What is a liberal?

[Crabtownboy]

"The liberal is continually angry, as only a self-important man can be, with his civilization, his culture, his country and his folks back home. His is an infantile world view. At the core of a liberal is the spoiled child -- miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats." P.J. O'Rourke

How's this answer? hill...

Actually it sounds much like many fundamentalists I know. They seem to always be angry.

Now there is a difference between the fundamentals of Christianity and fundamentalists.

 

[trustitl]

When the word is used as a noun it refers to a specific positon. A liberal is a person who denies the fundamentals of the faith. He is an unbeliever. That is the definition of the word. If someone misuses the word he needs to be corrected.

That may be one of the defintions, but it is not the only one. I know it is hard for a fundamentalist to accept, but their is more that one accepted defintion for many words. Take it from this gay fella.
Also, I betcha I can get a group of "fundamentalists" together and have them arguing over what the fundamentals are in few minutes. One group would hold to the original 5 statements and others would have added to it.

I know a lot of people that would accept THE Fundamentals of the faith and would not be accepted as fundamentalists or even as believers.

However, if the word is used as an adjective it may take on another meaning. Generally speaking IFB churches are more conservative in their theology than the American Baptist Convention who have become quite liberal in their thinking, even to the extent of accepting female pastors. However since the gospel is still preached, and they still hold to the Baptist position, it is wrong to label them as "liberals." They do not deny the fundamentals of the faith.

I guess I'm going to have to tell the guys that the lesbian, tree hugging, pro-choice preacher with the "Vote Hillary" sign in her front yard is not a liberal. When I tell them I learned that on the BB I'm sure they are all going to flock to it to learn some more.

 

[John of Japan]

I'm not offended when I don't look at things the way a Fundamentalist does. I am fully aware of the theological arguments that have occured over the last 100 or more years. However, to use the term "liberal" in only this way is probably only occuring among staunch ivory tower fundamentalists. To us average Joes out here we are fully aware of the way this term is being used today.

So what are you saying? That you are perfectly content with misinformation? That the "average Joe" is more to be trusted than "ivory tower fundamentalist" about a historical, theological term? And you are not paying attention. The theologian I quoted was not even a fundamentalist! In fact, he would object to being called one!

The definition DHK and I have been giving of liberalism is not just a fundamentalist construct, it is the widely accepted definition by all theologians: liberal, conservative, neo-orthodox and fundamental.

Here's the deal. If you learn what the historical, theological term really means, you can correct fundamentalists who use it the wrong way, and even help them grow. Isn't that a good, Christian thing to do? Plus, you can be stronger than they are, because knowledge is power. "A wise man is strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength" (Pr 24:5).

So, the individual convinced in their own mind that the holy kiss is to be practiced because "it says to do it in the bible" will call the non-practicing party a liberal because they don't do what the Bible says. Or, so it would go on issues like the Sabbath, modest clothing, women staying home, women pastors...

These are all arguments over how the scriptures are to be interpreted and applied to life and typically the liberal and conservative labels are thrown around.

The arguments over what you call "soul liberty" are more commonly dividing the body of Christ using the terms liberal and conservative out here on the streets and away from these impersonal computers and the theology books in seminaries. I have never heard someone called a "modernist" or "to progressive" on a job site. Us guys just don't talk that way.

Hey, I've worked in a factory (4 dirty years driving a fork lift and welding), on a printing press, done the dirty stuff on a stage crew behind the stars, painted a house. None of that is an excuse for ignorance. None of that is an excuse for accepting uneducated meanings for words. Don't be content with being an "average Joe." Be something special for the Lord.

 

[John of Japan]

John, you are going to confuse them with the facts. :laugh:
But you are right. Some of the statements as .... well out of this world ... way beyond left field.

This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine!

 

[John of Japan]

United Methodist clergyman Dr. James Heldinger gives a summary of the tenets of liberalism:

http://galatiansc4v16.wordpress.com/2006/05/31/liberal-versus-conservative-theology/

This is an excellent description of liberalism. And Dr. Heldinger should know, since the United Methodists are shot through with liberalism!

 

[Revmitchell]

Take it from this gay fella.

Who is the "gay fella"?

 

[DHK]

That may be one of the defintions, but it is not the only one. I know it is hard for a fundamentalist to accept, but their is more that one accepted defintion for many words. Take it from this gay fella.
Also, I betcha I can get a group of "fundamentalists" together and have them arguing over what the fundamentals are in few minutes. One group would hold to the original 5 statements and others would have added to it.

