Why liberal?

[Logical_Lutheran]

I'm a little bit disturbed with calling the ELCA "liberal". I believe that it gives a negative connotation to our beliefs. If being "liberal" means reaching out to the outcasts that are tossed away by every other denomination, then I guess I'm guilty.

Just a quote for thought:

'The kingdom is to be in the midst of your enemies. And he who will not suffer this does not want to be of the Kingdom of Christ; he wants to be among friends, to sit among roses and lilies, not with the bad people but the devout people. O you blasphemers and betrayers of Christ! If Christ had done what you are doing who would ever have been spared' (Luther)."

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

In religious circles Liberal often has negative canotations while I think the same can often be said of Conservative in politics often. It's use can be said in two senses regarding synods/denominations:
1) conservative refers to an appeal to traditional authoritative stances and what one might call "consistent" beliefs, that is, most things already decided on are much less likely to be challenged/changed. Whereas Liberal appeals to both more modern arguments/discoveries which then causes challenges to traditional views and is more apt to appeal to new hermeneutic forms.
2) Religious groups that focus on individual moral ethics and familial systems often find themselves aligned with politically conservative stances while groups that focus on communal ethics will often find themselves more aligned politically with liberal groups.

I'm sure others will use other definitions. See for example Braatan's claim of the ELCA's slide into "liberal protestantism" and how that relates to the removal of divine judgment. But at least in response to these I would say the ELCA as a synod qualifies as "liberal". The assumption though that that ELCA is made up of liberals politically, theologically, morally, or hermeneutically would be inaccurate. The ELCA is more appropriately labeled "diverse" in this sense.
An example of this provided in a survey by James Burkee is that while in the LCMS 8 out of 10 members refer to themselves as "conservatives" and vote Republican, the ELCA laity is much more evenly divided between those who self identify as "liberal" or "conservative" (although he notes the ELCA clergy are much more inclined to identify as liberal).
So I guess it is what you mean by liberal. And its use can be positive or negative depending on who uses it. I would not personally call the ELCA conservative. But I believe it has many conservatives within it. But as to whether it is used as an insult, I am here and willing to take insults. I know why I am ELCA. I know where I agree and where I disagree. And it's ok with me if people want to label me of something without knowing where I stand, if they ask I'm happy to clarify.

 

[Logical_Lutheran]

In religious circles Liberal often has negative canotations while I think the same can often be said of Conservative in politics often. It's use can be said in two senses regarding synods/denominations:
1) conservative refers to an appeal to traditional authoritative stances and what one might call "consistent" beliefs, that is, most things already decided on are much less likely to be challenged/changed. Whereas Liberal appeals to both more modern arguments/discoveries which then causes challenges to traditional views and is more apt to appeal to new hermeneutic forms.
2) Religious groups that focus on individual moral ethics and familial systems often find themselves aligned with politically conservative stances while groups that focus on communal ethics will often find themselves more aligned politically with liberal groups.

I'm sure others will use other definitions. See for example Braatan's claim of the ELCA's slide into "liberal protestantism" and how that relates to the removal of divine judgment. But at least in response to these I would say the ELCA as a synod qualifies as "liberal". The assumption though that that ELCA is made up of liberals politically, theologically, morally, or hermeneutically would be inaccurate. The ELCA is more appropriately labeled "diverse" in this sense.
An example of this provided in a survey by James Burkee is that while in the LCMS 8 out of 10 members refer to themselves as "conservatives" and vote Republican, the ELCA laity is much more evenly divided between those who self identify as "liberal" or "conservative" (although he notes the ELCA clergy are much more inclined to identify as liberal).
So I guess it is what you mean by liberal. And its use can be positive or negative depending on who uses it. I would not personally call the ELCA conservative. But I believe it has many conservatives within it. But as to whether it is used as an insult, I am here and willing to take insults. I know why I am ELCA. I know where I agree and where I disagree. And it's ok with me if people want to label me of something without knowing where I stand, if they ask I'm happy to clarify.

That was awesome and I agree whole heartedly!

 

[RedTulipMom]

LL
I am happy to be guilty right along side ya! I totally believe Jesus was a liberal, as he ate with the prostitutes and called the religious of the day "a brood of vipers!" I really do think it would rock quite a few peoples worlds if Jesus came today and walked into some of our churches or right here onto CF. wonder what he might say and to whom?

i love love love your Luther quote!!

 

[lux et lex]

This made me smile. Thanks.

 

[AngCath]

as proof of this diversity, I'd say about 80-90% of my congregation is conservative, votes Republican, etc. while not being creationist or opposed to female pastors.

