|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Affirming Liberalism: A call to arms!
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I "came out the closet" yesterday and labelled myself a liberal christian in front of my Bishop (we were discussing the diversity of traditions in our formation program for ordained ministry).
After my director of education called me "brave" for doing so ( ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ) a charming Anglo-Catholic approached me and introduced me to this organisation:
Affirming Liberalism.
It encourages liberal christians to be:
Confident not apologetic
Visible not invisible
Vocal not silent
Overt not covert
Free not fearful
Strong not weak
They define liberal christiany like this:
quote:
The Liberal tradition has emphasized the importance of the use of reason in theological exploration. It has stressed the need to develop Christian belief and practice in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding and the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom.”
A couple of questions:
1) What do you think of this definition?
Approve/disapprove?
Could you improve it?
2) Are you afraid to label yourself a liberal christian in public but actually belong in this tradition? If so, why?
[ 20. September 2012, 13:29: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
I don't self-identify as a liberal, but I could probably sign up to your friend's definition.
Which is the problem that liberals have. Outwith liberaldom, people tend to define a liberal by what they are against (largely evangelicals and fundamentalists). It's hardly fair, but it's the way it is. In an attempt to self define in a positive way (which is a good thing), summaries such as the one you quote tend to become so general that almost anyone could sign up, and so the distinctiveness of the tradition tends to get lost.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
At face value, I could sign up to this. But I don't think I would usually be described as a liberal. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I remember a conversation with the late bishop of Crediton when someone said 'I suppose i am a liberal catholic'. 'Ah' he replied 'th4e best sort to be'.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I'm puzzled, because I thought that Modern Church was already covering the Liberal interests in the Church (is it because it is, historically, too closely linked with the CofE, even though they too are open to people from other denominations?).
Something which interests me is how church leaders who say they are Liberal, don't always feel too comfortable when members of their congregations start questioning (perhaps they feel slightly threatened?) - some Liberal leaders keep their congregations rather in the dark regarding latest theological developments and thought. Or maybe it is out of kindness, thinking that some other members of the congregation wouldn't be able to handle it - developing instead a sort of non-challenging lowest-common-denominator sort of Christianity, perhaps?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
The devil - of course - is in the detail: the phrase '[i]t has stressed the need to develop Christian belief' is where the fighting focuses. The word 'develop' covers everything from the body builder developing a few muscles, to the property developer who knocks down the beautiful old building to make something that will make a lot of money for him. And given that 'reason' is code for 'what conforms to rationalist thinking' and is usually therefore rejects most miracles, it's at that point we part company.
And then we have the John Pridmore story in last week's Church Times of people finding the holes in their teeth filled with silver - and for a boy with gold - at church miraculously rather than by a dentist. The last time I'd heard that story it was on the Evangelical net; I'm amazed to hear it from a paid-up liberal who basically can't believe his own eyes. You really couldn't make it up. And they accuse fundamentalists of failing to engage with reality ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I wouldn't start from the use of reason. Calvinists use reason, but are decidedly not liberal. It's true that liberals are comfortable with scientific ideas and a scholarly approach to scripture, but what distinguishes them is not so much reason as an open and questioning style.
I think it's true that liberalism is often most clearly seen by what it isn't. It's a reaction to other people's certainties and systems: the Calvinist God, Barth's revelation, Catholic authority, con evo self-confidence. It says but.
But I like the call to be positive and assert. I don't think liberalism has to be negative. There is a positive power in its comfort with questions and loose ends.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Has your bishop taken any particular actions or made any particular statements against liberals to make you think mentioning it to him or her is so admirable?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding
This might be an issue: do 'liberals' really believe humans are more widely knowledgeable and understanding now?
Is there any evidence for that belief?
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding
This might be an issue: do 'liberals' really believe humans are more widely knowledgeable and understanding now?
Is there any evidence for that belief?
Whilst that phrase is largely code for 'We think young earth creationists are idiots', it also hints at a rejection of all miracles - people aren't misled by those tall tales any more.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding
This might be an issue: do 'liberals' really believe humans are more widely knowledgeable and understanding now?
