Question about Moderate Churches

[Nova Scotian Boy]

I’ve studied sociology in religion in University for a bit and the spectrum different groups tend to go as follow.

Fundamentalists: These tend to be Christians that believe that women should have no leadership in the church and often don’t have them speak at all, there also against women wearing pants. They are often strict literalists of the bible. In most cases they believe that their own churches are the only true churches and most if all others are apostate, some still believe that the earth is round. They also tend to be very anti-catholic. There are varying levels of this group but these are some distinguishing factors of the extremists. These would be Independent Baptists, in many cases they are stand alone churches and not part of a larger group or denomination

Conservative: Big into the inerrancy of Scripture, often against women in pastoral roles, however open to some leadership. Some churches in this group would be Southern Baptists, some Pentecostal, and interdenominational groups.

Moderate: (As said before tricky and hard to define, ill mention more on this below.)

Liberal: Rejects doctrines like the trinity, virgin birth, resurrection ect. Ordains homosexuals in some cases and almost always women. Not that many hear would recognize it but churches like this would be the United Church of Canada.

I see your point, but I'm not talking about tolerance against blatant immorality. That should be a given that it should not be tolerated. The tolerance I'm talking about is between believers, and being tolerant and respectful of each other's personal convictions. It mentions the eating of meat - the one who doesn't eat meat should not condemn the one who does, nor should the one who does condemn the one who doesn't. And this goes for other iffy issues, as well (the "doubtful things" of verse 1). Things like dress code (whether or not women should wear pants, jewelry, or makeup), what Bible version to use, what type of music a Christian should listen to, and things like that. Christians are going to think differently on a variety of matters, and should not condemn one another just for having different takes on these (and other such) issues. That's what I meant by "to a degree".

I agree with you hear WannaWitness. Romans 14 is the center of my moderate leanings, although I find tolerating extreme liberal and extreme conservative hard at times. And I think the WannaWitness's above explanation is the best definition of moderate from a historical basis. The first moderate church was the Church of England, Episcopalian in the States. One Henry the 8th broke from Rome the English Church continued on still very catholic like in their ways despite no longer being connected to Rome. As this time went on many Protestant Christians returned to England after fleeing from catholic persecution before the break.
Along came Queen Elizabeth who wanted a state church but there were varying degrees ranging from Anglo-Catholic to Reformed Protestants. She made the Church of England a moderate church so although there were varying degrees in worship and certain theologies. The true fundamentals of the Christian like the trinity, resurrection ect were held by all in the church. This as time went on came to encompass Evangelicals who became very popular in England. That’s why I think WannaWitness has come close to what I think moderate Christianity is.

At the definition of the term can be fuzzy, for instance I’m moderate but I also consider myself evangelical. So id probable say I’m probable say I’m moderate conservative. I believe that it’s ok for women are pastors; I think old earth creationism and theistic evolution are not alright theories. I don’t think Harry Potter is leading children down a path of satanic worship. At the sometime I think the fundamentals of Christianity (Death resurrection of Christ, virgin birth ect) are indisputable. I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture however I don’t believe in the inerrancy of human beings therefore I’m open to hearing new interpretation of Paul’s letters ect.

 

[BenjaminW]

Moderate, would easily be the hardest to describe. Furthermore, one man's moderate church would be another man's liberal church.

I think most churches that could be described as moderate tend to take a more ambiguous stance on many issues, often leaving a wide variety in the positions on the individual congregations.

I'd think my own church, the Anglican Church of Canada would generally count as on the more liberal end of moderate, but still moderate. There are some (very) liberal parishes that will, for example, participate in gay pride parades, and there are some very conservative and traditional (often Anglo-Catholic), but most are somewhere in between.

Whereas, I get the impression the Episcopal Church in the US would probably count as liberal now, though I'm sure the position of both the ACC and the ECUSA could be argued for both moderate and liberal.

 

[WannaWitness]

I agree with you hear WannaWitness. Romans 14 is the center of my moderate leanings, although I find tolerating extreme liberal and extreme conservative hard at times.

The trouble with Romans 14 is the problem I have run into with various interpretations of that Scripture. We all know how it mentions the eating of meat... well, I have encountered some people who have thought that was only what it referred to. But I happen to think that it goes deeper in that many people don't realize the other issues with in Christianity that it can cover. We see many Christians arguing among each other about whether or not pants (I mean regular, normal-to-baggy pants) are really modest for a woman to wear, whether or not to read other translations besides KJV, whether or not to own a television set, what kind (or kinds) of music to listen to, what particular political party is the most "moral" (and the list goes on). The truly legalistic Christian think that just because they have a stronger conviction in something than somebody else does, it automatically makes them holier. But these convictions will always vary, no matter which way you slice it, for God made us all unique, and differences of opinion is all a part of it. Therefore, there are always going to be debates (as opposed to out-and-out bitter arguing) in these issues, and there is nothing wrong with this in its proper perspective. But we also must remember that there will come a time (when we're all face-to-face with God Himself) when none of these petty little differences are going to matter anymore.

Another thing some tend to think is that Romans 14 is being used as an excuse to "live like they want to live" (in other words, lukewarm, and part of the confusion and controversy over the word "moderate"). But this is not the case for everyone. I see Romans 14 as pointing out that "we Christians are all different" in the way we try to please and serve the God we all love.

Furthermore, one man's moderate church would be another man's liberal church.

A very good way of putting it. Once again, it all points back to Romans 14.

 

[Qyöt27]

Ironically, I've seen people try to use Romans 14 to condemn people based on legalistic convictions rather than using it as the archetypal passage on Christian freedom that it's normally understood as. It's the 13th-18th verses that do it, I'm sure. Even though the example there is clearly situational.

 

[Aibrean]

Socially or scripturally?