necessary reformations and social movements of the past have reached their end goal, and there is nothing left to protest. The Church is now at rest in the kingdom of liberal democracy.

This is why there is such a strange resistance to churches organizing on a political basis, and a general church mandate to "never bring politics into the church"... Since the church order *is* the liberal order, it would be like dividing a house against itself. You do not socially organize against yourself.

Actually the Protestant Church is still allowed to collectively organize politically, but only against elements that are a perceived threat against the kingdom of democracy (e.g. Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government) Protestant Christianity instinctively circles the wagons when the true ideology of Liberalism is perceived to be under threat... but notice these churches are completely unable to organize this way in defense of Biblical theology. (e.g. a collective socio-political movement against abortion or the promotion of homosexuality) ... again, this is because Protestant Christianity *is* Liberalism, and it is a liberal democratic human right to abort children and teach homosexuality to children. We are all allowed to have our individual political beliefs in a liberal order, and this is the governing ideology of the Protestant Church.

This is also why there is such a knee-jerk reaction among mainline churches to the concept of 'Christian Nationalism'.... it is *not* because the church actually has a problem with the combination of church and state. The real reason is because the Church *already* combined with the national and international state of liberal democracy. We are *already* doing Christian Nationalism + Internationalism and this is now called Liberalism. See the Battle Hymn of the Republic, the World Wars, and the Cold war. These were all great theocratic-political wars framed as the divine forces of heaven conquering the forces of tyranny and evil, and what has resulted is the shining city on a hill; liberal democracy. Any new forms of Christian Nationalism are seen as a threat to an already established theocracy: the moral therapeutic state of liberal democracy.




Progressive Christianity

What is todays liberalism In current US leadership given or is striving to give this nation? 1. Abortion on demand 2. Indoctrination of our youth in gender identity, homosexuality, sanctity of marriage. 3. Disrespect for current laws and law enforcement of immigration. Resulting in free flowing drugs and sex trafficking across our boarders. 4. The bankrupting of our nation through unrestrained spending. 5. The degeneration of law enforcement agencies such as the FBI into partisan enforcers of the left. 6. Suppression of free speech through collaboration with big tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter. 7. Usurping individual heath care decisions through forced or pressured vaccination mandates. 8. Using climate change as a fear tactic to gain power and financial wealth. There is nothing about liberalism as defined by current US liberal leadership that is compatible with a true Bible believing church with born again believers.

 

[ViaCrucis]

First of all, the opening premise, "The Protestant Church had its origin in a cohesive, collective, social movement away from the ideology of the Roman Catholicism. The Protestant Church was defined by their unified separation from the religion of Rome." is faulty.

The first fault with this premise is that there is not, nor has there ever been a "The Protestant Church". Secondly, and related to this: There was no "cohesive, collective, social movement away" from Roman Catholicism. That never happened, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

What we call "The Protestant Reformation" was far from a "cohesive, collective, social movement". It was a huge diversity of theological, social, and religious movements that were hardly cohesive or collective.

It is better, therefore, to speak of a number of religious movements occurring within roughly the same time frame.

Historians therefore broadly categorize three "Reformations" in the 16th century:

1) The Magisterial Reformation, which broadly speaks to the Lutheran and Reformed.
2) The Radical Reformation, which broadly speaks to the "Anabaptists" which is itself a catch-all term for a large and diverse number of religious movements, from the Mennonites, to the Zwickau Prophets, to the Socinians.
3) The English Reformation, which began with the separating of the Church of England from Rome under King Henry VIII.

Even when talking about the Magisterial Reformation, the Lutherans and Reformed, there are significant differences, not just in the particulars of theology but in the overall methodology of reform itself. Even just within the Reformed there was diversity: John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, two of the major players in the Reformed tradition, represent distinct and hardly cohesive views on theological matters (e.g. the Lord's Supper).

