|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What would a new liberal Christianity look like?
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
I read a Theo Hobson’s brief articles in the Guardian here and here regarding liberal Christianity with interest. I wonder how far shipmates would agree with Hobson’s premise that liberal Christianity needs to be rescued from the “deathly embrace” of secular humanism?
And to what extent would you agree with his conclusions, that liberal Christianity should embrace the USA model of capitalist democracy and separation of church and state; and that liberal Christianity requires an emphasis on ritual, but not necessarily traditional ritual?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
I have doubts that 'liberal' Christianity can be authentically Christian. Why not just be an orthodox Christian.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There are so many 'shoulds' here, that it makes me dizzy. Isn't it a bit odd to talk about liberal Christianity 'needing' to do this and that? Can we not just explore stuff in our own time, without having to do anything?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
I have doubts that 'liberal' Christianity can be authentically Christian. Why not just be an orthodox Christian.
In my case, because I cannot make myself believe things that I don't believe. Having said that, I can't find much, despite self-identifying as liberal, that goes against orthodox Christianity. Some people's versions of it, sure.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
Karl, it sounds to me like liberal Christians like to place limits or conditions on God, or at least on their faith?
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
Karl, it sounds to me like liberal Christians like to place limits or conditions on God, or at least on their faith?
What a strange interpretation of what I said!
There are some things that some conservative Christians believe. They tell me that unless I believe them, I'm a liberal (interesting definition, but I'll live with it for now for the sake of argument). For example (in no particular order of contentiousness):
1. The world was made in six days.
2. Everyone who's not a Christian will burn in a literal eternal Hell.
3. The Bible is inerrant.
Now, for various reasons, I pretty much know that 1 is utterly false; 2. is incompatible with other things I know to be true and/or that Christianity teaches are true, and 3. is as near as makes no odds implausible. I can't by dint of effort or intention make myself believe any of them. It's nothing to do with placing limits on anything; merely the stating of the (to me) fairly obvious fact that I cannot make myself believe something that's pretty evidently (to me) false, any more than I can look at a blade of grass and insist to myself that it's cerise.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Simply put, we Christians already know how to do two things very well. First, some of us know how to have a strong Christian identity that responds negatively toward other religions. The stronger our Christian commitment, the stronger our aversion or opposition to other religions.... Alternatively, others of us know how to have a more positive, accepting response to other religions. We never prosyletize. We always show respect for other religions and their adherents. We always minimize differences and maximizes commonalities. But we typically achieve coexistence by weakening our Christian identity... I’m convinced that neither of these responses is good enough for today’s world. (Brian D. McLaren, Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? p. 9-10)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I found the articles disappointing. There are many issues and many shades of grey, and supporting a secular state is only one of them, and also assumes what the writer wants to get away from, which is that humanist beliefs are sufficient, to define the legal framework of life, thus relegating christianity to the personal sphere.
So a christian objection to the death penalty, or abortion, or warfare, or homosexuality, can not be considered legitimate in deciding how other peoples' (including non-believers) lives should be governed.
I sympathize with people who want to keep religion out of these spheres, and freely admit it's contribution has not always been helpful. But has humanism's? Or is it merely assumed that humanism is better as a moral compass? Won't this degenerate into simply the Democratic majority? And what sort of a belief is that?
There aren't one or two versions of liberal christianity. There's loads.
There are liberal christians who firmly believe in the resurrection and the life of the world to come (I would locate Leslie Weatherhead there), but reject many traditional beliefs such as Hell, and take a critical attitude to Scripture. Other liberals feel that christianity needs to be weaned away from ideas of Heaven and eternal life. Etc etc.
It's a far more complex picture, and like many posters I wonder if the term liberal christian has a clear enough meaning to be useful.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't by dint of effort or intention make myself believe any of them. It's nothing to do with placing limits on anything; merely the stating of the (to me) fairly obvious fact that I cannot make myself believe something that's pretty evidently (to me) false, any more than I can look at a blade of grass and insist to myself that it's cerise.
Just believe, Karl. Believe!
I suppose what we can do is act as if we believe what some institution or authority says, even though we don't actually believe it (at the moment). We set aside our own views, acknowledging that - for example - the institution has a particular relationship with God such that we should trust its official view more than we trust our own.
Martin, I'm liking the Brian McLaren quotation! I've read and very much enjoyed several of his books but haven't yet got hold of 'Why did Jesus...?' Would you recommend it?
