My Experience Speaking With A Retired Pastor Of A Liberal Church

[Overcame Faith]

I am curious what our resident Christians (and other members, too) think about a conversation I had with a retired pastor of a liberal protestant denomination.

 

I was out of town recently on some business and met a nice gentleman through the work I was doing.  We had lunch together and when he told me he was a retired pastor, that led to discussions of Christian theology.  He then told me of his background and that his denomination was fairly liberal.  For example, they have no problem ordaining gays and are in favor of legalized gay marriage.  That led to other topics.

 

I asked him what he thought of evolution.  I first explained that with my church background, if anyone said they believed in evolution, they were viewed as someone who did not believe in the Bible.  He said, "Of course, evolution is true.  We must not ignore science and evolution seems very strong."

 

I then asked how he squared the first chapter of Genesis with his view on evolution.  He said, "Remember that the Bible was written thousands of years ago and when it was written the people who wrote it did not have science and knowledge as we do today.  For example, there are actually two creation stories in Genesis and they conflict with each other.  Genesis is largely myth.  It was written by people who were trying to understand the world around them."

 

We then began discussing the virgin birth of Jesus.  He said, "Well, the first thing you have to remember is that the references to Isaiah which the authors of the Gospels quote for the prophecy of the virgin birth is misleading.  If we go to the passage in Isaiah, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the birth of the Messiah nor of a virgin giving birth to anyone.  The word taken as "virgin" is more properly translated as young woman.  The passage in Isaiah was speaking of something that was happening at the time it was written.  That so-called prophecy does not belong in the Gospels because its use is misleading"

 

I asked him how that understanding affects whether Jesus was born of a virgin.  He said, "That is up to you to decide.  Read it and make your own decision about that."

 

I told him that if I asked all the Christians I have ever known about the virgin birth, they would absolutely insist upon it.  I also told him that if those same Christians I know heard what he was saying, they'd call him a heretic.

 

He laughed and said, "Oh, I've been called far worse than that by many Christians."

 

He then said this which I thought was well spoken, "The Bible is generally the word of God, but it does not contain the words of God."

 

I asked him what he meant by that statement.  He said, "If one takes the Bible as a whole, one can generally discern some general concepts about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and Salvation.  However, if we get bogged down in the details, we will lose the message because the specific words are the words of men."

 

In case anyone thinks otherwise, this man definitely considers himself a Christian.  He prays, teaches Bible, takes and admnisters communion regularly, sings in church, attends church "religiously" and fully believes that Salvation comes through Jesus.

 

I would be interested in any thoughts anyone has on this conversation.

[thereisnoperfect]

It doesn't surprise me. There are a lot of Christians like the guy you met--but they don't tend to get the headlines for a variety of reasons. 

 

Now sometimes they kind of end up in a different bind, of not really being able to offer any meaningful reason for why one should be a Christian other than tradition.

[florduh]

...and fully believes that Salvation comes through Jesus.

 

Watered-down Christianity is obviously less harmful than the full-strength versions and perhaps more palatable to many, but it's still a lie. Liberal Christians just pick fewer cherries than their brethren.

[Jedah]

Liberal Christians are Deists in denial. They want to believe in God, but they only want to believe in parts of the Bible they agree with and will make up various excuses for why they think they can do this. Those of us who have seriously studied Christian theology know that this doesn't actually work on a rational level.

[Geezer]

The Bible is either true or it isn't. There is no in between ground IMO. When my study and research convinced me the Bible wasn't true in any literal or historic context my "faith" evaporated. If Jesus didn't actually exist, and if he isn't literally God incarnate, then Christianity is just one of many pointless man made religions. 

 

How can anyone claim to be a Christian and at the same time deny all, or at least the most important, tenets and traditions of the faith? At least the fundies "think" its all true, but liberal Christians don't even think its true. So, what would be the point of professing to be "liberal" Christian?

[florduh]

I would also add that I have more respect for the integrity of the snake handlers than I do for the integrity of liberal Christians.

[Overcame Faith]

I appreciate everyone's very thoughtful and insightful comments.

 

For me it was an interesting experience because, though I know there are liberal Christians and have read some of what they wrote, I have never had such an indepth conversation with one.  I actually found it fairly refreshing not to hear a Christian insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.  My church background had a fairly heavy dose of biblical literalism.  All of the hell talk, denial of evolution, insistence that there are no contradictions in the Bible only our lack of understanding, and on and on, that really got to me and continues to get to me to this very day.

 

The conversation also led me to another thought.  Christianity is far from a monolithic religion.  There are wide variations in it and the variation spoken of by the retired pastor is on one end of the spectrum and the snakehandlers that Florduh mentioned are on another end of the spectrum.  I really don't think there is a single definition of Christianity other than it has something to do with Jesus.

[Blood]

I am curious what our resident Christians (and other members, too) think about a conversation I had with a retired pastor of a liberal protestant denomination.

