Liberal Christianity

[PairTheBoard]

Has nobody around here heard of this?

Liberal Cristianity

From the webpage:
"They are skeptical concerning many or all of the biblical miracles, preferring naturalistic explanations or viewing miracle accounts as legend or myth. They often deny or reinterpret in mythical terms such doctrines of orthodox Christianity as the virgin birth, atoning death, and even the resurrection of Jesus. Liberalism has been most influential in mainline Protestant denominations and is rejected in Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christianity."

That's mainline Protestant denominations. One of which I know from experience called "Disciples of Christ" or the "Christian Church". Liberal Christianity is widespread in the World Council of Churches.

The idea that Liberal Christianity is not really Christianity is either arrogant or ignorant.

PairTheBoard

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

The idea that Liberal Christianity is not really Christianity is either arrogant or ignorant.


[/ QUOTE ]

Untrue.

Christianity is very clear that one has to accept Christ as the messiah, and that he died as an atonment for sins so that any who believe will be given ' eternal life'.

If liberal Christianity denies atonement why are they following him? Because he was a good teacher?

This sounds like a lame attempt to a negotiate a religion to appease all sides without taking a stance, and it sounds stupid.

I can understand being skeptical about certain things but every religion has major tenants of faith that one must believe to call themselves a follow of a religion, eg.

An orthodox jew cannot believe Jesus was the messiah.

A muslim cannot believe Muhammad wasn't a prophet.

A Christian can't believe Jesus wasn't the messiah.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that Liberal Christianity is not really Christianity is either arrogant or ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's only a pale shadow at best. More fruits of the protestant reformation. Redefine doctrines, start a different denomination. Redefine that denomination's doctrines, start another breakoff sect. Repeat ad nauseum. Christ and true doctrines are a whole cloth than can't be taken apart and resewn to fit the preferences of a group of people who won't accept all the demands of the gospel; that cloth can only be torn.

(Note that I am not maintaining that members of such sects cannot be saved.)

[RJT]

Hi Pair,

Don't know much about it. But, regarding the Catholic theologians listed - I've read some Kung, Schillebeeckx, and de Chardin. I think the reference you sight takes a few liberties including them.

RJT

p.s. hope you read my apology regarding my reply to your post and your reply to that.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Pair,

Don't know much about it. But, regarding the Catholic theologians listed - I've read some Kung, Schillebeeckx, and de Chardin. I think the reference you sight takes a few liberties including them.

RJT

p.s. hope you read my apology regarding my reply to your post and your reply to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read your reply in that thread RJT and appreciated its sentiments. You actually got me to wondering if I had misrepresented things so I looked around a little more. I myself said that the Jesus Seminar was considered more a radical fringe. I was mistaken if I gave the impression that "Modernist Theology" equates with the conclusions of the Jesus Seminar. After looking around a little I realized that "Liberal Christianity" was the term I really should have been using. According to the link above, Liberal Christianity is a Very loose fitting garment that includes ideas of the Jesus Seminar, as well as at least the methods of Modernist Theologians such as Kung, as well as diverse mixtures of types of theologies. I think it is safe to say there are "many" Liberal Christian theologians and their theologies can be quite diverse.

It was only after I'd read "On Being a Christian" by Kung that I came to realize how much broader Christian thinking can be than what is portrayed by the Evangelicals. I think Liberal Christianity in general broadens those possibilities even further and its appeal in many mainline protestant denominations tells me its dismisal by conservatives is not the slam dunk they make it out to be.

I thought this was an interesting link to work Hans Kung did in council with the World Religions on a Global Ethic.

World Religions - Global Ethic

I'm certainly not an expert on any of this. I guess my main point is that there is a Bigger Picture here.

PairTheBoard

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]

This sounds like a lame attempt to a negotiate a religion to appease all sides without taking a stance, and it sounds stupid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Soren Kierkegaard is waiting in the parking lot of heaven to kick your ass.

[RJT]

“I'm certainly not an expert on any of this.” I could have written this same sentence myself.


Oh, if I could remember 5% of stuff I have read…

At the risk of hijacking your thread, may I ramble a bit? (Btw, I am just sharing thoughts, in no way trying to give any advice.)

But before I do, I’d like to tell you something. Some of my favorite people I have met in life are people with whom I have I started off on the wrong foot. I have a feeling you will be added to that list.

A few things I do firmly believe:

-“There's something happening here. What it is, ain't exactly clear.” That I learned from Stephen Stills.
-“Don’t follow leaders.” That I learned from Bob Dylan.

