My assumption about Liberal/Progressive Christians.

[RaylightI]

I'm going to feel free to share my thoughts about liberal/progressive Christians and Christianity, and please excuse any thought that may see inappropriate or offensive.

When I hear or read about progressive/liberal Christianity, I think of a group of people who abandoned Christianity, people who aren't serious about their faith, who try to believe in a Christianity that makes them feel good, without any guilt whatsoever. A Christianity that is okay with any sin, and where God is a fluffy and wishy washy being who doesn't have any authority. Where the people believe that the Scripture is an ancient book that is full of lies, myths, and have no authority on us. Where Jesus Christ is just a nice teacher, who happen to live 2000 years ago, but he is just a human, nothing more and nothing less, a prophet of some sort at the best. A people who love the world, that they compromised the Faith for the sake of people's approval. A group of people include Bishop Spong who is practically is an Atheist.

I don't claim that any of what is written above to be true, but I'm just sharing what I think when I hear about progressive/liberal Christianity and Christians.

Am I right or am I wrong? And why? Is there any good books that may help me understand Liberal Christianity? Please give me any advice you think may help me.

 

[Willtor]

I'm definitely liberal, and I'm definitely a Christian, but looking at your description, I don't think I'm a very good liberal Christian.

I think Jesus is the Word of God and that he's alive, and that God makes demands on our lives. So, the "fluffiness" is not obvious to me. In particular, the demands that I hear are much more stringent than what conservatives apparently hear, and I find them more directed at me than at other people or groups.

Regarding the Bible, I read it and I love it. I don't think it's free from error, but I also think that a lot of the problems people find in it are due to problematic interpretations rather than what the authors were trying to communicate. I also take Old Testament law pretty seriously (though, typically, not directly applied). There are passages that I think are convenient for people to write off (like the prohibition against eating pork, or sowing a field with two different kinds of crop) that fundamentally undermine free market capitalism and individualism and promote systemic protection of vulnerable groups and limit wealth disparity. So, the idea that a liberal Christian would reject the authority of Scripture is foreign to me (although someone else may think differently).

I'm pro-intellectualism, which I see as an expression not of intelligence, but of curiosity about what is real, and not what is comfortable or ingratiates one to one's "team." Along these lines, I give unabashed and unqualified support to science, which is often opposed by American churches and American Christians. Rather than finding approval for this, as one might infer from your description of "compromising," I have generally found myself alone. By faith I believe I'm not alone. But it sure feels that way.

So I find nothing familiar in your description.

 

[RaylightI]

I'm definitely liberal, and I'm definitely a Christian, but looking at your description, I don't think I'm a very good liberal Christian.

I think Jesus is the Word of God and that he's alive, and that God makes demands on our lives. So, the "fluffiness" is not obvious to me. In particular, the demands that I hear are much more stringent than what conservatives apparently hear, and I find them more directed at me than at other people or groups.

Regarding the Bible, I read it and I love it. I don't think it's free from error, but I also think that a lot of the problems people find in it are due to problematic interpretations rather than what the authors were trying to communicate. I also take Old Testament law pretty seriously (though, typically, not directly applied). There are passages that I think are convenient for people to write off (like the prohibition against eating pork, or sowing a field with two different kinds of crop) that fundamentally undermine free market capitalism and individualism and promote systemic protection of vulnerable groups and limit wealth disparity. So, the idea that a liberal Christian would reject the authority of Scripture is foreign to me (although someone else may think differently).

I'm pro-intellectualism, which I see as an expression not of intelligence, but of curiosity about what is real, and not what is comfortable or ingratiates one to one's "team." Along these lines, I give unabashed and unqualified support to science, which is often opposed by American churches and American Christians. Rather than finding approval for this, as one might infer from your description of "compromising," I have generally found myself alone. By faith I believe I'm not alone. But it sure feels that way.

So I find nothing familiar in your description.