I would encourage the OP to do a whole lot more homework on the Reformation before trying to use it as a platform for their own modern social and political soapboxing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PloverWing]

There are “churches “ in name only the subscribe to the above liberal agendas but they do not constitute the Body of Christ as defined in the Holy Scriptures.

As a reminder, according to CF rules, "Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed."

 

[Postvieww]

What is todays liberalism In current US leadership given or is striving to give this nation? 1. Abortion on demand 2. Indoctrination of our youth in gender identity, homosexuality, sanctity of marriage. 3. Disrespect for current laws and law enforcement of immigration. Resulting in free flowing drugs and sex trafficking across our boarders. 4. The bankrupting of our nation through unrestrained spending. 5. The degeneration of law enforcement agencies such as the FBI into partisan enforcers of the left. 6. Suppression of free speech through collaboration with big tech companies such as Facebook and Twitter. 7. Usurping individual heath care decisions through forced or pressured vaccination mandates. 8. Using climate change as a fear tactic to gain power and financial wealth. There is nothing about liberalism as defined by current US liberal leadership that is compatible with a true Bible believing church with born again believers. There are “churches “ in name only the subscribe to the above liberal agendas but they do not constitute the Body of Christ as defined in the Holy Scriptures.

I appreciate the reminder but I am having a hard time understanding the rules on this . Please help me if you will.
I just have a few questions if you can't answer them maybe someone else will.

1. This is a general statement not identifying any one on this forum or any group on the form specifically or any other church or group, who did I point out?

2. If I make a general statement hypothetically speaking of course and said anyone one does not do what the Bible states one has to do to be a Christian is not a Christian did I break the rules?

3. If I said one who denies Christ and follows Islam is not a Christian did I break CF rules?

4. There are also churches that have witches in them, that is a fact I singled out no ones church is that a violation?

I am not trying to break rules, I am trying to speak truth. Is that no longer welcome on. this forum?

I deleted the offending comment.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I appreciate the reminder but I am having a hard time understanding the rules on this . Please help me if you will.
I just have a few questions if you can't answer them maybe someone else will.

1. This is a general statement not identifying any one on this forum or any group on the form specifically or any other church or group, who did I point out?

2. If I make a general statement hypothetically speaking of course and said anyone one does not do what the Bible states one has to do to be a Christian is not a Christian did I break the rules?

3. If I said one who denies Christ and follows Islam is not a Christian did I break CF rules?

4. There are also churches that have witches in them, that is a fact I singled out no ones church is that a violation?

I am not trying to break rules, I am trying to speak truth. Is that no longer welcome on. this forum?

I deleted the offending comment.

Saying that someone who doesn't share your particular political perspectives isn't a Christian certainly violates the plain and simple rules here. As far as the whole "churches with witches in them", I mean--c'mon, really? That sounds a lot like that one crazy pastor who claimed there were witches in his own congregation because he said a demon told him so.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lifepsyop]

This is approximately true. There are many different things that people mean when they say "liberal", so it depends on what you mean here. But insofar as "liberal" can mean 1) a willingness to incorporate scholarly knowledge and research into one's theology, or 2) the belief that we should care for the people around us, including people who are different from us and even including our enemies, as an expression of our Christian faith -- yes, these two elements are widely held ideas in the mainline churches.

Liberalism is an amorphous word for sure with many definitions, which is why I tried to elaborate in the post. In a historical context, Liberalism is a belief that the modern political system of liberal democracy is the ultimate form of good in the world (absolute monarchy was a social evil that humanity was liberated from through violent revolution) ... the belief that democracy is sacred and that the secular democratic state is imbued with moral power for guiding human progress.... for example, that the rights of homosexuals to promote their lifestyles to children, or the right to mass produce pornography, is a sacred moral good because it represents expressions of individual human liberty in opposition to traditional authoritarian social constraints like traditional religion that would strive to limit such behavior.

Human Liberty and the Will of the People is now sacred. We have a colossal statue in our nation's harbor venerating it as a cosmic moral force in the world.

