Liberalism

[Crabtownboy]

I have noted that conservatives do not mind being labled conservative, but liberals really don't like being labled liberal. Why is that?

I do not mind being called a liberal.
I do not mind being called a moderate.
I do not mind being called a conservative.

What I do mind is being given a label as a slander by the name caller stating that means I hold beliefs that I do not hold at all. A label honestly given is all right. A label being used as a sledge hammer, regardless of the label being used is not all right.

For instance I believe that people who consider themselves conservative or fundamentalists here would object if that label were used to describe them and to also imply that means they believe in racial segregation of schools, restaurants, etc.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Because of the opprobrious epithet "liberal," today they call themselves “moderates.” ~W.A.Criswell

I'm guessing Criswell regrets those foolish words today.

Matthew 12:36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment."

 

[JustChristian]

Liberal Christianity: A movement that seeks to retain religious and spiritual values of Christianity while discounting the infallible authority of the Bible. Its origins are in the German Enlightenment, notably in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and the religious views of Friedrich Schleiermacher. Liberals reject the stated authorship and historical accuracy of many books of the Bible. They are skeptical concerning many or all of the biblical miracles, preferring naturalistic explanations or viewing miracle accounts as legend or myth. They often deny or reinterpret in mythical terms such doctrines of orthodox Christianity as the virgin birth, atoning death, and even the resurrection of Jesus. Liberalism has been most influential in mainline Protestant denominations and is rejected in Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity.

Liberation Theology: A movement that attempts to unite theology with social and religious concerns about oppression. It finds expressions among blacks, feminists, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans, but it is most closely identified with the shift toward Marxism among Roman Catholic theologians and priests in Latin America. Most traditional doctrines of Christianity are de-emphasized or reinterpreted. Jesus and the Bible are defined and interpreted in light of a class struggle, with the gospel seen as a radical call to activism (or even revolution) promoting political and social answers usually in the form of classic Communism.

______________________________________________

What say you? Is this accurate?

I don't accept liberal theology. There is no connection between being a political moderate and being a theological liberal. If this defines liberalism for you please don't erroneously call me a liberal again. Thanks.

 

[JustChristian]

You hold that the Bible is just "a book of words". And that personal experience is equal or higher than scripture. That alone is liberal theology.



And like all who hold to liberal theology you work to reduce your position to present it in a simplistic light that hides the real intent. Everyone cares about people but only liberal theology filters scripture through social justice.



Sorry but your support of Obama says otherwise. He holds to classic liberation theology as was taught to him by his mentor the reverend Wright. He spent 20 years being indoctrinated by it and you support it unapologetically.

Do you reject the fact that the Holy Spirit is at work in the lives of people today and that this allows people to have a deeper, more accurate understanding of the scriptures? If you do then you accept that the Bible must be interpreted and understood by every Christian. It's that individual interpretation which provides insight into how the scriptures can be applied to our daily life. If you don't agree with this then the Bible is just a book of words which has no meaning for us today. The eunuch asked Phillip to sit down with him and interpret the scripture. Scripture must be interpreted and understood in order for it to work powerfully in our lives.

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't accept liberal theology. There is no connection between being a political moderate and being a theological liberal. If this defines liberalism for you please don't erroneously call me a liberal again. Thanks.

I do not accept the term "moderate" under any circumstances. It is merely an attempt to repackage liberalism. There is a connection between political and theological liberalism. The social justice theology plays itself out in both theology and politics.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I don't accept liberal theology.

Same here.

There is no connection between being a political moderate and being a theological liberal.

Very true. Of course on the conservative side of things (that is, those who want to "conserve" the old ways and traditions they grew up with), then there is often a connection between being theologically conservative (uncritically accepting the religious interpretations and practices of one's upbringing or influential pastor) and being politically conservative (trying to preserve the social interpretations and practices of one's upbringing or influential political leader).

I do not intend to imply that theological and political conservatives are uniformly intellectually lazy or unable to see beyond their own upbringing, but there is a significant "conservative" minority that is this way. A significant number of theological and political conservatives I know have carefully considered their positions and are quite skilled at communicating their insights.

As for me, I consider myself politically moderate and theologically conservative/moderate:

Politically, I'm old-school Republican along the lines of George H. W. Bush and Eisenhower.

