What are the faults of christian liberalism?

[Mustaphile]

There seem to be pros and cons to most things. We seem to have discussed reasons why we chose to be liberal christians. What would you consider the cons of christian liberalism?

 

[seebs]

Well, let's see. The same tendency to smug overconfidence we see in all other human belief systems... Hardly specific, but still present.

A tendency to gradually underplay the concept of sin until it's been totally ignored and forgotten. Doesn't really go that far, normally, but it can.

Reactionary hostility towards more conservative views.

 

[CaDan]

Too much head, not enough heart.

 

[Mustaphile]

You've put some thought into that, I can see. Much appreciated.

I'm trying to think of one myself. Perhaps a lack of common understandings is another. Instead of having a number of denominations dividing the community, every individual is his own denomination, loosely assembled under the banner of liberal thought.

A thought just occured to me. Did liberal christianity choose its label or was the label thrust upon it? Could we just as easily label ourselves is 'Christian individualists'?

-edit-

CaDan! Snuck that one in while I was typing.

Too much thought not enough heart....hmmmm....yeah, I suppose I can see that. Over-intellectualising seem to be a problem that exists in some forms of liberal christianity. Especially some that seek to find rational science based answers for all things christian and take all the mystery out of it. That's my thoughts anyway.

 

[AveMaria]

I'm not sure how to phrase this, so kindly bear with me.

I think Liberal Christians speak a different language, comparatively, and this can really complicate ecumenical or interdenominational dialogue.

The words we use to discuss religion, faith, and God can be very charged, and I do think we use some of the words very differently than others.

You could argue this to be a strength or a fault, I suppose.

 

[Im_A]

the one problem i can see with the extreme side of liberal christianity is maybe losing site of home. home, meaning the place where we found Jesus in the first place.

i am now looking at things like growing up and then moving out of your parents home. you get grounded at home, and then when you are ready, you move out and become your an individual. sometimes situations come up to where we have to go back home temporairly, but it's the same thing again. get grounded, and then go out and become yourself.

to ignore the place we found Jesus at, just doesn't seem healthy, but to stay in a denomination/church to where you are not being fed with the person you are becoming seems to be unhealthy too. so i think there has to be some co-existance, and sometimes i wonder when we got to the extreme liberal side, if we are only doing the same thing that pushed us away from conservatism, just it has a different face at that point.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Overextending refraining from judgement to the point of not being able to discuss sin.
Not always accepting who disagree with them, sometimes even those who are willing to put their disagreements asside to work together.
Disdain for certain styles of worship or devotion.

 

[Crazy Liz]

A thought just occured to me. Did liberal christianity choose its label or was the label thrust upon it? Could we just as easily label ourselves is 'Christian individualists'?

I would object to "Christian individualists." We need each other. Christ established a community of faith here on earth. I will not give up community for my individual ideas.

Too much thought not enough heart....hmmmm....yeah, I suppose I can see that. Over-intellectualising seem to be a problem that exists in some forms of liberal christianity. Especially some that seek to find rational science based answers for all things christian and take all the mystery out of it. That's my thoughts anyway.

Fundies are susceptible to too much brain, too little heart, too.

 

[Crazy Liz]

the one problem i can see with the extreme side of liberal christianity is maybe losing site of home. home, meaning the place where we found Jesus in the first place.

i am now looking at things like growing up and then moving out of your parents home. you get grounded at home, and then when you are ready, you move out and become your an individual. sometimes situations come up to where we have to go back home temporairly, but it's the same thing again. get grounded, and then go out and become yourself.

to ignore the place we found Jesus at, just doesn't seem healthy, but to stay in a denomination/church to where you are not being fed with the person you are becoming seems to be unhealthy too. so i think there has to be some co-existance, and sometimes i wonder when we got to the extreme liberal side, if we are only doing the same thing that pushed us away from conservatism, just it has a different face at that point.

Good points, TS. I sometimes think those who claim liberal sentiments without a journey that has taken them through a more narrow path don't really understand.

