Thread: Purgatory: Affirming Liberalism: A call to arms! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022935

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
I "came out the closet" yesterday and labelled myself a liberal christian in front of my Bishop (we were discussing the diversity of traditions in our formation program for ordained ministry).

After my director of education called me "brave" for doing so ( ) a charming Anglo-Catholic approached me and introduced me to this organisation:


Affirming Liberalism.

It encourages liberal christians to be:

Confident not apologetic
Visible not invisible
Vocal not silent
Overt not covert
Free not fearful
Strong not weak

They define liberal christiany like this:

quote:

---

The Liberal tradition has emphasized the importance of the use of reason in theological exploration. It has stressed the need to develop Christian belief and practice in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding and the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom.”

---

A couple of questions:

1) What do you think of this definition?

Approve/disapprove?

Could you improve it?

2) Are you afraid to label yourself a liberal christian in public but actually belong in this tradition? If so, why?

[ 20. September 2012, 13:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
I don't self-identify as a liberal, but I could probably sign up to your friend's definition.

Which is the problem that liberals have. Outwith liberaldom, people tend to define a liberal by what they are against (largely evangelicals and fundamentalists). It's hardly fair, but it's the way it is. In an attempt to self define in a positive way (which is a good thing), summaries such as the one you quote tend to become so general that almost anyone could sign up, and so the distinctiveness of the tradition tends to get lost.
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 
At face value, I could sign up to this. But I don't think I would usually be described as a liberal.
 

---

Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
I remember a conversation with the late bishop of Crediton when someone said 'I suppose i am a liberal catholic'. 'Ah' he replied 'th4e best sort to be'.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I'm puzzled, because I thought that Modern Church was already covering the Liberal interests in the Church (is it because it is, historically, too closely linked with the CofE, even though they too are open to people from other denominations?).

Something which interests me is how church leaders who say they are Liberal, don't always feel too comfortable when members of their congregations start questioning (perhaps they feel slightly threatened?) - some Liberal leaders keep their congregations rather in the dark regarding latest theological developments and thought. Or maybe it is out of kindness, thinking that some other members of the congregation wouldn't be able to handle it - developing instead a sort of non-challenging lowest-common-denominator sort of Christianity, perhaps?
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
The devil - of course - is in the detail: the phrase '[i]t has stressed the need to develop Christian belief' is where the fighting focuses. The word 'develop' covers everything from the body builder developing a few muscles, to the property developer who knocks down the beautiful old building to make something that will make a lot of money for him. And given that 'reason' is code for 'what conforms to rationalist thinking' and is usually therefore rejects most miracles, it's at that point we part company.

And then we have the John Pridmore story in last week's Church Times of people finding the holes in their teeth filled with silver - and for a boy with gold - at church miraculously rather than by a dentist. The last time I'd heard that story it was on the Evangelical net; I'm amazed to hear it from a paid-up liberal who basically can't believe his own eyes. You really couldn't make it up. And they accuse fundamentalists of failing to engage with reality
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I wouldn't start from the use of reason. Calvinists use reason, but are decidedly not liberal. It's true that liberals are comfortable with scientific ideas and a scholarly approach to scripture, but what distinguishes them is not so much reason as an open and questioning style.

I think it's true that liberalism is often most clearly seen by what it isn't. It's a reaction to other people's certainties and systems: the Calvinist God, Barth's revelation, Catholic authority, con evo self-confidence. It says but.

But I like the call to be positive and assert. I don't think liberalism has to be negative. There is a positive power in its comfort with questions and loose ends.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Has your bishop taken any particular actions or made any particular statements against liberals to make you think mentioning it to him or her is so admirable?

Zach
 

---

Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 205:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding

---

This might be an issue: do 'liberals' really believe humans are more widely knowledgeable and understanding now?

Is there any evidence for that belief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 205:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding

---

This might be an issue: do 'liberals' really believe humans are more widely knowledgeable and understanding now?

Is there any evidence for that belief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
1) What do you think of this definition?

---

quote:

---

Could you improve it?

---

quote:

---

2) Are you afraid to label yourself a liberal christian in public but actually belong in this tradition?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Having said that, I can't imagine how you could deny that there have been advances in knowledge.

---

Fair point - I was focusing on 'theological matters' and 'understanding' generally.

A large part of my gripe is the presumption that 'liberals' are, in practice, liberal.

From what I can see they're routinely just as tribalistic as any drooling moron 'conservatives'. And even worse they apparently* often think they're 'better' than the people they disagree with.




*Of course you never know, particularly here, when they're alleging bullshit they know to be bullshit merely to wind up.
 

---

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
Amen to what Zach said.
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 205:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding

---

This might be an issue: do 'liberals' really believe humans are more widely knowledgeable and understanding now?

Is there any evidence for that belief?

---

Whilst that phrase is largely code for 'We think young earth creationists are idiots', it also hints at a rejection of all miracles - people aren't misled by those tall tales any more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:


And then we have the John Pridmore story in last week's Church Times of people finding the holes in their teeth filled with silver - and for a boy with gold - at church miraculously rather than by a dentist. The last time I'd heard that story it was on the Evangelical net; I'm amazed to hear it from a paid-up liberal who basically can't believe his own eyes. You really couldn't make it up. And they accuse fundamentalists of failing to engage with reality

---

quote:

---

This is, I think, an area where liberals and evangelicals can find much fertile common ground.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:


And then we have the John Pridmore story in last week's Church Times of people finding the holes in their teeth filled with silver - and for a boy with gold - at church miraculously rather than by a dentist. The last time I'd heard that story it was on the Evangelical net; I'm amazed to hear it from a paid-up liberal who basically can't believe his own eyes. You really couldn't make it up. And they accuse fundamentalists of failing to engage with reality

---

Evidence from an intelligent skeptic adding weight to the account. I quite liked his throw away remark '..there are no dentists..'

---

quote:

---

I wonder. If there are people with teeth and a diet that includes refined carbohydrates then I think there are bound to be dentists. Without dentists there would be a huge amount of pain, and needless death. There might not be surgeries, but there are almost certain to be dentists, perhaps travelling ones.

If people have fillings I would say that clinches it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So now Zach tells me that Christians shouldn't do anything, because God will do it all for us. Isn't there some historical evidence that this program doesn't work?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I just firmly deny that God's Kingdom will come about because of our own action. The Kingdom happens because of what Christ has done, not what we can do.

---

quote:

---

Zach82:

What will bring about the justice that we hear about so often in the Bible? Faith in Christ, or the sword of the State? The Bible, I think, speaks very clearly for the former option.

---

quote:

---

Zach82:

No good can come of confusing God's Kingdom and our political movements. Your political whims need redemption as much as anything that is human.

---

More gently perhaps, and you didn't say all of this, but is it not the mythology of western society and American civilization (I include my country here) that makes us suggest that its behaviour in the world will extend freedom, justice, democracy, capitalism while in the eyes of much of the world's population it only extends itself to making money and extending their suffering? Does this not also need redemption?

The kingdom of God will not come about if we just believe something. Let us pray as St. Francis suggested: "God, make me an instrument of your peace...." I think Mother Theresa's lines also help: "Make us worthy Lord to serve our fellow men throughout the world...." Believe what you must, then for God's sake, do something.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Exactly...

The liberal gospel only brings hope to the poor if liberals do enough to establish the kingdom of God in the here and now. Faith in God has little to do with it. Our faith should not be in God but government which if not controlled by liberals is Demonic. So, liberals, not Jesus, save. Jesus saves only to the extent that liberals attribute their activism to a figure called the "historical Jesus" who scholars tell them was essentially a Liberal Protestant before Liberal Protestantism existed. You may believe those findings to suspicious but that's because you are anti-intellectual and not open to reason. Coincidentally, being open to reason does not mean accepting such basic things as the law of non-contradiction. On, no, that's limiting God.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Quite right of course! The Devil's Kingdom is the one that comes about from our own action, hence good Christians determining that they are well, good and saved in their happy little churches while millions starve, suffer and die. Often because Christians do an 'either - or' with faith and works. It is probably one of the worst and most damaging developments in societies to suggest that faith shall be the thing, and works and actions matter much much less: 'we'll just pray'. Which or course denies all of Jesus' actions on earth, including the action to agree to be killed. So, no, we need action that may be motivated by faith but action nonetheless.

I am rather sensitive about this, because no amount of faith has saved faithful kind people I personally know (and am one myself) from tremendous, terrible disaster. So if I blast and seem to over-react, it is from current emotion and my heart. And I think you're wrong. We absolutely must 'do', and not just believe! This has to be rebuked.

---

quote:

---

Anyone can suggest the bible speaks clearly on nearly anything. It doesn't. Again the error. It is rather faith that spurs action that is required. Jesus did not say 'go on and catch more fish' did he? He asked people to do things!

---

quote:

---

More gently perhaps, and you didn't say all of this, but is it not the mythology of western society and American civilization (I include my country here) that makes us suggest that its behaviour in the world will extend freedom, justice, democracy, capitalism while in the eyes of much of the world's population it only extends itself to making money and extending their suffering? Does this not also need redemption?

---

I said nothing about the American empire or capitalism because I don't believe in them. They are godlessness that cannot save anyone either. Only the Cross can save.

And the fact that you think this is an argument about political and economic philosophies and not about the Gospel, which is above any economic or political philosophy, makes be question again just what makes your beliefs Christian.

Jesus does not put the crown on your political beliefs. He judges them.

Zach

[ 18. February 2012, 17:25: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
This is classic argumentation strategy Zach. Do an interpretation of what the other has said and make it extreme. Faith and works have never been in opposition. Both are required. It is a most grievous error to just believe and do nothing. We are called to both.

Frankly, there is God-less inaction on all sides of the political spectrum. And, if I read Beeswax rightly, this is among the first times I agree with him/her.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
This is classic argumentation strategy Zach. Do an interpretation of what the other has said and make it extreme. Faith and works have never been in opposition. Both are required. It is a most grievous error to just believe and do nothing. We are called to both.

Frankly, there is God-less inaction on all sides of the political spectrum. And, if I read Beeswax rightly, this is among the first times I agree with him/her.

---

quote:

---

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)

Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Romans 10:1-11

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Faith in the cross of Jesus cannot save. And you call that Christian belief?

---

quote:

---

Jesus does not put the crown on your political beliefs. He judges them.

---

quote:

---

I see nothing to make me think that works here excludes political beliefs or political action. You argue as if you think that faith excludes everything else that is not faith. But that is not true. Whatever is done out of faith is faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I can't fathom why I've had to repeat that so many times.

---

quote:

---

As for "the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom," that sort of faithlessness has nothing to do with the Christian Faith.

---

quote:

---

That's a fairly ambitious claim to make and one not self-evidently scriptural: Bree's question about the ostensible selectiveness of your own reading is one that on the surface bears asking. I'm not a liberal either in the either the English political or German theological sense, and the Lutheran in me wouldn't question the primacy and finality of grace in the equation, but the anabaptist in me is equally suspicious of any attempt to tame the very challenging and counter-cultural God who proclaims the Beatitudes into a private moral guru safely insulated from any translation of the Gospel message into human society. The kingdom is accomplished* so we're off the hook, so to speak.

