|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What would a new liberal Christianity look like?
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I feel quite happy not having a label at all. I can't see the point. If someone is interested in my ideas, then we can talk about them. What good does a label do?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I feel quite happy not having a label at all. I can't see the point. If someone is interested in my ideas, then we can talk about them. What good does a label do?
But not everyone has the time or inclination for a discussion; you just want to know, vaguely, where someone stands, if only to avoid offending them.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pommie Mick
Shipmate
# 12794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
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.
Karl, is that you hear from most orthodox Christians?
I hear liberals denying the resurrection of Christ, denying the divinity of Christ, denying the existence of sin, and denying that God is creator. All of that seems to place limits on God.
Posts: 185 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Most alt.worship groups in the Netherlands call themselves 'Ecumenical Groups'. I guess that would make me an Ecumenical Christian. I like that.
Sometimes I also use the term 'progressive Christian' for myself. It isn't perfect either, but what is?
--------------------
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
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
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.
Karl, is that you hear from most orthodox Christians?
I hear liberals denying the resurrection of Christ, denying the divinity of Christ, denying the existence of sin, and denying that God is creator. All of that seems to place limits on God.
Could you define 'liberals' here? I do not deny the resurrection of Christ, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin or that God is Creator. I am considered 'liberal' because of my views on Dead Horse issues (so mostly issues around sexuality and gender), which have nothing to do with how I view Christ!
--------------------
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 Crœsos:
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?
I have reasons to believe that at least parts of the Quran are false, a prominent example is Surah 4:157. I also have reasons to believe that God always speaks the truth (or is truth, really) and that His chosen messengers are not falsifying His message (certainly not to the degree necessary to make the Quran a product of Chinese whispers). Consequently, it must be false that the Quran as we know it was dictated by the Archangel Gabriel in a word by word sense.
--------------------
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
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Could you define 'liberals' here? I do not deny the resurrection of Christ, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin or that God is Creator. I am considered 'liberal' because of my views on Dead Horse issues (so mostly issues around sexuality and gender), which have nothing to do with how I view Christ!
I think of that as theologically orthodox, socially progressive. In the classic catholic/evangelical/liberal split I'd put it in the first two. And I think it's completely possible to be socially progressive because theologically orthodox.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Could you define 'liberals' here? I do not deny the resurrection of Christ, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin or that God is Creator. I am considered 'liberal' because of my views on Dead Horse issues (so mostly issues around sexuality and gender), which have nothing to do with how I view Christ!
I think of that as theologically orthodox, socially progressive. In the classic catholic/evangelical/liberal split I'd put it in the first two. And I think it's completely possible to be socially progressive because theologically orthodox.
I would agree, but that position certainly gets called liberal by some.
--------------------
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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Could you define 'liberals' here? I do not deny the resurrection of Christ, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin or that God is Creator. I am considered 'liberal' because of my views on Dead Horse issues (so mostly issues around sexuality and gender), which have nothing to do with how I view Christ!
I think of that as theologically orthodox, socially progressive. In the classic catholic/evangelical/liberal split I'd put it in the first two. And I think it's completely possible to be socially progressive because theologically orthodox.
If we're limiting the definition of liberal to "doesn't actually believe but likes to sing and/or dress up on Sunday" then that's a rather different kettle of fish. I don't think I've encountered in real life anyone who met that definition.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Could you define 'liberals' here? I do not deny the resurrection of Christ, the divinity of Christ, the existence of sin or that God is Creator. I am considered 'liberal' because of my views on Dead Horse issues (so mostly issues around sexuality and gender), which have nothing to do with how I view Christ!
I think of that as theologically orthodox, socially progressive. In the classic catholic/evangelical/liberal split I'd put it in the first two. And I think it's completely possible to be socially progressive because theologically orthodox.
If we're limiting the definition of liberal to "doesn't actually believe but likes to sing and/or dress up on Sunday" then that's a rather different kettle of fish. I don't think I've encountered in real life anyone who met that definition.
I have, but they didn't identify as a Christian, just as a church-goer.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
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.