[ 12. June 2013, 12:51: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can't by dint of effort or intention make myself believe any of them. It's nothing to do with placing limits on anything; merely the stating of the (to me) fairly obvious fact that I cannot make myself believe something that's pretty evidently (to me) false, any more than I can look at a blade of grass and insist to myself that it's cerise.
Just believe, Karl. Believe!
I suppose what we can do is act as if we believe what some institution or authority says, even though we don't actually believe it (at the moment). We set aside our own views, acknowledging that - for example - the institution has a particular relationship with God such that we should trust its official view more than we trust our own.
I call that "pretending" and like all forms of dishonesty my experience is that it's ultimately self-defeating.
I gave up on the Mark Twain definition of faith ("believing what you know isn't true") a long time ago.
I accept that I might be wrong. But if I really though I actually was, well, by definition that'd be changing my mind.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I don't know if it's 'pretending', necessarily...? I'm thinking about how we relate to other authorities, like scientists or business leaders. If someone we respect says something that doesn't ring true with us, we might set aside our own doubt because of our strong respect for that person's wisdom and expertise. Isn't that similar to how we might relate to a religious leader or institution telling us something we can't really accept?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't know if it's 'pretending', necessarily...? I'm thinking about how we relate to other authorities, like scientists or business leaders. If someone we respect says something that doesn't ring true with us, we might set aside our own doubt because of our strong respect for that person's wisdom and expertise. Isn't that similar to how we might relate to a religious leader or institution telling us something we can't really accept?
I'd find out why they're saying it and see if it's sufficient to change my mind. If it is, well and good, if not, then they're still wrong, aren't they? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I don't think I really get "authority". I don't believe a scientist because he's a clever scientist; I believe him if he can demonstrate what he's saying is true with evidence. Perhaps this is why I tend to trust my own judgement over that of the other group you mentioned - business leaders - because they generally seem to appeal to their own cleverness rather than showing their reasoning. I feel similarly about religious authority - "because the Magisterium/Bible/Calvin's Institutes say so" just elicits "so what?" from me.
[ 12. June 2013, 13:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't know if it's 'pretending', necessarily...? I'm thinking about how we relate to other authorities, like scientists or business leaders. If someone we respect says something that doesn't ring true with us, we might set aside our own doubt because of our strong respect for that person's wisdom and expertise. Isn't that similar to how we might relate to a religious leader or institution telling us something we can't really accept?
This ignores the innate ability of humans in all our glorious, non-linear, self-contradictory messiness to be utterly right about some things and utterly wrong about others, often in the same breath. From Scripture I give you Peter earning a rebuke from Paul. From our modern world I give you Ian Paisley (gifted evangelist, less so at interdenominational relations) or Mother Teresa (living saint in dealing with poor people, medieval on contraception and abortion). So, no matter how august the authority or institution, and no matter how right they are on other matters - as Karl says, if they're wrong, they're wrong.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Liberal Christianity. Isn't it just new ageism and batty nuns praying to mother earth? That's pretty much how I see it with it's adherents generally being ex-hippies approaching retirement.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Liberal Christianity. Isn't it just new ageism and batty nuns praying to mother earth? That's pretty much how I see it with it's adherents generally being ex-hippies approaching retirement.
Your knowledge and experience of it are clearly on a par with your understanding of correct apostrophe use.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
You'd be surprised what I've seen. Yes, I have seen batty nuns praying to mother earth and yes, it is my experience that the liberal Christian is more likely than not to be rather long in the tooth. Now have you anything to say, old chap, other than pointing out other posters' typos?
[ 12. June 2013, 13:51: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You'd be surprised what I've seen. Yes, I have seen batty nuns praying to mother earth and yes, it is my experience that the liberal Christian is more likely than not to be rather long in the tooth. Now have you anything to say, old chap, other than pointing out other posters' typos?
Yes. That some X is Y does not imply that all Y is X.
By your reasoning, all Orthodox are queer bashing skinhead idiots.
[ 12. June 2013, 13:58: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I rather like the Affirming Liberalism definition of liberal Christianity:
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.”
Affirming Liberalism seeks to enhance this ‘enrichment’ of the Christian faith and support ordained and lay Christians of the Liberal Anglican tradition by:
1. Affirming faith in Jesus’ life, teaching, death and resurrection as revealing God’s limitless love for all humanity in this life and the next.
