Why do you consider yourself a 'liberal' Christian?

[datan]

just curious.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Me?

Because "The Bible says..." is the beginning of debate, not its end.
Because all language used about God is imprecise, metaphorical and provisional, and therefore old ways to talk about God can become misleading as our frame of reference changes, and we must find new ways.
Because conscience cannot be taken prisoner by literalism
Because inerrancy and infallibility are not useful concepts, because even if the Bible texts were one or the other, none of our interpretations are.
Because God is a rational, reasoning and creative being, and made us in His image.

Just some reasons.

 

[seebs]

Well, apart from my positions on the Topics Which Must Not Be Named (TWMNBN, hereafter)...

I believe that it is possible that I am wrong. I believe that the Bible requires long and careful study, and that a naive reading in English could leave me with outright false beliefs. I believe that, as Paul taught, "we see through a glass, darkly"; I do not believe that any living human knows God fully, and I do not believe that certainty and arrogance are becoming.

As I pointed out in my thread about our founder... I believe that Christ called us to welcome the lost, the unwelcome, the weary, the outcasts. My personal ministry is to outcasts.

I believe that if, whenever there were outcasts, there were Christians standing with them in solidarity, there would be fewer outcasts and more Christians.

So... If a friend of mine screws up morally, I don't condemn him. I try to be the person he can talk to safely, without being attacked. I might, depending on timing, talk to him about reasons to avoid acting that way... But I mostly try to get him to a state where he's gonna be ready to listen when God wants to talk to him about that.

Convicting people of their sins is God's job. I can't fill those shoes. What I can do is comfort people, and try to remind them that they are loved anyway.

 

[Plan 9]

I don't consider myself a particularly "liberal" Christian, but am considered so by many CF members, and not in a good way, as they have made that abundantly clear.
I'm sorry to say that I don't qualify to post here.

I hope everyone who feels they do has a fruitful and enjoyable experience here, though.

Live long and prosper!
~Planny

 

[chalice_thunder]

The reasons I am a liberal Christian include all of the things Karl and seebs said. AND mostly because there is a place for EVERYBODY at the table. In my church, even conservative literalists are welcomed in hospitality with open hearts and arms. (Not too many in our midst, but there are some! And I am glad for their presence)

I am so grateful to God that we have such a church.

 

[PaladinValer]

Why I consider myself a moderate (progressive) Christian:

1. I do not necessarily take the Bible 100% literally, but I do take everything the Bible says seriously.
2. When I read the Bible, I always take into context the linguistics, history, anthropology, theological situation, and more as well as meditating on the Scripture and allowing the Holy Spirit to guide me. I don't believe that a "blind" literalist reading is best, but I don't believe that purely acedemic understanding is going to be enough either.
3. I do not let new discoveries made by science, archaeology, etc, effect my faith in the Scriptures. This is because...
4. ...I believe that the Bible is useful and authoritative in all matters of faith, doctrine, and salvation. I do not use it as a scientific or historical handbook, nor do I ignore what valid historical events take place within its sacred pages.
5. I read the Bible under a Christian and a Jewish context. A Jewish context is important mainly because the OT and many of the books of the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha are Jewish. The OT (Tanakh) is primarily Jewish, not Christian. As such, I believe I have a richer understanding of it than those who choose to only look at it through a Christian's perspective.
6. I place my primary emphasis on the Gospels and Acts first, then the Epistles and Revelation, and then the OT and Deuterocanon. I realize that I, as a Christian, am free from the ritual purity laws of the Torah as well as other things as well. They are important as a historical and theological context for the Christian Message, but I am no longer required to follow them.
7. I believe that the early history of Christian is vital to learn. As the Bible was not canonized until hundreds of years after Pentecost, the Church is of prime importance and therefore its trials and times must be studied from Pentecost through the Ecumenical Councils as this was when orthodoxy was established. During those times, it and not the Bible was the source of all authority, and as such, had orthodox interpretations of what the Bible passages meant because it canonized the Scriptures.
8. I make myself well aware of all heresies and all creeds; Apostle's, Nicean, and St. Athanasius'. This is because, again, during those times, it and not the Bible was the source of all authority, and as such, had orthodox interpretations of what the Bible passages meant.
9. I do not let my religious beliefs necessarily sway my political beliefs, nor do I believe I should thrust them upon those. I witness to those who seek, but try to be Christ-like at all times which expresses my faith; the best witness I got.
10. I do not simply "stop" when I think I know it all. I realize Christianity is not supposed to be easy. I reject the idea of "saved and sealed;" one heart-felt Sinner's Prayer nor one's proclaimation of faith to the Lord is, IMO, not enough to make one truly saved. It is a long process of acknowledgement, practice, penance, reconciliation, and learning that never ends. I do not make my faith wishy-washy nor do I simply say "Lord Lord" outside or inside church every 5 seconds; I believe it is fluffy worship. I choose to take my religion/relationship with Jesus very seriously; He is not just a "buddy," but a parent as well, the latter much, much more than the former.

 

[CaDan]

I don't consider myself a particularly "liberal" Christian, but am considered so by many CF members, and not in a good way, as they have made that abundantly clear.
I'm sorry to say that I don't qualify to post here.

Why not? We ain't got a bunch of stinking rules here. Hear the sh'ma and love your neighbor, that's it.

If you are

considered so by many CF members, and not in a good way

then you are already in exile. Welcome aboard!