Is there any evidence for that belief?
That's not quite what was said. There can be advances in human knowledge without it being the case that humans are more widely knowledgeable.
Having said that, I can't imagine how you could deny that there have been advances in knowledge. Dentistry was mentioned above. There have been advances in knowledge in dentistry, I'd say. That's one example amongst thousands, but one where the evidence is hard to ignore.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
1) What do you think of this definition?
Not a lot.
"The Liberal tradition" is so vague as to apply to anyone from Sea of Faith non-realists to many affirming catholics and some open evangelicals. It's an impossibly broad constituency for most purposes. As I suspect the Affirming Liberalism organisers have realised (activity has tailed off since it was set up around 2008).
And it's not that theologically liberal. Using terms like "develop Christian belief and practice" and "the importance of forwarding God's kingdom" presuppose acceptance of an orthodoxy that defines them.
Compared to shades of anglicanism that are proudly conservative and reactionary it describes a relatively liberal perspective, but those drawn to it would very likely find they had little in common beyond rejection of fundamentalism.
quote:
Could you improve it?
I'd prefer something along these lines.
quote:
2) Are you afraid to label yourself a liberal christian in public but actually belong in this tradition?
Not afraid, because I don't have a job that requires me to promote a conservative orthodoxy. But in most contexts I see little value in it. Any more than I do in labelling myself Christian. But then, I'm Church of England...
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Exactly. The "live-and-let-live" nature of religious liberalism is ill-suited to a "call-to-arms" generally, and almost antithetical to evangelizing.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I object to pinning "the use of reason in theological exploration" exclusively to how Evensong usually defines liberalism. There are reasonable and unreasonable conservatives, and reasonable and unreasonable liberals. I've met many theologians of all these types.
As for "the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom," that sort of faithlessness has nothing to do with the Christian Faith. God's Kingdom is about grace, through faith, not political activism.
Also, "forwarding" doesn't mean what that mission statement thinks it means.
Zach
[ 18. February 2012, 13:21: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Having said that, I can't imagine how you could deny that there have been advances in knowledge.
Fair point - I was focusing on 'theological matters' and 'understanding' generally.
A large part of my gripe is the presumption that 'liberals' are, in practice, liberal.
From what I can see they're routinely just as tribalistic as any drooling moron 'conservatives'. And even worse they apparently* often think they're 'better' than the people they disagree with.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
*Of course you never know, particularly here, when they're alleging bullshit they know to be bullshit merely to wind up.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Amen to what Zach said.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by 205:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
in order to respond creatively to wider advances in human knowledge and understanding
This might be an issue: do 'liberals' really believe humans are more widely knowledgeable and understanding now?
Is there any evidence for that belief?
Whilst that phrase is largely code for 'We think young earth creationists are idiots', it also hints at a rejection of all miracles - people aren't misled by those tall tales any more.
Alternatively, we might consider that 'advances in human knowledge and understanding' are increasingly used by Christian apologists to affirm that our universe is more likely designed than a result of random process. This is, I think, an area where liberals and evangelicals can find much fertile common ground.
[ 18. February 2012, 15:02: Message edited by: Drewthealexander ]
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And then we have the John Pridmore story in last week's Church Times of people finding the holes in their teeth filled with silver - and for a boy with gold - at church miraculously rather than by a dentist. The last time I'd heard that story it was on the Evangelical net; I'm amazed to hear it from a paid-up liberal who basically can't believe his own eyes. You really couldn't make it up. And they accuse fundamentalists of failing to engage with reality
Evidence from an intelligent skeptic adding weight to the account. I quite liked his throw away remark '..there are no dentists..'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I don't own the title 'liberal' but others accused me of it.
There is much that is good in that organisation and it is particularly strong in the Oxford diocese but doesn't tend to have much of a local presence elsewhere.
It covers much the same aims as modern church, Inclusive Church and Affirming Catholicism.
The latter has a strong-ish presence in this (evangelical-led) diocese and we attract people from the other groups because we have a local programme and act as a haven.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Quoth Zach: "As for "the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom," that sort of faithlessness has nothing to do with the Christian Faith."