Karl, is that you hear from most orthodox Christians?
I hear liberals denying the resurrection of Christ, denying the divinity of Christ, denying the existence of sin, and denying that God is creator. All of that seems to place limits on God.
Actually, the point was that I think most people on here would actually agree with me in rejecting those three things. But some people would consider them necessary aspects of orthodox Christian belief. The point is, as I tried to illustrate in my subsequent post, you can always find someone whose beliefs cast you as a liberal, because the only functional definition of liberal I've ever come across that actually covers the term as its used in various scenarios is "doesn't believe some of the things I do". It's not binary; it's a spectrum.
And those further on the conservative end of the spectrum will always say you're putting limits on God. Don't believe the world was made in six days? Why not? Couldn't God do it? - etc. etc. ad nauseam
Very few of the people who'd be willing to own the title "liberal" would deny all the things you've listed; they may have slighty different definitions of them - but, again, unless you're a YEC you have a different definition of what "God as Creator" means to what the chumps over at Answers in Genesis do.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I'd put my hand up to point 1.
Point 2 makes me uncomfortable, but I think that is what scripture suggests.
Point 3 is difficult because I believe scripture is the very word of God and therefore trustworthy. However, because I agree with point 1 I'd have to qualify my acceptance of point 3 somehow.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Rather the point there; there are plenty of people who'd say that rejecting the "clear teaching of Scripture" in not accepting a six day creation has forced you to qualify your acceptance of the inerrancy of Scripture. Which is what liberals do, the wicked compromisers with the world that they are... etc. etc.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pommie Mick:
All of that seems to place limits on God.
But what does 'place limits on God' even mean?
I'm sure there's lots of things you think God didn't do, such as write the Qur'an, or incarnate as Lord Krishna. Does that imply that you too place limits on God?
--------------------
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
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Rather the point there; there are plenty of people who'd say that rejecting the "clear teaching of Scripture" in not accepting a six day creation has forced you to qualify your acceptance of the inerrancy of Scripture. Which is what liberals do, the wicked compromisers with the world that they are... etc. etc.
Not if you can support your rejection of young earth creationism with scripture, which is what I try to do.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Rather the point there; there are plenty of people who'd say that rejecting the "clear teaching of Scripture" in not accepting a six day creation has forced you to qualify your acceptance of the inerrancy of Scripture. Which is what liberals do, the wicked compromisers with the world that they are... etc. etc.
Not if you can support your rejection of young earth creationism with scripture, which is what I try to do.
IMO science has to trump scripture, because here 'scripture' actually means 'one particular interpretation of scripture'. It's never an edifying sight, seeing Christians deny the more-or-less utterly settled scientific opinion on something. But I suppose we must go to Dead Horses for any more discussion on the specific creation / evolution issue...
--------------------
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 daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Rather the point there; there are plenty of people who'd say that rejecting the "clear teaching of Scripture" in not accepting a six day creation has forced you to qualify your acceptance of the inerrancy of Scripture. Which is what liberals do, the wicked compromisers with the world that they are... etc. etc.
Not if you can support your rejection of young earth creationism with scripture, which is what I try to do.
Except of course that that scriptural support for the rejection of YEC seldom apparently occurred to anyone prior to the discovery of deep time by early geologists, which rather does suggest that it's not exactly obvious.
As YECcie conservatives would be quick to point out to you. They'd probably say something about "twisting" scripture as well. And "liberal interpretation."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by
Karl:Liberal Backslider
Except of course that that scriptural support for the rejection of YEC seldom apparently occurred to anyone prior to the discovery of deep time by early geologists, which rather does suggest that it's not exactly obvious.
As YECcie conservatives would be quick to point out to you. They'd probably say something about "twisting" scripture as well. And "liberal interpretation."
I think St Augustine was prior to 'deep time' and as this article by Alaistair McGrath points out didnt take a YEC view at all.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/may/22.39.html
I believe Augustine was a rather influencial figure in his day.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Philo (a contemporary of Jesus) is also an interesting read on creation.
tl;dr: 'Moses' wrote Genesis not to describe a chronological order of creation but to represent the order of the universe. Six days were chosen because six is a perfect number.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
beatmenace
Shipmate
# 16955
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Evensong
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.