Liberal Democracy is basically a theocracy of secular progressive humanism that morphed out of Protestant Christianity.

 

[lifepsyop]

First of all, the opening premise, "The Protestant Church had its origin in a cohesive, collective, social movement away from the ideology of the Roman Catholicism. The Protestant Church was defined by their unified separation from the religion of Rome." is faulty.

The first fault with this premise is that there is not, nor has there ever been a "The Protestant Church". Secondly, and related to this: There was no "cohesive, collective, social movement away" from Roman Catholicism. That never happened, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

What we call "The Protestant Reformation" was far from a "cohesive, collective, social movement". It was a huge diversity of theological, social, and religious movements that were hardly cohesive or collective.

It is better, therefore, to speak of a number of religious movements occurring within roughly the same time frame.

Historians therefore broadly categorize three "Reformations" in the 16th century:

1) The Magisterial Reformation, which broadly speaks to the Lutheran and Reformed.
2) The Radical Reformation, which broadly speaks to the "Anabaptists" which is itself a catch-all term for a large and diverse number of religious movements, from the Mennonites, to the Zwickau Prophets, to the Socinians.
3) The English Reformation, which began with the separating of the Church of England from Rome under King Henry VIII.

Even when talking about the Magisterial Reformation, the Lutherans and Reformed, there are significant differences, not just in the particulars of theology but in the overall methodology of reform itself. Even just within the Reformed there was diversity: John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli, two of the major players in the Reformed tradition, represent distinct and hardly cohesive views on theological matters (e.g. the Lord's Supper).

I would encourage the OP to do a whole lot more homework on the Reformation before trying to use it as a platform for their own modern social and political soapboxing.

-CryptoLutheran

That's like arguing that organized theology doesn't exist because no two people can seem to agree on everything exactly. Obviously, there was a lot of diversity and disagreement within protestant sects and movements, but the point was that they generally shared a belief that they were socially reorganizing (reforming) away from the ideology of Catholicism. They were unified in what they opposed, or else the constantly invoked term "Protestant Reformation" is meaningless.

Today it doesn't even make sense for Protestant churches to join in some kind of reformation away from the political system of liberal democracy because they are one and the same thing. Churches created this global system of Liberal Democracy which is now a sacred humanist theocracy and a hegemonic superpower that has enlightened the world with the values of individual liberty, gay marriage, and transgender rights.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's like arguing that organized theology doesn't exist because no two people can seem to agree on everything exactly. Obviously, there was a lot of diversity and disagreement within protestant sects and movements, but the point was that they generally shared a belief that they were socially reorganizing (reforming) away from the ideology of Catholicism. They were unified in what they opposed, or else the constantly invoked term "Protestant Reformation" is meaningless.

Today it doesn't even make sense for Protestant churches to join in some kind of reformation away from the political system of liberal democracy because they are one and the same thing. Churches created this global system of Liberal Democracy which is now a sacred humanist theocracy and a hegemonic superpower that has enlightened the world with the values of individual liberty, gay marriage, and transgender rights.

It's hard to take your criticism seriously when it just comes across as you saying what you don't like, and then trying to blame it on "Protestantism" like it were some historical boogeyman.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Postvieww]

Saying that someone who doesn't share your particular political perspectives isn't a Christian certainly violates the plain and simple rules here.

I didn’t say that ! It’s not about my personal political beliefs. It is about anti- Christian policies by liberal leadership in the US, not members of this forum.

As far as the whole "churches with witches in them", I mean--c'mon, really? That sounds a lot like that one crazy pastor who claimed there were witches in his own congregation because he said a demon told him so.

Do you think it is crazy to believe there are real witches and demons being that they are clearly identified in scripture?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I didn’t say that ! It’s not about my personal political beliefs. It is about anti- Christian policies by liberal leadership in the US, not members of this forum.

Can Christians have sincere disagreements on, let's say, the issue of climate change without one or the other being a false Christian?