 

I was out of town recently on some business and met a nice gentleman through the work I was doing.  We had lunch together and when he told me he was a retired pastor, that led to discussions of Christian theology.  He then told me of his background and that his denomination was fairly liberal.  For example, they have no problem ordaining gays and are in favor of legalized gay marriage.  That led to other topics.

 

I asked him what he thought of evolution.  I first explained that with my church background, if anyone said they believed in evolution, they were viewed as someone who did not believe in the Bible.  He said, "Of course, evolution is true.  We must not ignore science and evolution seems very strong."

 

I then asked how he squared the first chapter of Genesis with his view on evolution.  He said, "Remember that the Bible was written thousands of years ago and when it was written the people who wrote it did not have science and knowledge as we do today.  For example, there are actually two creation stories in Genesis and they conflict with each other.  Genesis is largely myth.  It was written by people who were trying to understand the world around them."

 

We then began discussing the virgin birth of Jesus.  He said, "Well, the first thing you have to remember is that the references to Isaiah which the authors of the Gospels quote for the prophecy of the virgin birth is misleading.  If we go to the passage in Isaiah, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the birth of the Messiah nor of a virgin giving birth to anyone.  The word taken as "virgin" is more properly translated as young woman.  The passage in Isaiah was speaking of something that was happening at the time it was written.  That so-called prophecy does not belong in the Gospels because its use is misleading"

 

I asked him how that understanding affects whether Jesus was born of a virgin.  He said, "That is up to you to decide.  Read it and make your own decision about that."

 

I told him that if I asked all the Christians I have ever known about the virgin birth, they would absolutely insist upon it.  I also told him that if those same Christians I know heard what he was saying, they'd call him a heretic.

 

He laughed and said, "Oh, I've been called far worse than that by many Christians."

 

He then said this which I thought was well spoken, "The Bible is generally the word of God, but it does not contain the words of God."

 

I asked him what he meant by that statement.  He said, "If one takes the Bible as a whole, one can generally discern some general concepts about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and Salvation.  However, if we get bogged down in the details, we will lose the message because the specific words are the words of men."

 

In case anyone thinks otherwise, this man definitely considers himself a Christian.  He prays, teaches Bible, takes and admnisters communion regularly, sings in church, attends church "religiously" and fully believes that Salvation comes through Jesus.

 

I would be interested in any thoughts anyone has on this conversation.

 

I thought he sounded pretty sensible until he got to the bolded part. 

 

People who actually study the Bible like this guy know the actual context of the stories, like the Isaiah passage. If they shared what they knew with the flock, they fear it would cause a crisis of faith among the sheep as well as their own unemployment. So they learn to think and speak in weasel language, such as, "That's up to you to decide." 

 

It's sad that having to preserve ancient myths is more important than the truth, and that good men are taught that lying is OK for religion, generation after generation. 

[earthgypsy]

The Bible is either true or it isn't. There is no in between ground IMO. When my study and research convinced me the Bible wasn't true in any literal or historic context my "faith" evaporated. If Jesus didn't actually exist, and if he isn't literally God incarnate, then Christianity is just one of many pointless man made religions. 

 

 

 

 

I totally agree!  That was my experience as well!! I was studying and researching, and then in one split moment my faith instantaneously disappeared/evaporated/vanished...there was no way to hold onto it.  Also, with all of the contradictions between what Paul said vs what Jesus said vs Old testament, how can we take the bible literally OR symbollically?  I don't see how either way.

[Overcame Faith]

I thought he sounded pretty sensible until he got to the bolded part. 

 

People who actually study the Bible like this guy know the actual context of the stories, like the Isaiah passage. If they shared what they knew with the flock, they fear it would cause a crisis of faith among the sheep as well as their own unemployment. So they learn to think and speak in weasel language, such as, "That's up to you to decide." 

 

It's sad that having to preserve ancient myths is more important than the truth, and that good men are taught that lying is OK for religion, generation after generation. 

 

 

Interestingly, I asked him if he says the things he was saying to me when he conducts bible studies in his church and he said he does.  However, you are right about the weasel language when he refused to address directly my question about what his view does to the virgin birth.  I didn't want to grill him on that so I let it pass.  But when he gave me that answer, I immediately thought his true answer was probably that the virgin birth is another myth.  However, had he said that, I would have felt compelled to ask the same question about the resurrection.  Since he weaselled his way out of answering me on that one and since it was a social occasion at a nice lunch, I didn't want to push too hard.

[Blood]

 

The Bible is either true or it isn't. There is no in between ground IMO. When my study and research convinced me the Bible wasn't true in any literal or historic context my "faith" evaporated. If Jesus didn't actually exist, and if he isn't literally God incarnate, then Christianity is just one of many pointless man made religions. 

