My Experience Speaking With A Retired Pastor Of A Liberal Church

[Geezer]

I read the link O.F. Honestly, liberal Christianity, as described in the link, sounds like another name for Deism or at least a version of Deism. I notice Marcus Borg was one of the noted authors. I've read most of his books as part of my de-conversion process. I agreed with most of his views but I couldn't make a connection with his version of Christianity. Without a Divine Jesus as God incarnate calling a religion Christianity makes no sense,...at least to me. If Jesus existed but wasn't divine then people are worshipping and praying to a human being, and that is really problematic.

[thereisnoperfect]

I spent 8 or so years as a McLaren/Campolo/emergent/"red-letter" Christian and then a year or so in the more progressive/liberal camp, so I can say a couple of things about all of this, but I don't want to pretend to speak for all liberal Christians.

 

'cause the big point is, everybody as a worldview, and it makes enough sense for them to function. Especially in liberal Christianity, where it's more of a "big tent" approach, people will have different attitudes and different answers. The last church I attended I went to a bible study for a while that was co-led by a gay guy who was really trying to bring feminist and queer readings of the bible into things and a guy who was still pretty conventional about Jesus dying for your sins, etc, etc.

 

For me, Christianity was certainly not all bad. I saw many Christians who "walked the walk" and did a lot of good. And the teachings of Jesus were helpful to me in spiritual growth. So I think there are a lot of people who can see value in Christianity and want to preserve that or pursue that. This might be because it's a tradition they grew up with, or because they had some positive experiences. 

 

Still, they know about evolution and the complexities of the bible texts. Most of them treat the bible as important but not automatically reliable. They know that a lot of it is myth, but they find value in myth--because everybody does. Everybody wants to have a community that has shared stories of significance, whether those stories are true or not. They might find this in sports lore, or in Doctor Who, or family legends, or in a religious group. 

 

So yeah, they cherry-pick from the bible, just like everybody, but they do it fairly consciously, and with some knowledge about what they're doing. And so they are able to do healthier things than a lot of more fundie churches: to teach their kids to value themselves, to protect the environment, etc. 

 

In my experience, the more liberal Christians who took it seriously (and weren't just the "in name only" types common to all kinds of churches) were better educated and more thoughtful than the typical person I'd encountered in more evangelical churches. But, as always, it's easy to paint with too broad a brush.

[Overcame Faith]

I spent 8 or so years as a McLaren/Campolo/emergent/"red-letter" Christian and then a year or so in the more progressive/liberal camp, so I can say a couple of things about all of this, but I don't want to pretend to speak for all liberal Christians.

 

'cause the big point is, everybody as a worldview, and it makes enough sense for them to function. Especially in liberal Christianity, where it's more of a "big tent" approach, people will have different attitudes and different answers. The last church I attended I went to a bible study for a while that was co-led by a gay guy who was really trying to bring feminist and queer readings of the bible into things and a guy who was still pretty conventional about Jesus dying for your sins, etc, etc.

 

For me, Christianity was certainly not all bad. I saw many Christians who "walked the walk" and did a lot of good. And the teachings of Jesus were helpful to me in spiritual growth. So I think there are a lot of people who can see value in Christianity and want to preserve that or pursue that. This might be because it's a tradition they grew up with, or because they had some positive experiences.

 

Still, they know about evolution and the complexities of the bible texts. Most of them treat the bible as important but not automatically reliable. They know that a lot of it is myth, but they find value in myth--because everybody does. Everybody wants to have a community that has shared stories of significance, whether those stories are true or not. They might find this in sports lore, or in Doctor Who, or family legends, or in a religious group.

 

So yeah, they cherry-pick from the bible, just like everybody, but they do it fairly consciously, and with some knowledge about what they're doing. And so they are able to do healthier things than a lot of more fundie churches: to teach their kids to value themselves, to protect the environment, etc.

 

In my experience, the more liberal Christians who took it seriously (and weren't just the "in name only" types common to all kinds of churches) were better educated and more thoughtful than the typical person I'd encountered in more evangelical churches. But, as always, it's easy to paint with too broad a brush.

Very informative. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

 

I am so used to the fundamentalist view which insists on one interpretation of the Bible and all who disagree are bound for hell, that I have to work hard to wrap my mind around the more fluid view that liberal Christianity seems to represent.

[Overcame Faith]

I read the link O.F. Honestly, liberal Christianity, as described in the link, sounds like another name for Deism or at least a version of Deism. I notice Marcus Borg was one of the noted authors. I've read most of his books as part of my de-conversion process. I agreed with most of his views but I couldn't make a connection with his version of Christianity. Without a Divine Jesus as God incarnate calling a religion Christianity makes no sense,...at least to me. If Jesus existed but wasn't divine then people are worshipping and praying to a human being, and that is really problematic.