Do you think it is crazy to believe there are real witches and demons being that they are clearly identified in scripture?

I believe there are real demons.

I also believe in real witches--of course when I say "witch" I am referring to modern people who practice Neo-Pagan religions who self-identify as "witches". In the same way that I believe in real Buddhists, real Muslims, real Jews, and real Sikhs. There are real people who subscribe to different religious practices which I consider to be false religions. But they aren't scary boogeymen hiding in the shadows. They're just people who I'm supposed to love and share the Good News of Jesus with.

Do I believe there are secret practitioners of dark magic who are making pacts with devils in exchange for supernatural power which they can use to put hexes on people? And do I think there are secret cabals of such people hiding in the shadows to take control of churches and government? No. I think that's lizard-people levels of silly.

Do I think it's crazy that a self-proclaimed pastor would go around claiming to talk to demons let alone say he trusts what one says? Oh my yes. I wouldn't step within a one mile radius of that kind of thing if I could help it, let alone trust such a "pastor" to be a faithful steward of God's word.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PloverWing]

I appreciate the reminder but I am having a hard time understanding the rules on this . Please help me if you will.
I just have a few questions if you can't answer them maybe someone else will.

1. This is a general statement not identifying any one on this forum or any group on the form specifically or any other church or group, who did I point out?

2. If I make a general statement hypothetically speaking of course and said anyone one does not do what the Bible states one has to do to be a Christian is not a Christian did I break the rules?

3. If I said one who denies Christ and follows Islam is not a Christian did I break CF rules?

4. There are also churches that have witches in them, that is a fact I singled out no ones church is that a violation?

I am not trying to break rules, I am trying to speak truth. Is that no longer welcome on. this forum?

I deleted the offending comment.

Thank you for deleting the offending comment.

Most of your list is exaggerations and caricatures, so in a literal sense, no church affirms your list of beliefs, and thus in a strict sense you are not criticizing any churches. But if we strip away the layer of caricature, I heard you saying that churches and individual Christians who

• leave abortion decisions to the conscience of the mother, guided by the principles of her Christian faith
• welcome same-sex couples and transgender people in their churches
• work for the well-being of immigrants
• strongly encouraged vaccination and implemented strict safety precautions during the COVID outbreak
• believe that we should try to slow or halt climate change, as a way of caring for the planet that God has created for us

are not true Christians. You must know that these are commonly-held views in the mainline Protestant churches in the US. You don't have to explicitly mention the UCC, the Episcopal Church, the Society of Friends, and so on for your readers to know which churches you have in mind.

By all means, express your disagreement. You probably think that the mainline churches are wrong about all these bullet points and about many other things, and that's fine. But I suggest that saying "The mainline churches are wrong about X" is different from saying "Because the mainline churches believe X, the mainline churches aren't Christian churches."

 

[Postvieww]

Can Christians have sincere disagreements on, let's say, the issue of climate change without one or the other being a false Christian?

Sure Christians can and do disagree on many things. I said: . 8. Using climate change as a fear tactic to gain power and financial wealth. This comment is clearly directed at the way our government leaders are manipulating the issue for political power and reliving the citizens of their freedoms, money and the ability to live their lives as our constitutional rights allow. People believe what they want to believe and anyone who chooses to believe we are all going to die in global catastrophe can certainly do that. Those who believe they are saving the planet by giving up their life styles , money and freedoms certainly can do that . My personal belief on this is simple, I’ve read the end of the book and we are all not going to die by melting ice caps or any other contrived fear mongering fiction. It is not within my pay grade to judge whether anyone is a Christian or not but I believe as a Christian I can point out things that do not line up with scripture. All of that said we should be good stewards and yes the planet is changing just as climate has changed in the past without man’s help. Man will not destroy this earth God will do that in His own timing and then restore it the way it was intended to be. It’s all laid out in the scriptures we would do well to believe what God has declared. God is far wiser than Al Gore.