2. Affirming the dynamic action of God’s Spirit in dispersing this divine love throughout the world.
3. Affirming the beneficial insights of biblical, literary and historical criticism for our understanding of Scripture and Tradition.
4. Affirming a free, questioning and philosophical approach to Christian faith through God-given reason.
5. Affirming the profound significance of science and mathematics in forming a Christian world-view and understanding of the universe.
6. Affirming the positive benefits of the social sciences for comprehending human nature and society, and in developing Christian ethics.
7. Affirming appreciation of the distinctive nature of religious language in vibrant worship which connects us to the divine.
8. Affirming the vitality of the performing and creative arts in shaping a dynamic Christian vision of life lived in relation to God.
9. Affirming open, creative conversation between Liberals, Evangelicals and Catholics as a means of enriching our understanding of the Christian gospel.
10. Affirming open, creative conversation with other faith traditions and cultures as a way of deepening our understanding of God.
We had a thread on Liberalism last year that was quite good.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Ad Orientem: Liberal Christianity. Isn't it just new ageism and batty nuns praying to mother earth?
Don't forget the flowers in our hair. I won't take part if I don't get to have those.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Liberal Christianity. Isn't it just new ageism and batty nuns praying to mother earth? That's pretty much how I see it with it's adherents generally being ex-hippies approaching retirement.
Your knowledge and experience of it are clearly on a par with your understanding of correct apostrophe use.
I think you're being unkind Karl. He's got two out of three apostrophes right.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
You'd be surprised what I've seen. Yes, I have seen batty nuns praying to mother earth and yes, it is my experience that the liberal Christian is more likely than not to be rather long in the tooth.
I was 26 when I came to Christ.
Thank God for Bishop Shelby Spong I say. Was the only way in that made any sense.
I've moved on from Spong now, but I'm still a liberal and I'm 38. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I don't know if it's 'pretending', necessarily...? I'm thinking about how we relate to other authorities, like scientists or business leaders. If someone we respect says something that doesn't ring true with us, we might set aside our own doubt because of our strong respect for that person's wisdom and expertise. Isn't that similar to how we might relate to a religious leader or institution telling us something we can't really accept?
What if those in authority are pretending? If they are asking the same questions as Karl?
I have much respect for McLaren and other post-modern focused writers. There is an alternative, a grand vista, beyond evnagelicalism. There is a way to relate to a new culture without resorting to a brittle dogmatism or blind fantasy faith. It is something to do with exploring questions together, sharng stories and exploring the wild kingdom country. This requires a certain amount of humility and ackowledgement that we may be wrong or only know in part.
I liken it to taking a tree out of a pot and transplating it. It is a little traumatic at first but when your roots find all the space, food and water then, wow!, you can grow.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Well, AO, as anteater says there's not just one way of being a 'liberal' Christian (some of us get labelled as 'liberal' when we're not that un-orthodox). I firmly believe in the Resurrection, Christ returning in physical form to judge the living and the dead, and eternity with God. Certainly no New Ageism or being an ageing hippy worshipping Mother Earth for me, and the same would go for most other 'liberal' Christians I know, most of whom are under 40. I like traditional church services. I simply take a critical approach to Scripture, am liberal on Dead Horse issues (mostly anyway, maybe not open/closed Communion) and am ultimately a universalist (while still believing in some kind of post-death punishment/purgatory-type system).
Do I count as liberal to you?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think I really get "authority". I don't believe a scientist because he's a clever scientist; I believe him if he can demonstrate what he's saying is true with evidence.
Really. I doubt that you have worked through anything remotely resembling "compelling evidence" for 99% of the "scientific facts" that you carry around in your head. You know that water is H2O how? You know that there was a big bang how? You know that power can be derived from splitting or fusing atoms how? You know that your have a heart that pumps blood through your body how? You know that continents drift how? You know that AIDS is caused by HIV how? You know that the sun is a star how? You know that epilepsy is a brain disease how? You know that there are electromagnetic waves how? You know that there is DNA in your cells how? Etc.
You hardly know any science at a supposed personally achieved level of "well understood theory confirmed by experimental or observational evidence". Perhaps a PhD knows a little bit about some part of science, based on personal understanding and experience. However, not even if you receive the Noble prize will you get away from trusting a huge number of other clever scientists (dead and alive) on a vast array of things. Actually, I would say that the number of "known by authority" facts grows a lot faster when you get into science than the number of "personally confirmed" facts. Professional scientists likely rely more on other scientists than laypeople in this simple statistical sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I feel similarly about religious authority - "because the Magisterium/Bible/Calvin's Institutes say so" just elicits "so what?" from me.
