Post-Modernism and Liberal Christianity

[abacabb3]

As a former liberal Christian, I have a simple question: Why bother if Christianity isn't really true? If the Bible doesn't really say what it says, if it wasn't really dictated by God, why even continue with the charade?

 

[elman]

As a former liberal Christian, I have a simple question: Why bother if Christianity isn't really true? If the Bible doesn't really say what it says, if it wasn't really dictated by God, why even continue with the charade?

Why do you reject truth if there is other things written close to it that is not true? The Bible contains a story that God sent a lying spirit from His throne. It also teaches God cannot lie. What is so hard about understanding God can be depended upon to be truthful? In some places what the bible says is true and in other places it is not. Your assumption that one place being untrue results in everything being untrue is not reasonable.

 

[abacabb3]

Why do you reject truth if there is other things written close to it that is not true? The Bible contains a story that God sent a lying spirit from His throne. It also teaches God cannot lie. What is so hard about understanding God can be depended upon to be truthful? In some places what the bible says is true and in other places it is not. Your assumption that one place being untrue results in everything being untrue is not reasonable.

Granted, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but if its is broken, wouldn't you want a different clock?

I don't understand your position here. Do you believe that the Christian religion has the most right and unless someone can prove to you that Islam or Buddhism has even more right, you would happily believe in one of those religions?

Or, if you have an unshakable faith in Christianity, why are some parts of Christian teaching elevated above others? Under what basis?

 

[elman]

Granted, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but if its is broken, wouldn't you want a different clock?

I don't understand your position here. Do you believe that the Christian religion has the most right and unless someone can prove to you that Islam or Buddhism has even more right, you would happily believe in one of those religions?

Or, if you have an unshakable faith in Christianity, why are some parts of Christian teaching elevated above others? Under what basis?

My version of Christian which is focused on the teaching of Jesus that eternal life is possible only for those who are caring and concerned about others is more reasonable to assume true than Islam or Buddhism both of which I have studied. I have looked at the different clocks but the best clock I have found is the Bible which is broken, but still has some divine truth in it. I find some of Christian teaching unreasonable and therefore it is not accepted on the level of that I find to be reasonable.

 

[abacabb3]

Why can't you just start your own religion and tell others what they should really be doing?

 

[hedrick]

I accept that God actually sent the prophets and Jesus, and that Jesus actually came to establish the Kingdom. It seems to me that these things matter. I also think we have a good enough account of his life and teachings, his death and resurrection that we can become followers. However I use discretion when looking at what the Church, whether early Church or more recent, thought about him.

I don't see any reason that "literal interpretation" as currently practiced would be something he would endorse. He certainly didn't use an approach like that with the OT. Nor do I think the Church's high priority on having everyone accept a specific metaphysical doctrine reflects his own priorities.

That doesn't mean that the Church abandoned Jesus. It certainly did not. THere's much of value in both Catholic and Protestant traditions. But I check things with Jesus' own teaching and priorities.

I confess to being completely mystified by "if I can't use the Bible as a textbook for theology, ethics, and history it's useless." We manage to make other decisions with imperfect information. And Jesus seemed to be more interested in pushing people to come to know God than to answer all their questions.

 

[abacabb3]

I accept that God actually sent the prophets and Jesus, and that Jesus actually came to establish the Kingdom. It seems to me that these things matter. I also think we have a good enough account of his life and teachings, his death and resurrection that we can become followers...

This is a somewhat selective decision over what is canon and what isn't. It appears to me you take a totally historical view, so the synoptics are better than the Gospel of John and Paul should be taken with a grain of salt, etc.

However, what makes Isaiah in your mind more inspired than James or Paul? What makes Jeremiah better than the Book of Exodus?

I don't see any reason that "literal interpretation" as currently practiced would be something he would endorse.

Who's "he?" I presume Jesus.

Jesus' teaching on marriage is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. Jesus' teaching on the resurrection is based upon an extremely literal interpretation of "I AM the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, etc." Now, that is not to say every interpretation is literal, but the interpretations tend not to be totally divorced from the text and are pretty easy to understand.

Lastly, being that Jesus is God, He can decree truth, while we left to ourselves cannot exactly extrapolate truths without any clear basis in the Scripture.

We manage to make other decisions with imperfect information. And Jesus seemed to be more interested in pushing people to come to know God than to answer all their questions.

How do you come to know God?

 

[hedrick]

By definitions, prophets speak for God. Jesus, of course, does as well. I don't think there's any reason to think that the other Biblical authors have quite that direct connection.