 

[lifepsyop]

It's hard to take your criticism seriously when it just comes across as you saying what you don't like, and then trying to blame it on "Protestantism" like it were some historical boogeyman.

The point I was making is that Protestantism and Liberal Democracy are essentially the same theo-political structure, sanctifying Democracy as a source of moral power in the world.

Where Liberal Democracy goes, so does Protestantism, which means the church community has no choice but to accept things like mass pornography and the promotion of homosexuality... Why? Because it is the expression of human liberty and sacred democracy enshrined in the creation of our modern nation-states. Where the "Will of the People" go, so we follow. We are enlightening the world with democracy and social progress.

We might opt out of things privately, but as a church body we must never become "political" and transgress the threshold of sacred democracy and our great goddess Liberty.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And to clarify, while this is something that began with Protestantism, really all mainline western churches today fall into this new order, including Catholics. Just like how Republican Conservatives basically hold the values of leftists from 10 years ago. We are all marching to the beat of "progress."

 

[Postvieww]

Most of your list is exaggerations and caricatures

Now that is harsh. I disagree! I exaggerated nothing nor do I believe I inaccurately described the state of liberal politics by our leaders today.

so in a literal sense, no church affirms your list of beliefs, and thus in a strict sense you are not criticizing any churches. But if we strip away the layer of caricature, I heard you saying that churches and individual Christians who

Nice how you simplify and put a happy face on complicated serious issues. Let’s break them down just a bit.

leave abortion decisions to the conscience of the mother, guided by the principles of her Christian faith

Every individual makes their own decisions in life that is why God gave us free will. Abortion is taking a life. Convince me with eloquent words ( and maybe scripture) that God is not unhappy with that everytime it takes place.

welcome same-sex couples and transgender people in their churches

Yes all churches should welcome all people into their midst, that is why they are there. BUT to say any church or group of people puts a stamp of approval on anything God has spoken against in His word really misses the point, IMO of course.

work for the well-being of immigrants

I really don’t think that is the goal of our current crop of leaders. This disorganized, illegal chaos is leading to much human suffering and death. People drowning , being murdered, separated from families, sold into sex rings, being used by cartels to mule drugs, put into cages, the list is endless. This is not working for the well –being of anyone especially the immigrants who are just pawns in this diabolical political farce.

strongly encouraged vaccination and implemented strict safety precautions during the COVID outbreak

Your description here is not accurate. Vaccinations were forced any many cases. Forced meaning some had to choose between losing their lively hoods or taking an untested vaccine. Some of our brave service men were kick out for refusal, some of our health care workers lost jobs for refusal, many other workers were threatened with and lost jobs for refusal . That is not “strongly encouraged” by any definition. Recent numbers show more deaths are occurring now among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. Not to even mention side effects and deaths related directly to the vaccine. Don’t misunderstand my words here, covid is real. What I am saying is the handling of this man made crisis was used for financial gain and to gain power over the masses, PERIOD. We didn’t even get to the banning of effective treatments because they were cheap.

believe that we should try to slow or halt climate change, as a way of caring for the planet that God has created for us

I believe we should be good stewards of what God has given us no question. I just don’t agree with hypocritical leaders who want to take my car while circling the globe in their private jets. Again our climate is changing it has always changed since God formed this earth. Man will not destroy or save this planet read the end of the BOOK , that is in God’s hands. This is just another tool for our unscrupulous leaders to relieve us of our money and freedom. According to the alarmist of twenty years ago we should all be dead but we are not. It DOES NOT mean someone is not a Christian if they believe the climate issue as put forth by greedy power hungry men

are not true Christians. You must know that these are commonly-held views in the mainline Protestant churches in the US. You don't have to explicitly mention the UCC, the Episcopal Church, the Society of Friends, and so on for your readers to know which churches you have in mind.
By all means, express your disagreement. You probably think that the mainline churches are wrong about all these bullet points and about many other things, and that's fine. But I suggest that saying "The mainline churches are wrong about X" is different from saying "Because the mainline churches believe X, the mainline churches aren't Christian churches."

