What do you think of liberal Christians, and how do you deal with them?

[webmdave]

Sent in by Lance

 

Let me start off by saying that I was a liberal Christian. I had gone through fundamentalist phases earlier in my 30 years as a Christian, but I moved to a somewhat liberal belief system before I ended up pitching the whole thing.

 

I rationalized hell by saying it was only a separation from God -- whatever that meant. But I did not think it was a literal lake of fire. I believed in evolution, and reconciled it with the bible by saying that just as Jesus spoke in parables, the god of the old testament used myth to convey truth. In the same way we humans can use fiction to convey truths about the human condition. I looked at the creation story in Genesis as if it was saying something like "The world, the stars, the physical universe in total, is just stuff that god made. We should worship god and not the stuff." That was enough for me. I did not try to make sense out of the 6-day creation, and thought it foolish to even try to twist an obvious myth into facts.

 

It got harder when I saw how the myth of Adam and Eve at the beginning of Genesis moved directly into what was obviously written as history in the later part of Genesis. I could not find a clean dividing line to separate the myth from the history. So I figured god must have used fallible humans to write the bible, so we did not need to treat it as if god dictated every word, and thus we could expect weirdness like that. But I still believed that god somehow was communicating his story to us through the bible in an imperfect and subtle way.

 

I had a even harder time when looking at the atrocities god commanded the Israelites to commit, but I kind of ignored that and figured he must have decided that was the best way to deal with such a primitive people. I just did not look too closely at this and chalked it up to the belief that we can't understand god's ways. To be honest, I simply did not think about it too much, and I would avoid reading those parts of the bible as they made me uncomfortable.

 

I thought the message of Jesus was about love and helping the poor, and not about hating gay people or forcing my opinions on others. I figured Paul was just an imperfect guy that god used for that time and place, so I did not need to listen to everything Paul wrote as if I was listening to god himself.

 

I think you get the idea. I had the same problems with fundamentalism and the bible that all of us have, but I was able to kind of wish them away and pretend they were not there, as I let what I thought was god's spirit guide my life.

 

It was a comfortable place to be, and I was able to maintain those beliefs for a long time. It was not until I left the liberal leaning San Francisco Bay Area and moved to Central Oregon that I was hit again with the fundamentalist belief system. As a Christian living near Stanford University, there were plenty of what I called "thinking Christians", who shared my "enlightened" way of trusting god and viewing the scriptures. (Kind of arrogant sounding, huh?)

 

At first I tried to reason with my new fundamentalist friends in Central Oregon, and explain my approach to finding biblical truth. But they explained how they had to believe the entire thing as literal truth, or else the salvation of Jesus was pointless. Why, they asked, would Jesus need to redeem the world that had fallen into sin because of Adam and Eve, if there had been no Adam and Eve? The long history of human evolution did not mesh with the concept of a fallen world in need of a Savior. If the world had always been like that, then what was the point of Jesus' sacrifice?

 

My fundy brother-in-law told me that if I did not believe in the 6000-year-old earth, and a real talking snake in the Garden of Eden, then the whole Christian religion would come crashing down. At first I said that no it did not. That we could still hold the Christian faith together even with an imperfect bible.

 

My liberal thinking did not mind leaving stuff like that in the realm of mystery, but my new friends got me to thinking more deeply about what exactly I did believe. I decided that if my brother-in-law was correct and if it did all come crashing down, then I was willing to let it crash if I was going to have to believe such craziness. I started to wonder why I was trying so hard to hold it all together when so much of it did not make sense.

 

I went back to the bible and started reading again. This time I looked at what ideas the myths were actually conveying, and I also wondered why I went to such extreme lengths to create such a convoluted mental framework where so many conflicting ideas could be forced to live together in my head. I decided that if god was real, then he would meet me on my honest quest for truth.

 

I prayed about it, then let it all come crashing down. I wanted to see if there was any core truth in the midst all my scaffolding, or to see if my belief system was nothing more than a lot of carefully laid duct tape and bailing wire. I wanted to know god in truth, not in some mental construct I had created.

 

In the end, god never showed up. All I found was nothing but the duct tape and bailing wire. The recent post here by David H called "Under His Robes" sums this up much better than I can.

 

I am so much more free now that I don't have to try to make sense out of the craziness. My brother-in-law was right, the whole thing does indeed come crashing down. But oh how wonderful when you can look at the rubble and see it for what it is. And then just walk away.

 

---

 

But now I have a minor dilemma. What do I do with other liberal Christians that I meet and know?

 

These are not the fundies that threaten us with fire and brimstone. These are not the people that want to tear down science and teach creationism in schools. These are not the people that try to shove their beliefs down our throats. These are not the people who think the world is going to end because Obama got elected. Hell, a lot of these folks voted for Obama.

 

I actually enjoy a theological discussion with a liberal Christian. Although they are infuriatingly difficult to pin down, as they mold and shift their beliefs when they find it necessary. I still have lunch with a couple of them I know. I don't mind living side by side with these folks. When I have a discussion with one of them I often feel as if they really are trying to understand my position, and they don't accuse me of running away from god. They accept that I went on a search for truth, even if they don't think I have found it yet.

 

But what they believe is still nuts. And they are not that far removed from the rest of Christendom.

 

So do I encourage them to take the path of reason and leave their comfortable faith, or do I just let them be?

 

What do you think of liberal Christians, and how do you deal with them?

 

Thanks for listening.