I agree, Geezer, it does seem to have a sort of Deistic slant to it. It seems that the primary difference is that in liberal Christianity, Jesus still plays some sort of role.

[Blood]

I think there's also denial on the part of the pastor, and pastors like him. He simply cannot accept that he devoted his life to something that's largely if not entirely a myth, and not only that, propagated that myth as some ultimate Truth. Actually confronting the implications of that decision could unleash serious bouts of depression, guilt, self-loathing, and hatred of others, as some on this board who have gone through just such a "de-conversion" can testify. And understandably, he is trying hard to avoid such a crisis, especially at his age. 

[Deva]

I tried it, but it did not work for me.  Once you get out of a literalistic view of the Bible as "God's Word" its hard to twist it in your mind to be true or valid in some other way and try to apply it to your life.  You end up picking the good parts out, such as the concern of Jesus for the poor, and discard the bad ones.  I never heard some of Paul's notorious "woman shall not speak" passages read in the liberal church.   I heard one Deacon say those type of sections were liable to be "misinterpreted."  So the clergy makes a conscious decision on what parts to ignore. That is when I knew there wasn't any value in continuing. I just don't like being treated like a child that can't understand. I understand quite well what is in the Bible, since I was raised in the Baptist church.

 

I think its a bit hypocritical to parade the Bible down the isle in procession when it is not taught as a whole and really not "holy". It isn't believed by probably the majority of the congregation. 

[Deva]

 

I read the link O.F. Honestly, liberal Christianity, as described in the link, sounds like another name for Deism or at least a version of Deism. I notice Marcus Borg was one of the noted authors. I've read most of his books as part of my de-conversion process. I agreed with most of his views but I couldn't make a connection with his version of Christianity. Without a Divine Jesus as God incarnate calling a religion Christianity makes no sense,...at least to me. If Jesus existed but wasn't divine then people are worshipping and praying to a human being, and that is really problematic.

I agree, Geezer, it does seem to have a sort of Deistic slant to it. It seems that the primary difference is that in liberal Christianity, Jesus still plays some sort of role.

 

I also agree, and its extremely problematic to me to pray to Jesus, when there is no basis for the belief that he is divine.  Just wishing is what it amounts to.  There may be some value in having a good wish or a good aspiration, but why direct it to a God that isn't there?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I had some old college friends who ended up becoming very liberal christians.  They were explaining to me one time how little of the bible they actually believe literally and how they mainly just focused on the lovey-dovey side of jesus and nothing else.  I remember thinking, "Why bother being christian at all?  Why not just love people without labeling yourself?"

[♦ ficino ♦]

Sometimes I hear liberal religionists talk about how one needs to outgrow a fundamentalist mindset and gain an adult, mature faith.  I can see how such people do become more adult and more mature as they gain more experience of life.  From what I see, though, the impact of their life experiences and deeper thinking on their religion is usually that they disbelieve more parts of it than they did before.  I never understand how their religion, qua religion, becomes more mature.

[Margee]

In my opinion, liberal or conservative...once you know the truth about the 'Holy Bible'...you can never go back. My last a attempt was at the most 'grace filled' church in the world. They even think that atheists are saved!!! So there ya go. They just do not know the bible like we do. It all just sounds silly to me now. But to them...they need to believe and that's OK with me.....

[RipVanWinkle]

" I remember thinking, "Why bother being christian at all?  Why not just love people without labeling yourself?"  RNP

 

 

I think the reason to call it christianity is simply to be considered less radical than the fundamentalists who were considered 

extreme in the 60's. At least where I lived they were. So staying Xtian was less of a cultural shock and possibly resulted in less people leaving traditional denominations for more charismatic churches. The word, "christian" was still powerful then as it still is.

 

I had the impression that main stream America in the 60's did not believe in the literal truth of the bible, but still called themselves Xtians.

                                                                                                                                                                                                  bill

[duderonomy]

How can a person be a Christian, liberal or not, if they don't believe what the Bible says?

A liberal Christian pastor? Isn't that a bit like someone selling you a car that has four flat tires, but telling you it's cool because the tires still say Firestone on them?

 

Margee was right in her thread that claimed that the whole thing falls apart if Genesis isn't true, and this liberal pastor guy the OP talks about admits that there are two creation stories and they don't agree, and that it was written by and for people that had no idea about the world around them. 