It seems to me if you try to take out the jubilee, the widow, and the orphan out of the equation, you're almost left with even less than Jefferson's naturalistic Gospel. That's one of the reasons I find the Occupy controversy mystifying: trust Christians to respond to a group challenging an anti-biblical economic ethic with so much hand-wringing over whether we ought to be involved in such things!

---

quote:

---

so many nominal Christians throughout history, took no notice whatsoever of the key parable of Jesus Christ himself, which taught that you shall love your neighbour as you love yourself, and even those that you have despised and hated are your neighbours. This never made any difference to Christians, since the primary epiphenomena of any religion’s foundation are the production and flourishment of hypocrisy, megalomania and psychopathy, and the first casualties of a religion’s establishment are the intensions of its founders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Well, if we're quoting a few things, I think Louis de Bernières has something to say, the key issue being that love is not a feeling, it is a doing. Consider the older term "charity".

quote:

---

so many nominal Christians throughout history, took no notice whatsoever of the key parable of Jesus Christ himself, which taught that you shall love your neighbour as you love yourself, and even those that you have despised and hated are your neighbours. This never made any difference to Christians, since the primary epiphenomena of any religion’s foundation are the production and flourishment of hypocrisy, megalomania and psychopathy, and the first casualties of a religion’s establishment are the intensions of its founders.

---

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Zach82:
I also take issue with the proposal that the call of Christian charity is to participate in political movements.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Has anyone suggested that we should put our faith in anyone except God the Holy Trinity? 'Cause if they have, I must have missed it.

---

quote:

---

Zach, I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from the OP. Of course, the motivation of our deeds matters, but how does the OP deny that truth? From where do you draw the conclusion that such deeds are not the result of faith, but in some way stand aloof from it?

---

quote:

---

Not love our guns, but love each other... Oh, right, there might be a Communist somewhere in there, so the whole thing cannot be accepted by "us". The initial mistake was setting up a world body that had representatives from the world, not just the US, I suppose.

---

quote:

---

Save from oppression, not oppress further (and that means a "political" action, whatever sohpistry you use)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Zach82:
I also take issue with the proposal that the call of Christian charity is to participate in political movements.

---

I certainly agree. The idea that we can establish the Kingdom of Heaven through political activism is absurd. The Israelites didn't have a government that good when God was handpicking the monarchs. Christians won't fair any better. And as Pete Townsend wrote, "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

---

quote:

---

Aiding God in the establishment of God's Kingdom means working from the ground up not from the top down. The first place we need to start is with ourselves, then our families, then our local church, then our community. We will never have the opportunity to vote in the Kingdom of God or even to vote for candidates who will bring about the Kingdom. Focusing our collective efforts on trying is placing our faith in something other than God.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Has anyone suggested that we should put our faith in anyone except God the Holy Trinity? 'Cause if they have, I must have missed it.

---

Affirming Liberalism's definition of Christian Liberalism makes no mention of faith in God (Triune or otherwise).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Affirming Liberalism's definition of Christian Liberalism makes no mention of faith in God (Triune or otherwise).

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Zach
How is the presumption that we need to bring God's Kingdom about ourselves not a denial of the sufficiency of the Cross? If we have to do something then it isn't sufficient. It's what sufficient means.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Again, has anyone suggested that the Kindom could be established by political means? What politics in a democratic society has the power to do is to improve or worsen the lives of ordinary people, and surely as Christians we would want to bless the good and restrain the bad.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But most politics is from the bottom up! It's one of the ways we can most effectively make a difference to our local communities. We're not talking about Theocracy here, but about influencing the decision making processes that affect the lives of our fellow citizens in such a way that the values of the Kingdom of God are advanced.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Dave Marshall:
see that as a positive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 205:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding

---

This might be an issue: do 'liberals' really believe humans are more widely knowledgeable and understanding now?

Is there any evidence for that belief?

---

Whilst that phrase is largely code for 'We think young earth creationists are idiots', it also hints at a rejection of all miracles - people aren't misled by those tall tales any more.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Jolly Jape:
With regard to the presumptiousness of advocating particular policies which we as individuals, and in concert with others, have prayerfully believed to be helpful to the Kingdom,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I can't fathom why I've had to repeat that so many times. Works are the human response to what God has done. Christians respond to grace by living with charity for each other and others. But those works are not the Kingdom of God. Human righteousness is not the righteousness of God. The Kingdom of God is the gift of God alone.

---

quote:

---

How is the presumption that we need to bring God's Kingdom about ourselves not a denial of the sufficiency of the Cross? If we have to do something then it isn't sufficient. It's what sufficient means.

---

quote:

---

Once again the discussion falls into politics and not the Gospel of Christ, which puts all human politics into question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
How is the presumption that we need to bring God's Kingdom about ourselves not a denial of the sufficiency of the Cross? If we have to do something then it isn't sufficient. It's what sufficient means.

---

quote:

---

Posted by Jolly Jape: Again, has anyone suggested that the Kindom could be established by political means?

---

quote:

---

Posted by Dafyd: The words in the OP are perfectly compatible with all of that. So why did you object to them?

---

quote:

---

Firstly, nobody has said that we need to bring God's Kingdom about ourselves. You are quick to complain that you're misinterpreted; perhaps you should interpret others as you wish to be interpreted.

---

quote:

---

Secondly, if what we do is something other than Jesus's work on the Cross, then that implies that we have being derived from somewhere other than the Cross. You're denying creation ex nihilo. Everything we do is part of God's act of creation and everything we do as Christians in faith is part of Jesus' work on the cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:The cross was the start not the end.

---

quote:

---

I suspect we are also on different pages on how people come to faith. Perhaps this has led to the differential understanding. I have long suspected the all-of-sudden born-again pathway leads to perspectives that lean so heavily in the direction of faith and belief (often too heavily in my view) at the expense of responsible action. The belief is the start, the entry, the beginning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Posted by Jolly Jape: Again, has anyone suggested that the Kindom could be established by political means?

---

It says precisely that in the original post. I've cited it a dozen times. For pete's sake!

---

quote:

---

We have to attribute something. Because it does not make sense.

---

quote:

---

Quoting bible verses won't help your argument. It also doesn't help people directly.

God doesn't do anything directly. Not these days.

---

quote:

---

Hence people dying...

---

quote:

---

I do take some of this a little personally. I work in health care and donate hundreds of hours in addition as a volunteer. For the past 30 years or so. I would not do it unless I had a basis in faith. Apparently heretical in the vision I see advanced here.

---

quote:

---

No it doesn't. It says 'forwarding', not 'establishing', and several people have indicated to you that they regard those as different things.

You might not AGREE that they're different things, but claiming it says 'precisely that' isn't really helping indicate that you're aware that other people think there's a difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay then. So, what were all those Christians who campaigned against the slave trade doing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You prove my point nicely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay then. So, what were all those Christians who campaigned against the slave trade doing?

---

I am not repeating my account of Christian action again. Read the thread.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Right. And what you've said makes perfect sense as far as it goes. The problem is that you appear to be arguing against an interpretation of the OP that a great many people think is a straw man you've set up to bluster against.

You've chosen to read it as inevitably faithless, rather than working within faith, for reasons that simply aren't apparent. Is the text open to your interpretation? Yes. Is that the ONLY interpretation open? No, I don't think so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Affirming Liberalism's definition of Christian Liberalism makes no mention of faith in God (Triune or otherwise).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

We have to attribute something. Because it does not make sense.

---

The customary procedure is to ask for clarification on points that are confusing, not make up motivations with no basis.

---

quote:

---

You are proposing, here, that the Truth is not in the Bible, that the Gospel does not help people, and that God is not in the world. At least that is what the words right here say, and that is simply not the Christian faith.

---

quote:

---

I do take some of this a little personally. I work in health care and donate hundreds of hours in addition as a volunteer. For the past 30 years or so. I would not do it unless I had a basis in faith. Apparently heretical in the vision I see advanced here.

---

quote:

---

Not heretical- it isn't Christian at all.

---

quote:

---

You simply have Jesus there to praise you for your works and invite me to live the life you do. No thanks. I'll stick to my repenting and prayers. I'll look for the Truth in the Bible and for life in the Eucharist. Jesus Christ is the hope of the poor, not you or me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Posted by Dafyd: The words in the OP are perfectly compatible with all of that. So why did you object to them?

---

How on earth can you work out in your mind that "we have to advance the Kingdom of God politically" and "The Kingdom of God comes from God alone" are compatible?

---

quote:

---

Firstly, nobody has said that we need to bring God's Kingdom about ourselves. You are quick to complain that you're misinterpreted; perhaps you should interpret others as you wish to be interpreted.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Secondly, if what we do is something other than Jesus's work on the Cross, then that implies that we have being derived from somewhere other than the Cross. You're denying creation ex nihilo. Everything we do is part of God's act of creation and everything we do as Christians in faith is part of Jesus' work on the cross.

---

Not one of these sentences makes any sense. What is the basis for conflating creation and redemption? How on earth can you work out in your mind anything like "Everything we do is part of God's act?" We sin- God does not. Christians sin, and that is nothing to do with Jesus work on the Cross.

---

quote:

---

Okay enlighten us. The perception you provide is that you are sitting somewhere, disengaged from the world, reading things and discussing things in theory. Please enlighten your motivation and how you are personally engaged in the world beyond reading and praying.

---

quote:

---

No. Now you're assuming something. There is truth in the bible, but it does not follow that we get the goodies in the form of miracles they got. Because we don't. We get Jesus, his life example and guidance how to live. Everyone is entitled and gets saving grace.

---

quote:

---

Don't tell me if I'm Christian or not. Do not sit in judgement. How dare you.

---

quote:

---

I didn't ask for praise...

---

quote:

---

You are evidently holy and I profane...

---

quote:

---

Sin is a defect and a privation, not an action. It is a failure in action. It has no real being. Therefore, strictly speaking sin is not something we do. Sin is when we fail to do something in such a way that is not sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You prove my point nicely.

---

Pleased I could help. My point though is that there is no intrinsic value in faith in an inherited set of claims you may call the Christian Gospel. All it definitively gives you is membership of an institutional club called orthodoxy.

What I suspect Affirming Liberalism's "call to arms" is getting at, that I think is better expressed in the Modern Church ethos, is a desire for Church to be a framework that enables the search for truth, whatever that turns out to be, wherever it leads. Inherited tradition is its distinctively Christian resource. It's about supporting an ongoing process of discovery and mapping reality in terms that enable us to make the best sense we can of both God and the universe.

You and other conservatives effectively assert there can be no better interpretation for the stories and history of the Christian tradition than that decided 1500-odd years ago. It's obviously an option. It ain't obviously the better or the wise option. If Christianity is meant to be a reflection of the values and attitudes of Jesus the Christ of the Bible, neither is it obviously an authentically Christian option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I have a degree in philosophy, Leo, so I'll skip right over the talk about logic and necessity. It suffices to say that I have never seen so much quibbling over brazen synonyms in my life. It should also be obvious that I am arguing against that statement as I interpret it, not as someone else might interpret it. Insofar as there are people here arguing for what I am arguing against, the debate isn't pointless.

quote:

---

Sin is a defect and a privation, not an action. It is a failure in action. It has no real being. Therefore, strictly speaking sin is not something we do. Sin is when we fail to do something in such a way that is not sin.

