Question about Liberal Christianity from a Catholic

[Kurama]

Hey, fellow brothers and sisters in Christ!

I have some queries surrounding liberal Christianity. Do you take Christianity liberally, meaning that there are some parts of the scriptures that you reject, or do you align yourselves as politically liberal, identifying with the progressivism of the Democratic Party and the Christian Left?

Catholics tend to be economically liberal, but very socially conservative (which is why we tend to be split between the two major parties). In the eyes of the Holy See, a liberal Catholic is an oxymoron, for our views should adhere to Rome. A Catholic who takes their faith liberally is generally swiftly excommunicated... (such has been the case for pro-abortion "Catholics").

Personally I'm quite supportive of the Christian Left. Their calls for social welfare is very pious in the eyes of the Church, evoking the same humility and love of such personalities as Mother Theresa and Saint Francis. I would be far more comfortable with identifying with them than the rowdy Christian Right (however these are only for economical reasons, I would be excommunicated for supporting many of the Left's social views).

Thank you and praise God!

 

[Qyöt27]

It's...complicated. Some would see it as theologically liberal (although this can strongly depend on how one defines 'conservative' as it relates to theology - i.e. is it traditional orthodoxy or is it fundamentalism?), others would see it as being on the left side of the political spectrum, while others could very well be both theologically and politically liberal.

Even if it is defined as theologically liberal, this isn't a monolithic category - the most basic thing is that they're simply open to the use of Higher Criticism as a means of studying Scripture. There's lots of other disagreements that can/do arise between different groups in the liberal camp, with some acknowledging tradition but seeking to modernize in some fashion, and others discarding tradition entirely.

 

[SAT]

Hey, fellow brothers and sisters in Christ!

I have some queries surrounding liberal Christianity. Do you take Christianity liberally, meaning that there are some parts of the scriptures that you reject, or do you align yourselves as politically liberal, identifying with the progressivism of the Democratic Party and the Christian Left?

Catholics tend to be economically liberal, but very socially conservative (which is why we tend to be split between the two major parties). In the eyes of the Holy See, a liberal Catholic is an oxymoron, for our views should adhere to Rome. A Catholic who takes their faith liberally is generally swiftly excommunicated... (such has been the case for pro-abortion "Catholics").

Personally I'm quite supportive of the Christian Left. Their calls for social welfare is very pious in the eyes of the Church, evoking the same humility and love of such personalities as Mother Theresa and Saint Francis. I would be far more comfortable with identifying with them than the rowdy Christian Right (however these are only for economical reasons, I would be excommunicated for supporting many of the Left's social views).

Thank you and praise God!

Hello brother in Christ I am not a Catholic but still your sister I hope? I would if I was you keep out of politics (left or right) the church is in enough of a mess without bring the world in, do what I do, I tell my church it isn’t their job (the Organisation) to reach out into the community with the love of Jesus, but my role as a Christian, so once I see someone who needs help I just help that person, and tell them Jesus told me to do it, and if I don't find someone then I go clean the homes of some of those widowed elderly men who depended on their wives a little to much.
I am a girl so I suppose it’s a little easier for me as service is part of my role in life, but there would be children who would love someone to start a football team up for them, maybe you could do something with boys as many don’t have a male role model in their life.
Doing this keeps me busy so I don’t have time to get annoyed with the goings on in the church.

 

[hedrick]

I have some queries surrounding liberal Christianity. Do you take Christianity liberally, meaning that there are some parts of the scriptures that you reject, or do you align yourselves as politically liberal, identifying with the progressivism of the Democratic Party and the Christian Left?

First, theological liberals don't typically reject Scripture. I believe we understand it in its original sense. Please remember that for most of Christian history, Catholic interpreters took any parts of Scripture that were morally objectionable in an allegorical sense. Understanding everything with a historical form as inerrant, literal history is a Protestant approach, which not all Protestants accept. There are also issues on how we apply Paul's teachings on ethics, particularly sexual ethics, today. Again, I believe the liberal approach represents his original intention. There seems something amazingly ironic about turning Paul's writings into Law, given his own opinion about Law.

I used to consider myself politically conservative. However the Republican party has gone off the deep end, in my view, and starting with Clinton, Democrats became more realistic about what could be accomplished within budgetary and practical limits. So at this point I'm closer to a political liberal. I do favor limited government, however, and thus I'm really unhappy with a lot of what is going on. Traditionally conservatives were also in favor of small government and liberty. At this point it seems to me that Republicans and Democrats wants equally large and intrusive government. They differ slightly in priorities for what that government should do. I'm not happy with either party's list, but at this point I'm closer to the liberal version.