Theologically, I'm something of an temperate iconoclast. I fully believe the Bible is infallible and reliable, yet also acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit at work today in the world, in individual personalities, in churches, in institutions, and in the greater world that does not yet acknowledge God. I am a very conservative interpreter of scripture in that I hold to a historical-critical method and am not too concerned about theories of higher criticism, etc. I believe that God has and is working "supernaturally" (at least, in our modern way of looking at things) in the world so biblical miracles are credible and present-day miracles are certainly possible. (I was told just this last Sunday by some missionary friends that some formerly Muslim believers in Chad are experiencing miracles as they spread the gospel among their Muslim neighbors. The people of Chad are mostly illiterate and have few resources for survival, much less theological training. They have been repeating the Bible stories the missionaries have prepared for their oral culture and have been sharing their faith with the use of those stories and living demonstrations of the Holy Spirit transforming their lives and doing works of power (especially healing) through them.

I embrace the traditions of the past, but I'm not bound to them if they interfere with the work of God today.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I do not accept the term "moderate" under any circumstances. It is merely an attempt to repackage liberalism.

That's merely your opinion.

Certainly there have been some who have tried to hide "liberalism" behind a moderate label, but that's more the exception than the rule.

There is a connection between political and theological liberalism. The social justice theology plays itself out in both theology and politics.

Sure, for some there is a strong connection between the two. But not for all. Depending on what parts of scripture you emphasize, you can establish a liberal political philosophy while being very conservative with scripture. I think it would be an unbalanced philosopy, both theologically and socially, but then I'm a moderate.

 

[Revmitchell]

That's merely your opinion.

Certainly there have been some who have tried to hide "liberalism" behind a moderate label, but that's more the exception than the rule.


Sure, for some there is a strong connection between the two. But not for all. Depending on what parts of scripture you emphasize, you can establish a liberal political philosophy while being very conservative with scripture. I think it would be an unbalanced philosopy, both theologically and socially, but then I'm a moderate.

Would the following be an answer made by a liberal or a conservative:

Question

"But I still struggle with how I should view those who have other beliefs. I'm not sure I am ready to condemn them as wrong. I know some very good Buddhists. What is their destiny?"

Answer

Romans 2:6-10: "God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger."

What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say "he can't save them." I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: "There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved."


http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=14

 

[OldRegular]

Very true. Of course on the conservative side of things (that is, those who want to "conserve" the old ways and traditions they grew up with), then there is often a connection between being theologically conservative (uncritically accepting the religious interpretations and practices of one's upbringing or influential pastor) and being politically conservative (trying to preserve the social interpretations and practices of one's upbringing or influential political leader).

Your response above is the reason I reject the use of the terms liberal or conservative to define ones belief of Scripture.

Of course you are incorrect both in your definition of political conservatism and theological conservatism.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Would the following statement be a answer be made by a liberal or a conservative:

Why in the world are those the only two answers? Not everything is simply liberal or conservative. There's a broad band of space between those two positions, and furthermore, that might not even be the proper continuum on which to judge this position.

Question

"But I still struggle with how I should view those who have other beliefs. I'm not sure I am ready to condemn them as wrong. I know some very good Buddhists. What is their destiny?"

Answer

Romans 2:6-10: "God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger."

What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say "he can't save them." I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: "There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved."

This sounds like something Dallas Willard has written. If it is not, it is similar to his position on things. That is, he leaves judgment about someone's eternal destiny to God (doesn't try to root out the tares) but affirms that Jesus is the only way to God. Willard works in a college environment (USC) and engages students to carefully consider their viewpoints. He has some appreciation for the few things in Buddhism that are right, but also points out the major problems with Buddhist thought. He certainly does respect the people involved in Buddhism and recognizes their spiritual hunger. He works to point them to Christ and leave Buddha behind. There's no sense in attacking a person of another religion when you have good news about Jesus to tell.

I have a similar point of view. God is at work in people long before we ever have an opportunity to speak to them about the gospel. In fact, no one comes to the Son unless the Father/Spirit draws them (John 6:44). It is not five-point Calvinism, but it recognizes the clear biblical teaching that we are not able to receive the gospel unless God has prepared us to receive it. Furthermore, like the Ethiopian eunuch, God so desires for those who are seeking Him (through the work of the Spirit) to find Him, he'll send a witness to explain the gospel and then teleport the witness away to do other important work (see Acts 8:26-40) once the gospel has been presented. There are all kinds of stories throughout Christian history of God providing the gospel through direct revelation, through scraps of scripture that found their way into pagan hands, through unknown and anonymous missionaries who traveled the earth in unrecorded journeys (think of very early missionaries who apparently traveled through China, and stories of blue-eyed people in North American pre-history).

