What exactly is a liberal Christian?

[Sunbeam]

Of course not all Bible stories are real. Did Abraham's son, or whoever it was, live for 600 years? Of course not! Anyone with a few brain cells can figure that out. A pastor told me that, too.

I've heard people claim pastors have said things like this before and I believe they are telling the truth. Priests usually, and Lutheran, Methodist

That is very sad. I don't think that I am the judge of what has happened then, and I do believe in the whole bible, even if several stories upset me, or seem strange. Miracles do happen, and so I have no problem believing anything that is written in the Bible.

What the real problem is it seems is when once christian ministers start claiming that the facts themselves aren't real, such as Adam and Eve, hell, Satan, long ages, then the commandments are the next to be questioned, and then its as if none of it matters. It doesn't matter what the Bible says on anything to them. I wonder why these people are pastors or call themselves Christians?

Isn't the Father God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit great beings beyond our concepts of time and space? Heck, they can make themselves be invisible if they so choose, and can fly even! Jesus did miracles and came back from the dead. If God heals people today and extends their life, then why can't their life be extended a couple of hundred years in the OT? So just why can't the bible stories be true - all of them.

 

[Sunbeam]

:::runs screaming, with hands in the air, whether clothed or not, whether on a building top, mountain top, or valley:::
=======
Just so you know, my above statement about being naked does not refer to also being on a mountain naked or in public. More like getting dressed in the morning while listening to radio or tv that gets too liberal.
I think that one can be too liberal as too strict. Either way, I concern myself with my life and my actions toward others. I'm not to judge their salvation.

 

[CSMR]

"God is not a liar, but God is a poet."

That's a nice expression, Crazy Liz. Popular "Literal" interpretation sometimes misinterprets spititual statements as empirical scientific facts. "Poet" is going to far though; but I'm not saying you're a liar, only a poet .

 

[Crazy Liz]

"God is not a liar, but God is a poet."

That's a nice expression, Crazy Liz. Popular "Literal" interpretation sometimes misinterprets spititual statements as empirical scientific facts. "Poet" is going to far though; but I'm not saying you're a liar, only a poet .

Fair comment, and one I would certainly agree with.

I certainly hope my expression not to be taken as saying a poet can never be factual. I simply reject the idea that anything that is not empirically true is a lie. Truth is more than empiricism, and I've found this sentence an effective way to communicate that idea.

Thank you for noticing!

 

[BarbB]

What the real problem is it seems is when once christian ministers start claiming that the facts themselves aren't real, such as Adam and Eve, hell, Satan, long ages, then the commandments are the next to be questioned, and then its as if none of it matters. It doesn't matter what the Bible says on anything to them. I wonder why these people are pastors or call themselves Christians?

Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. [16] By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? [17] Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. [18] A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

MT 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' [23] Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Jesus predicted that false ministers would deceive Christians and it appears to be happening now!

Nice post, Sunbeam!

 

[Crazy Liz]

I've heard people claim pastors have said things like this before and I believe they are telling the truth. Priests usually, and Lutheran, Methodist

That is very sad. I don't think that I am the judge of what has happened then, and I do believe in the whole bible, even if several stories upset me, or seem strange. Miracles do happen, and so I have no problem believing anything that is written in the Bible.

What the real problem is it seems is when once christian ministers start claiming that the facts themselves aren't real, such as Adam and Eve, hell, Satan, long ages, then the commandments are the next to be questioned, and then its as if none of it matters. It doesn't matter what the Bible says on anything to them. I wonder why these people are pastors or call themselves Christians?

Isn't the Father God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit great beings beyond our concepts of time and space? Heck, they can make themselves be invisible if they so choose, and can fly even! Jesus did miracles and came back from the dead. If God heals people today and extends their life, then why can't their life be extended a couple of hundred years in the OT? So just why can't the bible stories be true - all of them.