Maybe religion is entirely within the realm of individual human capacity and experience, then your response may make sense. But if it is anything like science, fundamentally supra-personal in scope, then religious authority is necessary for both personal and communal progress.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't believe a scientist because he's a clever scientist; I believe him if he can demonstrate what he's saying is true with evidence.
But there must come a point where your reasoning and knowledge are insufficient to assess whatever evidence some scientist might present in defence of their view on something. At that point, you have to trust their judgement.
I think there are some parallels with how we might relate to religious authority figures, although I agree that there's too much 'because abcxyz says so' in both business and religion!
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
This ignores the innate ability of humans in all our glorious, non-linear, self-contradictory messiness to be utterly right about some things and utterly wrong about others, often in the same breath... [N]o matter how august the authority or institution, and no matter how right they are on other matters - as Karl says, if they're wrong, they're wrong.
Oh, definitely. I'm very much on the same page as Karl on this issue, but just trying to see the other side of things (as is my wont!). However, I think there is a place for the 'appeal to authority' argument, because there are limits to each individual's knowledge and expertise.
If an author / theologian has written some things I find compelling then I'm more likely to take their view on board on another matter even if it doesn't make so much sense to me. There are limits, of course, but my disposition will be to trust their judgement in favour of my own.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That some X is Y does not imply that all Y is X.
By your reasoning, all Orthodox are queer bashing skinhead idiots.
Heh heh. Bang on the money.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I rather like the Affirming Liberalism definition of liberal Christianity...
Yes, I like that too. Am I becoming a (cue sinister music) Liberal Christian? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
ISTM that the apparent decline of liberalism has occurred because liberal views on many issues have triumphed to such an extent that they're no longer seen as liberal.
For example, one finds many Evangelicals who are perfectly happy with multiple Isaiahs and a late date for Daniel, who regard remarriage after divorce as morally licit, who see no problem with artificial contraception (not just a Catholic issue; the Church of England used to condemn it too), who think Catholics are fine upstanding Christians, and who accept women's ministry as a no-brainer. I would bet small amounts of money that in fifty years' time the Gay Issue will have gone the same way too.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
It is something to do with exploring questions together, sharng stories and exploring the wild kingdom country. This requires a certain amount of humility and ackowledgement that we may be wrong or only know in part.
I liken it to taking a tree out of a pot and transplating it. It is a little traumatic at first but when your roots find all the space, food and water then, wow!, you can grow.
Sorry, I missed this off my epic multi-point reply a moment ago. The tree transplanting is a good analogy, I think. I certainly feel my faith is more - searching for the word - 'whole', more genuine than when I unthinkingly assented to the evangelical shibboleths.
M. Scott Peck's stages of spiritual development theory really resonates with me, although I know it's likely to come across as patronising and insulting to those who are happily in one of his earlier 'stages'...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
South Coast Kevin: Am I becoming a (cue sinister music) Liberal Christian?
Come over to the Dark Side. You know you want to.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think I really get "authority". I don't believe a scientist because he's a clever scientist; I believe him if he can demonstrate what he's saying is true with evidence..
In theory, sure. But in practice? I don't know if you're a scientist, Karl, so maybe you're able to do this, but it sounds very tedious to try to replicate every bit of knowledge you're given, or even to examine the evidence for it. And anyway, as I'm sure Emily Windsor-Cragg could tell you, you're taking the evidence on the scientist's authority anyway.
Have you seen people being shot in Syria? Did you witness the invasion of Iraq? If not, you accepted in practice that these things are or were happening based on the authority of the source. For all most of us know, based on the evidence we've personally seen, we may as well "always have been at war with Eurasia," as Orwell would put it.
This is to say nothing of relying on your doctor for medical advice, and so on. The world would be paralyzed if we didn't rely on others' expertise at times; we'd spend all our time reading the New England Journal of Medicine.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Good points, so the question is why can I make myself believe that people are shot in Syria because the BBC says so, but can't make myself believe that Mary remained a virgin just because the Magisterium says she did?
Put it another way, why do you, or Ingo, for that matter, believe the BBC, but not believe the Islamic tradition that says that the Koran was dictated to Mohammed?