I like this list to but from my (rather dated) memory of being Anglican, what used to be called 'mainstream' Evangelical Anglicans , for example of the John Stott type, would be able to sign up to much of this list.
I could see though ,quibbles with 4) as , at its furthest edge, could imply reason trumping revelation in a rejection of the supernatural elements, and 10) in that, at its furthest edge, it could be taken to imply that all faiths are , at base, the same one (more of a Bahai position than liberal by that extreme)
I dont think thats the intention of either but as this is a bit of a spectrum there will be SOMEONE at the far end.
In those days being anti-intellectual was not regarded as an evangelical virture, or is it that the edges of the spectrum are further out at both ends, these days.
--------------------
"I'm the village idiot , aspiring to great things." (The Icicle Works)
Posts: 297 | From: Whitley Bay | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Beatmenace/DS - I am aware of both. However, the default assumption through the first sixteen or seventeen centuries of the Christian era appears to have been that Adam and Eve were a literal first human couple, the earth was made only a few thousand years ago, and the genealogies in the OT were historical.
[ 13. June 2013, 12:21: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
The focus on the literality of the texts perhaps so, but there was the assumption in the absence of any obvious reason not to take them so, that the texts were also literally and historically true.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary?
FWIW, that's how I read the Philo passage linked to. Philo does not say "of course, the world wasn't really made in six days"; I read him as saying "it was, and God did it that way for the following reasons..."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not so at all Karl!
Biblical literalism only became fashionable after the Reformation.
I don't think that's entirely true. The Medieval Scholastics certainly thought the Bible could be read on multiple levels - literal, analogical, moral and anagogical, and I think in many cases they saw the literal as the least important. It doesn't follow that they rejected the literal meaning altogether.
Also, the literal meaning was important where its literal truth was taken in support of various church doctrines. For example, the literalism of Genesis 1-2 might not matter as long as God remains Creator*, but for most of Christian history the Church's understanding of the Fall has been predicated on the assumption that there was a literal Adam and Eve - so, though Christianity sans Adam and Eve may be coherent, it is still a change from what we used to believe.
* IIRC the opening verses had to be interpreted figuratively, because they implied God created the world from pre-existing chaos, whereas any fule kno He created it from nothing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Note that the scholastic 'literal' sense was not the same as the modern meaning of 'literal'. It was the sense that the author intended for the writing, and could include metaphor, analogy etc.
Karl: Philo does sound like he's doing that initially but when he gets onto his later discussions about the creation of time, he sounds more like he just believes Moses wrote it that way for the sake of form. (If anyone has studied this in greater depth than me, I'd be interested to hear your opinion.)
As for the assumption that common folk believed in 6 day creation, do you have any concrete evidence for that? Surely it's chronological snobbery? Even if they did, so what? I care more about the opinions of people who were literate and had studied the texts, than people who were illiterate and certainly couldn't read latin? I believe the world is round, does that make me a liberal?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not so at all Karl!
Biblical literalism only became fashionable after the Reformation.
Would you define this "literalism" please?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
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?
It appears to me that you have left God and multi-dimensionality (Hell, Physical Earth, Heaven and Cosmos) out of the picture entirely.
You're telling us that secular Humanism is all there is to deal with and decide from.
Anything that occurs to our Covenant with the Divine ought to take the other Dimensions into consideration, it seems to me.
![[Smile]](smile.gif) Emily
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Hairy Biker: I read a Theo Hobson’s brief articles in the Guardian here and here regarding liberal Christianity with interest.
I'm sorry, I read the two Guardian articles only now. I can't say that I agree much with them.
quote:
Hairy Biker: 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?