 

[Revmitchell]

This statement by Willard is beyond liberal and falls into complete heresy:

It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved.

 

[preachinjesus]

I'd love to find out who around here denies the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. I'd even be interested to find out who denies inerrancy.

Who on this site favors redactionary criticism? Who here favors the liberation theology of Gutierrez? (Who here has heard and/or read Gustavo Gutierrez?) Who here favors inclucivism? Who here has accepted that salvation is by works and not faith? Who here has accepted women as senior pastors? Who here believes that salvation is more about aquiring knowledge than working out your faith through grace? Who here believes that Jesus was a homosexual or married? Who denies the miracle of the Bible? Who here denies the Trinity?

Who on this site is in favor of abortion? Who on this site desires to see increased rights and recongition of homosexuality?

I want to know. Because I've been here awhile and don't know anybody who believes that.

I want to know because I think by labeling some people a particular way is just a coward's way out of a serious argument about serious questions of our serious faith. When do we have to agree on every little jot and tittle of theology?

Why is it Baptists have to push everybody away in order to think they're doing "the work of Gospel"? Didn't Jesus look to include everyone until they disqualified themselves?

I could careless what someone calls me. This place isn't that important and I've been called worse.

But I want to know who believe those above issues. Otherwise your words are meaningless and you're just an angry Christian who wants to fight because they aren't in a good one for others.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Of course you are incorrect both in your definition of political conservatism and theological conservatism.

Please note, I was using the most basic meaning of "conservatism" (meaning, the philosophy of conserving) as a point of illustration. I was not trying to characterize the entire movement (even the majority of the movement) in the way I described.

 

[Baptist Believer]

This statement by Willard is beyond liberal and falls into complete heresy:

It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved.

I think the point he was making is that someone may not know Jesus in the way you and I do (that is, by name and with a rudimentary understanding of His life and teachings) and yet be saved by Jesus because they have accepted the light/revelation God has given them.

If you read Willard beyond a few articles and choice quotes, I think you'll see that.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think the point he was making is that someone may not know Jesus in the way you and I do (that is, by name and with a rudimentary understanding of His life and teachings) and yet be saved by Jesus because they have accepted the light/revelation God has given them.

If you read Willard beyond a few articles and choice quotes, I think you'll see that.

All you did was confirm my point. What is this light/revelation outside of Christ?

 

[Baptist Believer]

What is this light/revelation outside of Christ?

It is simply the Personal revelation of God to a person, unmediated through scripture or a human agency. It is not outside of Christ since Christ is in God. It is simply knowledge of God without all the details we have.

God revealed Himself to Abraham in this way. There was no scripture or strong religious tradition for him to follow.

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm guessing Criswell regrets those foolish words today.

Matthew 12:36 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment."

Of course he isn't

 

[Revmitchell]

It is simply the Personal revelation of God to a person, unmediated through scripture or a human agency. It is not outside of Christ since Christ is in God. It is simply knowledge of God without all the details we have.

God revealed Himself to Abraham in this way. There was no scripture or strong religious tradition for him to follow.

Then that would be complete heresy. Meaning no salvation value in it and one cannot hold to that and be saved. It doesn't even reach the point of being a liberal Christian.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Then that would be complete heresy.

Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

No scripture. No human preacher. Just a previous general knowledge of God or gods and a series of divine encounters.

If that's heresy, then you have to explain Abraham's call and Paul's citing of it in Galatians and Romans as the prototype for the salvation of the Gentiles.

Meaning no salvation value in it...

God brings the value. If God does it, it has value. If we do it, it doesn't. The devils have great theology, but they are doomed.

...and one cannot hold to that and be saved.

Sorry, but God has saved me, not RevMitchell or even my own self-effort. I have also given scriptural support.

I realize that many people may not agree, but that's fine. I'm happy to discuss the issue and possible have my mind changed. But that's not going to happen by folks declaring me "unsaved" or claiming I'm a heretic.

It doesn't even reach the point of being a liberal Christian.

Of course it doesn't. Liberal Christians don't take the Bible as seriously as I do. I believe God spoke with Abraham and performed signs and miracles. I also believe the clear biblical teaching regarding Abraham's relationship with God trumps whatever the Southern Baptist leadership or any other institution says about it. That's pretty conservative.

 

[monk]

Rev mitch,
I urge you to define conservative in your view, not a cut and paste, and let's see if we can measure up.
thanks
+ monk