Liberal Churches: We take in strays.

 

[Firefly]

Because it's not only become abundantly
clear in life, but also during my short stay here, that I simply have nowhere
else to go.

 

[Polycarp1]

I don't consider myself a particularly "liberal" Christian, but am considered so by many CF members, and not in a good way, as they have made that abundantly clear.
I'm sorry to say that I don't qualify to post here.

I hope everyone who feels they do has a fruitful and enjoyable experience here, though.

Live long and prosper!
~Planny

Lady, your compassion above all, and your willingness to talk sense and apply scholarship to discussions, make you the patron saint of "Liberal Christianity" on this board. If anybody (other than Seebs) belongs here, it's you!

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Me and seebs pretty much share the same stance on why I personally am a liberal Christian, though I must ask what is a 'progressive', I've never heard of such a term used as anything other than implying small steps towards a goal.

 

[seebs]

Me and seebs pretty much share the same stance on why I personally am a liberal Christian, though I must ask what is a 'progressive', I've never heard of such a term used as anything other than implying small steps towards a goal.

Many people believe that Christianity is still growing and improving; honestly, I tend to believe this too. I believe that abandoning slavery was a step towards what God wants us to be, for instance. I suspect there are many more steps.

 

[CaDan]

A homily by a real live Catholic priest on the issue of "progress"

http://www.stjoan.com/homilies4/george2.8.04.htm

 

[Cordelia]

My Christianity is a search for the truth, and after actually looking around at God's creation, my conclusions so far have naturally aligned themselves with all things 'liberal'. Plus as Karl said, because "the Bible says" most certainly is the beginning of debate and not the end. Sorry for paraphrasing

 

[Treasure the Questions]

Mostly I consider myself simply to be a Christian, whose views are on the liberal side of evangelical and sometimes they would not be acceptable to the Evangelical Alliance of Great Britain, although I think that some individual evangelicals in Britain can be fairly liberal these days.

I'm not bothered what denomination anyone belongs to. As long as they believe Jesus is the Son of God and one or two other basics, then it's not for me to argue they are not a Christian. For myself I believe we are called to show God's love to all in practical ways, to love justice and walk humbly with our God and that sort of thing, not that I manage to live up to it.

Karin

 

[Toney]

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

Albert Einstein wrote that.

Hegel taught that God is pure reason and that by reasoning we approach the mind of God.

God has spoken (to us) and we have a response-ability. Dogmatic religions have doused our ability to respond by flooding us with too much "truth." I cannot handle exclusive notions of truth so I am a Liberal Christian.

As Joseph Campbell noted, our clergy preaches on the ethics of good and evil whilst ignoring the connotations of our spiritual metaphors, like the Trinity. The Trinity is not God, it is our feeble attempt to understand how God works in the world.

 

[chalice_thunder]

Why not? We ain't got a bunch of stinking rules here. Hear the sh'ma and love your neighbor, that's it.

If you are then you are already in exile. Welcome aboard!

Liberal Churches: We take in strays.

AMEN to that, bro!!

 

[Polycarp1]

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

Albert Einstein wrote that.

Hegel taught that God is pure reason and that by reasoning we approach the mind of God.

God has spoken (to us) and we have a response-ability. Dogmatic religions have doused our ability to respond by flooding us with too much "truth." I cannot handle exclusive notions of truth so I am a Liberal Christian.

As Joseph Campbell noted, our clergy preaches on the ethics of good and evil whilst ignoring the connotations of our spiritual metaphors, like the Trinity. The Trinity is not God, it is our feeble attempt to understand how God works in the world.

Well, yeah.

Some years ago, J.B. Phillips wrote a book whose point was entirely in its title: Your God Is Too Small. And it went into careful exploration of the various conceptions that people have of God -- Almighty Emperor of All, "Santa Claus," Spirit Guide, and the rest, and showed how God is greater than any conception that we can have of Him.

While I know what you meant by "...ignoring the connotations of our spiritual metaphors, like the Trinity. The Trinity is not God, it is our feeble attempt to understand how God works in the world," better would be to say that the Holy Trinity is the best approximation we have at the moment to God as we are privileged to know Him -- and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not God. Jacob, Moses, David, Elijah, Isaiah, and Micah did not believe in the dogma of the Holy Trinity -- but they believed in the God Whom we conceive of as the Holy Trinity. Cool with that?

 

[seebs]

I have that book; it's even on my stack of theology books to read Real Soon Now.

 

[CaDan]

I have that book; it's even on my stack of theology books to read Real Soon Now.

New insight:

Heaven is the place where we have enought time to read everything in the Real Soon Now pile!

 

[Toney]

New insight:

Heaven is the place where we have enought time to read everything in the Real Soon Now pile!

In Heaven we can watch the videos. I have a lot of questions about what happened in Jerusalem.

...better would be to say that the Holy Trinity is the best approximation we have at the moment to God as we are privileged to know Him -- and the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not God.

I reason that God is ineffable, but that his activity in the world is observable; that He is the master of human history. I view the Trinity as the locus of His intervention into the natural order and a rational avenue of approach to (understanding) the Godhead. Frankly, I prefer Jewish kabbalah.

But to call God 'three persons' reverts to the pagan tritheism that was translated into the present trinitarian formula. It's worth a thread -- a new trinitarian heresy certainly won't hurt and may help.