There's something different about religious truth claims which I feel instinctively but I am struggling to formularise.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
This is to say nothing of relying on your doctor for medical advice, and so on. The world would be paralyzed if we didn't rely on others' expertise at times; we'd spend all our time reading the New England Journal of Medicine.
[I think this answers IngoB and Kevin as well]
But I think there's a difference in that scientists have an obvious reason to be better informed, because they have all the relevant equipment.
I mean, a lot of quantum physics sounds like nonsense to me, but I'm not the one with the laboratory and the expensive machines that go ping.
However, in the context of religion, it's not clear what religious leaders have that corresponds to the laboratory. They may claim a special connection to the Holy Spirit, but you won't find a title deed for it anywhere ...
[ 12. June 2013, 14:39: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I rather like the Affirming Liberalism definition of liberal Christianity...
Yes, I like that too. Am I becoming a (cue sinister music) Liberal Christian?
Or the Halleluia chorus perhaps- there is more rejoicing in heaven...
Or [Dramatic Chord] may be you are becoming a post evangelical.
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
This is to say nothing of relying on your doctor for medical advice, and so on. The world would be paralyzed if we didn't rely on others' expertise at times; we'd spend all our time reading the New England Journal of Medicine.
[I think this answers IngoB and Kevin as well]
But I think there's a difference in that scientists have an obvious reason to be better informed, because they have all the relevant equipment.
I mean, a lot of quantum physics sounds like nonsense to me, but I'm not the one with the laboratory and the expensive machines that go ping.
However, in the context of religion, it's not clear what religious leaders have that corresponds to the laboratory. They may claim a special connection to the Holy Spirit, but you won't find a title deed for it anywhere ...
Yes, I think that's part of it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
All very well, but what he seems to be saying is profoundly flawed for a reason he ought to be able to see. If I've got him correctly, he argues:-
1. If you are a political liberal and would prefer a secular state, you do not have to be a theological liberal. You can be a creedal Christian.
True. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
2. Creedal liberalism is likely to lead you down the primrose path into de facto agnosticism.
Also true. Again, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
3. If you are a creedal Christian you should be a a political liberal and advocate a secular estate, because that's what he prefers.
Factually correct; it's clearly what he prefers. But it is built on a non sequitur.
One can argue that Christianity does not endorse any particular sort of polity; so we are entitled to advocate the one we think most suitable for us. One can also argue that whether or not Christianity endorses any particular sort of polity, one's faith is so fundamental that it should inform whatever views one takes. He isn't though saying either of those. He seems to be saying 'I am a liberal Guardianista, and that should inform both my political and Christian beliefs, but only up to a point'.
It is fairly revealing that when he talks about 'ad fontes', it turns out he means not Jesus Christ or scripture, but John Milton.
Likewise, what he says about cult and ritual is built on sand. Cult and ritual needs to express and be founded in faith and belief, not the other way round.
So, sorry. If this is the best an 'authentic liberal Christianity' can do, it is flawed. Don't go there. Look again.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Enoch: 2. Creedal liberalism is likely to lead you down the primrose path into de facto agnosticism.
Also true. Again, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Is it? My (admittedly anecdotal) experience seems to suggest otherwise.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
'sall a matter of definition anyway. Hardly any of us here are Biblical inerrantist young earth creationists who believe that every person who doesn't adhere to fundamentalist Christian beliefs will burn in Hell eternally in conscious torment, and by plenty of people's definitions that I've come across that means we're all liberals.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
However, in the context of religion, it's not clear what religious leaders have that corresponds to the laboratory. They may claim a special connection to the Holy Spirit, but you won't find a title deed for it anywhere ...
Taking a step back, this argument rests on certain suppositions about how God relates to humanity. Some Christians certainly do claim that a particular person or group of people (e.g. ministers / leaders in their church, the Pope) have some kind of special connection to God. Obviously, any appeal to authority is only going to 'work' if that belief in a special connection is shared...
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Or [Dramatic Chord] may be you are becoming a post evangelical.
Yes, that's probably it. Not liberal yet!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
'sall a matter of definition anyway. Hardly any of us here are Biblical inerrantist young earth creationists who believe that every person who doesn't adhere to fundamentalist Christian beliefs will burn in Hell eternally in conscious torment, and by plenty of people's definitions that I've come across that means we're all liberals.