---

Sin might, and only might, mind, be a defect or privation. But sins are not a mere nothings in any imaginable metaphysical system of even vague coherence. Sins are actions which are not part of God’s work, which is why we are rightfully blamed for them. Which makes your original statement still obviously false.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
You prove my point nicely.

---

Pleased I could help. My point though is that there is no intrinsic value in faith in an inherited set of claims you may call the Christian Gospel. All it definitively gives you is membership of an institutional club called orthodoxy.

What I suspect Affirming Liberalism's "call to arms" is getting at, that I think is better expressed in the Modern Church ethos, is a desire for Church to be a framework that enables the search for truth, whatever that turns out to be, wherever it leads.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I have a degree in philosophy, Leo, so I'll skip right over the talk about logic and necessity. It suffices to say that I have never seen so much quibbling over brazen synonyms in my life. It should also be obvious that I am arguing against that statement as I interpret it, not as someone else might interpret it. Insofar as there are people here arguing for what I am arguing against, the debate isn't pointless.

quote:

---

Sin is a defect and a privation, not an action. It is a failure in action. It has no real being. Therefore, strictly speaking sin is not something we do. Sin is when we fail to do something in such a way that is not sin.

---

Sin might, and only might, mind, be a defect or privation. But sins are not a mere nothings in any imaginable metaphysical system of even vague coherence. Sins are actions which are not part of God’s work, which is why we are rightfully blamed for them. Which makes your original statement still obviously false.

---

I think you have the wrong person in your sights.

My last response was to Beeswax Altar who claimed there was nothing about the Trinity on their website.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning. If there is no 'intrinsic value' in the church's faith, how does it provide any kind of basis as a 'search for truth?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Right. And what you've said makes perfect sense as far as it goes. The problem is that you appear to be arguing against an interpretation of the OP that a great many people think is a straw man you've set up to bluster against.

You've chosen to read it as inevitably faithless, rather than working within faith, for reasons that simply aren't apparent. Is the text open to your interpretation? Yes. Is that the ONLY interpretation open? No, I don't think so.

---

Imagining that human effort establishes, progresses, advances, or forwards the Kingdom of God is putting faith in human effort, if even only halfway. It means that the death and resurrection of Jesus is not sufficient to bring about the Kingdom of God.

Your distinction between "establishing" and "forwarding" is irrelevant to my argument, because both say that Jesus has not done enough, that faith in human effort is necessary. Not faithless, that was pure rhetoric, but certainly not faith in Christ alone and not the faith of the Gospel. You might not think it relevant where one puts his faith, but I do, and I think the Bible makes it pretty clear that it does too.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82: But sins are not a mere nothings in any imaginable metaphysical system of even vague coherence. Sins are actions which are not part of God’s work, which is why we are rightfully blamed for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Orfeo, the first post talks about "importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom," and I am refusing the possibility of any human effort whatsoever in forwarding God's Kingdom.

Hell with it.

Zach

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
and I am refusing the possibility of any human effort whatsoever in forwarding God's Kingdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I don't self-identify as a liberal, but I could probably sign up to your friend's definition.

Which is the problem that liberals have. Outwith liberaldom, people tend to define a liberal by what they are against (largely evangelicals and fundamentalists). It's hardly fair, but it's the way it is. In an attempt to self define in a positive way (which is a good thing), summaries such as the one you quote tend to become so general that almost anyone could sign up, and so the distinctiveness of the tradition tends to get lost.

---

quote:

---

The legitimation of free and informed criticism of any interpretation, however authoritative it claims to be, is a key principle of liberal faith. It is a key principle of the Reformation, though the Reformers did not always see where it would lead. We can best understand the work of thinkers like Kant and Locke by seeing that they were simply pushing the Reformation principle of free informed criticism further. Protestants had criticised Catholic interpretations of the Bible by showing that Catholics had added many new doctrines to what was actually in the text. But had the Protestants not done the same thing? Isaac Newton was surely right when he said that the doctrine of Trinity could not be found explicitly in the Bible. There is no doctrine there of the incarnation, as formulated at Chalcedon, or of substitutionary atonement, as formulated by Calvin, or of Biblical inerrancy. Yet once you start seeking to return to some supposed ‘original teaching’ of Jesus and his immediate disciples, the field is open to a variety of diverse interpretations, and you soon begin to ask why this one text (or set of very diverse texts, edited years after the death of Jesus) should be taken as the any sort of inerrant vehicle of revelation.

My point is that the Enlightenment was the child of the Reformation (my emphasis). It did not seek to replace revelation by Reason, and insist on salvation by Reason alone. What it did was to press for the right of free informed critical enquiry, and the consequence was not the establishment of a secular or non-religious view, but the acceptance of diversity and freedom of religion. A liberal Christian faith is not one agreed view of Christian faith. It is precisely the opposite, the co-existence of diverse views, which should always be seeking to be self-critical and ready to learn form discussion and exposure to the views of others.

Liberalism does not have a particular religious or anti-religious view. It has a commitment to freedom of enquiry as a means to discovering truth and a defence against the misuse of authority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I wouldn't start from the use of reason. Calvinists use reason, but are decidedly not liberal. It's true that liberals are comfortable with scientific ideas and a scholarly approach to scripture, but what distinguishes them is not so much reason as an open and questioning style.

I think it's true that liberalism is often most clearly seen by what it isn't. It's a reaction to other people's certainties and systems: the Calvinist God, Barth's revelation, Catholic authority, con evo self-confidence. It says but.

But I like the call to be positive and assert. I don't think liberalism has to be negative. There is a positive power in its comfort with questions and loose ends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I just firmly deny that God's Kingdom will come about because of our own action. The Kingdom happens because of what Christ has done, not what we can do. What will bring about the justice that we hear about so often in the Bible? Faith in Christ, or the sword of the State? The Bible, I think, speaks very clearly for the former option.

No good can come of confusing God's Kingdom and our political movements. Your political whims need redemption as much as anything that is human.

Zach

---

Absolutely. I don't think I have a spot on the liberal/conservative or liberal/fundamentalist spectrum. I sometimes say I am socially liberal but doctrinally conservative, but even that has a lot of wriggle room.

I get nervous when I see so-called liberal groups (and oh yes, as many above have said, can't they be dogmatic ) positing a rational faith. I don't think we can ever rationalize our way to faith, and certainly not a triune faith or a Jesu-centric incarnational. Faith is the response to revelation - Barth was absolutely right. After than we can of course apply brains - but the faith remains the paramount call on us, and it's not rational. Well not at first.

Funnily enough the one thing Bultmann and the existentialists got right was the leap of faith. Most of the rest of his theology was somewhat misguided.

Increasingly, in the very mixed context of Australian and New Zealand and from what I can see US 'mainstream' faith I am moving away from - or being expelled from - so-called liberal circles. I'll live with that, though the evos don't want me either.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

Zach82: It also forgets that whole of God's Kingdom has already been done in the cross and resurrection. It is done, there is no accomplishing left for us to cooperate with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My last response was to Beeswax Altar who claimed there was nothing about the Trinity on their website.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orfeo: Well, if I understand you correctly, you have no problem with social and political action so long as it's accompanied by the right verb. So what IS the right verb? Proclaiming? Will that do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no-prophet:That makes it clearer. A little too protestant for this Anglican.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa: Increasingly, in the very mixed context of Australian and New Zealand and from what I can see US 'mainstream' faith I am moving away from - or being expelled from - so-called liberal circles. I'll live with that, though the evos don't want me either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc: I realise that we have to be careful not to get ahead of ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zappa:
I get nervous when I see so-called liberal groups (and oh yes, as many above have said, can't they be dogmatic ) positing a rational faith.

---

quote:

---

I don't think we can ever rationalize our way to faith, and certainly not a triune faith or a Jesu-centric incarnational.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Go back to the OP. Look at the quote under, "they define liberal Christianity." However, if they have a definition at all, they can't be liberal because definitions are such a Roman Catholic thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
At any rate, I’ve already said that I think nothing good can from tying the Christian Gospel too tightly to any political movement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Go on - prove me wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
No good can come of confusing God's Kingdom and our political movements. Your political whims need redemption as much as anything that is human.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

I've been reading “Why the Scientific World-View Confirms Liberal Christian Faith” by Keith Ward from their website and think this is a much better one:

quote:

---

<snip>

A liberal Christian faith is not one agreed view of Christian faith. It is precisely the opposite, the co-existence of diverse views, which should always be seeking to be self-critical and ready to learn form discussion and exposure to the views of others.

<snip>

---

---

This bit really confused me. Having not got access to Keith Ward's book I'll have to ask for some clarification.

Can you explain how it is possible to say that the bit in quotes is consistent with a Scientific World-View?

Or let me put it this way, the next time you are driving over a bridge in WA do you really think that the engineers who built it were happy with the co-existence of diverse views of reality?

[ 20. February 2012, 19:58: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
It's sciencey.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orfeo: Well, if I understand you correctly, you have no problem with social and political action so long as it's accompanied by the right verb. So what IS the right verb? Proclaiming? Will that do?

---

That is an odd question from someone that waded into this discussion splitting hairs on the meaning of synonyms. I think words mean something and the ones we use make a relevant difference. The weird thing about this debate is that people want to make a stark difference between words that mean the same thing, but conflate words that mean vastly different things.
At any rate, I’ve already said that I think nothing good can from tying the Christian Gospel too tightly to any political movement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Can you explain how it is possible to say that the bit in quotes is consistent with a Scientific World-View?

---

quote:

---

Where did I say anything about a particular political movement? I'm asking you to clarify whether there's a different verb, rather than 'forwarding', that would make you more comfortable with the idea that social and political action can be part of how Christians act... Because you have given me the impression that social and political action are allowed, but stemming from a different basis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Can you explain how it is possible to say that the bit in quotes is consistent with a Scientific World-View?

---

Now you've got me confused. Can you explain why you think the bit in quotes should be consistent with a Scientific World-View?

---

quote:

---

A liberal Christian faith is not one agreed view of Christian faith. It is precisely the opposite, the co-existence of diverse views, which should always be seeking to be self-critical and ready to learn form discussion and exposure to the views of others.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: The Gospel can inspire you, but it certainly doesn’t exist to inspire you.

---

quote:

---

Are we going to take that gift and complain “Well, why haven’t you given us universal healthcare and pension programs?”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Jolly Jape:
With regard to the presumptiousness of advocating particular policies which we as individuals, and in concert with others, have prayerfully believed to be helpful to the Kingdom,

---

Like I said, I'm as skeptical of liberal prophets as I am of charismatic prophets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
The last half of the sentence (being self-critical and learning from discussion) is entirely consistent with a Scientific World-View but the first half (the co-existence of diverse views) is not. There is a difference between trying to reconcile seemingly contradictory models in science (e.g. macro and micro physics) which cover different spheres and reconciling contradictory models of the same sphere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Unless there is a particular point of obscurity you want to discuss, I think my account of Christian action has been repeated enough times.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
No good can come of confusing God's Kingdom and our political movements. Your political whims need redemption as much as anything that is human.

---

I could have shown how everything I said and that statement you think I didn't say operate on the same principle, but why bother when I said it directly very early in the thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

I've been reading “Why the Scientific World-View Confirms Liberal Christian Faith” by Keith Ward from their website and think this is a much better one:

quote:

---

<snip>

A liberal Christian faith is not one agreed view of Christian faith. It is precisely the opposite, the co-existence of diverse views, which should always be seeking to be self-critical and ready to learn form discussion and exposure to the views of others.