I thank you for your reply, and again, apologize for any rudeness. I just thought sharing my thoughts as honest as possible, would help me and you to get to the best reply I can get to maybe get to know liberal Christians and Christianity better.

Do you have any book that you may recommend for someone who is interested in knowing about liberal Christianity?

 

[Willtor]

I thank you for your reply, and again, apologize for any rudeness. I just thought sharing my thoughts as honest as possible, would help me and you to get to the best reply I can get to maybe get to know liberal Christians and Christianity better.

Do you have any book that you may recommend for someone who is interested in knowing about liberal Christianity?

I don't know of any books in particular. I found some of the Church Fathers from the first few centuries pretty compelling. I also like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. But I don't know of any formal "liberal Christianity for beginners" book, or even if my views are generally normative among liberal Christians.

 

[Martinius]

I'm going to feel free to share my thoughts about liberal/progressive Christians and Christianity, and please excuse any thought that may see inappropriate or offensive.

When I hear or read about progressive/liberal Christianity, I think of a group of people who abandoned Christianity, people who aren't serious about their faith, who try to believe in a Christianity that makes them feel good, without any guilt whatsoever. A Christianity that is okay with any sin, and where God is a fluffy and wishy washy being who doesn't have any authority. Where the people believe that the Scripture is an ancient book that is full of lies, myths, and have no authority on us. Where Jesus Christ is just a nice teacher, who happen to live 2000 years ago, but he is just a human, nothing more and nothing less, a prophet of some sort at the best. A people who love the world, that they compromised the Faith for the sake of people's approval. A group of people include Bishop Spong who is practically is an Atheist.

I don't claim that any of what is written above to be true, but I'm just sharing what I think when I hear about progressive/liberal Christianity and Christians.

Am I right or am I wrong? And why? Is there any good books that may help me understand Liberal Christianity? Please give me any advice you think may help me.

Sorry to tell you, but you ARE wrong, so wrong. Progressive Christians are serious about their faith. Your comment about guilt (like several other comments) is way off base. Perhaps you equate the feeling of "guilt" with just personal failures and your own sin. But the guilt that we hear about in the Gospels goes beyond that to guilt for how things are, for what has been done to others, or not done for others. Rather than a "feel good" faith, I see a "need to respond better' faith. Jesus focuses on this throughout his Gospel; sorry you haven't found it.

I don't know of any Christians, progressive or otherwise, who do not take the Bible seriously. But again, your view of that term is apparently different. For example, I don't see any "lies" in scripture, but there are certainly things that are not factual in terms of science and history. But my faith is not dependent on a literal, factually correct Bible; it is dependent on the TRUTHS that are contained within it.

I also don't know of any Christians who "are okay with any sin". Never met one yet. All of us fail at some point and to some extent as far as sin goes, but that does not mean we condone it. Not sure from where you got this strange idea; perhaps you should expand your reading list to something beyond far right fundamentalist literature.

There are many people on these forums whom you would classify as "wishy-washy" Christians. But each of them has to agree to the theology of this forum to post in most sub-forums, which is the Nicene Creed. Now, we know there are different views on what the divinity of Jesus means, and when he truly became "Son of God", but none of my many progressive Christian friends have ever claimed to me that Jesus was just a nice guy, teacher and maybe a "prophet at best". You may be thinking of Muslims here.

Finally, I am constantly puzzled by those who stress the personal sins of themselves and others, but never really consider how they may be sinning against God and humanity by what they do, or don't do. The most self-righteous "Christians" often seem to never go beyond the personal dimension of what it means to be truly Christian and consider the meaning Jesus gives to being his disciple (see Matthew 25 about what Jesus says regarding the 'righteous" on judgment day).