 

 

 

 

http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2008/11...christians.html

[Looking4Answers]

Hi Dave. I think you pose a great question that needs to be answered. I think, on the surface, the answer is simple. I usually like to try to break things down to their base denominators so that my simple mind can get a grasp on things. Would I want to leave someone (especially someone I know like a friend or neighbor) in a delusion or lie? For example, if I knew that my neighbor was going to invest in a scam, wouldn't I at least say something to them? Yes, there might even be times when it is advisable to stay quiet and let things take their course, but that is where knowledge and wisdom come into play. So, my best answer is to take the opportunities that present themselves to us and use them in the hopes of provoking rational thought. Unlike the evangelist that knocks on our doors, I would not be pushy and make it my dogma to de-convert everyone. However, by being a loving (and responsible) friend or neighbor, I would certainly take the time to talk about these issues when they are brought up ... and there are a lot of opportunities when people talk about things like politics, religion and other subjects that will expose a person's point of view.

 

I personally think that liberal Christians have the potential to go in either direction: to come out of religion all together or to be sucked into fundamentalism. Some are looking for answers and it can lead them into strange places. If you don't mind, please let me share something I remembered seeing a lot as I worked among Jewish people ... trying to get them to become "saved".

 

There were times when a Jewish man or a woman would get "saved" and become a Christian (or, as some would call themselves, a Messianic Jew). As was typical, many Messianic Jews were not comfortable being pew sitters. They were excited about the Bible and many would become these on fire evangelists to Jew and Gentile alike. Many would get involved as missionaries for organizations like Jews for Jesus and others. However, something would happen to them. As the years went on many would become dissatisfied with their Christian experience. Of these, many would come out of Christianity, reject Christ and become, in some cases, anti-missionaries. But there tended to be a strange pattern among many of these Jewish ex-believers: They would return to Judaism (if they were even involved with it before becoming Christians), but the form of Judaism they would adopt would either be Orthodox or Mystical (such as Kabalah)! It was like they went from a marginally spiritual Jew to a spiritual Jew to the SUPER spiritual Jew.

 

I have my theory on why that happens. I think that, originally, they were not satisfied with their lives and with the answers they were getting on spiritual matters and, this, they were on some sort of a spiritual quest. Along comes some Christian (Jewish or otherwise) with the "answers". They seemed to have the answers for EVERYTHING! So the unsatisfied Jew converts! Life is exciting for a while (even for several years!), but he or she is living this spiritual life in their own power. After a time it becomes tiring ... like running an unending marathon. The simple answer is to get out, but that does not answer the perceived spiritual need he or she feels she has. So they move on to the next spiritual high (Kabalistic Judaism, Eastern Mysticism, etc) ... repeat and rinse. Many Jewish magazines and books (that deal with the Jew and the Christian) love to tell these stories of those that came out of the Christian faith and are now "faithful Jews". But the pattern was often pretty much the same.

 

In any case, I think that some in liberal Christianity are looking for "real" spiritual answers and, when they become unhappy with where they are, they will move on. Some will move on to abandon the faith and live rational lives. Others will sink deeper into the "monster" and run the risk of becoming fundamental. Because of this, I think we need to be there to tell them the truth. This may help them on the way out and possibly prevent others from going deeper in.

 

Does that make sense?

[trekkie]

What do you think of liberal Christians, and how do you deal with them?

 

As to the second part, I don't really deal with them much. I live in the Bible Belt so there aren't that many around here. The ones that do exist are pretty quiet about their liberalism. I think they only come out on Ground Hog Day.

 

As to what I think of them, my answer is two-fold:

 

1. I think they are decent people who are doing the best they can to salvage something of Christianity that, to them, might be worth preserving. Names like Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong come to mind. They remain part of the church while trying, in their own ways, to reform it, to challenge it to come out of the dark ages. For them, they cherish the history of the Christian tradition, even if they disavow the creeds and doctrines of the church.

 

2. But I think they are still deluded. Here's why: Like it or not, Christianity is built upon theism, the belief that God is a supernatural being "up there" who intervenes in this world to accomplish his will. This was the traditional view of the Hebrews and also the view that Jesus held to. To Jesus, at least as far as we can tell, God was not "the ground of all being" or "an all-encompassing spirit of love in the universe." And no matter how you cut it, Jesus taught everlasting torment, something that most liberal and progressive Christians avoid talking about at all costs.

 

I was a liberal for about 6 years. The problem of that paradigm, for me, came down to this:

 

When Jesus is defined as being nothing like the way the bible defines him; when God is defined as being nothing like the way the bible defines him/it; when hell is interpreted in a way that Jesus would not recognize; when the bible is seen as almost pure metaphor despite it's claims to historical truth; when Christianity itself is defined in a new paradigm (see Spong's "A New Christianity for a New World"), then what you have is no longer Christianity. I don't know what it is. I guess you can keep calling it liberal Christianity. But it bears almost no resemblance to what Jesus himself believed. Call it what you will, but it ain't biblical Christianity.

 

I felt that Christianity, in it's purest form, would be following the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus. This did work for me for a few years. But then I began to see how ancient, how superstitous, how immoral, how absurd, and how inhumane many of Jesus' teachings and actions were. Fundamentalist Christians, for all their delusion, seem to believe the closest to the way that Jesus did.

 

Liberal Christianity wants to throw out all of the bad theological bathwater and keep the baby Jesus, meek and mild. I found that the bathwater came from Jesus himself. When the teachings of Christianity are so reinterpreted that they bear almost no resemblance to what Jesus taught, how can those teachings still be called Christian? It is like removing the guts of a Porsche -- engine, tranny, seats, trim, suspension -- replacing them with VW parts and insisting that you still have a Porsche.