<snip>

---

---

This bit really confused me. Having not got access to Keith Ward's book I'll have to ask for some clarification.

Can you explain how it is possible to say that the bit in quotes is consistent with a Scientific World-View?

Or let me put it this way, the next time you are driving over a bridge in WA do you really think that the engineers who built it were happy with the co-existence of diverse views of reality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Jolly Jape:
With regard to the presumptiousness of advocating particular policies which we as individuals, and in concert with others, have prayerfully believed to be helpful to the Kingdom,

---

Like I said, I'm as skeptical of liberal prophets as I am of charismatic prophets.

---

You were the one who raised the issue of prophecy. How do you decide your stance on moral issues? Do you consider that process as prophetic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd: No doubt you'll call it quibbling if I point out that 'not tying God's kingdom too closely to any political movement' implies that there's a degree of closeness which is acceptable.

---

quote:

---

In addition, 'any political movement' means 'any one political movement in particular' - it implies that we should stay open-minded about whether any given political program will actually be effective in feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and so on.
'Not confusing God's kingdom and Our political movements' on the other hand expresses a blanket dismissal of all human attempts to feed the hungry, care for the sick, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I was actually more interested in his definition of liberalism than his argument about science and liberalism. He's also got another one on how the bible accords with the liberal world view too. Haven't read that one yet but.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
LQ, you might say you agree, but then you turn around and say things like "After all, if the Kingdom can't be furthered in any way, what are we doing?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
The difference between "Proclaiming the Kingdom" and "Furthering the Kingdom" matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd: No doubt you'll call it quibbling if I point out that 'not tying God's kingdom too closely to any political movement' implies that there's a degree of closeness which is acceptable.

---

Perhaps out of context, but do you feel that I left some mystery about the appropriate proximity in my other posts?

---

quote:

---

I certainly dismiss the idea that being well fed and having good healthcare has gotten one closer to the Kingdom of God. Indeed, the life of Jesus leads me to believe quite the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Healthcare and pensions and all that are good and just, and I wholly agree they ought to be universal. But as Christians, they are no more than temporal goods that have nothing to do with God's Kingdom, things to be made use of in our pilgrimage on this earth.

---

quote:

---

So you don't believe in the parousia? I'm not sure how you can make the above quote controversial. If you really believe the story's over and there's nothing to be done to realize the kingdom and this fallen world is as good as it gets - well, what are you doing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
LQ, you might say you agree, but then you turn around and say things like "After all, if the Kingdom can't be furthered in any way, what are we doing?" You can't further something that has been done. It's done! We can only proclaim that through word and action. The difference between "Proclaiming the Kingdom" and "Furthering the Kingdom" matters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
People keep accusing me of saying we Christians ought to do nothing, but I have said again and again that we must have faith. Is that nothing?

---

quote:

---

Ahem. When I asked you about the word 'proclaim', you fobbed me off. And here you are using it in a direct substitution.

So what was all that blustering at me about?

---

quote:

---

According to the letter of James, pretty much. In terms of DOING, it doesn't register. To throw some semantics at you, HAVING is not doing. And James makes pretty clear that some abstract, intellectual notion of faith that doesn't manifest itself in deeds is worthless.

---

quote:

---

Your "FAITH! FAITH!" emphasis comes across as "NO DEEDS! NO DEEDS!" because you come across as arguing excessively against deeds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Your "FAITH! FAITH!" emphasis comes across as "NO DEEDS! NO DEEDS!" because you come across as arguing excessively against deeds.

---

I am arguing against deeds bringing about the Kingdom of God. That is possessed by grace, through faith alone. But deeds necessarily follow from that faith, as I've said many many times. How does one conclude "NO DEEDS! NO DEEDS!" from that?

---

quote:

---

I have to repeat myself again to say that I know people here have said they accept the necessity of faith. But instead in seems they are arguing for faith AND works bringing about the Kingdom.

---

quote:

---

Zach82: In fact, I am making an argument on how to be righteous- through faith. Faith is necessary, I assume most agree, but it is also sufficient. "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham Galatians 3:6-7."

---

First of all, I'm afraid it's possible that I read the Bible differently from you and that texts can have different meanings to me (I'm a "lib'rul" after all )

Galatians 3 tells me that the first Christians were struggling with the relationship between faith and works as well, and this in a complicated setting: the Christian movement that originated within Judaism started to see itself as something different. Between Jews and converted gentiles within this community a conflict arose about the question: should we still uphold the Jewish Law?

Paul is quoting Genesis 15 in this verse, of course. The Kerygmaniacs of the Ship may correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a suspicion that the word "righteous" may have meant something else in Old Testamental times than the way we use the word now. I'm guessing that to the people who wrote Genesis it meant something like "Being in the favour of God."

The inspiration I get from Galatians 3 is the reassurance that Christians were struggling with the relationship between faith and works from the very beginning, and that for me the best thing is to try to do both, and not worry too much about it.

In the way I try to live my religion, the separation between faith and works is largely an artificial one. One cannot exist without the other. At the risk of pulling a Godwin on you: what if someone believed perfectly in God, but on the same time was a mass murderer?

To me, this would be an oxymoron. What would the faith of this person mean, and how could he combine it with his actions? It remembers me of "if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing" (if I'm allowed to throw a Bible verse back at you )

I'm repeating myself a bit here, but if I have faith in God, it's not as a means to anything. I don't have faith in order to receive God's Spirit (Galatians 3:2), or to be seen as righteous, or to be in God's favour.

If I have faith, it's because the religion that was passed on to me by my parents has touched me and inspired me in some way that I can't fully explain. That's enough motivation for me.

And in the same way my it has inspired me to have faith, it inspires me to try to follow a bit of Jesus' example, to be someone for my neighbour as well. The two things are linked.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I was actually more interested in his definition of liberalism than his argument about science and liberalism. He's also got another one on how the bible accords with the liberal world view too. Haven't read that one yet but.

---

Keith Ward is one of an assortment of characters who feature in a series of videos on the Modern Church site if you wanted to hear him in glorious YouTube videocolour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Paul is quoting Genesis 15 in this verse, of course. The Kerygmaniacs of the Ship may correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a suspicion that the word "righteous" may have meant something else in Old Testamental times than the way we use the word now. I'm guessing that to the people who wrote Genesis it meant something like "Being in the favour of God."

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Evensong:
Thanks Davo. Will have a look! Can't believe I haven't heard of Modern Church.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Evensong:
Thanks Davo. Will have a look! Can't believe I haven't heard of Modern Church.....

---

So much for you being postmodern...

---

quote:

---

South Coast Kevin: Even the New Testament meaning of 'righteousness' is different from what we might understand by the term today. I read (and wrote) about this just the other day - the Greek word has very definite connotations of 'justice', i.e. making the world as God intended it to be. I think a lot of people nowadays would think 'righteousness' is purely (or mainly) about personal holiness, but the NT Greek meaning is far broader, and has a clear link to works / actions. You can't help to transform the world into how God wants it to be without taking action!

---

quote:

---

Evensong: A lovely reading on righteousness in Monday's set lectionary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Can't believe I haven't heard of Modern Church.....

---

quote:

---

As for this faith vs works debate on this thread? WTF?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
But instead in seems they are arguing for faith AND works bringing about the Kingdom. However, this is practically as unacceptable. Faith is believing in the sufficiency of the Cross, in relying on God's mercy and love alone, which makes "Faith AND works" a contradiction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
The last half of the sentence (being self-critical and learning from discussion) is entirely consistent with a Scientific World-View but the first half (the co-existence of diverse views) is not. There is a difference between trying to reconcile seemingly contradictory models in science (e.g. macro and micro physics) which cover different spheres and reconciling contradictory models of the same sphere.

---

Only if you take the line that "Christian faith" refers to a single set of beliefs validated by an agreed procedure (as in science).

---

quote:

---

The objective world, according to quantum physics, is a ten or eleven dimensional world of probability waves and superposed states, which collapse into precisely locatable particles on when measured by humanly constructed devices which prepare them for observation. The world as we see it is not the world as it is in itself. It is the interaction between consciousness and what the quantum physicist Bernard d'Espagnat calls 'veiled reality', a reality whose objective nature is forever hidden from us.

---

quote:

---

Modern physics leaves the question of the ultimate nature of reality open, though it seems to have decisively overturned the hypothesis that reality ultimately consists of material particles located in space (the old form of classic materialism).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Okay. So I'm still having identity crisis.

Another question for you all then:

If an Anglican is neither Evangelical nor Anglo-Catholic, are they liberal by default? If not, what other label are they given?

---

Charismatic.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Unless someone can explain to me how Keith Ward gets round this apparent contradiction I'm forced to conclude that his entire premise is fundamentally flawed.

---

There'd only be a contradiction if there was only one set of Christian beliefs. There's not, there's loads, and no agreed authority to choose between them. There is a diversity of sets of Christian beliefs because we're all different.

I don't think some of what I've heard Keith Ward say about science makes a lot of sense, but on this he seems clearly correct.

[ 23. February 2012, 01:29: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Right.

So you're saying that Ward's analogy is good because it is rubbish? Clear as mud.


 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
If there were no standard, how would God lay the blood of the sinner on the believer's head, take the lamp away from the local church, have a basis for reckoning subpar performance?

Beeswax and zach are right in their premises but wrong in their conclusions, the lib'uhrals are wrong in both their premise and conclusion. In targetting both, I'm probably going to draw fire from both but that's not new!

The fact that observation of the phenomena in quantum physics actually changes the values of the parameter does not mean permanent subjectiveness. It only means the values are subjective NOW. When a method is discovered to make objective observations of the values, falsifiable premises will then be possible.

Thankfully, objective conclusions can be made about God's expectations from all believers, because coherent views can be formulated without going for the least common denominator:

We can't be faulted for good works can we?

or minimilism:

Let go and let God.

The basis of the formulation is Scripture :
Galatians 3:3 NASB

Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?

God expects, nay, demands perfection, better translated, maturity.

Achieved by faith, better translated as loyalty (do read Starlight's book... I can't see jpholding's rebuttal).


Anyhoo, what does faith do? This:

5 So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?

Believers hear God (remember Jesus' claim that He only did what the Father commanded?) and strength is given to obey those commands, resulting from belief in the efficacy of Jesus work, maybe, as in some instances, courage to sell their property and make friends with Kingdom dwellers.

The world sees and the church increases in number. Which was
the teleological destination in the first place.


Crystal clear? Or did that just muddy up the water further?

:lol:
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Clear as mud.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Okay. So I'm still having identity crisis.

Another question for you all then:

If an Anglican is neither Evangelical nor Anglo-Catholic, are they liberal by default? If not, what other label are they given?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Right.

So you're saying that Ward's analogy is good because it is rubbish? Clear as mud.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
If there were no standard, how would God lay the blood of the sinner on the believer's head, take the lamp away from the local church, have a basis for reckoning subpar performance?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

Beeswax and zach are right in their premises but wrong in their conclusions, the lib'uhrals are wrong in both their premise and conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Middle stump.

---

Being a Cricket enthusiast, I approve of the analogy.

But do middle stumpers have a Name if they are not Liberals?
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
Why do you need a label?