Regarding Spong, I have read some of his stuff, and have found some interesting and thought-provoking views in it, but I do not agree with everything he says. I find value in almost everything I read, which covers a spectrum of theological views. In all of the more "progressive" authors I have read, none have ever insisted that I must accept and believe everything they tell me. But a few of the more "traditional and/or fundamentalist" authors have done so. Talk about laying guilt on others! They can do it to the max.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Sorry to tell you, but you ARE wrong, so wrong. Progressive Christians are serious about their faith. Your comment about guilt (like several other comments) is way off base. Perhaps you equate the feeling of "guilt" with just personal failures and your own sin. But the guilt that we hear about in the Gospels goes beyond that to guilt for how things are, for what has been done to others, or not done for others. Rather than a "feel good" faith, I see a "need to respond better' faith. Jesus focuses on this throughout his Gospel; sorry you haven't found it.

I don't know of any Christians, progressive or otherwise, who do not take the Bible seriously. But again, your view of that term is apparently different. For example, I don't see any "lies" in scripture, but there are certainly things that are not factual in terms of science and history. But my faith is not dependent on a literal, factually correct Bible; it is dependent on the TRUTHS that are contained within it.

I also don't know of any Christians who "are okay with any sin". Never met one yet. All of us fail at some point and to some extent as far as sin goes, but that does not mean we condone it. Not sure from where you got this strange idea; perhaps you should expand your reading list to something beyond far right fundamentalist literature.

There are many people on these forums whom you would classify as "wishy-washy" Christians. But each of them has to agree to the theology of this forum to post in most sub-forums, which is the Nicene Creed. Now, we know there are different views on what the divinity of Jesus means, and when he truly became "Son of God", but none of my many progressive Christian friends have ever claimed to me that Jesus was just a nice guy, teacher and maybe a "prophet at best". You may be thinking of Muslims here.

Finally, I am constantly puzzled by those who stress the personal sins of themselves and others, but never really consider how they may be sinning against God and humanity by what they do, or don't do. The most self-righteous "Christians" often seem to never go beyond the personal dimension of what it means to be truly Christian and consider the meaning Jesus gives to being his disciple (see Matthew 25 about what Jesus says regarding the 'righteous" on judgment day).

Regarding Spong, I have read some of his stuff, and have found some interesting and thought-provoking views in it, but I do not agree with everything he says. I find value in almost everything I read, which covers a spectrum of theological views. In all of the more "progressive" authors I have read, none have ever insisted that I must accept and believe everything they tell me. But a few of the more "traditional and/or fundamentalist" authors have done so. Talk about laying guilt on others! They can do it to the max.

I must say that I think you are fairly unique to have never met even one Christian that is okay with at least one particular sin. I've met quite a few and they each seem to have a different sin that they're okay with.

 

[Martinius]

I must say that I think you are fairly unique to have never met even one Christian that is okay with at least one particular sin. I've met quite a few and they each seem to have a different sin that they're okay with.

I don't believe I said what you claim. My response was directed to the statement about being okay with "any sin"' which to me meant all sin, not just one. But perhaps I misunderstood the intent of the OP.

Accepting that sin occurs, and that we fail many times in avoiding it, is not the same as approving of it. Some Christians (like all people) rationalize their sins, downplay them, see them as "everybody does it", or see some of them as varying depending on the situation (not acceptable to just shoot and kill someone, but acceptable to kill someone in defending your life or the life of others). There is also a hierarchy of sins, and in the Catholic Church there are mortal sins and venial sins. Many people "don't sweat the small stuff" when it comes to lesser sins.

I will agree that many people, rather than trying to reform their lives, do excuse their behavior. But this occurs across the entire spectrum of Christianity, not just with Christians who are considered progressive.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't believe I said what you claim. My response was directed to the statement about being okay with "any sin"' which to me meant all sin, not just one. But perhaps I misunderstood the intent of the OP.

Accepting that sin occurs, and that we fail many times in avoiding it, is not the same as approving of it. Some Christians (like all people) rationalize their sins, downplay them, see them as "everybody does it", or see some of them as varying depending on the situation (not acceptable to just shoot and kill someone, but acceptable to kill someone in defending your life or the life of others). There is also a hierarchy of sins, and in the Catholic Church there are mortal sins and venial sins. Many people "don't sweat the small stuff" when it comes to lesser sins.