I presume that faithlessness you deride must mean that they don't read their Bibles.
Or is it you that is not reading the Bible?
ISTM that there is much more mention in the Bible of the obligation of the religious and political leadership and membership to pay attention to justice and the needs of the oppressed than there is about, say, sexual activity.
6 mentions that may have something to do with homosexuality; 600 mentions of regulating heterosexual activity;, and some thousands of mentions of social justice issues.
Maybe you have a different translation.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Cute, Horseman Bree, but I never questioned the need to be just. I just firmly deny that God's Kingdom will come about because of our own action. The Kingdom happens because of what Christ has done, not what we can do. What will bring about the justice that we hear about so often in the Bible? Faith in Christ, or the sword of the State? The Bible, I think, speaks very clearly for the former option.
No good can come of confusing God's Kingdom and our political movements. Your political whims need redemption as much as anything that is human.
Zach
[ 18. February 2012, 16:07: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As an arch conservative neo-orthodox, excellent 'aitch Bee, excellent (the apostrophe is in capitals).
And (Augustinean-)Calvinist reason is predicated on the narrowest wooden literalism.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
This is, I think, an area where liberals and evangelicals can find much fertile common ground.
There are a small, but growing number of liberal evangelicals. (And in the 19th Century evangelicalism was often quite liberal.)
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And then we have the John Pridmore story in last week's Church Times of people finding the holes in their teeth filled with silver - and for a boy with gold - at church miraculously rather than by a dentist. The last time I'd heard that story it was on the Evangelical net; I'm amazed to hear it from a paid-up liberal who basically can't believe his own eyes. You really couldn't make it up. And they accuse fundamentalists of failing to engage with reality
Evidence from an intelligent skeptic adding weight to the account. I quite liked his throw away remark '..there are no dentists..'
I wonder. If there are people with teeth and a diet that includes refined carbohydrates then I think there are bound to be dentists. Without dentists there would be a huge amount of pain, and needless death. There might not be surgeries, but there are almost certain to be dentists, perhaps travelling ones.
If people have fillings I would say that clinches it.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I have always understood liberalism as denoting an openness to the world and in particular, human experience in contrast to conservatism which instinctively mistrusts the world and individual experience.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
So now Zach tells me that Christians shouldn't do anything, because God will do it all for us. Isn't there some historical evidence that this program doesn't work?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
I wonder. If there are people with teeth and a diet that includes refined carbohydrates then I think there are bound to be dentists. Without dentists there would be a huge amount of pain, and needless death. There might not be surgeries, but there are almost certain to be dentists, perhaps travelling ones.
If people have fillings I would say that clinches it.
For the record, the article says "...there WERE no dentists". By which I assume he means, in that particular part of Chile.
And I wonder if the miracle might have been something like: "There were no dentists, but a guy in our church, who had no previous experience working as a dentist, set up a free clinic in the basement, and fixed a bunch of people's teeth perfectly. We think that's a miracle".
This speculation is based on having heard Christians tell "miracle stories" which turn out to be either unlikely-but-still-possible human feats, or unexpected instances of human generosity.
The Christians I heard telling these stories made it clear that they weren't miracles in the sense of "something that breaks the laws of nature". But I could imagine someone telling the dental story as people getting their teeth "fixed in church, not at the dentist", and conveniently leaving out the fact that there was actual person in the church(just not an accredited dentist) doing the tooth repairs. Technically, not a lie, if the listener doesn't inquire about definitions.
[ 18. February 2012, 16:30: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
Ah, just the sort Cardinal Newman bravely fought against in the C of E
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So now Zach tells me that Christians shouldn't do anything, because God will do it all for us. Isn't there some historical evidence that this program doesn't work?
Stop setting up strawmen. I never once said Christian shouldn't do anything-- I said that nothing we can do will bring the Kingdom about. That is a done deal in the cross and resurrection, and no human activity or inactivity can revoke Almighty God's decrees from eternity.