 

[Anto9us]

"."

 

[Joykins]

I am both politically and theologically liberal, but I am sure some folks here mix it up. This does not mean I reject certain parts of the Bible, but I approach the Bible as ancient, inspired literature as opposed to the fundamentalist "literal" approach. I would probably fit mostly into the Christian Left as well.

 

[KitKatMatt]

I take "Liberal Christian" to mean "non-literalist". I don't adhere to many of the things stated in the Bible, but others I do (specifically the words attributed directly to Jesus Christ).

I am socially liberal I suppose? Not sure. I'm also not sure how I focus on any other aspects (like financially).

Politics is a mess to get involved in. I try not to call myself a "liberal" or "conservative", they all have such negative connotations and once you're labeled it's easier for others to pick fights with you. So in that way, the terms "liberal Christian" or "liberal Christianity" are kind of unfortunate, because they sound like a political affiliation.

 

[hedrick]

OP: I'm not sure how aware you are of Catholic opinions in the US on social issues. You note that people who take their faith liberally are swiftly excommunicated. I'm not so sure about that. According to the polls I've seen, Catholics support gays. This reference (Report | Catholic Attitudes on Gay and Lesbian Issues: A Comprehensive Portrait from Recent Research) says that 56% of Catholics don't think it's a sin. I don't have data for Catholics by age, but in general teens are much more favorable than adults, so if 56% overall thing gays are OK, quite likely it's just about everyone your age. You'll find similar differences between Catholics and the hierarchy on other issues as well. On abortion, Catholics are about the same as the rest of the US population: 40% consider it OK. (Catholics Similar to Mainstream on Abortion, Stem Cells)

Here's a more general survey: New Poll Shows That Even Catholics Don’t Agree with Catholicism. Note that more US Catholics think the pope isn't infallible than think he is.

I'm giving you US numbers, because you seem to be speaking of US culture. I would guess that Catholics in China would be more likely to support the Pope.

To my knowledge, Catholic theologians basically have the same approach to Scripture that liberal Protestants do. Biblical scholarship crosses denominational lines, with Catholics, Jews, liberal Protestants, and agnostics holding very similar views about what the authors and original readers would have meant. (Conservative Protestants are obviously not part of this common scholarship. As far as I know, it's rare for Catholics to reject consensus Biblical scholarship.)

Differences in denomination come in how to incorporate the results of Biblical scholarship in theology and ethics. But in terms of our assessment of historical accuracy, etc., there's not much difference (except that agnostics would tend to understand any descriptions of God's intervention or revelation as not representing reality, and Jews would tend to do the same for the NT).

Catholics see Scripture as the product of Catholic tradition, and will interpret it in accordance with that tradition. Liberal Protestants do our best to take Scripture on its own terms. Of course no one is able to completely get rid of their preconceptions, but the liberal Protestant tradition has developed in large part because of new understandings of Scripture. So it is more likely than Catholic or conservative Protestant traditions to accept consensus Biblical interpretation in cases where a straightforward reading might not agree with tradition. E.g. recent confessional documents from my church (PCUSA) speak of the Trinity in terms taken from the NT more often than in terms involving person and essence, and they tend to define Gospel as Jesus did, rather than as Protestant tradition has done.

 

[Putres Omega]

Hedrick: Your comments on excommunication are right, for the most part, but it is important to remember the Holy See and the previous Pope Benedict did ask that Catholics who were unwilling to put the church before themselves on moral issues not be as Judas in her midst and excuse themselves from the organization in an address. Not exactly Magisterium level of infallible but a pretty stern urging from the Vicar of Christ, none-the-less. Still, US Catholics are a wild bunch and quite varied.

To answer the OP, I consider myself Catholic, at least culturally, as I am confirmed but accepted my own latae sentientiae excommunication long ago. Contrary to what one would expect, it actually had little to do with my being a homosexual and, at the time, had to do with the fact that I reject monogenism in favor of polygenism when it comes to Evolution. Sounds silly, I suppose, but I am Obsessive Compulsive in my thinking so I don't let things go until I come to some sort of understanding of them and they drive me mad unless I follow them to completion. Moreso, I simply can't reconcile human infallibility on any issue; it reeks of human arrogance (no offense, as all humans are arrogant, but I am very skeptical of any who claim to speak on behalf of God).