I don't. I don't think that there is anything wrong with secular humanism. Of course, Christianity is more than that. I guess my answer to this lies in a spiritual connection with God, with the world and with myself.
quote:
Hairy Biker: 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
Strongly disagree with the first part. In his analysis, Hobson only considers the power relations between the individual and the State. I believe that we should always include the private sector in this analysis too. If you give the word 'liberalism' the West-European meaning of 'an individual should be more free from the State' (which Hobson seems to do here), then in practice this will often lead to power shifting to the private sector, not necessarily to the individual.
quote:
Hairy Biker: and that liberal Christianity requires an emphasis on ritual, but not necessarily traditional ritual?
I'm not sure if I can answer this quickly, I guess it's a whole discussion on its own.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The focus on the literality of the texts perhaps so, but there was the assumption in the absence of any obvious reason not to take them so, that the texts were also literally and historically true.
I think I get the gist of what you're saying but it is anachronistic to say what we say is literally and historically true is what the ancients saw as literally and historically true. Literature and hermeneutics just don't work that way. They change all the time.
For example, we now know that History is always about interpretation. Facts always require interpretation to be presented and linked. Some people still think History is all about facts and nothing else.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not so at all Karl!
Biblical literalism only became fashionable after the Reformation.
Would you define this "literalism" please?
Good question. Hard to do. I couldn't even define it in a modern sense let alone an ancient sense.
I suppose I was referring to what Ricardus was saying about different levels of interpretation and the hermeneutics of the early church.
If a bit of scripture contradicted the Rule of Faith or the understanding of God implicit in the early church, it was taken to mean something other than the literal meaning. It was said to have a moral or eschatalogical or metaphorical dimension.
Hermeneutics all changed after the Reformation but I can't remember exactly how.....I'd have to dig out my old history of hermeneutics textbook. But I do remember something about common sense realism having a big impact on fundamentalism and biblical interpretation
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It would embrace all the other broken forms of Christianity past, present and future (and there is NOTHING outside that grammatical tautology, that redundant phraseology). It would reach back beyond Caesar to holding ALL things in common.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
On the question of "literal" interpretation:
I think one writer put it best when writing about the historicity of the Gospels. The Gospel writers principally intended to convey who Jesus Christ was and why he was important. Yes, indeed, since there was a Historical Jesus, we can say that the Gospel writers were indeed communicating history, but it was history interpreted and indeed, shaped in order to present theology.
Tomorrow, the Gospel reading is the anointing of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. All Four Gospels present the anointing of Jesus differently in accordance with their different theological emphases. We can try to explain away these contradictions by writing that they refer to multiple events, for example. But I think that the explanation in order to justify the contradiction misses the fact that each gospel wanted to present its own perspective on this story. A fundamentalist reading of Scripture misses the creativity of the author in understanding a story for his or her audiences.
[ 15. June 2013, 03:25: 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
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
Perhaps one might be allowed to be liberal about believing in the Priesthood of All Believers? Or to enjoy a few really good ceremonies and stories without the moralistic tosh?
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
You can't get away from moralistic tosh in liberal churches.
The moralism is mainly directed at our obligation to further the Kingdom by helping those less fortunate than ourselves however.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As I said to the ever so nice lady who came to our cell group three or four years ago to tell us how to be evangelists, 'Show me.'. She never said another word.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
On the question of "literal" interpretation:
I think one writer put it best when writing about the historicity of the Gospels. The Gospel writers principally intended to convey who Jesus Christ was and why he was important. Yes, indeed, since there was a Historical Jesus, we can say that the Gospel writers were indeed communicating history, but it was history interpreted and indeed, shaped in order to present theology.
Tomorrow, the Gospel reading is the anointing of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. All Four Gospels present the anointing of Jesus differently in accordance with their different theological emphases. We can try to explain away these contradictions by writing that they refer to multiple events, for example. But I think that the explanation in order to justify the contradiction misses the fact that each gospel wanted to present its own perspective on this story. A fundamentalist reading of Scripture misses the creativity of the author in understanding a story for his or her audiences.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Thanks for that, Anglican Brat. Creativity, imagination, an awareness of context and multiple points of view, etc., are among the most wonderful aspects of God's creation. They can -- when cultivated thoughtfully and with reverence -- help us to get closer to God's purpose for us. Literalists, in their pursuit of what sometimes seems like One Meaning for All People All the Time, leave out an awful lot.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As I said to the ever so nice lady who came to our cell group three or four years ago to tell us how to be evangelists, 'Show me.'. She never said another word.