 

[AngelusSax]

Often the people of the ELCA get labeled as "liberal" because of certain decisions that get made at synod assemblies. The decisions take things from "what is (or was)" and move them into "what might be (or will now be)". So technically... yeah, that's being liberal. Of course, as has been noted here, not all people agree with those decisions (I tend to agree, but not blindly). Most of the time, "liberal" is used as a 4-letter word. Perhaps this is not the intent of those who use it, they are merely trying to apply a succinct label where one does not fut so well... but it comes across that way a lot of the times.

I personally used to be like that. Now, I can see the beauty of both conservatism and liberalism (and the sheer terror of both, when either is left unchecked). Unfortunately, what is often displayed, both on here, and "in real life", is that what we disagree on far outweighs what we agree on. It must. After all, it's what we focus on. (Guilty as charged, btw... this is not an indictment on others that I am free from.) In other words, when it comes to how we live our lives and interact with others who all profess faith in Christ, one shining example of our sin always comes through. In our minds, and in the minds of those who disagree with us, at least for the length of the conversation, what divides us is most important. In other words, we unknowingly proclaim for all to see: Christ is not enough.

I know that's never the intent. But it's the message I see. Maybe I'm way off base, but, that's how I see it for now. Hopefully we can all learn that even when we disagree, we're still in Christ, and that's enough to hold us together.

 

[AngCath]

Excellent post, AngelusSax.

 

[pastorken86]

Funny. I always heard the ELCA termed "moderate" before the 2009 Sexuality Statement.

 

[lux et lex]

Funny. I always heard the ELCA termed "moderate" before the 2009 Sexuality Statement.

I know. My former home church was fairly conservative. But on the main Lutheran forum you'd think we were a bunch of crazy hippies. I can't even fathom how conservative LCMS and WELS are...

 

[Bryne]

When I refer to ELCA and other liberal denominations as "liberal", I mean they are theologically liberal, not politically liberal.

Theologically liberal doesn't mean "reaching out to outcasts." I have been a part of many conservative churches that very much reached out to outcasts. My most recent former church had an active prison ministry and many of the church members were former prisoners. The church I went to in High School was located in the inner city and had a small rescue mission that it ran. Both churches were theologically conservative. The homeless shelter where I live here is mostly supported by conservative evangelical congregations.

I think when the liberalness and conservativeness of churches, it is important to stick to the doctrinal issues that make a church theologically liberal or conservative and not get into these side issues of "reaching out" or "not reaching out", or how well people who look different are accepted, or those sorts of things. Churches from both sides of the "conservative/liberal" aisle can fail people in these areas...or do very well in these areas.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

When I refer to ELCA and other liberal denominations as "liberal", I mean they are theologically liberal, not politically liberal.

Theologically liberal doesn't mean "reaching out to outcasts." I have been a part of many conservative churches that very much reached out to outcasts. My most recent former church had an active prison ministry and many of the church members were former prisoners. The church I went to in High School was located in the inner city and had a small rescue mission that it ran. Both churches were theologically conservative. The homeless shelter where I live here is mostly supported by conservative evangelical congregations.

I think when the liberalness and conservativeness of churches, it is important to stick to the doctrinal issues that make a church theologically liberal or conservative and not get into these side issues of "reaching out" or "not reaching out", or how well people who look different are accepted, or those sorts of things. Churches from both sides of the "conservative/liberal" aisle can fail people in these areas...or do very well in these areas.

Would you say more on how you define "theologically liberal". I felt like from your post I had a better understanding of what you did not mean compared to what you meant.

 

[pastorken86]

When I refer to ELCA and other liberal denominations as "liberal", I mean they are theologically liberal, not politically liberal.

Theologically liberal doesn't mean "reaching out to outcasts." I have been a part of many conservative churches that very much reached out to outcasts. My most recent former church had an active prison ministry and many of the church members were former prisoners. The church I went to in High School was located in the inner city and had a small rescue mission that it ran. Both churches were theologically conservative. The homeless shelter where I live here is mostly supported by conservative evangelical congregations.

I think when the liberalness and conservativeness of churches, it is important to stick to the doctrinal issues that make a church theologically liberal or conservative and not get into these side issues of "reaching out" or "not reaching out", or how well people who look different are accepted, or those sorts of things. Churches from both sides of the "conservative/liberal" aisle can fail people in these areas...or do very well in these areas.

I agree. I'm not sure what your working definition of theologically conservative/liberal is. In terms of Lutheran theology, are we talking Confessional? And if confessional, to certain things? Or something else? Thanks!

 

[Franny50]

As a former catholic looking to join a Lutheran Church,I find the whole liberal vs conservative debate very interesting.