Indeed - to say nothing of those who don't consider Catholics (or Orthodoxen, if they have even heard of the Orthodox church which those kinds of evangelicals often haven't) to be Christians. Scarily common amongst Christian Unions.
Part of the reason why I'm not all that comfortable with the liberal label is that it creates so many assumptions (often like Ad Orientem's) that are just untrue in my case.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Karl:
Whilst I'm more with Ingo than you as regards the need to accept authority, there is one consideration that does make me hesitate as regards religious authority.
It is that by and large scientists love nothin better than to overturn a theory with a new one. They really get kudos for that. With many religious groups, the goal is to establish received doctrine. This the more so once it has been defined to be part of the faith.
It's never 100% but by and large scientists are more inclined to test to destruction existing theories.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
It's a far more complex picture, and like many posters I wonder if the term liberal christian has a clear enough meaning to be useful.
As with everything, it depends on the context.
Brian McLaren and Rob Bell are considered dangerous liberals in some segments of the evangelical community because of their support for gay rights and suspected advocacy of universalist views. In an Anglican book group at my church, some of my fellow Anglicans criticized McLaren for being too conservative on the authority of Scripture.
John Spong is often accused of being a radical or a liberal. But Spong, to my knowledge, has never criticized the free market capitalist economy in his books, so in that way, he can seem conservative.
Liberalism is a catch-all descriptor for "not-fundamentalism" in the media. It has become a term devoid of any actual meaning.
[ 12. June 2013, 16:38: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Anglican_Brat: It has become a term devoid of any actual meaning.
FWIW, I don't use this term to describe myself outside of the Ship (it seems like a useful shorthand here sometimes).
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
FWIW, perhaps the best description is what Diana Butler Bass offered in her book, "Christianity for the Rest of Us"
which is that "liberal Christians" are traditional, but not traditionalist, in that we do value the Christian tradition in offering insights on God, the human condition, flourishing, etc, but we don't believe in defending the Christian tradition for the sake of the tradition itself.
The Creeds and the Scriptures are valued in the sense that they point to the reality we call "God." But they do not work if they are conflated with God himself. That is why some liberals can on the one hand, affirm that the Christian tradition is meaningful for them, and feel little need to bludgeon others for not believing.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Enoch: 2. Creedal liberalism is likely to lead you down the primrose path into de facto agnosticism.
Also true. Again, I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
Is it? My (admittedly anecdotal) experience seems to suggest otherwise.
That is what Theo Hobson is saying of the sort of liberal Christianity he thinks is a dead end.
Perhaps he is being too pessimistic, though I suspect not.
Admittedly this is changing the part of speech, but it seems to me he is drawing a distinction between a 'liberal-christian' and a 'liberal who is a christian'. Where I think his argument is weak, is his assumption with the latter that each still has to determine what sort of christian or liberal one is, rather than their both following independent tracks.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Good points, so the question is why can I make myself believe that people are shot in Syria because the BBC says so, but can't make myself believe that Mary remained a virgin just because the Magisterium says she did?
Put it another way, why do you, or Ingo, for that matter, believe the BBC, but not believe the Islamic tradition that says that the Koran was dictated to Mohammed?
Here's a shot in the dark.
Clearly we all accept the BBC's account because we believe the BBC to be a consistently reliable source for answers on these questions. This can be based in part on its congruence with our own lived experience (e.g., it reports news that we have experienced ourselves), its congruence with other reputable sources (e.g., it reports the same things as major newspapers), or on its authority and reputation.
Now clearly I take it on faith that the BBC, CNN, Fox, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, and the Washington Post aren't all lying to me in precisely the same way. Some conspiracy theorists would not accept this claim. But with the exception of congruence with my own experience of news events (which is limited), my acceptance is all basically either instrumental or based on faith.
Let's transition to claims about the Virgin Birth. (As I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm perfectly comfortable with a certain agnosticism with regards to Mary's perpetual virginity, although I can see the typological appeal.) Why do I accept the Virgin Birth? Well, because it's taught by St. Matthew and St. Luke, and has been confirmed by the Church ever since (and, most likely, before) their writings. Do I also, as a well-informed Christian, understand that it draws on a particular difference in semantic range between the Hebrew text of Isaiah and the Greek Septuagint? Sure. But coming from my background of faith, I accept the claim that the Bible has a certain authority. It is, in general, a reputable source for religious matters; the accounts given by Matthew and Luke agree with one another, and with the teachings of the Church; and, in this case, are theologically powerful (i.e., because they insist that God and not Joseph is Jesus' father).