You want historical evidence? There is no evidence that faith can offer faithlessness. Faith speaks only to faith. There is only the proposal that faith in Christ can well and truly save the world, and that is a proposition that one either takes or leaves.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I just firmly deny that God's Kingdom will come about because of our own action. The Kingdom happens because of what Christ has done, not what we can do.
Quite right of course! The Devil's Kingdom is the one that comes about from our own action, hence good Christians determining that they are well, good and saved in their happy little churches while millions starve, suffer and die. Often because Christians do an 'either - or' with faith and works. It is probably one of the worst and most damaging developments in societies to suggest that faith shall be the thing, and works and actions matter much much less: 'we'll just pray'. Which or course denies all of Jesus' actions on earth, including the action to agree to be killed. So, no, we need action that may be motivated by faith but action nonetheless.
I am rather sensitive about this, because no amount of faith has saved faithful kind people I personally know (and am one myself) from tremendous, terrible disaster. So if I blast and seem to over-react, it is from current emotion and my heart. And I think you're wrong. We absolutely must 'do', and not just believe! This has to be rebuked.
quote:
Zach82:
What will bring about the justice that we hear about so often in the Bible? Faith in Christ, or the sword of the State? The Bible, I think, speaks very clearly for the former option.
Anyone can suggest the bible speaks clearly on nearly anything. It doesn't. Again the error. It is rather faith that spurs action that is required. Jesus did not say 'go on and catch more fish' did he? He asked people to do things!
quote:
Zach82:
No good can come of confusing God's Kingdom and our political movements. Your political whims need redemption as much as anything that is human.
More gently perhaps, and you didn't say all of this, but is it not the mythology of western society and American civilization (I include my country here) that makes us suggest that its behaviour in the world will extend freedom, justice, democracy, capitalism while in the eyes of much of the world's population it only extends itself to making money and extending their suffering? Does this not also need redemption?
The kingdom of God will not come about if we just believe something. Let us pray as St. Francis suggested: "God, make me an instrument of your peace...." I think Mother Theresa's lines also help: "Make us worthy Lord to serve our fellow men throughout the world...." Believe what you must, then for God's sake, do something.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Exactly...
The liberal gospel only brings hope to the poor if liberals do enough to establish the kingdom of God in the here and now. Faith in God has little to do with it. Our faith should not be in God but government which if not controlled by liberals is Demonic. So, liberals, not Jesus, save. Jesus saves only to the extent that liberals attribute their activism to a figure called the "historical Jesus" who scholars tell them was essentially a Liberal Protestant before Liberal Protestantism existed. You may believe those findings to suspicious but that's because you are anti-intellectual and not open to reason. Coincidentally, being open to reason does not mean accepting such basic things as the law of non-contradiction. On, no, that's limiting God. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Quite right of course! The Devil's Kingdom is the one that comes about from our own action, hence good Christians determining that they are well, good and saved in their happy little churches while millions starve, suffer and die. Often because Christians do an 'either - or' with faith and works. It is probably one of the worst and most damaging developments in societies to suggest that faith shall be the thing, and works and actions matter much much less: 'we'll just pray'. Which or course denies all of Jesus' actions on earth, including the action to agree to be killed. So, no, we need action that may be motivated by faith but action nonetheless.
I am rather sensitive about this, because no amount of faith has saved faithful kind people I personally know (and am one myself) from tremendous, terrible disaster. So if I blast and seem to over-react, it is from current emotion and my heart. And I think you're wrong. We absolutely must 'do', and not just believe! This has to be rebuked.
Look at what you have said. Faith and prayer are responsible for world hunger. Faith in the cross of Jesus cannot save. And you call that Christian belief?
Just to be clear, the Bible never says that faith will provide financial security or freedom from oppression, and I don't believe it will. In fact, the Bible speaks again and again about the suffering one can easily avoid just by not believing.
quote:
Anyone can suggest the bible speaks clearly on nearly anything. It doesn't. Again the error. It is rather faith that spurs action that is required. Jesus did not say 'go on and catch more fish' did he? He asked people to do things!
