So long. It's been fun!

[BryanW92]

Attitudes that I don't find limited to any one particular political or theological ideaology.

Me neither. I see that attitude on both sides.

I guess I've just been lucky then (or unlucky) with my experience of receiving such attitudes only from one side.

We all only tend to "receive" it from one side. Some of us don't have the luxury of believing that our side is flawless and always correct. The biggest problem with Progressives is that they are never wrong, so the other side must be always wrong. Once you establish that bit of "truth" for yourself, then the other side is always the one with the extreme ideologies and attitudes.

 

[circuitrider]

Me neither. I see that attitude on both sides.



We all only tend to "receive" it from one side. Some of us don't have the luxury of believing that our side is flawless and always correct. The biggest problem with Progressives is that they are never wrong, so the other side must be always wrong. Once you establish that bit of "truth" for yourself, then the other side is always the one with the extreme ideologies and attitudes.

Funny, I'd have said that the biggest problem with fundamentalists is that they are never wrong.

 

[BryanW92]

Funny, I'd have said that the biggest problem with fundamentalists is that they are never wrong.

Progressives are left-wing fundamentalists. Not in religion, because many of them are atheist, agnostic, or anti-theist. But, they are fundies in their belief in the state, just as much as a Christian fundie is in his belief in the printed (KJV, 1611 edition) bible.

If you replace God/Jesus/bible with government/state/programs, you will hear the same kind of talk. And vice versa. (Not the same words, but the same certainty that an absolute belief in a certain manner in those three will solve all problems, and that any disagreement on any of the three is an unforgivable heresy.)

Christian Progressives are less fundamentalist than their atheist, agnostic, and anti-theist comrades, because they have to pay homage to the religious component of their social justice (e.g. the non-Christian Progressive says, "Take from the rich and give to the poor to end inequality." The Christian Progressive says, "Take from the rich and give to the poor to end inequality because Jesus says so.") But, both begin their program/ministry with "Take". I don't think Jesus ever advocated that action.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Funny, I'd have said that the biggest problem with fundamentalists is that they are never wrong.

Exactly! But they aren't alone in that view. I don't think that Progressives are necessarily as enamored of the state as Bryan does, but I do see them as being every bit as convinced that they are not wrong in their views, and therefore anyone who doesn't share their particular view is.

 

[circuitrider]

Progressives are left-wing fundamentalists.

Bryan,

I know what you mean when you say that Bryan but I think you are lumping a lot of people together and misusing the word "fundamentalist."

Fundamentalism is a descripted for a far right wing view. So to use the word "fundamentalist" with progressive or liberal is like saying "Nazi Communist" or "conservative liberal."

Also political and theological views are on a spectrum. Fundamentalists are more conservative than conservatives. Conservatives are more conservative than centrists. But even within groups of folks that would consider themselves "conservative" there is a lot of variation.

On the left wing front you have center-left, progressives, and liberals. I've heard arguments that progressives are more liberal than liberals but the way I've seen the term used is "progressive" has been often the term people use when they aren't quite liberal enough to be identified as liberals.

To make matters more complicated in the US conservatives and liberals both are more conservative in politics than they were a generation ago. Republicans now call things "liberal" that Ronald Reagan supported. And liberals now fail to support ideas that were cleary part of "New Deal" liberalism.

Also there is a difference between being a political liberal or conservative and a religious liberal or conservative.

I have a friend who is both a liberal democrat and a Christian fundamentalist. I don't know entirely how he holds those views together, but he does.

 

[Joykins]

I thought liberal and progressive were more or less synonymous.

While I certainly know and know of plenty of people on the left who are doctrinaire, there are studies out there that show that liberals in general are more tolerant of uncertainty and fear than conservatives.

In a functional society / community / church, liberals function as those who advocate for change, and conservatives put a brake on the bad ideas. When dysfunction appears the groups polarize, argue, and segregate. I think society-wide we are on a dysfunctional trend that is mirrored in our churches.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The origin of the term "fundamental" came about because there were people who simply wanted to identify what was foundational to Christianity. They believed that there were certain fundamentals that were held in common by all who were Christian. However, the key to being a fundamentalist wasn't as just about content; it was also very much about process. It wasn't about being liberal or conservative, though today we might think of some of their fundamentals in this way, they were not playing that game the same way it is played today when they created the term.