I think it's a travesty when ministers teach their flocks that parts of the Bible are not true. However, it may occasionally be important to look at the sense in which they are true, or to allow for different understandings of the sense in which they are true. That's really what my signature quote is all about. Does it really matter whether Job is a historical story or an extended parable? We read and apply it the same way, regardless. In other cases, it may be more important to understand the genre of a particular portion of the Bible. Somewhere here in the Christian Forums is a discussion of appropriate and inappropriate blame for Adam and Eve. Those discussing the story may have different opinions about the historicity of the story in Genesis 2 & 3, yet everyone is discussing it as a true story. I think this is because they all implicitly recognize it as true in some sense, even though they may not agree in their opinions on exactly what that sense is.

I agree with you that the Bible stories are true - all of them, even though some of them are fiction - for example the parables Jesus made up to teach a truth by analogy.

 

[wonder111]

it's easier to understand the truth when they are presented as stories and parables. I am fully convinced of my relationship with God and fully believe everything in the bible to be true, however not every part being literal. Many parts, absolutely, but I don't believe Adam was physically missing a rib as some people do.

This does not make me a non-Christian and for me to say who is a Christian and who isn't doesn't reflect the truth that it is God who knows the hearts of people.

 

[Jacob4Jesus]

What matters more:

How other people who do not affect your life but interpret the Bible differently than you

Or

Your personal relation with Jesus?

Many years ago, every Protestant was consider a liberal Christian because they were neither Catholic nor Greek Orthodox. When King James had a copy of the Bible translated to replace the Geneva Bible, this was liberal and most people wouldn't have taken a copy of that Bible. Yet now, most of the people in Protestant Religions say they are conservative and those conservatives seem to mainly use the KJV.

So to answer the original question, a liberal Christian is someone who in 200 years will be referred to as a conservative Christian.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

Jesus predicted that false ministers would deceive Christians and it appears to be happening now!

That's certainly true regarding those who would blame the 9-11-2001 attacks on oppressed groups, for instance.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

The liberal theological movement is rooted in rationalism.
Many of them did away with the supernatural altogether.

Rudolph Bultmann sought to reinterpret the supernatural/mythological parts of the new testament existentially in order that the "modern" man wouldn't think the christian faith was a premodern foolishness.
Ultimately, he doesn't get any further than the rest of the liberal theological contributors.
You still have a Christ who never was raised, no matter how you try to interpret the resurrection.
He's still dead.
Biblical theology parallels movements in literary criticism.
Sometimes that's good. Sometimes that's not good.

The term "liberal" has nothing to do with politics in this case.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

The liberal theological movement is rooted in rationalism.
Many of them did away with the supernatural altogether.

Rudolph Bultmann sought to reinterpret the supernatural/mythological parts of the new testament existentially in order that the "modern" man wouldn't think the christian faith was a premodern foolishness.
Ultimately, he doesn't get any further than the rest of the liberal theological contributors.
You still have a Christ who never was raised, no matter how you try to interpret the resurrection.
He's still dead.
Biblical theology parallels movements in literary criticism.
Sometimes that's good. Sometimes that's not good.

The term "liberal" has nothing to do with politics in this case.

Some valid points. By no means is belief in an unresurrected Christ a required tenet of liberal Christianity though. John Shelby Spong takes that position but speaks for few others in doing so. Liberal Christianity is probably best defined by what it is not, which is fundamentalism. Other than that it includes many subsets. BTW I've seen some posters here at CF refer to Pentecostals and Mormons as "liberals" which I'm sure is a surprise to many of them.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

lol, I guess that would be a surprise.

In order to be fair, I do not believe fundamentalism...well...let me make a difference between the word fundamental, which is not necessarily bad, and "fundie." If liberal theology errs to the "left," then "fundies" err to the "right."
That's my take on things, which isn't worth much.

 

[Fideist]

lol, I guess that would be a surprise.

In order to be fair, I do not believe fundamentalism...well...let me make a difference between the word fundamental, which is not necessarily bad, and "fundie." If liberal theology errs to the "left," then "fundies" err to the "right."
That's my take on things, which isn't worth much.