Jesus quoted the OT, but he was often fairly creative in doing so. Of course he cites Genesis when he speaks of marriage. That doesn't mean he speaks on the Big Bang, evolution, etc. In fact in using Genesis that way he said that the Law about divorce wasn't God's original intention. So he's making varying judgments on different passages. I'm not in a position to do that, so I try to use Jesus' teachings to guide to in interpreting the rest of the Bible.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I'm probably more of a postmodern or "emergent" Christian than I am a liberal one, but as it happens I do actually believe Christianity is really true, that Jesus is/was the 2nd Person of the Trinity, and that He died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected on the 3rd day.

And even if I don't believe in the most literal possible interpretation of the Bible, I do believe all that's in it is there because God wanted it there for our edification. Nothing in the Bible is a mistake. Some of it may not be factually true, but so what? Some of it's poetry, some of it's prophecy given in terms of dream-like symbolism... and if Jesus is any example, and He certainly is, God is very fond of parables as a teaching method. All of it's there to teach us. I think one of the things it's supposed to teach us is to look for and find the deeper meanings and not just the literal, surface meanings, because if that's all we have, we very often miss the point.

Amen?

 

[abacabb3]

By definitions, prophets speak for God. Jesus, of course, does as well. I don't think there's any reason to think that the other Biblical authors have quite that direct connection.

Jesus quoted the OT, but he was often fairly creative in doing so. Of course he cites Genesis when he speaks of marriage. That doesn't mean he speaks on the Big Bang, evolution, etc. In fact in using Genesis that way he said that the Law about divorce wasn't God's original intention. So he's making varying judgments on different passages. I'm not in a position to do that, so I try to use Jesus' teachings to guide to in interpreting the rest of the Bible.

So, there is a priority of the Gospels over the rest of Scripture. Didn't Christ say, "the Scripture cannot be broken?" Which part of the Gospels do you elevate over the other parts? Do you agree with Christ that hatred is murder or that people are born with physical ailments so that God can be glorified? These are things that he said.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring
peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter
against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will
be the members of his own household. ( Luke 12: 51 – 53)

 

[abacabb3]

I'm probably more of a postmodern or "emergent" Christian than I am a liberal one, but as it happens I do actually believe Christianity is really true, that Jesus is/was the 2nd Person of the Trinity, and that He died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected on the 3rd day.

And even if I don't believe in the most literal possible interpretation of the Bible, I do believe all that's in it is there because God wanted it there for our edification. Nothing in the Bible is a mistake. Some of it may not be factually true, but so what? Some of it's poetry, some of it's prophecy given in terms of dream-like symbolism... and if Jesus is any example, and He certainly is, God is very fond of parables as a teaching method. All of it's there to teach us. I think one of the things it's supposed to teach us is to look for and find the deeper meanings and not just the literal, surface meanings, because if that's all we have, we very often miss the point.

Amen?

Nothing here is necessarily objectionable, but if the Scripture says for wives to submit to their husbands, to treat their husband as the Lord, because it is put pretty plainly, or you willing to accept that teaching?

 

[hedrick]

So, there is a priority of the Gospels over the rest of Scripture. Didn't Christ say, "the Scripture cannot be broken?" Which part of the Gospels do you elevate over the other parts? Do you agree with Christ that hatred is murder or that people are born with physical ailments so that God can be glorified? These are things that he said.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring
peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter
against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law – a man’s enemies will
be the members of his own household. ( Luke 12: 51 – 53)

You're posting in the liberal group. It's been my observation that most of us do in fact give priority to Jesus' teachings. Not so much the Gospels over other things as Jesus over other things. Remember, that most of us accept historical Jesus scholarship, so we don't read the Gospels "literally".

I think Mat 5 involves some hyperbole, so I wouldn't advocate life in prison for hating your brother, any more than I'd advocate cutting off hands or removing eyes. But I do accept his point that we need to look to our intent and motivation, and not just whether we violate any rules.

I think God intended to use his blindness to help people, just as he intends to use everything for our good. Was his blindness actually part of God's plan? Yes, although I'm not sure just how far I'm prepared to go in saying that God actually decided to make him blind. John tends to go a bit further than the Synoptics in the direction of predestination.

And yes, the Gospel does sometimes set people against each other.

Protestants have had a tendency to let Romans and Galatians set up the core of theology, and then fit Jesus' teaching into that framework. I go the other way. I try to set up a core theology based on Jesus' teaching, and see Paul's letters as dealing with specific questions that his congregation faced. I don't set Paul against Jesus, but I give Jesus priority.

 

[hedrick]

Nothing here is necessarily objectionable, but if the Scripture says for wives to submit to their husbands, to treat their husband as the Lord, because it is put pretty plainly, or you willing to accept that teaching?