 

bill

[Looking4Answers]

It is like removing the guts of a Porsche -- engine, tranny, seats, trim, suspension -- replacing them with VW parts and insisting that you still have a Porsche.

 

Uhm ... didn't they do that to one of the earlier models once? Just checking ...

[GraphicsGuy]

It is like removing the guts of a Porsche -- engine, tranny, seats, trim, suspension -- replacing them with VW parts and insisting that you still have a Porsche.

 

Uhm ... didn't they do that to one of the earlier models once? Just checking ...

 

I believe the 914 was built by VW...???

 

***

 

What do I think of liberal Xians? A damn sight better than fundys.

 

How do I deal with them? Like any other accepting, understanding person...

[Antlerman]

I always like the challenge when this topic comes up. I tend to be someone who understands the liberal mindset, more as a liberal atheist, than as a fundamentalist turned "liberal" Christian. What I mean by this is that liberal thought really can't start from a vantage point of literalist thought "trimmed back", which is what I hear being expressed time and again by those who had been in fundamentalism and tried the tamer version of Christianity. They brought with them the literalist mindset, and even though they tried to fit a liberal thought process into that, they couldn't. I say this because it's also my story.

 

I see people who leave fundamentalism take with them this literalist mindset into whatever new philosophy they adopt, whether it's a different form of Christianity, a different religion like Wicca, or into their views of rationality and science as an atheist. It's best summed up in what I heard a friend of mine who deconverted from fundamentalism like me, as he found the power of rationality and science at his disposal when I challenged him on claiming he had the answers. His response was, "But the difference between then and now, is that now I do have the truth". That opened the gates to me looking at the mindset that looks for things to "fit", as opposed to others who see the world more fluidly, more symbolically, rather than literally. The problem isn't with doctrine, the problem is a culture that struggles with symbolic thinking.

 

So what do you say to a truly liberal Christian? Probably nothing relevant to how they think if you're coming at it as thinking the Bible is "God's literal Word," but the stories are meant to be taken as figurative words. In other words that "God" intended it to be interpreted a certain way. Questions of "accuracy" are irrelevant to a liberal, symbolic thinker. Questions of meaning and response are really the issues. You may ask, "How can it have meaning if it is false data?" But that's an irrelevant way of looking at it. It has value to them because it inspires through the power of rich, figurative, non-literal words - like a poem. "God's Word" to them, would not literally mean some guy in the sky dictating words, but words that inspire them with thoughts that "God" represents. Etc.

 

Not all liberals could actually be able to discuss it from the literalist perspective, that is analyzing it scientifically, because they probably just don't think that way about it. It's something they just do. It's an adopted symbolic language system of rich content for the purpose of human inspiration. Scientifically speaking, I'd send you off looking at semioticians, linguists and philosophers who look at the role of language in human experience of "truth", or perception. I think the difficulty actually is more with those who are so immersed with the language of science and reason that they forgot how to see the world non-literally - something humans have been doing up until the last 100 some years particularly, and even then we still use mythology to live by, whether it's secular or not and whether we recognize it or not. In that sense, I believe the uber-rational is somewhat at conflict in that they don't actually live with pure rationality despite their high adoration of it.

 

Long story short, not everyone thinks literally, and those who turned to fundamentalism in the first place probably are more prone to literal, concrete, "true/false" thinking. So becoming liberal Christian is a bit of mismatch for them. For myself, after I left fundamentalism, I found it wasn't just because their idea of truth was wrong, it was their whole manner of literal thinking that was holding me back from something really exciting, the exploration of humanity in all it's shades of colors, rather than straight-edged, sharp contrasting lines. It's that shift, that de-conversion from linear thought that's been my real struggle. Food for thought to provoke. Welcome to the journey.

[buffettphan]

I generally don't have a problem with liberal xtians. Heck, I used to be one! On an individual basis, they're relatively harmless. However, in our society, most liberal/moderate christians criticize the liberal/moderate muslims for not condemning the fundamentalist muslims, thereby allowing and approving continued hatred and violence.

 

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

 

**Note to all xtians who are tempted to refute what I just wrote: Go to FSTDT.com and read some of the hateful, ignorant beliefs and actions that are propagated thru xtian fundamentalism. Get the xtian fundies to change THEIR beliefs before you come here trying to change mine.

[Vomit Comet]

Liberal Christianity?

 

Horseshit Lite

 

Caffeine-free horseshit.

 

Reduced fat horseshit.

 

Watered down horseshit

 

Horseshit on the rocks.

 

Horseshit cut with tonic.

 

A half order of horseshit.

 

Horseshit a la carte.

[Neon Genesis]

So what do you say to a truly liberal Christian? Probably nothing relevant to how they think if you're coming at it as thinking the Bible is "God's literal Word," but the stories are meant to be taken as figurative words. In other words that "God" intended it to be interpreted a certain way. Questions of "accuracy" are irrelevant to a liberal, symbolic thinker. Questions of meaning and response are really the issues. You may ask, "How can it have meaning if it is false data?" But that's an irrelevant way of looking at it. It has value to them because it inspires through the power of rich, figurative, non-literal words - like a poem. "God's Word" to them, would not literally mean some guy in the sky dictating words, but words that inspire them with thoughts that "God" represents. Etc.