 

[McCravey]

the one problem i can see with the extreme side of liberal christianity is maybe losing site of home. home, meaning the place where we found Jesus in the first place.

i am now looking at things like growing up and then moving out of your parents home. you get grounded at home, and then when you are ready, you move out and become your an individual. sometimes situations come up to where we have to go back home temporairly, but it's the same thing again. get grounded, and then go out and become yourself.

to ignore the place we found Jesus at, just doesn't seem healthy, but to stay in a denomination/church to where you are not being fed with the person you are becoming seems to be unhealthy too. so i think there has to be some co-existance, and sometimes i wonder when we got to the extreme liberal side, if we are only doing the same thing that pushed us away from conservatism, just it has a different face at that point.

Growing up and leaving home is a very good description of it.

We leave the security of the nest and strike out on our own....and that makes us feel very vulnerable.

 

[Im_A]

I would object to "Christian individualists." We need each other. Christ established a community of faith here on earth. I will not give up community for my individual ideas.

i think it depends on how someone uses individuality. i mean if they use it to become a segregationalist, then yea, that is extremely off-key. but if they use it to be united with the breathern through our differences, then i think it is used for the good.

not that i am trying to argue or debate with you because i do agree with you, i just hope that as Christians change in their spiritual life, they don't use who they become in a negative fashion.

 

[Im_A]

Overextending refraining from judgement to the point of not being able to discuss sin.

i agree and disagree with that one. i mean i see the point of discussing sin, but i don't see the reason to over-extended talks on such topic as sin. "Do not burden your brother with your freedom." i just think discussion is appropiate when the other side is willing to receive it, kind of like the idea of "discernment". but i agree we must "critically examine everything".

so i agree with you, and then again, i kind of disagree, but i guess it depends on how such things are used.

 

[Crazy Liz]

i think it depends on how someone uses individuality. i mean if they use it to become a segregationalist, then yea, that is extremely off-key. but if they use it to be united with the breathern through our differences, then i think it is used for the good.

That is part of the difference between individuality and individualism.

Of course, we will always remain individuals, and individually, we each have unique gifts to contribute to the community. Individualism puts the interests and values of the individual above the interests and values of the group. If you have read Habits of the Heart, extreme individualism is considered by its authors the root of most modern American problems.

Probably one of the biggest differences between liberal and fundamentalist Christians is that liberals are more likely to listen to their brothers and sisters with whom they disagree, and are more willing to be persuaded to change their own minds, rather than only to try to change someone else's mind. Maybe the biggest.

Segregation comes from being unwilling to listen.

not that i am trying to argue or debate with you because i do agree with you, i just hope that as Christians change in their spiritual life, they don't use who they become in a negative fashion.

Yes. I realize what you mean. That is why I pointed out the difference between individualism and individuality. I think we mean the same thing, but need to use a clearer vocabulary. Maybe someone else will come up with some suggestions for even better words to use for these concepts.

 

[Im_A]

That is part of the difference between individuality and individualism.

Of course, we will always remain individuals, and individually, we each have unique gifts to contribute to the community. Individualism puts the interests and values of the individual above the interests and values of the group. If you have read Habits of the Heart, extreme individualism is considered by its authors the root of most modern American problems.

Probably one of the biggest differences between liberal and fundamentalist Christians is that liberals are more likely to listen to their brothers and sisters with whom they disagree, and are more willing to be persuaded to change their own minds, rather than only to try to change someone else's mind. Maybe the biggest.

Segregation comes from being unwilling to listen.



Yes. I realize what you mean. That is why I pointed out the difference between individualism and individuality. I think we mean the same thing, but need to use a clearer vocabulary. Maybe someone else will come up with some suggestions for even better words to use for these concepts.

well i must agree, we are speaking of the same thing but in different words God Bless you CrazyLiz!

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

i agree and disagree with that one. i mean i see the point of discussing sin, but i don't see the reason to over-extended talks on such topic as sin. "Do not burden your brother with your freedom." i just think discussion is appropiate when the other side is willing to receive it, kind of like the idea of "discernment". but i agree we must "critically examine everything".

so i agree with you, and then again, i kind of disagree, but i guess it depends on how such things are used.