I will agree that many people, rather than trying to reform their lives, do excuse their behavior. But this occurs across the entire spectrum of Christianity, not just with Christians who are considered progressive.

Please note, I did not say the behavior was restricted to any one group of Christians. We do seem to have been working under different interpretations of the phrase "any sin" .

 

[RaylightI]

Sorry to tell you, but you ARE wrong, so wrong. Progressive Christians are serious about their faith. Your comment about guilt (like several other comments) is way off base. Perhaps you equate the feeling of "guilt" with just personal failures and your own sin. But the guilt that we hear about in the Gospels goes beyond that to guilt for how things are, for what has been done to others, or not done for others. Rather than a "feel good" faith, I see a "need to respond better' faith. Jesus focuses on this throughout his Gospel; sorry you haven't found it.

I don't know of any Christians, progressive or otherwise, who do not take the Bible seriously. But again, your view of that term is apparently different. For example, I don't see any "lies" in scripture, but there are certainly things that are not factual in terms of science and history. But my faith is not dependent on a literal, factually correct Bible; it is dependent on the TRUTHS that are contained within it.

I also don't know of any Christians who "are okay with any sin". Never met one yet. All of us fail at some point and to some extent as far as sin goes, but that does not mean we condone it. Not sure from where you got this strange idea; perhaps you should expand your reading list to something beyond far right fundamentalist literature.

There are many people on these forums whom you would classify as "wishy-washy" Christians. But each of them has to agree to the theology of this forum to post in most sub-forums, which is the Nicene Creed. Now, we know there are different views on what the divinity of Jesus means, and when he truly became "Son of God", but none of my many progressive Christian friends have ever claimed to me that Jesus was just a nice guy, teacher and maybe a "prophet at best". You may be thinking of Muslims here.

Finally, I am constantly puzzled by those who stress the personal sins of themselves and others, but never really consider how they may be sinning against God and humanity by what they do, or don't do. The most self-righteous "Christians" often seem to never go beyond the personal dimension of what it means to be truly Christian and consider the meaning Jesus gives to being his disciple (see Matthew 25 about what Jesus says regarding the 'righteous" on judgment day).

Regarding Spong, I have read some of his stuff, and have found some interesting and thought-provoking views in it, but I do not agree with everything he says. I find value in almost everything I read, which covers a spectrum of theological views. In all of the more "progressive" authors I have read, none have ever insisted that I must accept and believe everything they tell me. But a few of the more "traditional and/or fundamentalist" authors have done so. Talk about laying guilt on others! They can do it to the max.

I didn't know that C.S.Lewis, Rowan Williams, Timothy Keller are "far right fundamentalist literature". Can you tell me from where you got the idea that I only read, or even read, any of the "far right fundamentalist literature" ? I guess judgmental attitude is becoming more popular than I thought.

When I started the thread, I apologized in advance for any harm may be caused. I just wanted to share with you my thoughts honestly, because I expected that you will be more understanding and less hostile. But I was disappointed unfortunately. I appreciate your reply, and it is helpful, but the tone you used indicates your anger and hostile reaction to what I wrote, even though I already mentioned that I'm here to get to know you guys. You started your reply with stating that I'm wrong, as if I said I was right. Nowhere did I say that I'm right, I actually indicated that I might be wrong and this is why I came here to find out. You need to calm down please before replying, or your will damage your own cause.

 

[Martinius]

I didn't know that C.S.Lewis, Rowan Williams, Timothy Keller are "far right fundamentalist literature". Can you tell me from where you got the idea that I only read, or even read, any of the "far right fundamentalist literature" ? I guess judgmental attitude is becoming more popular than I thought.