Is that's what's called narrative theology by chance, if I got the term right? My thoughts on liberal Christianity is that I see God as being the essence of life itself, rather than some wish-granting genie that lives up in the sky and I see religion as humanity's means of expressing their awe of the universe. The real problem I think is when you approach things from a literal fundamentalist mindset on either side of the coin. I'm not saying the opening post was wrong for leaving liberal Christianity or anything like that, but according to this thread MWC posted awhile back, http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=26963, when people are speaking for God, they're using the same part of the brain they're using when they speak for themselves. Thus, if this information is accurate, the way I see it is when someone is seeking spirituality, is what they may be seeking for is their inner self? If they find their inner selves in Christianity, Wicca, Buddhism, or atheism, as long as they aren't hurting others with their beliefs, who am I to take that inner self they believe they've found away from them and enforce my ideals of what I think they should be on them? Isn't this similar to the mindset that fundamentalists have? That we should renounce our sinful human selves and conform to what they think our true selves should be? I think rather than trying to evangelize atheism, I think it's more important for us to be encouraging people to live life to the best that they can, whether they be Christian or atheist.

 

I also think that it's just as dangerous for us to claim that fundies are practicing Christianity as Jesus would have (it should also be pointed out that Jesus was a Jew according to the bible, not a Christian, anyway), as it is for fundies to claim that only they have the one true way and everyone else is going to hell, seeing as how none of us know what Jesus' life was like when he was alive or if he was ever a real person at all. I think it's more important for us to work together to fight against the true enemy of fundamentalism, not for atheism or the truth because the only truth that I see is that there is no one true way, but rather that we fight for the freedom to live our own lives and form our own beliefs. If that should eventually lead to liberal Christians deconverting to atheism or if they continue with liberal Christianity,, at least then it would be because they did so out of their own freedom, not because somebody else enforced their ideals on them. Beside, if all religion is really all made-up by humans anyway, then who cares if liberal Christians are following it "correctly" or not if it's all made-up fairytales anyhow? I think that if there is a supernatural God that exists, then if the Word Of God is alive as Christians say, wouldn't it make sense that the living Word of God is something that evolves along with the rest of everything else that's alive? Even in the bible there are instances where the Word of God evolves. Like how in the OT circumcision used to be required, yet then the message evolves in the NT with Paul and suddenly you don't have to be circumcised anymore. I'm reminded of something I've heard before, that God is not a Christian. God is not a Jew or a a Muslim either. Did God ever go to church three times a week? Did God take communion every week of the year? Was God ever baptized if God existed? If God exists, how can we confine a being as powerful as God to a single collection of ancient mythology? Wouldn't God be bigger than religion if God existed? It should also be pointed out that not all biblical literalists believe in original sin. When I was a Christian, I believed that the bible was the inerrant and perfect word of God, but I didn't believe in original sin, either. I believed that Jesus didn't die just for Adam and Eve's sin but that he died for all of our sins and we can only be responsible for our own sins and not the sins of anyone else.

[Amethyst]

I have liberal Christian friends. As long as they do not shove their religion down my throat, I see no reason to treat them differently than I would any other human being. Treating them like a fundy would make me no better than a religious fundy.

[Deva]

I find the purely symbolic, non-literalist type of thinking of the liberal Christian to be hard to comprehend. For me, it still seems to be intellectually dishonest, but I realize that's just my way of thinking and they don't see themselves that way. If people want to keep fooling themselves its none of my business as long as they don't insist that I do it too.

 

I agree with Amethyst.

[Yrth]

Personally, I think liberal Christians are on their way out. I think the OP extimony does a great job describing how someone becomes a liberal Christian: inch by inch, concession by concession, until finally the dissonance locks your mind into total paralysis, and you either retreat in your grief and fear or you just finally let it go. Honestly, I don't know how one would deconvert without becoming at least a little like a liberal Christian first. If you understand that our beliefs are really about personal survival, then liberal Christianity makes total sense, despite its actual content resembling the gasps of the dying. It's a symptom of an opening mind and of a seriously unstable personal paradigm.

 

I don't know how to treat liberal Christians in their capacities as liberal Christians. They are by (my) definition constantly on edge when it comes to their religious beliefs(the words 'haggard,' 'frayed,' & 'v-tack' come to mind), so discussion can't really go many other directions than grief and anger. Emotional nukes needing disarming or distance, or both. So I don't talk about Christianity with them unless I intend to detonate a lifebomb, or at least speed up the timer.

[Amethyst]

Personally, I think liberal Christians are on their way out. I think the OP extimony does a great job describing how someone becomes a liberal Christian: inch by inch, concession by concession, until finally the dissonance locks your mind into total paralysis, and you either retreat in your grief and fear or you just finally let it go. Honestly, I don't know how one would deconvert without becoming at least a little like a liberal Christian first. If you understand that our beliefs are really about personal survival, then liberal Christianity makes total sense, despite its actual content resembling the gasps of the dying. It's a symptom of an opening mind and of a seriously unstable personal paradigm.

 

Yeah, I was a liberal Christian towards the end of my belief for a few years until I realized I was being intellectually dishonest. So it does happen.

[trekkie]

To Antlerman:

 

>>So what do you say to a truly liberal Christian? Probably nothing relevant to how they think if you're coming at it as thinking the Bible is "God's literal Word," but the stories are meant to be taken as figurative words. In other words that "God" intended it to be interpreted a certain way. Questions of "accuracy" are irrelevant to a liberal, symbolic thinker. Questions of meaning and response are really the issues. You may ask, "How can it have meaning if it is false data?" But that's an irrelevant way of looking at it. It has value to them because it inspires through the power of rich, figurative, non-literal words - like a poem. "God's Word" to them, would not literally mean some guy in the sky dictating words, but words that inspire them with thoughts that "God" represents.