This might be another surprise. I don't think that "fundies" as you refer to them, necessarily "err". They have some different beliefs than I do, and say things that I don't necessarily agree with. Wrong? No. Different? Yes. For me? To invoke William James: Not a truly live option.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

If anything my language indicates my bias against liberal theology. I was attempting to differentiate between the neutral word "fundamental" and the radical fundamentalists who I believe swing to the opposite end of the pendulum. Where do you draw the line? Good question. But to be a little more fair to liberal theology, I wanted to say that you can go wrong, or exceed the boundaries of orthodoxy on the other end as well.

Did that make any sense?

 

[Fideist]

If anything my language indicates my bias against liberal theology. I was attempting to differentiate between the neutral word "fundamental" and the radical fundamentalists who I believe swing to the opposite end of the pendulum. Where do you draw the line? Good question. But to be a little more fair to liberal theology, I wanted to say that you can go wrong, or exceed the boundaries of orthodoxy on the other end as well.

Did that make any sense?

Sure! But then I'm a heterodox, pluralist, flaming liberal, pinko, commie. Not only that, I colored outside the lines when I was a kid! Just kidding about that last part. Oh! And the pinko commie thing too. I'm actually a pinko Democrat.

 

[La Bonita Zorilla]

lol, I guess that would be a surprise.

In order to be fair, I do not believe fundamentalism...well...let me make a difference between the word fundamental, which is not necessarily bad, and "fundie." If liberal theology errs to the "left," then "fundies" err to the "right."
That's my take on things, which isn't worth much.

That's a pretty reasonable take. Most people fall somewhere in the middle. I guess we all have our definitions of what is too far one way or the other.

We have one friend who is active in the Church of Christ (sometimes derisively called "Campbellites" by Baptists after their founder Alexander Campbell who spunoff from the Baptists because they were too liberal for him and his followers; people say C of C used to say everybody is going to hell but C of C ers. They are considered to be the most Legalistic denomination of any size but there is some peristroika going on there-the very spiritual pastor/author Max Lucado is a C of C er. BTW don't confuse them with the liberal Disciples of Christ or Christian Church or the mostly African-American Church of God in Christ). Her family has been C of C for generations and two sons-in-law of hers are in leadership. She has experienced much spiritual growth and would probably fit in better in a liberal Methodist or Episcopal Church, but she is not planning on leaving.

Once when we were leaving a restaurant w/ her we ran into some people from her church. They are raising a child who is a distant relative. After they left she said that kid could use special education but won't get the services he needs because the people homeschool because they are afraid of 'humanism' in the public schools.

IMO she is reasonable in her Christian walk, but those people from her church are blinded by an extreme view which evidence does not support.

 

[Pacigoth13]

Actually, using terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are ultra problematic in that they refer only to methodology and an "orthodox" doctrine could be either one depending on where it stands in relation to something else. I would maintain that it is more productive to make the difference between "traditional Christianity" and "progressive Christianity". Within traditional/orthodox Christianity there is a wide spectrum of conservative to liberal (for example, a liberal Orthodox Christian may be someone who listens to heavy metal while affirming Orthodoxy). Likewise, within the "emerging paradigm" is the same spectrum (for example, a Conservative progressionalist may deny the virgin birth and resurrection while maintaining that heavy metal is psychologically damaging though not "evil"). Obviously, words like "conservative" and "liberal" dont help us very much...

 

[wow]

 

[jbarcher]

Hi wow, I just came to ask, what do you define "judgemental" as?

 

[Shekinahs]

Blessings,

I think a Liberal Christian is someone who is willing to see the Bible and Jesus teachings beyond traditional doctrine teachings. They are willing to accept that some traditional teachings may be more of humankind's agenda than of God's. And they understand that there are some truths of God that are not current traditional teachings. (Does not make the truth any less of God though.) Of course without the constraints of traditional teachings liberals can be across the board in our views of what is of God. Being the esoteric that I am I'm quite the liberal

~ShekinahMoon~