 

 

 

 

I totally agree!  That was my experience as well!! I was studying and researching, and then in one split moment my faith instantaneously disappeared/evaporated/vanished...there was no way to hold onto it.  Also, with all of the contradictions between what Paul said vs what Jesus said vs Old testament, how can we take the bible literally OR symbollically?  I don't see how either way.

 

 

That's a good point. It doesn't even make sense metaphorically or allegorically, either. 

[Deva]

Sounds like a man desperately grasping at straws to retain some kind of faith.  I think that is what most of these liberal Christians are doing. Strikes me as sad.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Like Geezer and Earthgypsy and others, I never saw the point of being a liberal Christian. After my Catholicism split open, it was a pretty quick step to atheist.

[Overcame Faith]

Like Geezer and Earthgypsy and others, I never saw the point of being a liberal Christian. After my Catholicism split open, it was a pretty quick step to atheist.

 

Yes, I don't see the point either.  It containes its own seeds of destruction.  I guess it is a way of holding onto something that has no point other than to accommodate a social convention.

[mymistake]

I was a liberal Christian for a few months.  I needed that time to get past my fear of leaving Christianity.  But as I worked through it I got to see how Christianity looked from the outside and the spell was finally broken.

[RipVanWinkle]

Liberal Xtianity was  common in the 60's. I went to several churches like that at that time. It seems to me that it was a way to cope for the preachers who were educated but already deeply entrenched in their ministry. It has been my impression that liberal christianity caught on at a time when the mood of the US was more liberal than it became in the 70's and 80's. Ministers jumped at the opportunity to escape fundamentalism without getting tarred and feathered. It was a window of opportunity, I think. They thought, I believe, that they had a chance to be honest for the first time in their professional life. In retrospect, it was intellectually dishonest and a rationalization. But to them I believe they thought they were at least moving in the right direction. Mostly, in my experience, they avoided the tough subjects of the virgin birth and the resurrection and preached generically. Liberal Xtianity was far more popular than fundamentalists in the 60's.

 

They (like today) had their job through which they supported their family. I actually have more sympathy for them than the fundamentalists because they believed they were moving at least a step or two away from myth to the extent they felt like they could without losing their jobs  Liberal Xtianity  does not lead to the utter nonsense that fundamentalists do, like 

Falwell, Robertson and the like. Their political agenda was kind of  like humanists. They advocated helping the poor. Their missions were for the improvement of the physical conditions of mankind rather than some mythical formula for going to heaven. 

 

While I understand that they could not objectively be characterized as intellectually honest, the on the ground result was far better than the fundamentalists. That's my take on it. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. But give me a liberal Xtian over a fundamentalists every time. bill

[Overcame Faith]

While I understand that they could not objectively be characterized as intellectually honest, the on the ground result was far better than the fundamentalists. That's my take on it. I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. But give me a liberal Xtian over a fundamentalists every time. bill

I agree completely.

[francesco]

I also have some conversation with an emeritus priest (also a emeritus professor of theology school) from one liberal church

interestingly he has a similar view with your retired pastor

the idea is to make human being a human to the fellow human (homo homini homo) rather than human with list of dogmas,doctrines and rules

[seeker001]

If he is content and not shoving his beliefs down anyone's throat I don't see the problem with his beliefs.

[milesaway]

I visited a church of liberal xtianity, it was like, what's the point? It pretty much amounted to a social club anyways. If I'd stayed there instead, I'd have only been delaying the inevitable.

[pratt]

i had never considered liberal christianity in my younger days,,,,,,,

 

how does liberal christians treat the bible? believe what is convemient?

 

it is not easy to do mind gymnastic on bible literalism, and i cannot fathom what mind contortion neede for liberal christianity,,,,

[rerics]

This retired pastor says that he believes that salvation comes through Jesus, but also believes that Genesis is "largely a myth".  I'm curious as to what he believes is the exact mechanism for this salvation, especially if he considers the concept of Original Sin part of this myth.

[Geezer]

If some kind of spirituality, without the legalism and mythology, is the goal then some form of Deism would seem to be a better alternative than liberal Christianity. Deism is pliable and can be molded into just about any form the Deist desires. Deism is essentially spirituality without laws, rules, commands, myths, sins, forgiveness, sacred writings, financial commitment, or punishment and the hypothetical deities don't intervene in human affairs. That is probably as close to a perfect religion as the human mind has devised.

[Overcame Faith]

This retired pastor says that he believes that salvation comes through Jesus, but also believes that Genesis is "largely a myth".  I'm curious as to what he believes is the exact mechanism for this salvation, especially if he considers the concept of Original Sin part of this myth.

I don't know how he would answer your questions because he and I did not discuss those specific issues. I suspect that the key to understanding those issues would be to ask him to explain what salvation is and why is it needed.

[Overcame Faith]

This is a fairly informative article on liberal Christianity. I see a lot of what the retired pastor told me, or implied, in it.

 

http://www.cerm.info/bible_studies/Topical/liberal_christianity.htm