I am being somewhat facetious, quoting popular song writers, but you get the idea.

Don’t follow leaders, though is one that took me a while to learn. (There is One exception to this rule, of course.)

My foundation is through the Catholic Church. It is where I started and it has come to work for me. I came back to the church probably 10 years after college and after all those phases most of us go through. After reading various philosophy looking for answers and coming up short, I read a bit of theology. While, of course, theology too comes up short, I found that religion comes as close to what I (we?) am looking for. (One of my favorite quotes is by Thomas Merton: “ Faith takes over when reason can say no more.” - might not be exact quote)

I have been fairly involved in my religion/church for maybe the last 15 years. It has been interesting if nothing else. Someday I hope to be able to take that “leap of faith” that I know is already part of my intellect, but has yet to touch my heart, like you mentioned. (Probably I am just to dang lazy.)

What I think I am getting to here is that, for me, the basics are already there in (my) organized religion. Certainly the more we read the more we can assimilate into our faith and practice. (I in no way mean to sound like you are taking a wrong approach.). For me there is already enough of the basics. I don’t feel the wheel needs reinventing. (Nor do I think you are suggesting that.)

A big part of our Church is the Holy Spirit. He is kind of like the antithesis of Mick Jagger’s Devil in his song “Sympathy for the Devil”. (Or the subject of Carly Simon’s “Your So Vain” for that matter.) He is always in the right places. He keeps us on track. Sure we go off on tangents. But, I chose to believe that He won’t let us get too far out of kilter. Sure He let you guys (I assume you are protestant or non-denominational.) wonder off for a few hundred years. But, He won’t let you get too far off the beaten path. (Joking of course. Maybe not.) My point here is that I think much of the stuff the Church thinks is perhaps nonsense. Although I loathe cafeteria-Catholics as a rule (picking and choosing what to believe), I do think we all have a certain responsibility to decipher much of it on our own. Eventually most stuff gets corrected in the shuffle. (Remember the H. S.)

Talking with people, praying for guidance. Presence, I think is as much a part of it as anything. Somehow I feel just being part of it, I am helping to redefine the Church.

Well, don’t know if you found my thoughts of any interest, but felt like sharing some of them with you. I think I did keep somewhat on point to your original post. And I don’t mean to sound like I disagree with the reference you sited.

I have enough on my plate already ( for now at least) is all I am basically trying to say.

[PairTheBoard]

RJT,

I find your thoughts very interesting. I was very impressed with what I learned about the Catholic Church after reading some of Kung's work. I think the Church showed immense courage, strength, and integrity in what it did at Vatican Council II. I was also impressed with the statements made by Pope John Paul II on the Church's relation to science after his directed study on the Galileo affair. The Catholic Church must shepherd a wide wide spectrum of members, from some just out of primitivism to those with modern scientific viewpoints. It does well to accomodate them all while constantly remaining focused on The Faith. At least that's how I see it.

I think the Catholic Church emphasizes the call Jesus makes for us to Decide on a Life's Vocation of Love. This to me is the "salt of the earth". This is what matters. If this abides in Christianity it will live and grow because people will SEE it just as they SAW the resurrected Christ.

I respect and admire the mission you are on.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

Another link on Liberal Christianity. I don't know who's webpage this is or who he's affiliated with. But it looks like the kind of thinking held by a lot of Liberal Christians.

More Liberal Christianity

From the website,
On the Resurrection:
"First of all let me say that I do think that the Resurrection was real. By that I mean that it was not an event that was simply invented or faked by Jesus' followers. I do think that Jesus was "crucified under Pontius Pilate," that he "suffered death and was buried," and "on the third day he rose again," as the Nicene Creed states. However, I do not think that the Resurrection involved Jesus' body coming back to life. By that I mean that the Resurrection was not simply resuscitation -- as if Jesus somehow simply recovered from the crucifixion. Even further, I find it highly unlikely that the Resurrection involved Jesus taking up his old body in any sense. To me the Resurrection was a completely transformative event, one in which Jesus took on a wholly different existence from the one he had on earth."




PairTheBoard

[wadea]

I hate to pick nits, but since I enjoy reading your posts and I know I will continue to read them, I must pick this one. In this post and in past posts, I've noticed that you use the word tenant when you mean tenet. For example, in this post, "tenets of faith" instead of "tenants of faith".

Sorry, I know this post is prickish, but I only mention it because I'm anal retentive about this type of thing, it wasn't a typo, and I look forward to your future posts.

-w.a.