For what it's worth I like the definition of liberalism Keith Ward used at a Modern Church conference a couple of years ago: openness to creative change.

[ 23. February 2012, 12:45: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You didn't like my answer to your question?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

Having read it I can sort of see where he is coming from but think he is taking a really long bow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Modern Church conference a couple of years ago: openness to creative change.

---

You edited while I was editing so I missed this.

Openness to creative change is just too broad for me I guess.....

I'd go for something more like "engagement with post-enlightenment issues within a Christian framework".
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I have to define myself.

In fact, my Examining Chaplains imply without this self definition I shouldn't be ordained.

And I think they have a point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The only way I can stand up to them is to be able to explain who I am and why I believe what I believe. I have to define myself. In fact, my Examining Chaplains imply without this self definition I shouldn't be ordained. And I think they have a point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What is the response of you all to the paradigm-shifting statement of Evagrius of Pontus: "A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian"?

---

Explain what he means by "prays" and I'll attempt an answer.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What is the response of you all to the paradigm-shifting statement of Evagrius of Pontus: "A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian"?

---

Explain what he means by "prays" and I'll attempt an answer.

---

Pray, and you'll find out what he means.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If anyone wants to know if I'm this label or that label (and I think it's any of their business or have time to spare) I'll ask them exactly what they mean by it. And keep asking for clarification until they get to something I can give a meaningful answer to. Leave them to decide if and how I fit their labelling system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Pray, and you'll find out what he means.

---

quote:

---

Who said there was no standard? Everybody has a standard.

That's what identity is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

Beeswax and zach are right in their premises but wrong in their conclusions, the lib'uhrals are wrong in both their premise and conclusion.

What premise and conclusion is that? Who said there was no standard? Everybody has a standard.

---

quote:

---

Pray tell me what I believe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Pray, and you'll find out what he means.

---

I thought you'd say something like that!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
A very good question.

And two years ago I would have rejected one or rejected trying to find one.

Now I find myself in a context where there are strong opposing forces that I dislike and I need to stand up to them.

The only way I can stand up to them is to be able to explain who I am and why I believe what I believe.

I have to define myself.

In fact, my Examining Chaplains imply without this self definition I shouldn't be ordained.

And I think they have a point.

So this wooolly liberal needs to figure it out.

And other woooly liberals needs to figure it out too if liberalism is ever going to survive.

And I think it should survive.

It has much to offer.

x-posted with Johnny. Was an answer to Davo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you can't say what you mean by pray I've no idea whether I agree with either of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
That's just being evasive.

Do you mean talking to God? Imagining you're talking to God? Listening for God? Telling God what to do next? Or do you mean reflecting on experience from within a worldview that includes God as a reality, creatively imagining future possibilities?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
I'd rather describe myself as a socialist christian than a liberal christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
That's just being evasive.

Do you mean talking to God? Imagining you're talking to God? Listening for God? Telling God what to do next? Or do you mean reflecting on experience from within a worldview that includes God as a reality, creatively imagining future possibilities?

---

As long as you're sure you're not doing the theology before you do the prayer, any of those will do. How about adding another two to the list? - Spending time alone with the possibility of God. Spending time in a community that is open to the possibility of God.

But what I specifically reject about many Western theologies is that the thinking-theology comes first. It doesn't. It can't. The prayer-theology and worship-theology must. I realise it's not a popular or well explored view - but surely it can't only be held by me, Evagrius, Aidan Kavanagh, Alexander Schmemann and the Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pererin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
I'd rather describe myself as a socialist christian than a liberal christian.

---

Liberal theology has nothing to do with political liberalism (either in its classical sense, which seems to be called "libertarian" or "Thatcherite" these days, or in its American sense, which seems to mean left-wing statist Democrat who does not wish to be associated with Stalin and Castro). The last time anyone tried to link the two was in 19th-century Canada when certain Roman Catholic priests took it upon themselves to preach that voting for candidates of the Liberal Party was a mortal sin.

I also dislike some of the negative definitions of liberal Christianity that are being thrown around. It seems rather unappreciative of the liberal tradition to define it as being what's left when one gets rid of the evos and the Anglo-Catholics. It's liberal Christianity that finds it exciting that we can look critically at the Bible and draw appropriate lessons for our own times from how people struggled to understand God of yore; it's liberal Christianity that finds it exciting that man is discovering the wonderful truths of God's creation through the scientific method. There is a positivity there. Its evangelism is not that of the conservative evangelicals, but the people to whom it speaks are different too.

Yes, Anglo-Catholics often are very accommodating of much of liberal Christianity, and there is a position of considerable comfort between the two. But there is much to admire in the theological rigour of the liberals; and, returning to the OP, Affirming Liberalism looks like a good attempt at bringing a deeper understanding of the faith to a wider audience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
How about adding another two to the list? - Spending time alone with the possibility of God. Spending time in a community that is open to the possibility of God.

---

quote:

---

But what I specifically reject about many Western theologies is that the thinking-theology comes first. It doesn't. It can't.

---

quote:

---

The prayer-theology and worship-theology must [come first]. I realise it's not a popular or well explored view - but surely it can't only be held by me, Evagrius, Aidan Kavanagh, Alexander Schmemann and the Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

I think one thing that worries me is that he often talks about science being founded on rational principles because the universe is thought to be rationally ordered and therefore observable and quantifiable etc.

He then compares this rationality with God as the creator of an ultimately good universe that is rationally ordered so we can know something of Her.

That (to me) seems the long bow.

God can be known in the and through the universe and others. But certainly not exclusively........God is transcendent ( and therefore irrational) too.....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
As long as you're sure you're not doing the theology before you do the prayer, any of those will do. How about adding another two to the list? - Spending time alone with the possibility of God. Spending time in a community that is open to the possibility of God.

But what I specifically reject about many Western theologies is that the thinking-theology comes first. It doesn't. It can't. The prayer-theology and worship-theology must. I realise it's not a popular or well explored view - but surely it can't only be held by me, Evagrius, Aidan Kavanagh, Alexander Schmemann and the Orthodox.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Evensong wrote:

quote:

---

Who said there was no standard? Everybody has a standard.

That's what identity is.

---

What matters is not Evensong's Laws but the Laws of God:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

Now tell me how God manifests Himself, makes His presence and desire known, HOW TO REALLY LIVE, in the social Gospel

---

quote:

---

We liberals can usually speak to people in normal languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
(Johnny S - does this also go some way to answering your point on the subject?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Evensong wrote:

quote:

---

Who said there was no standard? Everybody has a standard.

That's what identity is.

---

What matters is not Evensong's Laws but the Laws of God:

---

I meet your God's law and raise you a footwasher's Law.

Crickey footwasher. You're more cryptic than Martin biohazard.

This is where pererin is quite right.

We liberals can usually speak to people in normal languages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

Now tell me how God manifests Himself, makes His presence and desire known, HOW TO REALLY LIVE, in the social Gospel

---

quote:

---

The only way I can stand up to them is to be able to explain who I am and why I believe what I believe.

---

quote:

---

I have to define myself.

---

To slap a label on yourself is a cop-out, you can't use a sort of shorthand categorisation of subgroups within Anglicanism to come to an understanding of yourself and your beliefs even if it is fleshed out by online discussion boards . It's like painting by numbers and it's entirely inauthentic.

quote:

---

In fact, my Examining Chaplains imply without this self definition I shouldn't be ordained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
I haven't used jargon, just the text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Suggest you do business with the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Nobody asks you to abandon your held views, rather to explore the possibility of athe existence of a singular truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:

---

In fact, my Examining Chaplains imply without this self definition I shouldn't be ordained.

---

I suspect that examining chaplains are more concerned with sincerity and consistency and internal logic of beliefs rather than labels, YMMV.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I think at some point I would have agreed with most of that. (Though it does neglect the rather radical quasi-atheist position of American theological liberalism in the late 19th century, though that's mostly gone now).

---

quote:

---

However, I would have to say that on a purely phenomenological basis, many people who call themselves Liberals in the church do indeed seem to mean it in a culture-wars sense. Take a look at the comments section over at Thinking Anglicans or the like. The alignment of socio-political liberalism with theological liberalism (and similarly with conservatism) is often remarked upon. Much of this comes from the USA and probably was driven by the reaction to the rise of "fundamentalism*".

---

quote:

---

I don't think Keith Ward fits this bill, BTW, and there are elements of this project that seem to be designed to set it apart from such an alignment. It is far less aligned outside N. America still, though given the enthusiastic drum-beating on both sides, I would have to ask how long the difference can be maintained.

---

quote:

---

I don't deny that what you say has merit, but I fear its time has passed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
Keith Ward is one of an assortment of characters who feature in a series of videos on the Modern Church site if you wanted to hear him in glorious YouTube videocolour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What is the response of you all to the paradigm-shifting statement of Evagrius of Pontus: "A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
What is the response of you all to the paradigm-shifting statement of Evagrius of Pontus: "A theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian"?

---

That Church Fathers can talk out of their asses on occasion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
"Keep theology for the experts. See that torn Temple veil? - quick, stitch it up and rehang it. We don't want God getting any dangerous ideas about being with his people."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Guys, you are confused. The Protestant rhetoric you parrot is actually about priests, not theologians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
I haven't used jargon, just the text. 

---

I hate to break it to you footwasher but the text does not exist alone. It does not stand alone.

It exists in context.

And the way you contextualise is mystifying.

Your example of "Nicodemus" to my question is a perfect example.

I'd recommend mixing with normal people a bit more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Suggest you do business with the same]Are you implying I don't know my bible? [/QUOTE ]

You don't use it a lot: is there some kinda peer pressure to avoid it, a suggestion you look uncool when you do use it?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by footwasher:
  Nobody asks you to abandon your held views, rather to explore the possibility of the existence of a singular truth.

Oh a singular truth is real.

Just not in this life time.

Glass darkly and all that?

Maybe you haven't read that part of the bible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
you still seem to be in the paradigm of regarding thinking-theology as primary, and as prayer and worship as somehow providing empirical data for it. The paradigm I'm suggesting is that prayer/worship is theology, in itself, and that it is in fact the primary mode of doing theology. Thinking-theology is secondary.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I've just watched episode one and agree with about 90% of what was being said there (probably more, but I didn't understand the point of some of it). I assume that this gets a bit more recognizably liberal down the track?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I've just watched episode one and agree with about 90% of what was being said there (probably more, but I didn't understand the point of some of it). I assume that this gets a bit more recognizably liberal down the track?

---

Without watching them again I couldn't say for for sure, but probably not. One of the features of the liberal anglican constituency from which most Modern Church members come is the tendency to sound orthodox, even when at least some are not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Apparently there's no such thing as a sincere liberal christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
@ Dave M writes: "In a sense I agree, because theology not grounded in experienced reality is, er, not grounded"

What experience grounds theology - 'The science of things divine'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Sorry footwasher. I can't read your mind.

Your prooftexting is not a discussion about what you think.

As for prooftexting somehow winning an argument?

Yes well....even the devil can quote scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
being a Christian liberal (noun) is not generally the same as being a liberal Christian (adjective). The latter indicates to me something about how one is Christian, rather than how one applies being Christian to the world, if that makes sense. I guess often these go hand in hand, but I don't think that they are necessary consequences of each other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
And you might find out that the dichotomy is not liberal vs fundamentalist, but coherent vs vague.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

If all views are equal

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

If all views are equal, why don't you join a denomination based on convenience?