But what some Progressive do today is play the game the same way that those who created the term "fundamental" actually played it back then. There are Progressive who think that if you don't agree to a fairly narrow list of items that for them are key, essential elements to being a Christian, that one is practicing something else that may be masquerading as Christianity but isn't. When anyone begins creating a list of essentials (be it beliefs or practices) for what it means to be a Christian, a list that includes some and excludes others, they are doing the very thing that created fundamentalism in the first place. So, I have to agree with Bryan on this one, Progressive ARE left-wing fundamentalists. Progressives most certainly have their lists of what are essentials to be considered a Christian in their book, and they also don't have any hesitation about identifying those who don't conform to their list as people to be included out. And as far as the process by which Progressives arrive at these conclusions, nothing could be more in keeping with the practice of being a fundamentalist than these Progressives' behaviors.

 

[BryanW92]

Fundamentalism is a descripted for a far right wing view. So to use the word "fundamentalist" with progressive or liberal is like saying "Nazi Communist" or "conservative liberal."

A Nazi and a Communist are both Socialists. One is a Nationalist Socialist. The other is an Internationalist Socialist. That is why the USSR and Germany were at odds. It wasn't a fight between free market capitalists and communists. It was a fight between people who thought that Germans were superior and people who thought that the workers of the world should unite under one banner (coincidentally, the red banner of the Soviet Union).

In Europe, Left and Right do not mean the same as it does in the USA. In Europe, socialism is the default and the difference between left and right is just internationalism vs nationalism.

In the US, it is collectivism vs free market.

Liberal is another word that has changed over the year and is different on each side of the ocean. A classical liberal is today's conservative because liberal means liberty, the freedom to be an individual.

Now, Progressive has always meant the same thing on both sides of the ocean. A Progressive believes that the human race must progress and the roadmap for that progress can be found in certain 18th and 19th century books that declare that property ownership and profit motives are holding humanity back from achieving greatness. You hear snippets of that in terms like "job-locked" and ideas that we can all live off the government to allow us to pursue art.

The endgame of Progressive thought is admirable: people who can live for art and beauty instead of work, with all needs met by the cooperation of society through Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. But, the means to achieve that is pure evil. You can't create God's Kingdom on earth through the barrel of a gun or the edge of a guillotine blade.

This is especially true since an honest Progressive must first declare that God is dead, God never existed, or that God's plan serves the needs of the People. You can't confiscate wealth and claim that you are doing God's work at the same time.

 

[BryanW92]

In a functional society / community / church, liberals function as those who advocate for change, and conservatives put a brake on the bad ideas. When dysfunction appears the groups polarize, argue, and segregate. I think society-wide we are on a dysfunctional trend that is mirrored in our churches.

I can't agree with that statement more! In a functional society (like we had up until 2001), the progress demanded by Progressives, the compassion demanded by true liberals, and the parachute/safety net provided by the conservatives were a beautiful thing, like a ballet. We couldn't thrive without all three.

But, now the pendulum has swung too far. The parachute/safety net is declared bad (Conservatives are now terrorists, hostage-takers, assassins, racists, etc according to elected officials). And it will swing back one day just as far to the right as it has swung to the left. I'm right-of-center, to be sure, but I do not want to see a far-right government any more than I want to see this present far-left one. America works best when running down the center of the road.

Oh sure, you can repaint the yellow line on one side or the other and declare that to be the new center, but there's nothing there but shoulder and guard rails. The road is the road and the center is the center, no matter where the line goes.

 

[BryanW92]

Also political and theological views are on a spectrum. Fundamentalists are more conservative than conservatives. Conservatives are more conservative than centrists. But even within groups of folks that would consider themselves "conservative" there is a lot of variation.