All I am saying here is every human being has the God given right to believe what they want and they will do that. I also believe it is every Christians duty and right to proclaim what God has said about all of these issues. God is the judge He will do the sorting of the sheep and the goats. I am not the judge of any individual on this forum or anywhere else but I am capable of opening the Bible and dealing with any of the issues listed above. Sometimes that gets people riled up and it puts the word police into action to shut it down, Facebook and twitter come to mind.

 

[Postvieww]

We are all marching to the beat of "progress."

2 Timothy 3​

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Liberalism *is* mainline Protestant Christianity.

The Protestant Church had its origin in a cohesive, collective, social movement away from the ideology of the Roman Catholicism. The Protestant Church was defined by their unified separation from the religion of Rome.

Today there is not a hint of Protestant Christianity collectivizing in any kind of resistance against the ideology of liberalism or the liberal democratic order that forms the ruling ideology of western nations. Liberalism is not even recognized by the church as a separate ideological or moral system, and this is because both things, Liberalism and the Protestant Church, are the same ideological framework.

Throughout the 18th-20th centuries, Protestant Christianity was basically diffused into secular progressive liberal government. This is why churches have no concept of organized resistance to progressive ideology, because it is their own system. Liberalism now operates as a kind of non-theistic Christianity, where the human liberty offered by the modern democratic order is unconsciously viewed as a kind of eschatological fulfillment. It is as if history has ended. All the necessary reformations and social movements of the past have reached their end goal, and there is nothing left to protest. The Church is now at rest in the kingdom of liberal democracy.

This is why there is such a strange resistance to churches organizing on a political basis, and a general church mandate to "never bring politics into the church"... Since the church order *is* the liberal order, it would be like dividing a house against itself. You do not socially organize against yourself.

Actually the Protestant Church is still allowed to collectively organize politically, but only against elements that are a perceived threat against the kingdom of democracy (e.g. Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government) Protestant Christianity instinctively circles the wagons when the true ideology of Liberalism is perceived to be under threat... but notice these churches are completely unable to organize this way in defense of Biblical theology. (e.g. a collective socio-political movement against abortion or the promotion of homosexuality) ... again, this is because Protestant Christianity *is* Liberalism, and it is a liberal democratic human right to abort children and teach homosexuality to children. We are all allowed to have our individual political beliefs in a liberal order, and this is the governing ideology of the Protestant Church.

This is also why there is such a knee-jerk reaction among mainline churches to the concept of 'Christian Nationalism'.... it is *not* because the church actually has a problem with the combination of church and state. The real reason is because the Church *already* combined with the national and international state of liberal democracy. We are *already* doing Christian Nationalism + Internationalism and this is now called Liberalism. See the Battle Hymn of the Republic, the World Wars, and the Cold war. These were all great theocratic-political wars framed as the divine forces of heaven conquering the forces of tyranny and evil, and what has resulted is the shining city on a hill; liberal democracy. Any new forms of Christian Nationalism are seen as a threat to an already established theocracy: the moral therapeutic state of liberal democracy.




Progressive Christianity

I don’t know if I would define any of this the way you are. Progressivism, the belief that government is the foundation of truth and its power is the real agent of social change and welfare is anout as anti-Christ as you can get. Progressives do not create institutions they take over over institutions as we see with mainline denominations.

 

[ozso]

I think a more clear way of defining liberalism in this case is calling secularism. Seeking to become more acceptable to the godless secular world and its humanistic philosophy. Or another way to describe it is the church getting in on being "woke". And it's not limited to Protestants. I see it being touted by Roman Catholics as well. Jesus makes it clear that the would is supposed to hate us for the opposition we pose to secularism and humanistic ideology.

When I see Christians on the same page with atheists regarding issues such as abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism and the like, I see the church becoming more and more worldly.