---

I was led to my denomination by God.

But it would seem others are led to other denominations/religions by God too.

Obviously God is with me and nobody else.



[ 25. February 2012, 11:58: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals are quite coherent (as in consistent) and we liberals are still vague. Which is why I'm trying to get less vague!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh look.

Apparently there's no such thing as a sincere liberal christian.

Poor Obama.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
@ Dave M writes: "In a sense I agree, because theology not grounded in experienced reality is, er, not grounded"

What experience grounds theology - 'The science of things divine'

---

I read this the first time you posted it. There didn't seem much point replying if you don't see a difference between "experience" and "experienced reality".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Apparently there's no such thing as a sincere liberal christian.

---

I think what Santorum claimed there is that as a Christian, one cannot be liberal on social, moral and economic issues. That is clearly false, and somewhat ironically so. Because he considers himself Roman Catholic, but I find it highly doubtful that he would agree with all the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church has to say.

However, being a Christian liberal (noun) is not generally the same as being a liberal Christian (adjective). The latter indicates to me something about how one is Christian, rather than how one applies being Christian to the world, if that makes sense. I guess often these go hand in hand, but I don't think that they are necessary consequences of each other.

---

quote:

---

To take what is plainly written and say that I don’t agree with that, therefore, I don’t have to pay attention to it, means you’re not what you say you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
]Both Santorum and his questioner identify "liberal Christian" with "non-literal approach to the bible", so he appears to be using the term principally in the second sense IngoB describes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Both Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals are quite coherent (as in consistent) and we liberals are still vague. Which is why I'm trying to get less vague!

---

Framing the issue more positively, is it that liberals tend to be less cast-iron certain that they are correct? Which, in my view, would be a good thing; someone here on SoF has a cracking quotation from Brian McLaren as their signature - something about always being aware that our ideas about God could be totally wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
]Both Santorum and his questioner identify "liberal Christian" with "non-literal approach to the bible", so he appears to be using the term principally in the second sense IngoB describes.

---

So St. Augustine of Hippo was a liberal Christian.

---

quote:

---

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions... and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but... [that] the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
]Both Santorum and his questioner identify "liberal Christian" with "non-literal approach to the bible", so he appears to be using the term principally in the second sense IngoB describes.

---

So St. Augustine of Hippo was a liberal Christian.

---

Well - quite. Along with all those early church Christians with their schools of analogical, mystical etc. etc. multiple biblical interpretations. What went wrong?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
]Both Santorum and his questioner identify "liberal Christian" with "non-literal approach to the bible", so he appears to be using the term principally in the second sense IngoB describes.

---

So St. Augustine of Hippo was a liberal Christian.

---

Well - quite. Along with all those early church Christians with their schools of analogical, mystical etc. etc. multiple biblical interpretations. What went wrong?

---

The Reformation happened.

And then the "literal" interpretation became the only interpretation for some.

But these days a "literal" interpretation is still complicated.

Nice quote SCK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Look at Paul filling new wine in new wineskins:


http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-79906.html

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
you still seem to be in the paradigm of regarding thinking-theology as primary, and as prayer and worship as somehow providing empirical data for it. The paradigm I'm suggesting is that prayer/worship is theology, in itself, and that it is in fact the primary mode of doing theology. Thinking-theology is secondary.

---

Obviously this is not something that appeals to me. But I can't help thinking you are using the word "theology" to lend credibility to claims for the practical usefulness of an activity you happen to value.

Whatever that value is, I don't see justification for considering it an alternative to "thinking-theology". To be generally understood as theology it needs a qualifier. You've used "prayer/worship" but I would have thought "non-thinking" was a better description. Unless you claim God-revealing properties of prayer and worship are magically translated into valid knowledge that others can use, it sounds more like mystical/meditative practice than any kind of theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think it's also important that the two theological modes aren't alternatives. Rather, the primary theology of worship provides the proper environment in which secondary theology can take place.

---

quote:

---

Could you imagine a Shakespeare scholar who never went to see a play?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:


Evensong, friend, the vineyard is in your court. What harvest do you forsee?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

Will it meet the rent?

---

quote:

---

And he said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has a friend, and you go to him at midnight and say to him, “Friend, lend me three loaves of bread; for a friend of mine has arrived, and I have nothing to set before him.” And he answers from within, “Do not bother me; the door has already been locked, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot get up and give you anything.” I tell you, even though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, at least because of his persistence he will get up and give him whatever he needs.

‘So I say to you, Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for a fish, will give a snake instead of a fish? Or if the child asks for an egg, will give a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!’ Luke 11

---

quote:

---

A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will know them by their fruits.

‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord”, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?” Then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.”

---

There you go. I quoted lots of scripture. Happy now?
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

---

There you go. I quoted lots of scripture. Happy now?

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Look at Paul filling new wine in new wineskins:


http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-79906.html

---

Thanks for that link. It is up to date and fulol of information that i have been reading and been challenged by in some of the latest Pauline commentaries.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave W.:
]Both Santorum and his questioner identify "liberal Christian" with "non-literal approach to the bible", so he appears to be using the term principally in the second sense IngoB describes.

---

So St. Augustine of Hippo was a liberal Christian.

---

Well - quite. Along with all those early church Christians with their schools of analogical, mystical etc. etc. multiple biblical interpretations. What went wrong?

---

The Reformation happened.

And then the "literal" interpretation became the only interpretation for some.

But these days a "literal" interpretation is still complicated.

Nice quote SCK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I believe those who privilege academic theology above prayer/worship theology make the same mistake.

---

There is no such thing as "prayer/worship theology". There is theology implicit in the manner of worship. There also is theology mainly inspired by prayer, though that has proven quite a bit of a loose gun historically. And theology is not necessarily "academic" with the usual negative connotations of the word, whether it happens inside or outside of the ivory towers.

Theology is the systematic and orderly accumulation of knowledge and reason about God. Everybody with a brain and access to some means of information about God can do it. It has its uses, it has its limits. It is an old idea that the mystical can simply replace the theological. In spite of being a thorough fan of mysticism, I reject that as obvious bollocks.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I am cheating on my Lenten resolution to chime in that the recent turn of the discussion sounds something like "Astronomers are irrelevant because we can all look at the stars."

Zach
 

---

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
I don't think I privilege poetry above performance, I see them as different and wouldn't compare them or attempt to substitute one for the other.

Which comes first? Performance without a script requires the performer to improvise, to make it up as they go along. It's an expression of their creativity, not (without some kind of script) an attempt to describe reality. It think that's the essence of theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
And come on Dave, humour me, what *did* you mean when you talked about "experienced reality" grounding theology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:
And come on Dave, humour me, what *did* you mean when you talked about "experienced reality" grounding theology?

---

Ah, humour you. Like I sometimes do the Jehovah's Witnesses on the doorstep?

The Ship is not a kindergarten playground, where discussion happens at a basic literal level because some involved don't yet have the capacity for abstract thought. The Ship is a place for grown-ups. I love it here, even if I often seem in a minority of one, because we mostly don't waste each other's time debating technicalities when we know we differ on fundamentals.

It's also often very accommodating of difference. But there comes a point, like listening to a superficially plausible sales person who's asked a technical question but doesn't have the humility to say they don't know and comes out with bullshit, when the only sensible response is to say thanks but no thanks.

The context out of which you've lifted these questions was a conversation about a very particular difference - the nature of theology - that I appreciated Adeodatus taking the time to explain. I'm now clearer where we disagree. Yet you ask about a passing statement of the obvious: if theology (how we think and talk about God) is not grounded (rooted) in reality (how things are) as we have experienced it (so we have a degree of confidence in our knowledge of reality) there's no good reason to have faith in that theology.

What's to explain? If you disagree you can obviously say why, but I haven't seen either the wit or the humanity in your posts to make me think engaging would be worthwhile. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but you seem to want my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The Liberal tradition has emphasized the importance of the use of reason in theological exploration. It has stressed the need to develop Christian belief and practice in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding and the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom.”

---

I see 3 elements here:

- modernising (develop Christian belief and practice in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge)

- rationalist (the use of reason)

- focussed on this world (social and political action)

Whilst all of these characteristics have been called "liberal", one that's missing is:

- tolerant (believing in liberty of belief and worship to the maximum extent that is compatible with fidelity to Jesus Christ).

Given human fallibility, liberal tolerance can be used as a flag of convenience - it can be that ideas ask for no more than to be tolerated when they are young and weak, but turn dogmatic and persecuting when they are strong.

But it is in a sense the original or core meaning - liberal and liberty clearly come from the same root.

Best wishes,

Russ
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Thanks for that Russ.

A good summary IMO.

Seeing as how I'm trying to fit this tradition into my own tradition (Anglicanism) I've recently come up with a generalizing idea that fits with the three stools of Scripture, Tradition and Reason (+ experience for some).

If Anglo-Catholicism empahsizes tradition and Evangelicalism emphazies scripture, howz about liberals emphasizing reason?

We'd then sit well within our rights of Anglicanism.



 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
It's the three legged stool of Anglicanism, and it's a misinterpretation to prioritize any one leg over the others. They are a statement of how the Word of God is received in the Anglican Church. Certainly it does not imply that reason is authoritative in the Christian Faith apart from the Scriptures.

Zach

[ 12. March 2012, 13:44: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Quite so. Just as tradition nor scripture can be solely authoritative either.

IRL however, ppl do tend to emphasize one of the three.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Quite so. Just as tradition nor scripture can be solely authoritative either.

---

quote:

---

IRL however, ppl do tend to emphasize one of the three.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Quite so. Just as tradition nor scripture can be solely authoritative either.

---

In which case you're defining "liberal Anglicans" according to standards which fail to distinguish them from any other Anglicans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I can't imagine what it means to "prioritize" one over the others.

---

quote:

---

Of course we all use reason. The feature that distinguishes a liberal approach is that it at least aspires to not be selective in the application of reason to questions of fact.

For a conservative there are certain claims or beliefs that are excluded from rational consideration. They are what must be conserved. So a certain kind of Christian might believe the Bible is God's ultimate revelation. Within a conservative Christian context there may be no space for asking if that is a reasonable belief. Anyone seriously asking that quesion will have no long-term future in that kind of church.

The liberal distinctive is always to be open to an alternative if a convincing case can made for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
As a liberal Catholic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greenleaff:

I am part of a fairly liberal branch of TEC in the US. There would *definitely* be room for liberal leaders here, so I don't think you need to worry about coming out of the closet with your views.

---

LOL. The USA is a wee bit far away!!

But I think my "coming out" was okay. The Bishop invited me to rather a select function a couple of days after that so perhaps she liked what I said!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greenleaff:


I realize the tack of this thread has been to discuss the question of Christian liberalism and its implications for political activism and larger decisions such as the ordination of women, but here is a quick comment on a more personal level:

I'm a relative newcomer to TEC and Christianity in general. Liberal Christianity is fantastic in that it allows you to unabashedly leave behind the literalism that strangles so much of US religion. It sounded great to me. But after hearing other people discuss their views and interpretations, it's a little mind-boggling how much variation exists out there, to the point that I don't know that the Nicene creed or anything else really binds us together.