Consigning the Bible to irrelevance, and you still imagine that to be Christian belief?
quote:
More gently perhaps, and you didn't say all of this, but is it not the mythology of western society and American civilization (I include my country here) that makes us suggest that its behaviour in the world will extend freedom, justice, democracy, capitalism while in the eyes of much of the world's population it only extends itself to making money and extending their suffering? Does this not also need redemption?
I said nothing about the American empire or capitalism because I don't believe in them. They are godlessness that cannot save anyone either. Only the Cross can save.
And the fact that you think this is an argument about political and economic philosophies and not about the Gospel, which is above any economic or political philosophy, makes be question again just what makes your beliefs Christian.
Jesus does not put the crown on your political beliefs. He judges them.
Zach
[ 18. February 2012, 17:25: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This is classic argumentation strategy Zach. Do an interpretation of what the other has said and make it extreme. Faith and works have never been in opposition. Both are required. It is a most grievous error to just believe and do nothing. We are called to both.
Frankly, there is God-less inaction on all sides of the political spectrum. And, if I read Beeswax rightly, this is among the first times I agree with him/her.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
This is classic argumentation strategy Zach. Do an interpretation of what the other has said and make it extreme. Faith and works have never been in opposition. Both are required. It is a most grievous error to just believe and do nothing. We are called to both.
Frankly, there is God-less inaction on all sides of the political spectrum. And, if I read Beeswax rightly, this is among the first times I agree with him/her.
I've only repeated more than once that I don't think Christians should do nothing. "Selective reading" is another classic argumentation strategy.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
"Liberal" is a word, like "conservative" and "feminist", that by now has so many meanings and shades of meaning that we should mostly stop using it. It's probably better to debate something concrete and specific.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The Bible might not be clear, by the way, but it does say this...
quote:
Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Romans 10:1-11
[ 18. February 2012, 19:08: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Faith in the cross of Jesus cannot save. And you call that Christian belief?
What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill', and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
I see nothing to make me think that works here excludes political beliefs or political action. You argue as if you think that faith excludes everything else that is not faith. But that is not true. Whatever is done out of faith is faith.
quote:
Jesus does not put the crown on your political beliefs. He judges them.
Judges does not mean condemns.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I see nothing to make me think that works here excludes political beliefs or political action. You argue as if you think that faith excludes everything else that is not faith. But that is not true. Whatever is done out of faith is faith.
You see nothing to make you think faith excludes works because I haven't said it and I don't believe it.
I can't fathom why I've had to repeat that so many times. Works are the human response to what God has done. Christians respond to grace by living with charity for each other and others. But those works are not the Kingdom of God. Human righteousness is not the righteousness of God. The Kingdom of God is the gift of God alone.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chas of the Dicker
Apprentice
# 12769
|
Posted
The meek will inherit the earth...
err, if that's absolutely OK with the rest of you.
--------------------
Chas of Blacklands
If you know exactly what you are going to do, why do it? (Picasso)
Posts: 35 | From: Hastings, East Sussex, UK | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I can't fathom why I've had to repeat that so many times.
Maybe because you keep prefacing it with comments like:
quote:
As for "the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom," that sort of faithlessness has nothing to do with the Christian Faith.
That's a fairly ambitious claim to make and one not self-evidently scriptural: Bree's question about the ostensible selectiveness of your own reading is one that on the surface bears asking. I'm not a liberal either in the either the English political or German theological sense, and the Lutheran in me wouldn't question the primacy and finality of grace in the equation, but the anabaptist in me is equally suspicious of any attempt to tame the very challenging and counter-cultural God who proclaims the Beatitudes into a private moral guru safely insulated from any translation of the Gospel message into human society. The kingdom is accomplished* so we're off the hook, so to speak.
It seems to me if you try to take out the jubilee, the widow, and the orphan out of the equation, you're almost left with even less than Jefferson's naturalistic Gospel. That's one of the reasons I find the Occupy controversy mystifying: trust Christians to respond to a group challenging an anti-biblical economic ethic with so much hand-wringing over whether we ought to be involved in such things!