 

That’s been my experience also. They are not so much concerned with, “Did this really happen and did it happen the way it is described?” as much as they are concerned with, “What does this mean?” But, IMO, a problem enters here because meaning has to come from some source. If the source is nonexistent or ambiguous, then how can any meaning be ascertained? If I were to say, “My love is a red rose,” something would have to be known about a red rose in order to understand the meaning of my metaphor. If there is no such thing as a literal red rose, then my metaphor is meaningless nonsense. I have equated my love with something which does not exist. And this is the problem of the liberal paradigm, it seeks to extract meaning from things that it believes did not exist.

 

The infamously liberal Jesus Seminar holds to the opinion that 85% of the sayings/teachings of Jesus in the New Testament were not the actual words of Jesus, but, rather, the words of the early church superimposed upon Jesus. This may or may not be true, who knows? A few of them don’t even believe that Jesus ever existed. But then to spend a great deal of time, as liberals are prone to do, on the “teachings of Jesus” is quite irrelevant, IMO. It is like arguing about what color Santa’s suit really is. Such a debate would only be meaningful to those who believed Santa really exists.

 

>>It's an adopted symbolic language system of rich content for the purpose of human inspiration.

 

Maybe so. Symbolism is a powerful language, often stirring our emotions in a way that facts alone cannot. For many Americans, the national flag is an inspirational symbol. It reminds them, not only of national ideals and dreams, but of those who actually died defending those ideals and dreams. But with the liberal paradigm, they would want to talk about the ideals and dreams and count the historical data of lives lost as being inconsequential or irrelevant. How can one talk about the meaning of the flag without referring to the historical basis that makes our flag still relevant?

 

>>I think the difficulty actually is more with those who are so immersed with the language of science and reason that they forgot how to see the world non-literally

 

I, for one, am glad to get away from the “non-literal” view of the world in which superstition ran rampant over the last 6000 years. Epilepsy was caused by demons. Sickness and disease was a result of sin. Weather was attributed to the hand of God. God needed human blood to be satiated. Science and reason is helping us to get past such superstition. I have no desire nor inclination to go back to a worldview in which the world is God’s playground/battlefield with Satan. At least fundamentalist can be shown that they are inconsistent in their views by using their own bible to educate them, if they are so willing. The falacies of Christianity are hard to demonstrate to liberals because they reject the major tenets of historical Christianity anyway.

 

>>Long story short, not everyone thinks literally, and those who turned to fundamentalism in the first place probably are more prone to literal, concrete, "true/false" thinking.

 

I think this is true. At the same time, the writers of the scripture, though sometimes using figurative language, definitely held to a literal, concrete, “true/false” paradigm of seeing reality. Again, the problem with the liberal worldview is that it tries to package Christianity as a Porsche when it is really a VW underneath. It tries to reinterpret Christianity in modern or post-modern terms when Christianity itself is rooted in ancient superstition. Jesus was one of the most superstitious religious leaders of all. He believed in a literal six day creation, in the barbaric laws of Moses, and in a literal hell. Paul believed that children are born into this world literally damned for hell because of original sin. And he believed that women should literally keep their mouths shut in church. If literalism is removed from Christianity, if all the conservative, fundamentalist bathwater is thrown out, then the baby Jesus goes with it. When I was a liberal, discarding everything in the bible that didn’t fit into my “God is love” view, I found that there was nothing left to hold onto. Even Jesus, with his threats of everlasting torment, couldn’t fit into “God is love.” And without Jesus, how can one call one’s self a Christian?

 

But I also have to say that from a functional and pragmatic viewpoint, I see little difference between a liberal Christian and a good humanist. I tend to think that liberals are simply atheist without balls.

[Vomit Comet]

Liberal Christianity has been a historical flop. In the 1960s, their heyday, they believed that the pews would be stuffed to the gills with young people looking for a kinder, gentler alternative to their parents' orthodoxy. It was kinder and gentler alright, but once people didn't have to worry about going to hell anymore, once it no longer mattered much what you did or how you did it or what you believed in as long as you were "good" and shit... people decided to 1) keep their money; 2) stay home, sleep in, and watch the game.

 

Fundamentalism thrives because they scare the shit out of people with hellfire, and once you're hooked, they demand the world of you or else you're a worthless quasi-Christian. Liberal Christianity, while being more palatable for genteel intellectual sorts, can't compete with that.

[Antlerman]

Fantastic reply! I wish to spend some time engaging in discussion with you, but I'm considering spinning this off into a separate thread, as this is after all, this person's personal testimony and it's seems a bit bad form to potentially get into debate in it (thought I don't anticipate anything less that good conversation in this case). I'll get back to this later as time permits tonight, and will post a link to where it will resume in this thread.

[Looking4Answers]

Fantastic reply! I wish to spend some time engaging in discussion with you, but I'm considering spinning this off into a separate thread, as this is after all, this person's personal testimony and it's seems a bit bad form to potentially get into debate in it (thought I don't anticipate anything less that good conversation in this case).

 

Actually, I think this is a great place for you two to go at it (and others as well). This thread is not really about a personal testimony, but about whether someone should deal with a liberal Christian or not and, if so, how. One thing that we have learned here is that the term, liberal Christian, either needs to be defined (i.e. what does anyone mean when they use that term) or that some of us have the mistaken idea about what a liberal Christian is.