In the past few years I've talked to people who believe that Jesus existed and was human/divine, was an exceptional human being, did not exist at all, exists literally today, and one person who told me in a very dramatic way that she once saw Jesus in Church. Each person designs their own version of events, and as a result, I don't think we ever really get on the same page. I see this reflected in our liturgy as well: we use different translations, different styles meant to appeal to diverse groups in our area, and sometimes different languages. While intellectually intriguing, I think it also means we avoid thinking deeply about what the words mean.

I think the conclusion I'm slowly coming to is that liberal Christianity would be GREAT for someone who is several rungs up the ladder of understanding what the #$^& is going on, but that I might need just a little but of structure. (Conservatives scare me though, so I don't really know what the next step will be.)

---

Thank you for this reflection. It's really good to hear what its like for a noob in these circumstances.

I think your point of some kind of uniformity and continuity to provide structure is a good one.

I'm a liberal but I think I'm a fairly conservative one. I do like some structure.

I think perhaps I find it in my prayer book. The saying of morning and evening prayer and set eucharistic prayers and responses provide some kind of structure and discipline that kind of "frames" things for me.

I would indeed find it difficult to have different prayers and liturgies frequently.

Best of luck with your next step.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
That may be liberal, but it's not Christian.

---

quote:

---

It's making reason authoritative apart from revelation, which is departing the Christian faith.

---

quote:

---

Revelation has to be accepted in faith, insofar as one wants to have Christian beliefs

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, revelation needs to be interpreted, which is where reason and tradition come in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
That may be liberal, but it's not Christian.

---

That's your opinion. But it only demonstrates your conservatism, not that you are Christian.

quote:

---

It's making reason authoritative apart from revelation, which is departing the Christian faith.

---

Reason is the application of logic. Of course you can believe certain information has been revealed by God and refuse to ask if that is reasonable. But it reduces your use of 'Christian' to a label for a certain kind of religious prejudice rather than a more historically credible and broadly recognised reference to a tradition of extreme richness and diversity.

quote:

---

Revelation has to be accepted in faith, insofar as one wants to have Christian beliefs

---

No, that's just a limitation of how you perceive the Christian tradition.

quote:

---

On the other hand, revelation needs to be interpreted, which is where reason and tradition come in.

---

Yes. Reason determines whether a conclusion is consistent with the assumptions on which it is based. In this case, reasonable conservative theology may be consistent with 'revelation'.

The conservative distinctive is that it is not possible to apply reason to the selection of the assumptions on which theology is based. It considers in essence 'someone (human) told me so it must be true' a good enough foundation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong: How are you defining liberal here? What is it that makes you a liberal Catholic as opposed to just a Catholic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall: That's your opinion. But it only demonstrates your conservatism, not that you are Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong: How are you defining liberal here? What is it that makes you a liberal Catholic as opposed to just a Catholic?

---

I support the ordination of women and inclusion of gays into the life of the Church, so how should I be categorized?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Not all truth is the product of logical deduction

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I was hoping you might define the term on its own terms rather than in opposition to other positions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Not all truth is the product of logical deduction-- the newspaper contains the truth (hopefully) but that doesn't mean one is unreasonable to believe it just because it isn't deduced from self evident principles. The Gospel is called "news" after all.

---

quote:

---

One can decide that the news of the Gospel is inaccurate, in which case one is simply deciding that the Christian faith isn't true. Which brings us back to there being no Christian belief without faith in God's Word.

---

quote:

---

absolutely every philosophical system ever starts with self evident principles, and "self evident" is just philosopher speak for "Principles which we don't feel like questioning."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Unless taken to philosophical extremes (no man is an island) I don't think so.

It's the difference between defining something by what it is rather than what it is not.

---

quote:

---

Why keep restating this? You must know it's not going to convince me. I can't imagine it'll convince anyone who doesn't already share your convictions. I think you've established that your mind is closed to a broader interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Which is why I'm curious about the "reasoning" of liberals and where it comes from.

I don't think you're far off Davo (all is open to question) but even those questions we ask are framed by something.

Questions and ideas do not exist in a vacuum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Which is why I'm curious about the "reasoning" of liberals and where it comes from.

I don't think you're far off Davo (all is open to question) but even those questions we ask are framed by something.

Questions and ideas do not exist in a vacuum.

---

Sure. We settle on the best framework we've found or constructed that experience tells us will do for now. We get into the habit of not needing to question it, a sort of middle ground, other things to think about, sort of position. That turns into a conservative position when it becomes unacceptable to question it.

Perhaps the liberal alternative requires that we take positive steps to keep up with new developments and check that what we have been assuming still holds true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Unless taken to philosophical extremes (no man is an island) I don't think so.

It's the difference between defining something by what it is rather than what it is not.

---

But the post to which you were responding said that they were in favor of OOW and inclusion of gays. That is expressed as a positive.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ramarius:


But you could spend all your energies questioning the views of others and never actually reaching any positive conclusions of your own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If "liberalism" is going to get anywhere it has to reach positive conclusions of its own rather than just react to other people's conclusions.

---

"Liberalism" there definitely needs the quotes. If liberal means something like open to change then "being liberal" is not of itself about reaching conclusions. It's about taking account of all relevant information when making decisions. It doesn't mean not making decisions - which are what create whatever it is we're focusing on - but looking for, and making best use of, all the methods and resources available. Rather than only ever doing things the way they have been done before (and reaching the same conclusions).

Being liberal is an attitude, not a manifesto.

[ 15. March 2012, 12:41: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Yeah.

Good point Davo.

An attitude, not a manifesto.

I like that.

I'm going to quote you.
 

---

Posted by Drewthealexander (# 16660) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If "liberalism" is going to get anywhere it has to reach positive conclusions of its own rather than just react to other people's conclusions.

---

"Liberalism" there definitely needs the quotes. If liberal means something like open to change then "being liberal" is not of itself about reaching conclusions. It's about taking account of all relevant information when making decisions. It doesn't mean not making decisions - which are what create whatever it is we're focusing on - but looking for, and making best use of, all the methods and resources available. Rather than only ever doing things the way they have been done before (and reaching the same conclusions).

Being liberal is an attitude, not a manifesto.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Liberalism is not exactly postmodern is it ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
An attitude, not a manifesto.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Do people see a strong correlation between these two dimensions ? That would justify conflating them into a single movement called liberalism ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why would anyone want to affirm modernism whether liberal or conservative ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Liberalism is not exactly postmodern is it ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
An attitude, not a manifesto.

---

Tolerance is an attitude; modernisers have a manifesto.

The manifesto usually has something to do with salvaging the baby of the gospel message from the bathwater of superseded culture and cosmology. You may think that's a good thing or a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Do people see a strong correlation between these two dimensions ? That would justify conflating them into a single movement called liberalism ?

---

Not that I've noticed. That's just a dream some people have. In practice those who are tolerant of difference are also tolerant of the status quo, so modernising for them is never a priority.

What a depressing observation.

---

Far too cynical Davo.

I'm tolerant of difference.

Just not when it impinges on human need.

The sabbath was made for man after all.
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
You're not a moderniser though, are you?
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Aren't I?
 

---

Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on :
 
Genuine question.

(although some thoughts may be best not posted on a public discussion board)

[ 22. March 2012, 10:23: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
All these isms can get a bit much.

Tend to explode in your face if you're not careful.

Sometimes I just chuck em all in and get on with the job.
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
All these isms can get a bit much.

Tend to explode in your face if you're not careful.

Sometimes I just chuck em all in and get on with the job.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

Quote
(3) Drash or Midrash (“search”)—an allegorical or homiletical application of a text. This is a species of eisegesis—reading one’s own thoughts into the text—as opposed to exegesis, which is extracting from the text what it actually says.

---

My research into Midrash is quite different from the definition above.

It is the ancient method of interpreting the present from the past using scripture.

So the New Testament is a Midrash of the Old Testament.

Concepts come from old scripture and applied to interpret and delineate new situations.

Another example of Midrash is The books of Kings and Chronicles. Chronicles is a Midrash of Kings.

Similar history - different interpretation and slant.

Which makes sense in postmodernism of course. Everything is viewed through a lens. Objectivity is impossible.

The fact that the biblical writers included two accounts of creation is of course another testament to their awesome postmodernism.

It is only modernism that has trouble with that.

The bible is so big and so varied and has many different understandings of God and of history in it.

Postmodernism explains that beautifully of course.

So obviously the ancients were postmodernists.
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
Now let's continue to discuss postmodernism in relation to Faith, not art (where it was defined) or in philosophy (of which religions are manifestations).

To establish a framework, the definition in religion must be separated from that in art, (where it has become static) and must be re-stated. Postmodernism in art is a reaction against secular humanism, the philosophical attitude that men are inexorably ascendan,t based on an accumulation of wisdom, and a building on that wisdom, originating with Aristotle. A religious strain also exists, Justin believing that the Classics were invaluable in the transformation of believers and Aquinas, who drew heavily from .... Aristotle!

This reached a climax during the Enlightenment, when men believed that reason would redeem men from their natural bestial drives, music soothe the hearts of savage beasts, art transport hoi polloi from the drudgery of the reality they faced to a higher plane, and science, why science would eventually remove even he sting of death!

What changed the trajectory of modernism was the Great War. Science as slave harnessed for man's redemption turned around and became a tyrant, causing the death of millions.

Quote
The Great War had a massive and indelible impact on the male population of the UK: 886,000 men died, one in eight of those who went to war, and 2% of the entire country's population.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Horse_film

No longer was science and its methodology, logic, given the freedom to peddle its manifesto of common good. Every assumption needed to be, and was, challenged.

In art, presenting aesthetic qualities, either fudged by chiaroscuro by Raphael and his contemporaries , or by the Impressionists and their ancestors, the pre-Raphaelites who in turn had reacted against the Latins, practitioners began to question the purpose of art (Dadaists ). Iconoclasm on an apocalyptic scale.

The final nail in the coffin for aesthetic art was the invention of the camera: both realism and aesthetics were now delivered by a machine. Art as a medium of recording and embellishing was made redundant. It could only hang on as a propaganda tool: Guernica, anybody? That meant its contents were now up for debate. No longer could it hide under the pretext of being exponents of a particular style or school.

In epistemology, (both philosophical and its subset, religious), postmodernism has come to mean questioning the framework of a hypothesis.

In science, a hypothesis is universal in the sense that the phenomena was an absolute, remained the same whethe r at the North Pole or on top of Everest. Whatever factors influencing the results could be corrected for and the results were assured to remain constant (forget about quantum physics for now, our planes are still flying!, we're mainly operating in the domain of applied physics). The modernist in a field which depended on ancient text tried to apply logic and reason where the variations could NOT be reliably corrected for leading , to the multiplicity of sects seen today!

The postmodernist religious practitioner should not stop at the uncertainty prevailing in the art and think lateral, not linear.

Quote
Five Act Play hermeneutics. This is the approach most clearly advocated by Tom Wright, in which God’s story is seen as a five act play...

http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/article/as-opposed-to-the-sand

We are not unfulfilled modernists... Postmodernism IS a better modernism.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Thank you footwasher. I'm drinking at the fire-hose again. At my age, I ask you!
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
To fellow Bio Hazard (tip o' the hat to Evensong!):

Isn't that the truth and apart from recognising it to be the work of the Holy Spirit, it might be the height of hubris to liken it to this:

John 7:37-38 NET
On the last day of the feast, the greatest day, Jesus stood up and shouted out, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. Just as the scripture says, ‘From within himwill flow rivers of living water.’”