Nice one. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
This is a subject so dear to my heart, but I find it so hard to say anything about it.
When I find aspects of "The New Liberal Christianity" I feel that I am discovering the character of Jesus, with his startling and joyfully generous love that opens our eyes to the good news of the kingdom just here. When I am in the company of those who disapprove of such an enterprise I might disagree with what they say, but I mainly feel sad.
The impulse towards liberalism is for me a feeling, or a searching after a feeling or an intuition. I am about to try to write a liberal sermon this morning. That feels much more like trying to hone a good joke, or compose a picture, or craft a poem than writing an accurate description or a set of instructions.
When someone expresses liberal Christianity there is always more in it than just the words or the ideas. It will use poetry or refer to context. It will always have a newness, and will make me say 'aha!'
A good example is Spong's injunction to 'love wastefully.' (Very relevant to today's RCL gospel reading.) The surprise and happy invitation and permission in those two words and their congruence with Jesus is a superb micro-sermon.
For me liberal Christianity simply is Christianity. It lives and breathes the presence and possibility of God. It is sacramental thinking and speaking.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
When I find aspects of "The New Liberal Christianity" I feel that I am discovering the character of Jesus, with his startling and joyfully generous love that opens our eyes to the good news of the kingdom just here. When I am in the company of those who disapprove of such an enterprise I might disagree with what they say, but I mainly feel sad.
The orthodox critique of liberalism is that with a denial of the objective resurrection of Jesus Christ, liberal theology amounts to nothing more than a glorification of a dead first century Jewish teacher lost to history.
quote:
The impulse towards liberalism is for me a feeling, or a searching after a feeling or an intuition. I am about to try to write a liberal sermon this morning. That feels much more like trying to hone a good joke, or compose a picture, or craft a poem than writing an accurate description or a set of instructions.
And that's the major criticism of liberal Christianity. That all it is is warm fuzzy feelings with no real substance. Hardly something that demands a life commitment.
--------------------
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
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
This has been an interesting thread, but I'm still not sure what 'a new liberal Christianity' would look like. How would it differ from the liberal Christianity that already exists? Can it be articulated in a way that the laity can understand and appreciate, or is it mostly for theologians and clergy? Can it be a theology of abundance, or is it always just one or two steps away from extinction? Or both? Will it reach out and try to meet the spiritual longings of ordinary people, or does it have other priorities?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's doomed if it's weak. And it's either weak and benevolent at best and often weak and hostile. Liberal Christianity must be strong and benevolent. Strong on the oecumenical creeds, on the Incarnation of the Son of the Trinity. Benevolent on refusing to be alienated, to have enemies.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
When I find aspects of "The New Liberal Christianity" I feel that I am discovering the character of Jesus, with his startling and joyfully generous love that opens our eyes to the good news of the kingdom just here. When I am in the company of those who disapprove of such an enterprise I might disagree with what they say, but I mainly feel sad.
The orthodox critique of liberalism is that with a denial of the objective resurrection of Jesus Christ, liberal theology amounts to nothing more than a glorification of a dead first century Jewish teacher lost to history.
What is resurrection if not the glorification of a dead first century Jewish teacher lost to history? quote:
quote:
The impulse towards liberalism is for me a feeling, or a searching after a feeling or an intuition. I am about to try to write a liberal sermon this morning. That feels much more like trying to hone a good joke, or compose a picture, or craft a poem than writing an accurate description or a set of instructions.
And that's the major criticism of liberal Christianity. That all it is is warm fuzzy feelings with no real substance. Hardly something that demands a life commitment.
What else is going to motivate a life commitment? Not brute dead facts, that's for sure.