 

For example, in the circles in which I had traveled (fundamental, evangelical, independent Baptist) "liberal Christian" stood for just about anyone that would use the name "Christian" but did not live a strict, Bible believing life (i.e. did not take the entire Bible to be literal and without error, etc). Others seem to equate it with a fad or a movement (somewhat like some Jews look at the Reformed movement as compared to the Conservative or Orthodox Jews) ... almost like it was (or is) a denomination. So, at best, we need to determine what someone means when they use the term "liberal Christian".

 

The discussion you two have (and anyone else her for that matter) looks like it would be relevant because it would all tend to give information that could: 1) be used to determine if someone wants to even bother engaging a liberal Christian in rational thought about religion in general or 2) help someone to understand how to work with them should they indeed decide to engage them in this sort of a discussion.

 

My opinion. I did not start the thread, but I say: go for it .

[bubbleloulicious]

I keep racking my brain with this one. I don't know any liberal christians, on fundamentalist christians. However, I was very liberal. To the degree of being defined as heretical. I learned to avoid discussion except with "new agey" types.

 

(A little off-topic, but I did learn that a woman I work with is a closet atheist. We have so much in common and share many of the same opinions. That's nice to find.)

[R. S. Martin]

I think this is true. At the same time, the writers of the scripture, though sometimes using figurative language, definitely held to a literal, concrete, “true/false” paradigm of seeing reality. Again, the problem with the liberal worldview is that it tries to package Christianity as a Porsche when it is really a VW underneath. It tries to reinterpret Christianity in modern or post-modern terms when Christianity itself is rooted in ancient superstition. Jesus was one of the most superstitious religious leaders of all. He believed in a literal six day creation, in the barbaric laws of Moses, and in a literal hell. Paul believed that children are born into this world literally damned for hell because of original sin. And he believed that women should literally keep their mouths shut in church. If literalism is removed from Christianity, if all the conservative, fundamentalist bathwater is thrown out, then the baby Jesus goes with it. When I was a liberal, discarding everything in the bible that didn’t fit into my “God is love” view, I found that there was nothing left to hold onto. Even Jesus, with his threats of everlasting torment, couldn’t fit into “God is love.” And without Jesus, how can one call one’s self a Christian?

 

Thanks for explaining why you have a problem with Jesus. There are parts of his teachings that, to me, appear to be about being true to one's own self at all costs, about finding peace in being true to one's own self. The warnings about "hell" seem to me to refer to the inner turmoil one experiences with the cognitive dissonance of religion. The parts about dividing families seems to me to be simple statements of fact about what happens when a person is true to him or herself at all costs--some of us find ourselves cut off from immediate family.

 

But I also have to say that from a functional and pragmatic viewpoint, I see little difference between a liberal Christian and a good humanist. I tend to think that liberals are simply atheist without balls.

 

I agree with everything you say in this paragraph except the last two words. I could make the argument that they simply refuse to look the matter in the face and that they simply refuse to take the concepts to their logical conclusion. Regarding the individuals I know, I don't know if they are incapable or unwilling to do this. If they are incapable, I would consider it wrong to judge them harshly. If they are unwilling, then I would say they "lack balls."

 

That from a functional and pragmatic viewpoint they differ little from good humanists I agree fully. I encountered them in the university where I went on my way out of the horse and buggy community. I don't know for sure what folks here consider liberal but from my perspective, Norman Vincent Peele's "Guideposts" magazines constituted liberal Christianity. That was my introduction to liberal Christianity. University was my next step. I learned radically new values from these people--values that resonated with my inner sense of justice and right and wrong. When I moved to humanism, I had to change nothing except get used to such statements as "We believe in no supernatural beings, miracles, etc." I could transfer my newly acquired value system intact. As you can see, the ideas I hold about Jesus' teaching fit right in with humanism.

 

Do liberal Christians cover for, and fascilitate, fundamentalist Christianity? I cannot answer that question one way or the other. I know for a fact that the mainstream Mennonite Central Committee does fasciliate the horse and buggy Mennonites and cover for them regarding legal issues. The mainstream Mennonite church ranges all the way from Bible-believing to progressive. I have worked with enough liberal Christian professionals in human services (nurses, social workers, counselors, etc.) in my area to know that they are seriously concerned with what they perceive as abuse in the name of religion in the ultra-conservative communities. They are concerned about the same things that concern me. I do not know if these same individuals would identify the same items in mainstream fundamentalism or whether they themselves are too close to it. It is human nature to see "deviant behaviour" in people whose culture, dress, and way of life is drastically different from one's own. It's called "fear of the stranger," or "prejudice," or an array of other fancy terms.

[trekkie]

Liberal Christianity has been a historical flop. In the 1960s, their heyday, they believed that the pews would be stuffed to the gills with young people looking for a kinder, gentler alternative to their parents' orthodoxy. It was kinder and gentler alright, but once people didn't have to worry about going to hell anymore, once it no longer mattered much what you did or how you did it or what you believed in as long as you were "good" and shit... people decided to 1) keep their money; 2) stay home, sleep in, and watch the game.

 

Fundamentalism thrives because they scare the shit out of people with hellfire, and once you're hooked, they demand the world of you or else you're a worthless quasi-Christian.

 

I think you're onto something there, VC. The fundamentalist churches are growing. Mainline and liberal church attendance is steadily decreasing. There is sort of a "revival" going on in some mainline churches who are embracing the "emerging Christianity" movement but these are not new converts to Christianity, merely mainliners who are desperately trying to find some way to keep the progressive/liberal paradigm alive.