I fully checked out when I realized I would always put my own conscience and worldly evidence before tradition when it comes to how I see the world and my spirituality. I was raised Catholic so I do often wonder and used to worry I had consigned myself to Hell or Death, but now I realize that there is no bridge back to the old ways; I can't repent for that which I don't feel is wrong, thus true reconciliation is and will likely always be for me an impossibility. In short, I look at much of the Old Testament and even some of the new in a critical way, seeing them as containers of truth rather than truth themselves.

 

[Iosias]

In the USA politics is mixed in to the bag in a way that it isn't here in the UK, plus many mainstream Christians would be liberal by American standards. Added into this, one's politics may not be shaped by one's faith, so one may oppose abortion but believe it should not be illegal etc.

 

[XtianAgain]

In the USA politics is mixed in to the bag in a way that it isn't here in the UK, plus many mainstream Christians would be liberal by American standards. Added into this, one's politics may not be shaped by one's faith, so one may oppose abortion but believe it should not be illegal etc.

I personally oppose abortion when its used other than health of the mother, rape, or incest. But, I realize the complexity of the issue. Therefore I'm Pro Choice. In a sense I think my politics are shaped by my faith. But, there's so many schools of thought in Christianity its hard to say what is and what isn't. You raised some great questions Iosias.

 

[SAT]

I take "Liberal Christian" to mean "non-literalist". I don't adhere to many of the things stated in the Bible, but others I do (specifically the words attributed directly to Jesus Christ).

I am socially liberal I suppose? Not sure. I'm also not sure how I focus on any other aspects (like financially).

Politics is a mess to get involved in. I try not to call myself a "liberal" or "conservative", they all have such negative connotations and once you're labeled it's easier for others to pick fights with you. So in that way, the terms "liberal Christian" or "liberal Christianity" are kind of unfortunate, because they sound like a political affiliation.

Hi Kit.

We seem to be following each other around this site how are you?

I have checked Google yes I can use it now lol, if you are only reading those words that are attributed to our lord then that would be 2026 words, my bible is 774,746 words long according to Google, how is it we are both Christians (not believers but Christians), yet you can read your bible in 10 Minutes and it takes me a year.


Now I think this is important to my brother because in goes to the heart of his question ie. What is he standing for? And what as he to offer the world? now Christianity I believe has much to offer the world, but you can’t offer the world what it already has, and I believe liberalising the bible (sorry liberals) make the mistake that.
1. Following Jesus should be painless.
2. The bible must always make sense to my world view.
3. My Christian life has no bearing on my worldly life.
4. It matters not what I believe as long as I believe in God.
5. I passionately believe in God but don’t believe the bible or parts of it.
6. The bible has nothing to offer me it’s a very good book in parts.
7. Historically the bible has not been properly understood an I have now the proper meaning of it, and this meaning just happens to coincide with the world I live in.
I am not judging anyone or saying I have the answer either, what I am saying is my brother is being changed by the world as many have and the question is, have they simply took some or all of those steps above to remedy the worlds attack.

Therefore, my brother could;

Regain his faith, in that he re-joins his brothers and sisters in his church.
Become liberal.
Have a faith in the world and not a God.

I see it as degrees of faith.

So, so sorry if this offends, I know you are people of God, I just wonder if you find it difficult to put your complete faith in our lord that may mean a worse life than you could make for yourself, so you have perhaps become a hybrid Christian, and my brother in Christ doesn’t realise he is signing up to this.

And yes I do understand that there are different degrees of liberalism

 

[KitKatMatt]

Hi Kit.

We seem to be following each other around this site how are you?

I have checked Google yes I can use it now lol, if you are only reading those words that are attributed to our lord then that would be 2026 words, my bible is 774,746 words long according to Google, how is it we are both Christians (not believers but Christians), yet you can read your bible in 10 Minutes and it takes me a year.