On the left wing front you have center-left, progressives, and liberals. I've heard arguments that progressives are more liberal than liberals but the way I've seen the term used is "progressive" has been often the term people use when they aren't quite liberal enough to be identified as liberals.

To make matters more complicated in the US conservatives and liberals both are more conservative in politics than they were a generation ago. Republicans now call things "liberal" that Ronald Reagan supported. And liberals now fail to support ideas that were cleary part of "New Deal" liberalism.

English isn't a language with the nuances of some of the other languages that you have studied. We don't have 20 differerent words for "love" or "snow".

But, we are a technical language that the rest of the world uses for tech-talk.

Whenever I get into a discussion with a Progressive, they always pull out the "some are more Progressive/Conservative than others" card to make the claim that you can't call someone a Progressive because they aren't a "full" Progressive.

We should have a scale for political ideologies like we have for Calvinists. We have the 5-point Calvinists, the 4-point Calvinists, perhaps a 3.5-point Calvinist.

But, they are still Calvinists.

So, lets get the Progressives to make up a list of things they stand for, like the TULIP of Calvinism and then we can all count how many points of Progressive we all are. Based on the Progressive Party of 1912's platform, I'm about a 14 point Progressive (out of 20). But today's Progressive would have different planks since most of the 1912 party's agenda is already part of our nation's laws and culture. (I'll let the secret out: the Progressives already won! The contemporary Progressives think that their agenda is as good for society as the 1912 one. They're wrong.)

But until the Progressives supply us with the Progressive Spectrum, the status of a person's Progressivism is like pornography: you can't define it, but you know it when you see it.

 

[Joykins]

The origin of the term "fundamental" came about because there were people who simply wanted to identify what was foundational to Christianity. They believed that there were certain fundamentals that were held in common by all who were Christian. However, the key to being a fundamentalist wasn't as just about content; it was also very much about process. It wasn't about being liberal or conservative, though today we might think of some of their fundamentals in this way, they were not playing that game the same way it is played today when they created the term.

Hm, as I understood it the original fundamentalists were very much about not being liberal--as the original group of "fundamentalists" arose in response and reaction to the liberal theology and higher criticism of the late 18th/early 19th century, and while it was certainly an attempt to continue existing evangelical movements and drill into the fundamentals of Christianity, it was also an attempt to reject the use and integration of modern scholarly discoveries and methodologies into theology and Bible study. Therefore the original 5 Fundamentals were no accident:

* The inerrancy of the Bible
* The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
* The Virgin Birth of Christ
* The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
* The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross.

The original "targets" of the Fundamentalists were the scientific theory of evolution, "nonliteral" interpretations of the Bible (including alternative explanations of Biblical miraculous accounts), and alternate theologies of atonement. Only that last has nothing to do with the direction Christian Liberalism was going at the time (and it's only arguably fundamental, as it excludes vast swathes of Catholic and Orthodox theology--this exclusion was probably not a problem in the minds of those who formulated it, though).

Updated for today, the (Protestant Christian) fundamentalist adds to the above:
* opposition to abortion
* opposition to homosexuality

as markers of orthodoxy. If you don't believe me on this, look at what 2 topics are forbidden to be discussed on most of CF

I can't address the rest of your post because what you and BryanW92 see as progressivism and what I do are probably actually 2 different things (and in fact you may be more familiar with the proper names for movements inside the UMC than I am). I personally identify as liberal but I though progressive was pretty much the same thing. But I am very much not about being doctrinaire. I don't know all the answers enough to force them on everyone else...

 

[GraceSeeker]

I personally identify as liberal but I though progressive was pretty much the same thing. But I am very much not about being doctrinaire. I don't know all the answers enough to force them on everyone else...