 

We live in a scarey world. We have diseases for which there is no known cure. We have unethical leadership in secular society and within the institutionalized church. We are faced with devasting natural disasters for which we are ill-prepared. We face issues like thirdworld hunger, sickness, homelessness, and economic exploitation. Capitalism looks like it is doomed for failure. We have terrorists who will stop at nothing to kill almost anyone and everyone. And to top it all off, we have runaway nuclear armament with which we have the very real possibility of destroying ourselves. Liberal Christianity doesn't do a very good job of addressing these issues except to ask, "Why can't we all just get along? Here, have a donut!"

 

Fundamentalism, on the other hand, offers very simplistic answers to these questions:

 

1. This is the way it is supposed to be. The world is supposed to go to hell (metaphorically) before Jesus returns and cast all evildoers into hell (literally). None of this should take us by surprise because the bible predicted it. So don't worry about it. God is still in control. We won't blow ourselves up.

 

2. Get on Jesus' side to avoid all the devastation that is coming. All hell is about to break loose and you don't want to be "left behind." So join with Jesus in his holy jihad against the world. After all, what does the world matter when you are really going to heaven anyway? Don't worry. Be happy. Just sing your praise songs to Jesus and ignor what is going on around us. Things are supposed to be like this just before God steps in to rescue the saved.

 

So, for fundamentalism, the focus, as you say, is making sure that you are a "true believer." Otherwise, you will not only endure the Seven Years of Really Bad Shit, but go to hell afterward. All courtesy from the "God of love." SMILE

 

bill

[upstarter]

Liberal Christianity has been a historical flop. In the 1960s, their heyday, they believed that the pews would be stuffed to the gills with young people looking for a kinder, gentler alternative to their parents' orthodoxy. It was kinder and gentler alright, but once people didn't have to worry about going to hell anymore, once it no longer mattered much what you did or how you did it or what you believed in as long as you were "good" and shit... people decided to 1) keep their money; 2) stay home, sleep in, and watch the game.

 

Fundamentalism thrives because they scare the shit out of people with hellfire, and once you're hooked, they demand the world of you or else you're a worthless quasi-Christian. Liberal Christianity, while being more palatable for genteel intellectual sorts, can't compete with that.

 

Yes, I tend to agree with VC... I think liberal xtianity is dying. We see it here all the time, liberal churches are closing their doors, or merging with each other because they don't have the congregations to support them. Here in Canada at least, the liberal churches or more mainline churches are dying because mostly only old people attend them, and they are dying as well. I think liberal xtianity appeals to people who were raised in a time where that was just what you did. Everyone went to church and believed in God, it wasn't questioned. And church was quiet and boring and something to be endured. The histrionics of fundamentalism are WAY too out there for these people. For them, church is a habit, a community and an obligation, not "praise and worship", soul-saving exercise.

 

Now, I think if people are choosing to go to church it is because they have a much stronger upbringing or a much stronger zeal for xtianity than can be satisfied in an old, musty, liberal church. And like VC also said, the message in the fundy churches is clear, the rules are clear. In the liberal churches the rules are so open ended one naturally develops a "why bother" attitude. I can live a good life, be a nice person and "worship God in my own way" at home on my couch, with the game on.

 

Heather

[trekkie]

Do liberal Christians cover for, and fascilitate, fundamentalist Christianity?

 

Now THERE is an awesome question probably worthy of its own thread. But it IS relevant here.

 

It goes without saying that my opinion is only my opinion, but I will say it anyway. There is alot of...scuttlebutt...in progressive and liberal Christian circles that, yes, accuse the liberals for covering for fundamentalist Christianity. It is said that because many liberals refer to conservative, fundamentalist Christians as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, the liberal side is sanctioning the conservative side. From my experiences, the conservatives don't consider the liberals to be Christians. Or if they do, the liberals are "lukewarm" Christians who will need to become bible-believers when Jesus returns so that Jesus doesn't spit them out of his mouth.

 

The liberals that I've read and whose forums I've frequently do indeed consider conservatives to be Christians, albeit "slightly" misguided because conservatives are focused on beliefs instead of upon the good works that Jesus required of his followers.

 

Now, I probably need to back up here a little bit and make this statement: Taken individually, most conservative Christians are pretty good people. Despite their profession of belief in hell, they do not run door-to-door warning people to get out of a burning house. And, on a whole, some of them, especially the evangelicals, are starting to get more involved in humanitarian aid efforts. But when they congregate together, a herd mentality seems to take over that leads them to a frenzy where they want to take over the US government or kill gays or other stupid agendas.

 

So when the conservatives, as a whole, get stupid and want to outlaw all abortion, kill gays (as the bible says), remove evolutionary science from our schools, elect born-again presidents who believe in pre-emptive war, where are all the liberals who should call their "brothers and sisters" into account? Where is the voice from the left side of Christianity that calls for reason? Why is it when someone who hears the word "Christian" automatically thinks of a bible-thumper who thinks everyone is going to hell except for his/her denomination? Why don't the liberals speak up? Is it because they are scared that they are wrong? Is it because they might think, deep down, that Jesus really does side with the fundies?

 

What do others here think on this subject? Do the liberals cover for the conservatives?

 

bill

[Looking4Answers]

Do the liberals cover for the conservatives?

 

I look at it this way: Liberal Christianity views most forms of Christianity (including fundamentalists and conservatives) to be Christian simply because their mindset is more accepting and tolerant of other's beliefs. This may be because their "religion" does not depend so much upon dogma and doctrine so these potential dividing points are not there in all cases. Fundamental Christianity is much narrower than the liberal side and, because they depend so much on doctrine to define who they are and what they believe, they judge others that think differently as either not being Christian or "backslidden" (having fallen away from living the true life of a Christian).