Now I think this is important to my brother because in goes to the heart of his question ie. What is he standing for? And what as he to offer the world? now Christianity I believe has much to offer the world, but you can’t offer the world what it already has, and I believe liberalising the bible (sorry liberals) make the mistake that.
1. Following Jesus should be painless.
2. The bible must always make sense to my world view.
3. My Christian life has no bearing on my worldly life.
4. It matters not what I believe as long as I believe in God.
5. I passionately believe in God but don’t believe the bible or parts of it.
6. The bible has nothing to offer me it’s a very good book in parts.
7. Historically the bible has not been properly understood an I have now the proper meaning of it, and this meaning just happens to coincide with the world I live in.
I am not judging anyone or saying I have the answer either, what I am saying is my brother is being changed by the world as many have and the question is, have they simply took some or all of those steps above to remedy the worlds attack.

Therefore, my brother could;

Regain his faith, in that he re-joins his brothers and sisters in his church.
Become liberal.
Have a faith in the world and not a God.

I see it as degrees of faith.

So, so sorry if this offends, I know you are people of God, I just wonder if you find it difficult to put your complete faith in our lord that may mean a worse life than you could make for yourself, so you have perhaps become a hybrid Christian, and my brother in Christ doesn’t realise he is signing up to this.

And yes I do understand that there are different degrees of liberalism

I never said that the words of Jesus were the only words I follow out of the Bible. And they surely aren't the only words I read- I have read the entirety of the Bible several times (only takes about a month of on and off reading for me).

I'm not sure where you go with the rest of your post? I have stated my position to the OP about how I take the scriptures and what "liberal" Christianity means to me.

"I just wonder if you find it difficult to put your complete faith in our lord that may mean a worse life than you could make for yourself, so you have perhaps become a hybrid Christian" (sorry, it's difficult to quote properly on my iPad)

Please do not confuse being a non-literalist with not putting my complete faith in God. I am not a "hybrid Christian", I am a Christian of full faith.

 

[hedrick]

Hi Kit.

We seem to be following each other around this site how are you?
1. Following Jesus should be painless.
2. The bible must always make sense to my world view.
3. My Christian life has no bearing on my worldly life.
5. I passionately believe in God but don’t believe the bible or parts of it.
6. The bible has nothing to offer me it’s a very good book in parts.

Who among us would say that? The Christians I know in my fairly liberal congregration care very much about putting Christianity into practice in their lives.

I think there's a danger that because other people don't care about someone's particular hobby-horses, they think they don't care about the Bible at all. Interestingly, we see the same reaction within the liberal community when looking at conservative Christians. We have the same, equally unfair, tendency not to believe that conservatives could be serious about their Christianity.

To me what a Christian should do is to look at what kinds of things Jesus and the prophets considered most important, and emphasize those.

4. It matters not what I believe as long as I believe in God.

It matters a lot. Misplaced beliefs about God create an incredible amount of trouble around the world. I don't know many liberals who disagree.

7. Historically the bible has not been properly understood an I have now the proper meaning of it, and this meaning just happens to coincide with the world I live in.
I am not judging anyone or saying I have the answer either, what I am saying is my brother is being changed by the world as many have and the question is, have they simply took some or all of those steps above to remedy the worlds attack.

You aren't judging anyone? I find that a bit hard to see in your posting. Your whole posting is judging liberal as not caring about God or the Bible.

Perhaps you aren't aware that you're engaging in ad hominem. That is, you are assuming that anyone who doesn't accept your approach to Scripture is accepting "the world" rather than the Bible. But your approach to the Bible is a modern one, which neither the Catholic Church nor the Reformers accepted, though for different reasons.

(It's not quite as modern as some think, however. The current conservative (unconsciously) selectively literal approach to interpretation seems to have started shortly after the Reformation, as a way to address Catholic attacks saying that the Reformers' approach could never lead to certainty. The idea was to develop an approach to interpretation that wouldn't change or differ between interpreters. However in my opinion serious separation between Reformation Christianity and conservative Christianity didn't happen until new discoveries in science and historical study made the gap between the two wider than it was right after the Reformation.)

As you may know, the Reformation was based on a major change in how the Bible was interpreted. Previously only some parts were taken literally. Anything that seemed morally objectionable was interpreted as allegory. The Reformation was largely based on a new methodology, which tried avoid allegory and other subjective approaches, taking Scripture consistently in its plain sense, i.e. the sense which their original authors would have meant. Anyone who thinks the modern American selectively literal approach is the historically dominant approach to the Bible needs to read more Church history. In particular, read up on the 4 senses of Scripture, and the Reformers' development of the "plain sense" approach.