When I started the thread, I apologized in advance for any harm may be caused. I just wanted to share with you my thoughts honestly, because I expected that you will be more understanding and less hostile. But I was disappointed unfortunately. I appreciate your reply, and it is helpful, but the tone you used indicates your anger and hostile reaction to what I wrote, even though I already mentioned that I'm here to get to know you guys. You started your reply with stating that I'm wrong, as if I said I was right. Nowhere did I say that I'm right, I actually indicated that I might be wrong and this is why I came here to find out. You need to calm down please before replying, or your will damage your own cause.

You asked if you were right or wrong, and I answered the question. I also said I was not sure where your ideas were coming from and that "perhaps you should expand your reading list". I did not mean to flat out say that was all you read.

If I appeared angry or hostile I apologize. The points you made are right out of the list of assumptions that fundamentalists often bring up when attacking progressives (or even moderates, actually anyone that doesn't agree with them). Simply, it is not a black/white, either/or world, and that includes Christianity and other religions.

Finally, I have no "cause" to promote or defend, other than my own ideas and beliefs. I know I do not agree with everyone here on every issue and don't expect anyone to completely agree with me. So if I damage anything it will be my own credibility. Please don't attribute what I say as representing all progressive Christians.

 

[hedrick]

I understand the impression. It comes from differences in what we think Scripture is, and in our ethics.

We don’t think Scripture is a textbook or a book of laws, from which we can draw answers to all questions directly. Rather, we think it’s an account of how God worked with Israel and the Apostles.

The liberal Christians I know think God has authority, but they think we find God’s will by looking at the principles Jesus and Paul used, and applying them to today’s problems. That can produce different results than trying to find places in the Bible that contain answers. We’re actually applying the good evangelical principle of “what would Jesus do?” We think that by reading what he did and taught, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we can answer this. But it’s not always going to be the same answer as treating the Bible as a book of laws.

Note that disagreement on what we should do is not limited to disagreements between liberals and conservatives. Conservative Protestants and Catholics often have different answers. In the CF discussion group for Presbyterians there is currently a discussion of whether it is sinful to sing songs that don’t use the a Psalm as their text. So even conservative Christians in the same theological family can disagree, though their disagreements aren’t going to be as great as those between very different traditions, such as Catholics, conservative Protestant and liberal Protestant.

Liberal Protestants do care about sin. Many of us think that the US should take in at least a reasonable number of Syrian refugees, and that many of the arguments we’re hearing against it show that people are being led by their fear rather than faith. Turning away immigrants can well be considered a sin according to the prophets, though I don’t know anyone who is proposing allowing all immigrants with no investigation or limits.

We are not just concerned about social sin, but also individual sin. If look at how Jesus reacted to people, the sins that upset him most were sins by people who abused others, or even people who just didn’t do anything to help. His parables of judgement were all for that, not for the kinds of sins that conservative Protestants tend to think are most serious.

Many of today’s basic moral principles came from liberals. Cultural tradition allowed for abuse of women and children. It wasn’t officially approved, of course, but effective action really came from the liberal side, although everyone now agrees. In many areas of ethics today the basic principle is informed consent. This didn’t come from conservative Christians. I think liberal ethics is as demanding as conservative ethics. It just uses different principles, which in my view are more directly tied to Jesus’ teachings.

These ethics look fluffier because they look to the Bible for general principles rather than specific rules. But once you start looking at how to apply those principles to specific situations, they become just as demanding.

The problem, unfortunately, is that the two communities differ radically enough that what one group considers virtue the other considers sin. This isn't common, perhaps, but situations certain exist.

 

[Wgw]

I'm going to feel free to share my thoughts about liberal/progressive Christians and Christianity, and please excuse any thought that may see inappropriate or offensive.