 

Having lived the last 17 years or so as a fundamental Baptist, I would have to say that there is even a dividing point between "conservative" Christianity and "fundamental" Christianity. It is almost like the division in Judaism between the Reform, Conservative and the Orthodox.

 

To me (and I am only guessing here), it seems like liberal Christianity is a testing ground. Their ranks are shrinking because one event is happening and two results come out of it. The one event is (in my opinion) that people are beginning to see liberal Christianity for what it is. They see that it is not squarely based on the Bible but more upon tradition or good works, etc. As a result of this conflict (the Bible verses the teachings withing the liberal church) the individual will then start to examine the Bible to see what it says. This will lead them to one of two conclusions (in most cases): 1) the Bible is the literal word of god and, thus, it must be followed literally or 2) the Bible is full of it and must be forsaken. Option #1 may cause the individual to leave the liberal church and go to a more conservative or fundamental church where the Bible is given more respect and adhered to more literally. Option #2 may cause the individual to leave the faith all together and live more like a secular free thinker.

[Neon Genesis]

Fundamentalism, on the other hand, offers very simplistic answers to these questions

But answers don't always translate to solutions. When fundmeantlism is responible for causing half of the evils in the world in the first place, are they really offering any real solutions to the questions and problems or is it just a temporary form of relief from reality and does that really count as an answer?

 

What do others here think on this subject? Do the liberals cover for the conservatives?

I think it all depends on the person. To blanket all of liberal Christianity as being a cover for fundamentalism I think is blatant stereotyping. On the one hand, there are liberal Christians like you mentioned who do consider fundies to be brothers and sisters, but I also have some friends who are Christians that don't consider fundies to be "real" Christians and believe they're going to hell, although they're not exactly liberal Christians. They're more like moderate Christians that have liberal politics although they don't read the bible with liberal theology and they believe the bible is the inerrant word of god but they believe fundies to be the equivalent of modern day Pharisees, so I'm not sure if they would be counted as liberal Christians or not. I also have one friend who's a Christian but she doesn't believe in biblical inerrancy. And although she believes in heaven and hell, she doesn't believe non-believers go to hell simply for not believing, but she believes only truly evil people like murders or rapists go to hell and believes all religions and ways of life are just different ways of worshiping God.

 

She also accepts gays, but she doesn't believe there is such a thing as a "true" Christian and doesn't care what other people believe as long as they're not hurting others with their beliefs. There's also liberal Christians like Bishop Spong and Chris Hedges who speak out against the dangers of fundamentalism and are vocal voices in liberal Christianity, and Chris Hedges has also criticized his fellow liberal Christians for not being more vocal about the problems of fundamentalism in his book American Fascists: The Christian Right And The War On America. If the problem is the lack of criticism of fundamentalism, then shouldn't we be encouraging liberal Christians to stand up for their beliefs and be more open in their criticisms than turning secular humanism into a form of evangelizing religion itself? Isn't this why we should be working together with liberal Christians? But I have to wonder with the Democrats winning this recent election, what kind of effect will this have on liberal Christianity? Could this lead to an increase an interest in liberal Christianity or will this cause Christians to revert to fundamentalism?

[Archangel]

Liberal christianity was for me the second-to-last brief stop on my way atheism and total rejection of christianity. And I do mean brief (a few months at best). I was a hardcore Calvinist fundy when the wheels first began to fall off, so I also thought I could convince myself to hold onto at least "christianity lite". Mind you, to any good Calvinist worth their salt, liberal christianity is almost on a par of evil-ness with atheism, because they probably spend more time and energy attacking "feel-good" liberal christianity than atheism. (Because, of course, anything that makes you feel good and forget to loathe your own depravity for even a moment MUST be of the devil.)

 

So I tried a couple of feel-good churches and enjoyed the free donuts, but at the core it was equally empty, no one really cared about YOU except if it was in a way that made them feel spiritually superior to you, or if it was in a way that bolstered their pride in how big their church was getting. There were some fun fellowship outings that the Calvinists wouldv'e never done (movie nights, bowling nights, etc.), but they were fun in and of themselves because no one ever brought up religion, it was just hang-out time. Most of these churches have wide appeal to the upper-middle-class-white-suburbanites and follow "purpose-driven" models for growth (snazzy marketing, praise bands, "dynamic" youth teaching, high-profile outreaches, wanting to buld a church "campus" as a long-term goal, etc.) They specifically target young and middle-aged parents who don't want to turn into stuffy traditional pew-sitters like their parents, but desire the social status and connections with being part of the "in" church in the community (at least this is true in the bible belt), and in many cases, their kids' popularity depends on it. So it basically keeps people under the authority of the church without placing strict theological demands on them, keep them relatively ignorant of what the bible REALLY says by feeding them marshmallows of jesusy-goodness, and the church will in fact grow more and bring in more money that way. Brilliant! And I will give them credit, they actually tried to do a lot positive things for people in the community (way more than the traditional churches)...but still, there was the motive to bring people into the fold, an ulterior, manipulative motive, which tainted it.

 

I didn't fit the social mold (unmarried, no kids, don't drive an SUV, make under $100k) so that phase didn't last long although I tried my darndest (even read "Blue Like Jazz" in a desparate attempt to convince myself to keep trying). I gave it one more try--Unitarianism--before I finally broke down and decided it was all bullshit (celebrate them all as equally valid, are you kidding me?!) and quit church for good.

 

So yeah, I think dabbling in liberal christianity is a waste of anyone's time--if you're to the point where you're even considering getting off the religion wagon, go ahead and jump!