I suppose like most people, I find myself a mixed bag more conservative on some things, more liberal on others. But I certainly like to think that I have the open mind to explore and seek new information without a predetermined outcome that was definitive of classic liberalism. I think that is missing among people who self-label as "Progressive." Even in the UMC, when I go to places that are for "Progressive Methodism", I feel a hostility directed at me for not toeing the already established party-line. I can be for the environment and open immigration; I can be concerned about over poverty, hunger, and racism; I can promote disarmament and elimination of the death penalty; I can even accept that gays have rights to establish families and be covered for healthcare and inheritances; but if I don't believe in ordaining non-celibate homosexuals in the church or performing gay marriages as a sacred church ceremony then I'm "a hater" and on that alone it is obvious that I "haven't done due diligence in my biblical scholarship" for if I had "then the only possible conclusion would be to arrive at the view every other intelligent and thinking person has" come to on the matter -- theirs. [Taken from an actual quote, that was "liked" more than a dozen times.]

Now, how can that be considered open, or representing a liberal-attitude? It is left, certainly. But it isn't liberal. It is just a locked in on an outcome as the most ardent fundamentalist. And if one doesn't pass the entrance exam by giving the expected answers, you'll not just get disagreement, you'll get ganged up on. Indeed about the only difference in the way many Progressives deal with those they disagree with from the way ISIS does, is that with the Progressives it's only figuratively speeking that you get your head handed back to you on a platter. At least for now.

 

[MystyRock]

I grew up in a Calvinist church. Questioning was not encouraged - if you had questions, then you must doubt and you weren't really one of the elect. I never really felt like I belonged - but I couldn't say anything.

Then I met a Methodist and found something new.

I've "officially" been a Methodist almost a year now and the God I learned about in that Methodist church is more loving and accepting than I knew possible.

 

[circuitrider]

The things is, if Calvinism were true then it would not matter if you questioned or not. You are either of the elect or you aren't. So asking questions or not wouldn't make a bit of difference. Even questioning if you are elect or not has no bearing on if you are or not.

 

[BryanW92]

I grew up in a Calvinist church. Questioning was not encouraged - if you had questions, then you must doubt and you weren't really one of the elect. I never really felt like I belonged - but I couldn't say anything.

Then I met a Methodist and found something new.

I've "officially" been a Methodist almost a year now and the God I learned about in that Methodist church is more loving and accepting than I knew possible.

The things is, if Calvinism were true then it would not matter if you questioned or not. You are either of the elect or you aren't. So asking questions or not wouldn't make a bit of difference. Even questioning if you are elect or not has no bearing on if you are or not.

In my new member class last weekend, my wife told the pastor, "I don't believe in predestination." He told her "You don't have to because God does."

No one in the class was coming from a Calvinist background and we all questioned things all weekend. No one ever even hinted that we should just shut up and get with the program. They told us that the only things that matter are the exact same things I believed as a Methodist, and that everything else is just details.

As circuitrider said, it doesn't matter if you question or not. The Elect are the Elect (if there is such a thing). And if it is all about Free Will, then we are still at a church with Christ at the center. I can't find anything in my studies about Calvinism that says that the Elect will only come to the Presbyterian Church.

 

[GraceSeeker]

In my new member class last weekend, my wife told the pastor, "I don't believe in predestination." He told her "You don't have to because God does."

First, I don't believe that God does.
I believe that God tell people not do eat of the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden and that they really have the freedom to not eat of it.
I believe that when Joshua calls the people to choose this day who you will serve, that they really have the freedom to choose to serve God or to choose otherwise.
I believe that when on the day of Pentecost the people asked Peter what they should do and he told them to repent and be baptized in Jesus' name, that there were those who recieved and those who did not receive his message, but that there were none who were excluded from the invitation by an act of God preventing them from receiving it.


Second, if God really does cause some people to choose him and others to not receive him. Then what is the point of belief at all? It isn't an act of faith any more than the water cycle is the result of molecules of H2O believing in evaporation and precipitation. It simply is a part of how we were created. Whether I end up in heaven or not is 100% God's doing. I can cooperate or I can resist, it doesn't really make any difference. Even on a moral plane there is no difference, for my actions are not of my choosing, they are a result of my creation and God's sovereign will toward my life. I am not a free moral agent. God and God alone is the only true moral agent in the world.