[ 16. June 2013, 15:18: Message edited by: hatless ]
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Liberal Christianity must be strong and benevolent. Benevolent on refusing to be alienated, to have enemies.
I like this.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
When I find aspects of "The New Liberal Christianity" I feel that I am discovering the character of Jesus, with his startling and joyfully generous love that opens our eyes to the good news of the kingdom just here. When I am in the company of those who disapprove of such an enterprise I might disagree with what they say, but I mainly feel sad.
The orthodox critique of liberalism is that with a denial of the objective resurrection of Jesus Christ, liberal theology amounts to nothing more than a glorification of a dead first century Jewish teacher lost to history.
What is resurrection if not the glorification of a dead first century Jewish teacher lost to history? quote:
quote:
The impulse towards liberalism is for me a feeling, or a searching after a feeling or an intuition. I am about to try to write a liberal sermon this morning. That feels much more like trying to hone a good joke, or compose a picture, or craft a poem than writing an accurate description or a set of instructions.
And that's the major criticism of liberal Christianity. That all it is is warm fuzzy feelings with no real substance. Hardly something that demands a life commitment.
What else is going to motivate a life commitment? Not brute dead facts, that's for sure.
What motivates a dedication to Christianity is the core conviction that God indeed literally raised Jesus Christ from the dead. I think Christianity is a preposterous faith and a type of liberal rationalism that attempts to play down this fact ends up diluting the religion to a point that it is not worth following.
The absurdity is simply this, the orthodox claim is that the first century Jewish prophet called Jesus of Nazareth is in fact, truly, Lord and God of the universe. Anything less than this proclamation robs Christianity of its power.
Any theology, whether liberal or conservative, that downplays this central doctrine, ends up robbing the Christian religion of its utter majesty and supreme beauty.
[ 16. June 2013, 15:52: 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
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
...The absurdity is simply this, the orthodox claim is that the first century Jewish prophet called Jesus of Nazareth is in fact, truly, Lord and God of the universe. Anything less than this proclamation robs Christianity of its power.
The central issue is whether or not this claim is true. The trouble is that orthodox Christianity has had two thousand years to come up with convincing proof, and all it has is "because we say so".
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
...The absurdity is simply this, the orthodox claim is that the first century Jewish prophet called Jesus of Nazareth is in fact, truly, Lord and God of the universe. Anything less than this proclamation robs Christianity of its power.
The central issue is whether or not this claim is true. The trouble is that orthodox Christianity has had two thousand years to come up with convincing proof, and all it has is "because we say so".
There was the whole performing miracles and rising from the dead thing he did. *shrug*
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I don't know what a literal resurrection would be. Is Jesus getting better after a really bad day on Friday a literal resurrection? Is an empty tomb a literal resurrection? Isn't the essence of resurrection (and ascension) that Jesus received the name that is above all names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow? But that's poetry.
All I can believe in is my hope that the Way of Jesus is the true way, and the way to build my life on. I can't believe in putative facts about events in 1st Century Palestine.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
Liberal Christianity is no Christianity at all. Just the same old, rehashed, moralistic therapeutic deist rubbish using the Jesus figure as a flag of convenience for whatever particular self-worshipping agenda is being pushed.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Right-wing Christianity is no Christianity at all. Just the same old, rehashed, self-righteousness masquerading as morality using the Jesus figure as a flag of convenience for whatever particular self-worshipping agenda is being pushed.
You're welcome, CL.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If both are true then the nice middle of the spectrum of weak/benign strong/hostile must be all of Christianity?
That excludes me then.
I'm liberal and conservative, catholic and protestant, charismatic and cessationist, traditionalist and radical, creationist and materialist. I embrace everything I've ever been and everyone else. It and we are ALL redeemed.
I'm glad to see you guys united in something: mutual hostility. It's a start.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Liberal Christianity must be strong and benevolent. Benevolent on refusing to be alienated, to have enemies.
I like this.
So do I, but how are you going to get there? And how do you establish 'the Way of Jesus' if you have little interest in 'putative facts about events in 1st Century Palestine'?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