When I hear or read about progressive/liberal Christianity, I think of a group of people who abandoned Christianity, people who aren't serious about their faith, who try to believe in a Christianity that makes them feel good, without any guilt whatsoever. A Christianity that is okay with any sin, and where God is a fluffy and wishy washy being who doesn't have any authority. Where the people believe that the Scripture is an ancient book that is full of lies, myths, and have no authority on us. Where Jesus Christ is just a nice teacher, who happen to live 2000 years ago, but he is just a human, nothing more and nothing less, a prophet of some sort at the best. A people who love the world, that they compromised the Faith for the sake of people's approval. A group of people include Bishop Spong who is practically is an Atheist.

I don't claim that any of what is written above to be true, but I'm just sharing what I think when I hear about progressive/liberal Christianity and Christians.

Am I right or am I wrong? And why? Is there any good books that may help me understand Liberal Christianity? Please give me any advice you think may help me.

Out of curiosity, are you the same Raylight who posts on ocnet?

 

[FireDragon76]

Hedrick makes good points.

I would also like to suggest its better to say that discerning God's will is messy and complicated- and perhaps that there are areas where reasonable people can disagree, than to suggest answers that are simplistic and wrong.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I'm going to feel free to share my thoughts about liberal/progressive Christians and Christianity, and please excuse any thought that may see inappropriate or offensive.

When I hear or read about progressive/liberal Christianity, I think of a group of people who abandoned Christianity, people who aren't serious about their faith, who try to believe in a Christianity that makes them feel good, without any guilt whatsoever. A Christianity that is okay with any sin, and where God is a fluffy and wishy washy being who doesn't have any authority. Where the people believe that the Scripture is an ancient book that is full of lies, myths, and have no authority on us. Where Jesus Christ is just a nice teacher, who happen to live 2000 years ago, but he is just a human, nothing more and nothing less, a prophet of some sort at the best. A people who love the world, that they compromised the Faith for the sake of people's approval. A group of people include Bishop Spong who is practically is an Atheist.

I don't claim that any of what is written above to be true, but I'm just sharing what I think when I hear about progressive/liberal Christianity and Christians.

Am I right or am I wrong? And why? Is there any good books that may help me understand Liberal Christianity? Please give me any advice you think may help me.

I have mentioned a few times on here that the reason I became liberal is due to how seriously I took scripture and my faith in college. That is why I stopped seeing scripture as merely a textbook of laws and facts, and started seeing it as a story about a God and His people written in a completely different language to a completely different culture, that wasn't even put together for well after it was written. There's different genres of literature with different purposes, and I began to see it as wrong to look at for answers regarding science (I was never really a good Creationist anyway, but that's another story).

I take God and sin very seriously, which is why I look at the context of Jesus' and Paul's teachings to understand what they are saying. When I looked at scripture says about morality through the lens of them, I learned that love is what guides the law, and that God desires mercy not sacrifice. The principles of the the law are more important than the letter of the law, and I think that teaching holds people to a higher standard. Jesus' teachings are not nice, easy, or soft. I don't find anything easy about "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Furthermore, Like Hedric said, when you look at the gospels and Paul's writing, God seems to be more concerned with sins between people rather than personal sin. Jesus' harshest words were for those who took advantage, abused, or mistreated other people, and not for those who were struggling with internal sin. He calls the Pharasees a "brood of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs".

 

[graceandpeace]

Lots of good answers here already that I find myself agreeing with.

I really like what Firedragon wrote about how discerning God's will can be messy & complicated. I don't think many contemporary issues or choices are easy to take a position on, morally or theologically - that is, I don't think Scripture is clear or always has an answer, & that not every situation has a black/white answer.

I feel like Mainline & progressive Christians tend to allow more nuance & compromise in a number of ways compared to my experience in more conservative churches. I don't think that means Mainline or progressive Christians are somehow less serious about their faith.

 

[hedrick]

One thing that may create the impression that we're not interested in sin is that we don't tend to use the term. We refer to abuse as abuse, lack of support for people who need it as lack of support for people who need it, etc. I would consider these things sin, even though I wouldn't normally use the word.