 

[BryanW92]

First, I don't believe that God does.
I believe that God tell people not do eat of the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden and that they really have the freedom to not eat of it.
I believe that when Joshua calls the people to choose this day who you will serve, that they really have the freedom to choose to serve God or to choose otherwise.
I believe that when on the day of Pentecost the people asked Peter what they should do and he told them to repent and be baptized in Jesus' name, that there were those who recieved and those who did not receive his message, but that there were none who were excluded from the invitation by an act of God preventing them from receiving it.


Second, if God really does cause some people to choose him and others to not receive him. Then what is the point of belief at all? It isn't an act of faith any more than the water cycle is the result of molecules of H2O believing in evaporation and precipitation. It simply is a part of how we were created. Whether I end up in heaven or not is 100% God's doing. I can cooperate or I can resist, it doesn't really make any difference. Even on a moral plane there is no difference, for my actions are not of my choosing, they are a result of my creation and God's sovereign will toward my life. I am not a free moral agent. God and God alone is the only true moral agent in the world.

A year ago, I agreed with you 100% on all of the above. Today, I agree about 80%. But that other 20% is the result of a lot of observation.

The things that I saw at two Annual Conferences made me doubt that its only free will. There were people there pretending to be Christians who were anything but. Oh sure, they were all for "building the Kingdom of heaven on earth", which is their version of an afterlife. But, they really did not see God as sovereign or Jesus as Lord. They only saw them as extensions of political causes on earth.

The other thing is my own brother. We grew up side-by-side with no religious upbringing at all. I became a Christian. He did not. I got him to start attending church by telling him the Good News every chance I got. He attended for about 2 months and quit. I asked him why. He just shrugged and said that "maybe God doesn't have a plan for me like does for you. There were people there who really believe that <stuff> like you do. I just never felt it." Now this is a guy with no theology whatsoever. He doesn't know Calvinism from Calvin and Hobbes. Yet, he articulated the basis for Calvinism just like that.

He really tried Christianity and it didn't take. I had no use for it, and actually found it disgusting and manipulative, and received a call from God while sitting on my sofa.

 

[GraceSeeker]

I had no use for it, and actually found it disgusting and manipulative, and received a call from God while sitting on my sofa.

To which you were or were not free to respond like your brother had?

 

[circuitrider]

The things that I saw at two Annual Conferences made me doubt that its only free will. There were people there pretending to be Christians who were anything but.

Bryan, I have known a lot of Christians who don't always do what God wants them to do. What you are seeing is human imperfection which actually has nothing to do with God's grace or if a person is a Christian or not.

I'm not trying to be hard on you but I want to give an honest Biblical warning, it verges on blasphemy to declare that you know that someone who claims to be a follow of Christ is not, by your own human judgment, a Christian. It is dangerous ground to tread on because you are claiming the power of God and the ability to see into another's heart.

Only God through Jesus Christ can declare that someone is not a Christian, we don't have the power to see in the souls of our sisters and brothers. As much as I dislike the behavior of some Christians, I have no authority to declare that they are not in Christ.

Also you have misunderstood Calvinism if you think behavior has anything to do with someone being of the elect or not. From the Calvinist perspective it was a choice from the foundations of the world and has nothing whatsoever to do with someone's behavior or even acceptance of Christ. Someone accepting Christ does not prove election nor does someone denying Christ because there is NO free will to do either.

Most Presbyterians, outside of a few groups like the PCA, no longer believe in full predestination because it is full of logical and Biblical contradictions.

 

[BryanW92]

I'm not trying to be hard on you but I want to give an honest Biblical warning, it verges on blasphemy to declare that you know that someone who claims to be a follow of Christ is not, by your own human judgment, a Christian. It is dangerous ground to tread on because you are claiming the power of God and the ability to see into another's heart.

Everything that a person says could easily be prefaced with IMO. I mean, do you really think that I believe that I have the power to absolutely see and decide what is in a person's heart??

I've seen you make almost the same declaration about conservative Christians. I say almost because you use a better choice of words. This is because you are a professional at using words with a lot more education behind you in choosing those words. My education is in technology, but I would not consider it a kind thing to do if I were talking computers with you and constantly belittling you for using the wrong terminology.