-
*Though again, the Swedenborgian in me would not deny this is also true!
[ 18. February 2012, 20:10: Message edited by: LQ ]
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
That's a fairly ambitious claim to make and one not self-evidently scriptural: Bree's question about the ostensible selectiveness of your own reading is one that on the surface bears asking. I'm not a liberal either in the either the English political or German theological sense, and the Lutheran in me wouldn't question the primacy and finality of grace in the equation, but the anabaptist in me is equally suspicious of any attempt to tame the very challenging and counter-cultural God who proclaims the Beatitudes into a private moral guru safely insulated from any translation of the Gospel message into human society. The kingdom is accomplished* so we're off the hook, so to speak.
It seems to me if you try to take out the jubilee, the widow, and the orphan out of the equation, you're almost left with even less than Jefferson's naturalistic Gospel. That's one of the reasons I find the Occupy controversy mystifying: trust Christians to respond to a group challenging an anti-biblical economic ethic with so much hand-wringing over whether we ought to be involved in such things!
It might help if people argue with what I am actually proposing instead of what they imagine I am proposing. I have not proposed absolute, passive complacency. I am saying that faith must be in God alone, not in our endeavors.
I think that makes a difference- the biggest difference in the world. One is faith, the other folly. "Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord."
Zach
[ 18. February 2012, 20:21: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Well, if we're quoting a few things, I think Louis de Bernières has something to say, the key issue being that love is not a feeling, it is a doing. Consider the older term "charity".
quote:
so many nominal Christians throughout history, took no notice whatsoever of the key parable of Jesus Christ himself, which taught that you shall love your neighbour as you love yourself, and even those that you have despised and hated are your neighbours. This never made any difference to Christians, since the primary epiphenomena of any religion’s foundation are the production and flourishment of hypocrisy, megalomania and psychopathy, and the first casualties of a religion’s establishment are the intensions of its founders.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
"Liberal" is OK as an adverb but virtually meaningless as an adjective.
"Liberal" applies well to standing orders (debates conducted with respect, imagination, broad mindedness, tolerance). But liberalism doesn't really have an agenda, does it?
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Well, if we're quoting a few things, I think Louis de Bernières has something to say, the key issue being that love is not a feeling, it is a doing. Consider the older term "charity".
quote:
so many nominal Christians throughout history, took no notice whatsoever of the key parable of Jesus Christ himself, which taught that you shall love your neighbour as you love yourself, and even those that you have despised and hated are your neighbours. This never made any difference to Christians, since the primary epiphenomena of any religion’s foundation are the production and flourishment of hypocrisy, megalomania and psychopathy, and the first casualties of a religion’s establishment are the intensions of its founders.
That doesn't rebut what I am arguing. I have no doubt that profession of faith that does not proceed to charity for one's neighbor is empty. I am arguing against the mission statement in the original post, especially the part that says "the importance of social and political action in forwarding God’s kingdom.” Saying that a life of charity is necessary is one thing. Saying that charitable action brings about the Kingdom of God is quite another.
I also take issue with the proposal that the call of Christian charity is to participate in political movements.
Zach
[ 18. February 2012, 20:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Has anyone suggested that we should put our faith in anyone except God the Holy Trinity? 'Cause if they have, I must have missed it.
What you have said is that only God can bring in the Kingdom of God - with which I agree. But you seem to think God does not use us to work with Him in that "mission", if you like. That strikes me as a profoundly unbiblical notion. The truth is that we all need to cooperate with Him in the bringing in of the Kingdom, because that's His way of working. We might do it by worshipping Him, by praying, by evangelising, by teaching and preaching, by feeding the poor, by challenging ungodly powers, and by means of many other activities I haven't mentioned. Some of us might even do it by political activities. Of course, we do all this imperfectly, because we are imperfect. But how can acts of service done to God and to one another, in His Name, be called Godless, as if He writes them off? "If you have done it to the least of these my brethren, you have done it to me."
[ 18. February 2012, 20:49: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
The very first post says it plain as day, and so have others. Why we do charity makes a difference. Do we do it in gratitude to God, or do we do it because we don't think God has done enough?