Factor in the noetic effects of sin, we're talking about an 80 percent error rate, so in terms of oracular perfection, it's more like the childlike stumbling at Kittyhawk than the perfection of scheduled flights of the Paris Rio Concord.

Paul recognised what the postmoderns now recognise, the limitation of human communication, ambiguity, in assuring his audience of the Fatherly steadying hand in making clear his teachings, and elsewhere we have James chiming in:

James 1:5 NET
But if anyone is deficient in wisdom, he should ask God, who gives to all generously and without reprimand, and it will be given to him.

I must honestly admit most of my posts are efforts at crystalizing of my own understanding of what the Christian teachings are, and akin to, using a New Yorkism , "Here, let me run this by you just to see if it flies...".

If it is more Concorde than Flyer, more glory to God...

Straight off, I can see that I should have found a place to explain that modernism used hypothesis formulation to combat fideism, the didactic of the medieval church.

[ 27. March 2012, 14:09: Message edited by: footwasher ]
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Now let's continue to discuss postmodernism in relation to Faith, not art (where it was defined) or in philosophy (of which religions are manifestations).

To establish a framework, the definition in religion must be separated from that in art, (where it has become static) and must be re-stated. Postmodernism in art is a reaction against secular humanism, the philosophical attitude that men are inexorably ascendan,t based on an accumulation of wisdom, and a building on that wisdom, originating with Aristotle. A religious strain also exists, Justin believing that the Classics were invaluable in the transformation of believers and Aquinas, who drew heavily from .... Aristotle!

This reached a climax during the Enlightenment, when men believed that reason would redeem men from their natural bestial drives, music soothe the hearts of savage beasts, art transport hoi polloi from the drudgery of the reality they faced to a higher plane, and science, why science would eventually remove even he sting of death!

What changed the trajectory of modernism was the Great War. Science as slave harnessed for man's redemption turned around and became a tyrant, causing the death of millions.

Quote
The Great War had a massive and indelible impact on the male population of the UK: 886,000 men died, one in eight of those who went to war, and 2% of the entire country's population.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Horse_film

No longer was science and its methodology, logic, given the freedom to peddle its manifesto of common good. Every assumption needed to be, and was, challenged.

In art, presenting aesthetic qualities, either fudged by chiaroscuro by Raphael and his contemporaries , or by the Impressionists and their ancestors, the pre-Raphaelites who in turn had reacted against the Latins, practitioners began to question the purpose of art (Dadaists ). Iconoclasm on an apocalyptic scale.

The final nail in the coffin for aesthetic art was the invention of the camera: both realism and aesthetics were now delivered by a machine. Art as a medium of recording and embellishing was made redundant. It could only hang on as a propaganda tool: Guernica, anybody? That meant its contents were now up for debate. No longer could it hide under the pretext of being exponents of a particular style or school.

In epistemology, (both philosophical and its subset, religious), postmodernism has come to mean questioning the framework of a hypothesis.

In science, a hypothesis is universal in the sense that the phenomena was an absolute, remained the same whethe r at the North Pole or on top of Everest. Whatever factors influencing the results could be corrected for and the results were assured to remain constant (forget about quantum physics for now, our planes are still flying!, we're mainly operating in the domain of applied physics). The modernist in a field which depended on ancient text tried to apply logic and reason where the variations could NOT be reliably corrected for leading , to the multiplicity of sects seen today!

The postmodernist religious practitioner should not stop at the uncertainty prevailing in the art and think lateral, not linear.

Quote
Five Act Play hermeneutics. This is the approach most clearly advocated by Tom Wright, in which God’s story is seen as a five act play...

http://whatyouthinkmatters.org/blog/article/as-opposed-to-the-sand

We are not unfulfilled modernists... Postmodernism IS a better modernism.

---

Brilliant footwasher!

May I use this material on my blog please?
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
Awww, Evensong, sure you can. You don't even need to attribute it! Bouquets to the Holy Spirit, brickbats, you know where I live (figurativel)!
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
I've got a little collection going of great comments shippies have made on the subject over the years so I'll add it to that with your name.

A couple of questions if you can be arsed.

You wrote:

quote:

---

The postmodernist religious practitioner should not stop at the uncertainty prevailing in the art and think lateral, not linear.

---

quote:

---

We are not unfulfilled modernists... Postmodernism IS a better modernism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:

So when I say linear thinking, I am talking about herd mentality, the mindset that only the one option was available, forgetting that linguistics is not like science, where the parameters are a constant and therefore the values are a constant.

---

I see. Thank you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Supposing, I thought, Paul meant ‘seeking to establish their own righteousness’, not in the sense of a moral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Supposing, I thought, Paul meant ‘seeking to establish their own righteousness’, not in the sense of a moral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:

quote:

---

Originally posted by footwasher:
Supposing, I thought, Paul meant ‘seeking to establish their own righteousness’, not in the sense of a moral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership?

---

I see no difference, in effect, in the trenches, where the rubber meets the road. In the end. Sam ting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stoker:

But the core Gospel of Christ has never changed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Fact of Liberalism #1: Liberals take the bible more seriously than others because they engage in critical-historical study of the bible. They seek to learn what the original gospel of the evangelists was.

Therefore Liberals know the gospel better than non-liberals.

---

quote:

---

1. It emphasises human reason as the yardstick by which to judge theolgical exploration. So we set ourselves up as the authority to decide what is a reasonable belief and what isn't. Scripture submits to human knowledge. (2 Timothy 3 v 15-17).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mary Marriott:
what is the result you speak of ? The 'result of being' a liberal ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Disposition is independent of postmodernism I agree. I'm definitely a postmodern conservative - God kills - and you are definitely a postmodern liberal - He can't. Postmodernism should help us meet at the top, and the foot of the cross, now in that we both believe by different routes that God is the best case God, that all will be well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
What is reason?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
The essence of reason is the application of logic..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Logic is deductive reasoning, but inductive reasoning (reaching conclusions from observation) is also important in discussing what the truth might be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
Now I see that I've cross-posted with you. You have changed your definition of reason into one closer to mine, it seems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Fact of Liberalism #1: Liberals take the bible more seriously than others because they engage in critical-historical study of the bible. They seek to learn what the original gospel of the evangelists was.

Therefore Liberals know the gospel better than non-liberals.

---

You mean like the Jesus seminar, whose "original gospel" is shorn of every verse suggesting that he was more than human?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:


So how else can the sovereign liberal God kill ?

---

The same way the conservative one can?
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Now you're playing me at my own game Madam (or Sir as the case may be), which ain't fair.

Surely the liberal God can't kill like the conservative one. I mean stroll on wo/man, you'll have me justifiying the liberal God next!

The (even best case) conservative one is pragmatic and validly portrayed from Genesis to Revelation. Doesn't intervene more than He has to. But you really don't want to be there. Above ALL pragmatic in His loving purpose. So whiping out at least 10 million people in the Noachian event (not that there is the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for it on a global scale and nothing but evidence against) and starting again, nuking S&G and three other cities as collateral damage and then REALLY meeting us where we were from the Bronze Age in the Exodus and beyond, epitomised by the horrors of The Gainsaying of Korah, The Heresy of Peor (if God is on your side, don't make an enemy of Him). Etc, etc.

I can't see how a liberal God could do that UNLESS we're talking Ian M. Banks Culture liberal, or Michael Ignatieff liberal. A liberal interventionist to imperialist even. I used to be that. The way the West handled Libya for example. Iraq. Afghanistan. I was all for it.

But surely not ? A liberal God can only kill the way a conservative God kills by engaging in creation. They meet in that. If you are in the creation business you cannot do it without suffering for all concerned. Without all experiencing evil.

Would a liberal God influence the course of events as the conservative one blatantly does ? Probably. But surely not directly kill or cause others to kill ? Incidentally yes. But even that surely treads on pacifism. How can a liberal God participate in Devil's alternatives ?
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
God wiped out the world with Noah cos of violence ya know. Wickedness is there but violence is stated explicitly.

So God doesn't like violence but partakes?

Hard stuff. Dunno.

The wiping out of all those Egyptians at the Red Sea still worries me. Worries Jews as well apparently. Progressive ones say it's allegorical.

I think what you're asking is how we justify the violence of God?

This is obviously problematic for us because Christ was not violent.

He healed the high priest slaves ear didn't he? Gave the offender a hard time. Told him that was not his way.

It's the tribalism that's worrying. God mainly kills to preserve her people.

Yet in the OT we have universalist strands as well as tribalist ones.

Comes down to an issue of how to understand all the varieties of scripture.

Was the handling of Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq the way Jesus would have done it?

Doesn't seem so.

Only alternative total pacifism? Not sure. Yet it seems Christ would lean that way . Perhaps because he was confident the Kingdom was to come and God was to do it.

Judgement does lie with God after all.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
God is allowed to be violent but we aren't. No moral contradiction there. There are lots of things God gets to do that we ought not to. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" That is mine and not yours. Its ultra vires. Humans aren't meant to decide who lives and who dies. God does it all.

After all God created all those Canaanites, and God killed all those Canaanites. And all those Hebrews and Philistines and Egyptians and Chinese and in fact everyone else who was alive at the time. And all the cats and dogs and mice and insects and herrings and flowers and tortoises. In fact every living thing on Earth that was alive three thousand years ago is now dead, apart from a few unusual plants. Some died old, some died young, some died through "natural causes" (scare quotes because also all caused by God), some were killed violently, some died alone, some died all at once. God created them all, and God is responsible for their lives and their deaths. And ours too. We're not.

We don't get to decide who lives and who dies or when they die. And when we try to decide it we're breaking the rules because that's what God does. It kind of goes with being God. Omnipotent and eternal creator and all that.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Shit ken. That's quite profound. Never thought of it that way before. Yet I think I was beginning to by the end of my previous post.

I'm sold.

Thanks.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Wow! I mean WOW! C'mon, c'mon, there's GOTTA be a genu-whine God's-GOTTER-BE-a-nice-pacifist-just-like-me type person out there!?
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Yeah there is.

Michael Hardin. Into non-violent atonement.

Spoke to us for some hours today at college.

One of my colleagues raised ken's point.

And I realised actually that it was deficient.

Seems a caricature if God can be violent and we can't.

Does rather imply a dual theology and a dual face of God (both loving and wrathful).

Which is a bad thing.

Back to square 42.
 

---

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Seems a caricature if God can be violent and we can't.

Does rather imply a dual theology and a dual face of God (both loving and wrathful).

Which is a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus wasn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus wasn't.

---

*cough*The Cleansing of the Temple*cough*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CL:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus wasn't.

---

*cough*The Cleansing of the Temple*cough*

---

Vandalism perhaps, but not violent. In fact, a perfect example of nonviolent direct action.

---

quote:

---

And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

He might have been a liberal. But He was no fool.

---

That makes him a postmodernist then.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Stitched myself up there good an proper didn't I ! Hoist with me own petard !

Aye Evensong indeed. Postmodernism brings us ALL closer together. As He intended it seems.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Stitched myself up there good an proper didn't I !

---

You sure did. Couldn't resist.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0