Why don't I accept Islamic claims about the dictation of the Quran? Well, there's no universal or hard-and-fast answer. I'm not particularly familiar with the Quran, but suppose that historical criticism showed a variety of layers, similar to those of the Pentateuch; I would question whether it could all be dictated to one individual, and so on. More broadly, though, it's because I don't accept the religious claims of the worldview within which claims about the Quran are made.
The question can be returned to the news analogy: the reason I generally accept the Western media's version of certain events, and not the North Korean state news agency parallels the reason I accept Al-Jazeera's account of uprisings in Iran and not the Iranian government's, which parallels the reason I accept a Christian and not a Muslim account of Christ's birth: because I believe in and trust one point of view more than the other.
Whether and why religious truth claims are qualitatively different from those of the news...well, that question I haven't gotten to yet!
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Good points, so the question is why can I make myself believe that people are shot in Syria because the BBC says so, but can't make myself believe that Mary remained a virgin just because the Magisterium says she did? ... There's something different about religious truth claims which I feel instinctively but I am struggling to formularise.
An apparent qualitative difference is that people shooting each other in Syria is inherently believable, whereas virgins giving birth is inherently unbelievable. In the case of the BBC you are using authority to upgrade probability from unlikely (people do not shot each other often, generally speaking) to highly likely (if the BBC says so in this case, it's probably true), whereas in the case of the magisterium you would be using authority to upgrade the probability from impossible to highly likely.
However, "God events" are not measured by "natural possibility", but by "conceptual possibility". It is thinkable that God makes a virgin conceive, whereas it is not thinkable for example that God decrees a largest prime number. Let me assume that in principle at least you admit that God could work miracles (such as the virgin birth). Then actually this is similar to the BBC case after all: you are asked to upgrade something from unlikely (the "God event" of virgin birth) to highly likely based on authority. You just do not assign to the magisterium this kind of authority.
So my point is that believability depends on a "framework". And for religious matters, you need to switch to a different framework. What God can do is not measured by what happens in nature, but by what can be made to happen in nature. If you assess the magisterium's claims within the appropriate framework, then your disbelief is not "special". If you disbelieve some cheap tabloid's story on Syria, then that's also not "special". You simply have not assigned any relevant authority, the magisterium is not the BBC to you on matters of God, but some tabloid or the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Put it another way, why do you, or Ingo, for that matter, believe the BBC, but not believe the Islamic tradition that says that the Koran was dictated to Mohammed?
I consider it possible that the Quran was dictated to Mohammed by an incorporeal spirit, just not by the Archangel Gabriel or indeed any other messenger from God... The reasons why I believe in Christianity rather than any other religion are complicated and at times hard to express, but there are reasons for uniquely selecting this religion for me, and they are not based on purely subjective experience. The same I can say for Roman Catholicism as my chosen form of Christianity. I do not believe that these reasons are compelling, i.e., I do not see all other choices as strictly irrational (though some choices I do consider as strictly irrational, for example atheism or open theism). However, I feel (non-rationally and partly based on subjective experience) that it is not sufficient to leave one's options open, so to speak. Hence I have decided to embrace what I consider most rationally plausible, supplying the lacking certainty by the intrinsic force of that decision (if there is a fork in the road and no time to investigate both sides, then taking one side de facto seals where one is going, even if one cannot exclude that the other side would have been right).
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Whilst I'm more with Ingo than you as regards the need to accept authority, there is one consideration that does make me hesitate as regards religious authority. It is that by and large scientists love nothin better than to overturn a theory with a new one. They really get kudos for that. With many religious groups, the goal is to establish received doctrine. This the more so once it has been defined to be part of the faith. It's never 100% but by and large scientists are more inclined to test to destruction existing theories.
FWIW, I do not see the "religious authority" of scripture and in part the magisterium as equivalent to scientists and their experiments and theories. Is see such "religious authority" as equivalent to data. The scientists in this picture are all of us. We are doing the experimenting and theorising. Some of us, say academic theologians, do so at a professional level. But we all are taking part of the Divine data that is accessible and play around with it in all sorts of ways, some good and some bad.