 

IMHO, there are no shades of gray (or grey, as it were) when it comes to the Bible. It's true as it stands or not. It isn't open to private interpretation. You have to take it or leave it, otherwise you have to compile your own list of ancient writings and claim that they are inspired.

 

Damn. I must be a fundie ex-C.

[francesco]

How can a person be a Christian, liberal or not, if they don't believe what the Bible says?

 

afaik, the definition of christian is the follower of christ, not the follower of bible inerrancy or bible infalibility  

as long as they think that they are the follower of christ, they can call themselves christians regardless their point of view about bible

[Roz]

This isn't a jab at the old pastor, I don't know him from Adam (couldn't resist).  I don't know his character.  This is, instead, going to be a jab at liberal christianity.

 

To be brutality honest, I find liberal christianity to be like Butters Stotch from South Park.  The fundies (Cartman) makes fun of him, and yet he still basically sides with them.

 

I'm sympathetic to the old pastor when he said he's been called worse things by fellow christians (dog damn you, fundies, for that).  Yet the promise of heaven and a universe without evil is so tantilizing that lib christians will hang onto the teachings.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8bUWw1-8wk

[Overcame Faith]

 

How can a person be a Christian, liberal or not, if they don't believe what the Bible says?

 

afaik, the definition of christian is the follower of christ, not the follower of bible inerrancy or bible infalibility  

as long as they think that they are the follower of christ, they can call themselves christians regardless their point of view about bible

I agree. I think what the more fundamentalists do, though they will deny it, is to worship the Bible. They give the Bible attributes like inerrancy that are God-like qualities. Those who have a more liberal bent see that the Bible is not inerrant and can live with that. Seeing errors in the Bible to them does not mean one rejects the whole thing. Rather, one looks for the themes and generally accepts them while understanding that the details may not be all true.

 

Cherry picking? Sure, to some degree. But at least they do not believe in talking snakes, they do not worship a book, and they are far more accepting of human diversity.

[StillLooking]

From my experience the liberal christians that I have known believe Jesus is god and they believed jesus really died on cross and went to heaven, basically the salvation theory. They mostly gleaned over the birth of jesus. Yes, they do cherry pick the bible, they cherry pick the good feeling stories for their lives. They love sermon on the mount, turn the other cheek, serve the poor, etc. For me all of these are definitely okay, some people need some kind of "authority" figure in the lives in order to feel happy / content or generally have something to fill in the "emptiness" in their hearts. As long as they don't force their beliefs onto others I have no objections for that. Plenty of christians are doing humanitarian works because of the belief too, and that is more than okay in my book.

[midniterider]

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.

 

Like anything, religion or otherwise, people find a way to make something work, even if one idea they have to work with is contradictory to some other idea. Take work, for example. Do you have work rules that actually impede, hinder or decrease productivity? I did. It used to drive me crazy. Eventually I (stopped thinking about it) just didn't care anymore about productivity which made the job a little easier.

 

Somewhere in life I figured out that everyone seems to be able to live with seemingly contradictory ideas ... it defies logic and defies black and white thinking. Be we manage to live anyway. :-)

[Blood]

From my experience the liberal christians that I have known believe Jesus is god and they believed jesus really died on cross and went to heaven, basically the salvation theory. They mostly gleaned over the birth of jesus. Yes, they do cherry pick the bible, they cherry pick the good feeling stories for their lives. They love sermon on the mount, turn the other cheek, serve the poor, etc. For me all of these are definitely okay, some people need some kind of "authority" figure in the lives in order to feel happy / content or generally have something to fill in the "emptiness" in their hearts. As long as they don't force their beliefs onto others I have no objections for that. Plenty of christians are doing humanitarian works because of the belief too, and that is more than okay in my book.

 

These people vote, which is a form of "forcing your beliefs on others."

[DrNo]

I think that this "liberal" position will eventually become more mainstream as it is the only way for some people to try to hold on to their religious beliefs and maintain their intellectual integrity (people want to believe). But it is ultimately adding an unnecessary and unproven element to try to make sense of the world. Far more honest IMO to simply say "we don't know" to answer some of the questions that liberal Christianity tries to answer.

[francesco]

I think that this "liberal" position will eventually become more mainstream as it is the only way for some people to try to hold on to their religious beliefs and maintain their intellectual integrity (people want to believe). But it is ultimately adding an unnecessary and unproven element to try to make sense of the world. Far more honest IMO to simply say "we don't know" to answer some of the questions that liberal Christianity tries to answer.

there are also progressive christians who are questioning their faith and church doctrines

[FriendlyChristian]

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.

 

 

I think offering an honest investigation into anything whatsoever (regardless of personal stake) is rather noble to be quite honest.