The thread is "What is a liberal?" It is not "What is a fundamentalist?" Your statement may be true that among fundamentalists some may argue about what doctrines should be considered fundamental and what should not. That is a red herring, and has nothing to do with this thread. The question is: "What is a liberal?" For that we must go back to the 1895 Fundamental Conference held at Niagara Falls where there were five fundamental principles agreed upon conservative Protestants and delcared to be the fundamentals of our faith. Those that denied those fundamentals were, in turn, declared to be modernists (or liberals). They were unbelievers who denied the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

The history of fundamentalist has progressed since then. But that is another subject for another thread. A liberal was defined at that time, in 1895 when certain fundamentals of the faith were laid down in black and white, and those that opposed them were labeled modernists (or liberals). The rest of the history of fundamentalism and what it is today is irrelevant to that question.

 

[Revmitchell]

When you look at the history of liberals such as Briggs what we see is an unwillingness to be up front. Liberals have been willing to agree to fundamental oaths in our Seminaries all the while teaching contrary to the oaths. Such was the case wtih Briggs at Union, later others at Fuller, and such as we found during the 80's in many of the conventions seminaries.

In recent days we have those liberals who claim fundamental beliefs openly all the while working to hold on to liberal beliefs openly. The liberal of the past said Christ ministry was only about social reform. In these days they combine the two. Given that His ministry was strictly about redemption and the glory of God what we have is liberals who claim a fundamental doctrine in this area but add to it. Given the history and the clear contradiction in the two missions it is quite suspect that they actually hold to the fundamental doctrine on this and actually only hold to the liberal view that Jesus was only a social reformer. This is just one example of one doctrine.

Then we have liberals in these days who claim to "use' the word inerrant but go to the matt for those who do not. And defend them as believeing in fundamentals.

You cannot be conservative or hold to fundamental doctrines and deny inerrancy. In every case where errancy was held to the seminary fell deep into liberalsim shortly there after secularism. One follows the other every time.

 

[poncho]

What is a liberal? An individual who thinks in terms of the collective.

"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group -- whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called 'the common good'." -- Ayn Rand

That's simple enough isn't it?

Christain conservatives and yes even fundies all think in terms of the collective a whole lot more than they'll ever let on. I imagine thats probably why they give such long winded definitions when asked what a liberal is. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[trustitl]

So what are you saying? That you are perfectly content with misinformation? That the "average Joe" is more to be trusted than "ivory tower fundamentalist" about a historical, theological term? And you are not paying attention. The theologian I quoted was not even a fundamentalist! In fact, he would object to being called one!

You are reading into my statements. All I have tried to do is answer the question: What is a liberal? Are you not willing to see that the term is used more than one way? I'm not trusting Joe average, I'm just talking with him and trying to relate how he uses the word "liberal".

The definition DHK and I have been giving of liberalism is not just a fundamentalist construct, it is the widely accepted definition by all theologians: liberal, conservative, neo-orthodox and fundamental.

I agree that this is the theological use of the term. I am not a theologian and neither are 99% of the people I know. It doesn't mean I don't understand what you are saying, but as I just said, the word has more usages than you are admitting. These usages are not wrong, they are merely a reflection of the fact that languages change, something that is hard for a good fundamentalist to accept I guess.

Here's the deal. If you learn what the historical, theological term really means, you can correct fundamentalists who use it the wrong way, and even help them grow. Isn't that a good, Christian thing to do? Plus, you can be stronger than they are, because knowledge is power. "A wise man is strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength" (Pr 24:5).

Good advice to heed for all of us. And remember, power corrupts.

Hey, I've worked in a factory (4 dirty years driving a fork lift and welding), on a printing press, done the dirty stuff on a stage crew behind the stars, painted a house. None of that is an excuse for ignorance. None of that is an excuse for accepting uneducated meanings for words. Don't be content with being an "average Joe." Be something special for the Lord.

I take my average Joeness to be very special thank you (and so does my Lord) and I don't consider myself ignorant. Your attempt to make me appear to be will not change that. I understood the definition of "liberal" you are so zealously defending long before you brought it up. However, my liberal arts education also equipped me with the ability to see that words have more than one meaning.

 

[trustitl]

The thread is "What is a liberal?" It is not "What is a fundamentalist?" Your statement may be true that among fundamentalists some may argue about what doctrines should be considered fundamental and what should not. That is a red herring, and has nothing to do with this thread. The question is: "What is a liberal?" For that we must go back to the 1895 Fundamental Conference held at Niagara Falls where there were five fundamental principles agreed upon conservative Protestants and delcared to be the fundamentals of our faith. Those that denied those fundamentals were, in turn, declared to be modernists (or liberals). They were unbelievers who denied the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

The history of fundamentalist has progressed since then. But that is another subject for another thread. A liberal was defined at that time, in 1895 when certain fundamentals of the faith were laid down in black and white, and those that opposed them were labeled modernists (or liberals). The rest of the history of fundamentalism and what it is today is irrelevant to that question.