The relationship scientists have to data is exactly as we should have to such "religious authority". Data has the final say. Beautiful theories can get killed by an inconvenient fact. There is a possibility of doubting data, sometimes mistakes are made in collecting it. But in the end, only data can correct data. A false observation or corrupt experiment is exposed by right observation and proper experiment. Likewise, real "religious authority" cannot be wrong in the ultimate sense. Then it simply is not religious authority. And one cannot "stand against" religious authority, there simply is nothing else that can speak to this topic. One can only "stand with" one part of religious authority, rightly received, against another part, wrongly received. Just as one can side with a good experiment against a bad experiment if the data is in apparent contradiction.
Obviously, human fallibility can be all to real in trying to get "authoritative teaching" about God. But then human fallibility can be all to real in trying to get "good data" about nature. Yet as frustrating as that is, we do not say "if good data is that hard to come by, let's just ignore it". Because we cannot. Whatever we do in looking at nature, it all amounts to some kind of data gathering, at least if we go beyond the trivial. Likewise, whatever we choose to believe about God, some "religious authority" is lurking somewhere in that. This cannot be avoided, unless one wants to remain at a trivial level.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I consider it possible that the Quran was dictated to Mohammed by an incorporeal spirit, just not by the Archangel Gabriel or indeed any other messenger from God... The reasons why I believe in Christianity rather than any other religion are complicated and at times hard to express, but there are reasons for uniquely selecting this religion for me, and they are not based on purely subjective experience.
<snip>
FWIW, I do not see the "religious authority" of scripture and in part the magisterium as equivalent to scientists and their experiments and theories. Is see such "religious authority" as equivalent to data. The scientists in this picture are all of us. We are doing the experimenting and theorising. Some of us, say academic theologians, do so at a professional level. But we all are taking part of the Divine data that is accessible and play around with it in all sorts of ways, some good and some bad.
The relationship scientists have to data is exactly as we should have to such "religious authority". Data has the final say. Beautiful theories can get killed by an inconvenient fact. There is a possibility of doubting data, sometimes mistakes are made in collecting it. But in the end, only data can correct data. A false observation or corrupt experiment is exposed by right observation and proper experiment. Likewise, real "religious authority" cannot be wrong in the ultimate sense. Then it simply is not religious authority. And one cannot "stand against" religious authority, there simply is nothing else that can speak to this topic. One can only "stand with" one part of religious authority, rightly received, against another part, wrongly received. Just as one can side with a good experiment against a bad experiment if the data is in apparent contradiction.
Okay, now I'm curious. What process did you use to determine that "the Qur'an was dictated to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel" is false data?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Kevin. I certainly would. Nobody says it like him. He substantiates Rob Bell's beautiful wraith.
Hobson's choice does seems to be a hybrid, a chimaera of left and right, liberal and conservative, traditional and modern.
Weak/Benign - Strong/Hostile.
Not radical. I'm nervous of his comparison with America. That ultimate, most refined, most beguiling, seductive of Caesars.
Brian McLaren goes totally above the line, that axis, that Hobson seems to inhabit still.
To Strong/Benevolent. Radically so. Like Jesus. With NO coercion. NO hostility toward the other.
Pope Francis gave early signs of moving off the line in that direction.
[ 12. June 2013, 21:00: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I don't have the feeling that Rob Bell is particularly important in Dutch liberal/progressive Christianity. Most of the things he says have been common ground for us for ages already.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Hairy Biker
You can see by now that there's not much enthusiasm here for the 'liberal' label! I suggest it might be more reasonable to talk about 'moderate' rather than 'liberal' Christianity. 'Moderate' isn't a perfect term either, because it gives the impression that you're not passionate about your faith, which may not be true at all. But at least it doesn't imply a kind of theological humanistic extremism in the way that 'liberal' sometimes does. (The word 'mainstream' is another possibility, but it reinforces a centre/margins dynamic that seems less and less reflective of the real world.)
Theo Hobson's attempt to make 'liberal Christianity' about politics and social justice rather than theology and doctrine will be helpful to a few people, I suppose, but I've seen little sign on the Ship (or anywhere else) that 'Christian unrest' equals a yearning for disestablishment. I've seen much more frustration with evangelical theology and practice. This suggests that theology is still of interest to Christians. In addition, churches of all stripes now claim to want to stand alongside the poor and disadvantaged, so liberal/moderate Christianity has to do more to distinguish itself from other types than simply being radical on the socio-political front.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