The times were it bothers me is when someone asks a question seeking guidance. Instead of discussing the relevant issues to aid the person in discernment, some merely tell the person that they aren't supposed to judge or that we are all sinners. This doesn't help the one seeking guidance.

 

[Bonhoffer]

pros:
+ tolerance
+ focus on love rather than judgement
+ open minded
+ encouraged to think for ones self (reason)
+ person centred
+ undogmatic
+ love and kindess above rules

Cons:
- human centred (not Christ centred)
- importance of evangelism played down
- unbiblical
- pick and choose
- religious pluralism (all religions are true)
- lack of boundries
- moral liberalism/ relativism
- no judgement/ hell
- confusing doctrine of salvation
- downplaying/ questioning of everything from Jesus miracles to Jonah and the Whale to even the resurrection
-everything spiritualised/ a metaphor
- Bible not authorative

 

[Mustaphile]

You have some points in there that I think are good fodder for discussion.

I have no issue with the pro's. They are good ones.

Some of the cons seem to be looking at liberal christian thought, from a fairly conservative outlook and a few could only be applied to the more extreme forms of liberal christianity. I appreciate you taking the time to contribute. You have certainly painted a picture of what the worst kind of liberalism could be.

The con's that I think would be most contentious from the eyes of a liberal christian are these;

- human centred (not Christ centred)
- unbiblical
- religious pluralism (all religions are true)
- no judgement/ hell

The con below I think is a perception which misunderstands a difference in the way liberals approach evangelism.

- importance of evangelism played down

Thanks again for providing some food for thought.

 

[Rev. Smith]

I'm going to reply to bon's post next, but I though I'd weigh in with my own "con" first:

We sow doubt in those who need certainty. Many strains of evangelical Protestant faith offer as their main reason for exisiting a sure and certain faith. I have come to understand that even is I chafe under that yoke, I can avoid the yoke by staying within a creed truer for me. That does not alter the fact that many Christians need the doctrine of infalabiity and ineerancy as a sheild, it protects their faith and allows them to experience Christ as a spiritual undertaking. In essence, if compelled to approach the scripture as a book of questions rather then a book of answers, they may founder.

So to some extent we need to be more careful that with our questions and theological search, we do not place a stumbling block in the path of our brother.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Cons:
- human centred (not Christ centred)

I agree it would be bad, fortneatly I've never seen that in any of the liberal churches I associate with (doesn't mean it doesn't happen - but is thankfully rare)

- importance of evangelism played down

Don't see that much either.

- unbiblical

Have never seen that.

- pick and choose

Not sure what you mean.

- religious pluralism (all religions are true)

I don't know anyone who believes that ALL religions are true, but think that greator respect amngst religious traditions is a good thing/

- lack of boundries

????

- moral liberalism/ relativism

See this as a good thing to, morals are often relative, and the person is far more then the sum of their actions.

- no judgement/ hell

Most liberals I know believe in hell, and judgement - we just think Christ, and not us will do the judging.

- confusing doctrine of salvation

Faith, charity, Love and works arn't confusing, they're just a rejection of Calvin.

- downplaying/ questioning of everything from Jesus miracles to Jonah and the Whale to even the resurrection

Don't see much downplaying, but questioning everything is a good thing, otherwise we are abdicating our free will, and risking the sin of idolitry, by putting our faith in men, and their assertions of truth, rather then seeking God, and His truth.

-everything spiritualised/ a metaphor

Another good thing, everthing of the spirit IS spiritual, and there is an awful lot of metaphor in scripture.

- Bible not authorative

Most liberal Christians I know do consider the Bible authotative, we consider it THE authority of our faith, to which tradition and reason must find accord or give way, what many reject is inerrancy and infallability. Since those are the positions of only some creeds within the Christian whole, I'm not even sure that its a liberal trait. No one would accuse the Roman Catholics or the Continueing Anglicans of being a "liberal" sect, and they both reject those positions as well.

 

[cygnusx1]

Fundies are susceptible to too much brain, too little heart, too.

Oh I don't know about that .....