The problem with your account of cooperation is that it makes out God as needing us to carry out his will. This is clearly false. It also forgets that whole of God's Kingdom has already been done in the cross and resurrection. It is done, there is no accomplishing left for us to cooperate with.
If we believe, we necessarily live with thankful faith and charity, that is true. I am not denying that at all. But we start to leave the Scriptural faith if we turn away from reliance on God's grace, revealed in the Cross and Resurrection, and imagine that we are righteous or can be righteous apart from faith. Faith is not an ingredient in some recipe of righteousness. Faith is, in itself, the only real righteousness.
Zach
[ 18. February 2012, 21:05: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Zach82:
I also take issue with the proposal that the call of Christian charity is to participate in political movements.
I certainly agree. The idea that we can establish the Kingdom of Heaven through political activism is absurd. The Israelites didn't have a government that good when God was handpicking the monarchs. Christians won't fair any better. And as Pete Townsend wrote, "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."
Aiding God in the establishment of God's Kingdom means working from the ground up not from the top down. The first place we need to start is with ourselves, then our families, then our local church, then our community. We will never have the opportunity to vote in the Kingdom of God or even to vote for candidates who will bring about the Kingdom. Focusing our collective efforts on trying is placing our faith in something other than God.
quote:
originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Has anyone suggested that we should put our faith in anyone except God the Holy Trinity? 'Cause if they have, I must have missed it.
Affirming Liberalism's definition of Christian Liberalism makes no mention of faith in God (Triune or otherwise).
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Zach, I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from the OP. Of course, the motivation of our deeds matters, but how does the OP deny that truth? From where do you draw the conclusion that such deeds are not the result of faith, but in some way stand aloof from it?
Furthermore, whilst through the cross and resurrection the Kingdom of God broke into the world in power, it is not yet realised in its fullness, and will not be so realised until the eschaton. Until that day, we have a clear scriptural mission, to further the realisation of the KOG in the here and now. Why God self-limits in inviting us to share in that mission, I do not know. It is clearly not because of any insufficiency on His part. But, by and large, he does choose to work by means of our cooperation. Why else would we be urged to feed the poor or preach the Gospel?
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
And just about every post you have placed here implies that God does it all, and we are helpless to do anything.
While the Bible clearly tells us to go out and do something.
Not love our guns, but love each other.
Save from oppression, not oppress further (and that means a "political" action, whatever sohpistry you use)
Stop picking at the leader of a sect for saying that there might be some goals that were worth trying to achieve. If the only problem is that those goals are shared by people in other sects and in non-religious groupings as well, why does that matter? Surely loving one's neighbour includes working with him to right wrongs, even if he is of adifferent colour, nationality, gender or detail of belief.
The UN is a talking shop, no more than that. So is this board. I don't see you writing us off just because we talk together and sometimes even agree. Why should a motherhood-and-apple-pie statement about reducing poverty be so hysteria-making?
Oh, right, there might be a Communist somewhere in there, so the whole thing cannot be accepted by "us". The initial mistake was setting up a world body that had representatives from the world, not just the US, I suppose.
Sorry, too long in responding. This was directed at Zach.
[ 18. February 2012, 21:38: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Zach, I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from the OP. Of course, the motivation of our deeds matters, but how does the OP deny that truth? From where do you draw the conclusion that such deeds are not the result of faith, but in some way stand aloof from it?
How is the presumption that we need to bring God's Kingdom about ourselves not a denial of the sufficiency of the Cross? If we have to do something then it isn't sufficient. It's what sufficient means.
quote:
Not love our guns, but love each other... Oh, right, there might be a Communist somewhere in there, so the whole thing cannot be accepted by "us". The initial mistake was setting up a world body that had representatives from the world, not just the US, I suppose.
Once again the discussion falls into politics and not the Gospel of Christ, which puts all human politics into question.
quote:
Save from oppression, not oppress further (and that means a "political" action, whatever sohpistry you use)
You are going to save the oppressed?
Zach
[ 18. February 2012, 21:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