In fact modern liberal Christians are largely continuing the Reformers' approach, but with better scholarly tools for understanding what 1st Cent Christians would really have understood from Scripture. One of the key things that created the Reformation was new discoveries about Scripture, particularly including errors in the Vulgate translation. What separated the Reformers from the Catholics was their willingness to accept current critical scholarship. If you look at the history of modern American denominations, you'll see that the largest Lutheran and Reformed denominations continue the approach of the Reformers. The current conservative churches, however, have replaced the Reformers' willingness to follow critical scholarship wherever it leads with the 16th Cent Catholic approach of retaining traditional interpretation.

 

[SAT]

I never said that the words of Jesus were the only words I follow out of the Bible. And they surely aren't the only words I read- I have read the entirety of the Bible several times (only takes about a month of on and off reading for me).

I'm not sure where you go with the rest of your post? I have stated my position to the OP about how I take the scriptures and what "liberal" Christianity means to me.

"I just wonder if you find it difficult to put your complete faith in our lord that may mean a worse life than you could make for yourself, so you have perhaps become a hybrid Christian" (sorry, it's difficult to quote properly on my iPad)

Please do not confuse being a non-literalist with not putting my complete faith in God. I am not a "hybrid Christian", I am a Christian of full faith.

The point I was making was your point that "I don't adhere to many of the things stated in the Bible, but others I do (specifically the words attributed directly to Jesus Christ).

So there will be people who do what you do,

Others, will adhere to all parts but put different emphasis on the historical meaning of many passages.

Still others who take a more literal meaning ( that would be me and my brother at the moment).

I think it is important to my brother that he understands why and how this came about, I know your reasons, but importantly they are not reasons a man would need to take, so it would not relate to my brother, so He would understand you read/treat your bible in a certain way but would not understand that that reason may or may not apply to him.

You must remember he hasn’t got an option not to follow his bible he is a catholic that is a serious religion they hold to the historic line not fair weather people! I say this as a non-Catholic! But I understand the pressure he is under and his church, what you are saying to him would be treated very seriously indeed, he has to follow his bible, the best demonstration why he should could be the very reason why you don't! or why I do.

I would advise him to read and follow his bible, I would support him to do this, because he is my brother and I love him, and as you know I love you too, but part of love is truth, even if it hurts.

So brother ask any questions of me you wan, we can study together if you want to, I will not post here again as I don't think I can add more.

 

[KitKatMatt]

You must remember he hasn’t got an option not to follow his bible he is a catholic that is a serious religion they hold to the historic line not fair weather people!

(Emph added)

I assume that you paint me as one of these fair weather people with that statement.

I've tried to always remain civil in our discourse, but I can't deal with these offensive remarks peppered in your responses anymore. I will no longer respond to your messages in threads.

 

[Drudgeon]

I will not post here again as I don't think I can add more.

Please do come back and post! Only next time, please understand that you may not teach your brand of literalism in this section. Our arms are open in fellowship.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

First, theological liberals don't typically reject Scripture. I believe we understand it in its original sense. Please remember that for most of Christian history, Catholic interpreters took any parts of Scripture that were morally objectionable in an allegorical sense. Understanding everything with a historical form as inerrant, literal history is a Protestant approach, which not all Protestants accept. There are also issues on how we apply Paul's teachings on ethics, particularly sexual ethics, today. Again, I believe the liberal approach represents his original intention. There seems something amazingly ironic about turning Paul's writings into Law, given his own opinion about Law.

This. I am liberal about Scripture in the way that Hedrick describes. But I do believe the virgin birth, Jesus' miracles and the Resurrection literally happened as described in the Gospels.

Politically and socially, I am libertarian and a Libertarian Party member. Because I believe in strict adherence to the Constitution, and in small government and low taxes, if I can't vote Libertarian, I'll usually vote Republican, but I will not vote for a "Religious Right" Republican, not anymore. After the 2012 primaries, I have a zero tolerance policy toward dominionism, theonomy, Christian Reconstructionism, and all other tendencies toward theocracy.

 

[Anto9us]

O

 

[Skala]

I am both politically and theologically liberal, but I am sure some folks here mix it up. This does not mean I reject certain parts of the Bible, but I approach the Bible as ancient, inspired literature as opposed to the fundamentalist "literal" approach. I would probably fit mostly into the Christian Left as well.

If it's inspired, does it matter if it's ancient or 2 weeks old? If it's inspired, isn't it literal?

Maybe you're using "inspired" differently than the way I'm understanding it?