The word "liberal" was not created in 1895. I am aware of the use of it in the theological world. My posts have addressed the broader question "What is a liberal". In fact, my defintions in an earlier post were taken from Websters 1828 edition. You and others assumed the question was in regards to the theological usage only. Being an average Joe, I was a little more practical in looking at it. Sorry for being so ignorant as John of Japan pointed out. I guess you fundamentalists are a little more narrow in your focus (note I didn't say narrow minded :thumbs: ).

 

[trustitl]

Who is the "gay fella"?

That would be ME!

Websters 1828
GAY, a.
1. Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome. It denotes more life and animation than cheerful.

20 years of joyous marriage and 6 children will do that to a man filled with the joy of the Lord!

 

[John of Japan]

You are reading into my statements. All I have tried to do is answer the question: What is a liberal? Are you not willing to see that the term is used more than one way? I'm not trusting Joe average, I'm just talking with him and trying to relate how he uses the word "liberal".

I wasn't reading into your statements. That's why I asked, "What are you saying?"

I agree that this is the theological use of the term. I am not a theologian and neither are 99% of the people I know. It doesn't mean I don't understand what you are saying, but as I just said, the word has more usages than you are admitting. These usages are not wrong, they are merely a reflection of the fact that languages change, something that is hard for a good fundamentalist to accept I guess.

It would have been a great help in preventing this misunderstanding if you had said this from the start. After all, you came in on page 4 with a dictionary definition that had nothing to do with the OP.

As for languages changing, being a linguist I'm well aware of that. However, in this case the original meaning of the word liberal in the theological world has not changed at all. The added meanings you are talking about are due to misunderstandings by some fundamentalists, not the normal evolution of a word. (Actually, I could trace the changes in meaning historically, but have no desire to do that here.)

I take my average Joeness to be very special thank you (and so does my Lord) and I don't consider myself ignorant. Your attempt to make me appear to be will not change that. I understood the definition of "liberal" you are so zealously defending long before you brought it up. However, my liberal arts education also equipped me with the ability to see that words have more than one meaning.

I've not attempted to make you appear ignorant. I simply responded, as did DHK, to your original post, which showed no understanding of the OP or the three pages of discussion before you came on. I'm sorry if that offends you, but you set yourself up for it by coming into the discussion midway with something that didn't apply to the OP.

 

[trustitl]

QUOTE DHK
In 1895 conservative Protestant Christian leaders gathered together at Niagara Falls and issued a statement as to what constituted the Fundamentals of our Faith:

1) The verbal inerrancy of Scripture.
2) The divinity of Jesus Christ.
3) The virgin birth.
4) The substitutionary atonement of Christ.
5) The physical resurrection and bodily return of Christ.

From that point in history began the Fundamentalist movement. Those who opposed these fundamental doctrines were called modernists. In time the name Liberal became synonymous with modernist. A Liberal is one who also questions the authority of Scripture or any of the other fundamentals of Scripture.

This is what I am pointing out. Do you see how fundamentalism has changed in the minds of many. To say the discussion has been limited to only the historical definition formed in the early 20th century is unture. Many of the posts show that people think of the "liberal vs. fundametalist" divided beyond the original 5 doctrines.

The authority of scripture has become the most commonly discussed issue with those around me. That is why I used the holy kiss as an example because many will argue that one does not uphold the authority of scripture if certain practices are held to.

It could be an interesting thread to find out what people think "the other fundamentals" refers to.

 

[poncho]

Go a bit deeper...chop at the root not the branches. Liberalism isn't the desease it's a symptom.

 

[Ed Edwards]

That would be ME!

Websters 1828
GAY, a.
1. Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome. It denotes more life and animation than cheerful.

20 years of joyous marriage and 6 children will do that to a man filled with the joy of the Lord!

We'll all be gay when Jonney comes marching home again (from IRAQ)

 

[JustChristian]

Liberalism denies that God intervenes in history in a supernatural or miraculous way. Therefore liberalism denies basic tenets of the scriptures such as creation, miracles, and the resurrection. In doing this, it keeps the forms and language on Christianity but ceases to actually be Christian.

First, let's make it clear that the topic is about theological liberalism NOT political liberalism. Many far right fundamentalists combine the two. A person can be very "conservative" theologically but more liberal politically.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother BaptistBeliever -- Preach it! :thumbs:

I know my pastor is Conservative religiously and Liberal politically. But he preaches Jesus Saves at the church.

 

[John of Japan]

First, let's make it clear that the topic is about theological liberalism NOT political liberalism. Many far right fundamentalists combine the two. A person can be very "conservative" theologically but more liberal politically.

Um, Swaimj's description was a good, precise definition of theological liberalism, not political liberalism.

If anyone mixed up the two, it was poncho, not Swaimj.

 

[JustChristian]

Um, Swaimj's description was a good, precise definition of theological liberalism, not political liberalism.

If anyone mixed up the two, it was poncho, not Swaimj.

I stand by my belief that many if not most conservatives consider the two as the same.