I recently checked the Gospels to see how Jesus used the term "sin." He talked about it a number of times. He talked about forgiveness of sin and other things. But he didn't seem to use "sin" to refer to the offenses for which he condemned people, either in parables of judgement or in his condemnation of the Pharisees. I don't know why not.

 

[FireDragon76]

I recently checked the Gospels to see how Jesus used the term "sin." He talked about it a number of times. He talked about forgiveness of sin and other things. But he didn't seem to use "sin" to refer to the offenses for which he condemned people, either in parables of judgement or in his condemnation of the Pharisees. I don't know why not.

The Old Testament tends to see sin as a pollution, and thus "sinners" must be chastised and excluded for the good of the community. I don't think that's the kind of spirituality advocated by Jesus. I would even go so far as to say the emphasis on sin that many historic Christian bodies focused on does not reflect what Jesus' actually taught.

 

[grandvizier1006]

See, that's what I don't get at all about you people. Sin is only what you "don't" do? I'm sorry, but under your definition I'm a terrible sinner. I haven't taken in any Muslim refugees, I haven't invited any illegal immigrants into my home, i haven't paid 70% of my personal income in taxes, and I haven't worked in soup kitchens. But honestly, most of that stuff isn't practical or possible for me at the moment. Keeping the Bible's commandments is, and I don't care how "oppressive" they might seem.

To us, all of the leftist positions seem like compromising with secular culture. To us, it seems like you all fear being persecuted and so you soften your stance on a bunch of things in response to secular liberals. But Hedrick, I know you often claim that your denomination is like this great progressive bastion that fights injustice and inequality in the church or whatever. But frankly, many leftist movements are or were secular, with the exception of the civil rights movement. And your liberal denominations collectively are too small to make any sort of change. Most Christians are conservative, even the "mainline" ones.

 

[SnowyMacie]

See, that's what I don't get at all about you people. Sin is only what you "don't" do? I'm sorry, but under your definition I'm a terrible sinner. I haven't taken in any Muslim refugees, I haven't invited any illegal immigrants into my home, i haven't paid 70% of my personal income in taxes, and I haven't worked in soup kitchens.

We're all terrible sinners, there is no one who is righteous.

 

[Willtor]

See, that's what I don't get at all about you people. Sin is only what you "don't" do? I'm sorry, but under your definition I'm a terrible sinner. I haven't taken in any Muslim refugees, I haven't invited any illegal immigrants into my home, i haven't paid 70% of my personal income in taxes, and I haven't worked in soup kitchens. But honestly, most of that stuff isn't practical or possible for me at the moment. Keeping the Bible's commandments is, and I don't care how "oppressive" they might seem.

"You people."

Again, I don't see this, "only what you 'don't' do," so I can't respond to that. But as to the other things you mention, God gives you the ability to respond (the "responsibility") to certain things and not others. Shirking these responsibilities is sin: "For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life." (Eph. 2:10, NRSV)

I'm guessing, though, (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that when you see the Bible's commandments, you see a set of apparently (though not actually) arbitrary rules and you try to follow them. That's not what I see. You see a prohibition against sowing a field with two different kinds of seed and conclude that crop rotation is sinful. I don't. I know what that passage is about, and it shapes the way I perceive the world.

To us, all of the leftist positions seem like compromising with secular culture. To us, it seems like you all fear being persecuted and so you soften your stance on a bunch of things in response to secular liberals. But Hedrick, I know you often claim that your denomination is like this great progressive bastion that fights injustice and inequality in the church or whatever. But frankly, many leftist movements are or were secular, with the exception of the civil rights movement. And your liberal denominations collectively are too small to make any sort of change. Most Christians are conservative, even the "mainline" ones.

Personally, I'm not especially concerned with whether a movement calls itself secular or Christian -- if it seeks to do the work of God (whether it knows this work as of God or not), I see that work as worth doing.