You didn't ask this question of me, but I think a common liberal view on this is that we are dealing with someone other than Paul who is using Paul's name. We see a progression from the undisputed Pauline letters, which teach mutual submission, and recognize women as leaders, to Eph and Col, which teach a fairly soft kind of submission, to the Pastorals, which see women as untrustworthy because of the Fall. It's also possible to use fancy exegesis to try and defang Eph, Col, and the Pastorals, but in the end I accept a straightforward reading of their intent.

In this group you're not likely to find many who will regard every verse in the Bible as equally authoritative. Doing that tends to privilege the most legalistic view. For example, we see Jesus with male and female disciples, and Paul who recognizes female leaders, and a statement like 1 Tim 2:12. Conservative exegesis says take the explicit statement, and ignore or obfuscate the actual practice of Jesus and Paul. Liberal exegesis says take Jesus' and Paul's practice over statements in the later letters. Do this kind of thing with enough issues and you've got very different approaches to Christianity.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Nothing here is necessarily objectionable, but if the Scripture says for wives to submit to their husbands, to treat their husband as the Lord, because it is put pretty plainly, or you willing to accept that teaching?

Yes, but if and only if, it's presented with Paul's equal emphasis on a husband's duty to love his wife as Christ loved the church. Done in the proper spirit, I think that could work. But not many marriages, not even Christian ones, live up to that I'm afraid.

And I am not one to be giving marriage advice, never having been able to make marriage work myself. I was married once, briefly. It was before I was a Christian. The main issue, I think, is that we were both too young and stupid at the time, and weren't ready to be married to anybody.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

You didn't ask this question of me, but I think a common liberal view on this is that we are dealing with someone other than Paul who is using Paul's name. We see a progression from the undisputed Pauline letters, which teach mutual submission, and recognize women as leaders, to Eph and Col, which teach a fairly soft kind of submission, to the Pastorals, which see women as untrustworthy because of the Fall. It's also possible to use fancy exegesis to try and defang Eph, Col, and the Pastorals, but in the end I accept a straightforward reading of their intent.

In this group you're not likely to find many who will regard every verse in the Bible as equally authoritative. Doing that tends to privilege the most legalistic view. For example, we see Jesus with male and female disciples, and Paul who recognizes female leaders, and a statement like 1 Tim 2:12. Conservative exegesis says take the explicit statement, and ignore or obfuscate the actual practice of Jesus and Paul. Liberal exegesis says take Jesus' and Paul's practice over statements in the later letters. Do this kind of thing with enough issues and you've got very different approaches to Christianity.

And this also is true. I love Paul writings and respect him as a true apostle. But not everything attributed to him is necessarily really his.

 

[hedrick]

I should note that I'm not absolutely committed on the authorship question. There are a number of reasons that Col/Eph and the Pastorals could differ from others. Paul might have become more conservative with age. It certainly happens. Perhaps he worked with secretaries on the letters and some of their views are present as well. The main question for me is how to deal with differing approaches. The conservative position is to deny that they exist, but in practice to end up with the most legalistic or weirdest view, because it's the most explicit. The liberal one is to try and understand why they differ and pick something that we think would be characteristic of Jesus. There is judgement involved in the latter, but that's better than an approach that has a systematic tendency to pick the least likely interpretation.

 

[Sayre]

And this also is true. I love Paul writings and respect him as a true apostle. But not everything attributed to him is necessarily really his.

Correct,

Am I'm not sure it matters that much if there was one Paul or four. I read it to understand how the author was influenced by Jesus' teaching and culture and how that was applied - hopefully as a way to better understand Jesus teachings (not to better understand the author's teachings).

We can do this with "Paul" and his views on marriage which was influenced heavily by the idea of Jesus returning within a generation.

 

[abacabb3]

Yes, but if and only if, it's presented with Paul's equal emphasis on a husband's duty to love his wife as Christ loved the church. Done in the proper spirit, I think that could work.

Very good and very important point. A man is to be to his wife what Christ is to be to the church. Ephesisans 5 begins witht eh command to "imitate God." Marriage is a reflection of the Godhead, the Son submits to the Father, the the Son is the Head of the Church,

 

[elman]

Why can't you just start your own religion and tell others what they should really be doing?

Jesus did it first.

 

[elman]

Nothing here is necessarily objectionable, but if the Scripture says for wives to submit to their husbands, to treat their husband as the Lord, because it is put pretty plainly, or you willing to accept that teaching?

It also says we are to submit to each other. You pick and chose in your criticism.