Liberal churches. Christian or not?

[OnceConvinced]

I am writing this thread with my God glasses on.

In another thread Drs said:

It would be better for the churches to judge and keep order and have all who are offended walk out bitter and angry because they have no place with CHRIST if they refuse Him and deny His word.

This came up on a discussion about judging. Drs maintains that members must be judged. Now I'm not saying I entirely disagree with his opinions on that, but I do disagree with the way he suggests going about it.

I have seen way too many people walk out of churches due to being judged. This only serves to push people away from Christ. And I have certainly seen it here on this site, some Chirstians judging others, spreading illwill and turning people off Christianity rather than attracting them to it.

I have been guilty in the past of judging a person of another religion and as a result this person refused to talk to me ever again. I thus messed up my chances of ever being able to convert this person. If perhaps I had been more sensitive to him, it may have been a different story.

Scare church members away and they may not get the teaching they need to get them back on the right track. You may be condemning them to hell yourself. I don't think it shows love, mercy, patience, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, Christian grace or any of the good things Jesus showed to the people everybody disliked.

Drs would condemn liberal churches as not teaching true Christianity. He would rather see people leave the church offended, than to change his methods and deal with people in a more sensitive manner.

So are liberal churches right in being little more tolerant of people?
Or should all churches take a dogmatic approach and judge it's members, thus risking detering them from attending?
What are the ramifications?
What are the advantages?

[MagusYanam]

I think liberal Christianity is closer in some respects to the existential aims of Christ than the various brands of conservative Christianity are, in that Jesus created a radically-inclusive table fellowship which served the needs of the poor and the outcast. This is contrasted with the Second Temple with debt and purity codes which served the needs of the wealthy and the religious elites. For example, this:

It is not for leadership to comprimise truth and doctrine to accommodate the individuale beliefs and feelings of the people who come to the church.

It is for the leadership to be true to GOD above all and properly disciple those that come to the church through the teaching of correct doctrine.

sounds like something the Sanhedrin would espouse. The idea that the people who are the body of Christ need to be 'disciplined' by the head is a form of spiritual sadism, and turns religion into an intolerable burden. Worth note is that Jesus never spoke of condemnation to the people, the crowds that gathered around him - he spoke of condemnation only to the priests and to the scribes. To the leadership, as it were - and he condemned them for placing burdens of debt upon those who could not afford it, and demanding ritual purity from those who could not afford it.

Was Jesus a liberal? No; I don't think he was. Nor was he a conservative (like the Second Temple authorities and the Sanhedrin). From his actions and ministry, I would say he was something more like a radical socialist (though the term is somewhat anachronistic), rejecting the market economy of his time in favour of an economy of mutual sharing and common ownership (he explicitly told his disciples not to go to the market to feed the crowds, for example, but rather to share what they had with everyone).

Liberal churches are, I think, taking the "tolerance" issue too far. Of course it's not right to simply lay down hard-and-fast laws that all church members must obey under threat of excommunication, but it's important to avoid both ditches.

The equivalent of the liberal churches, if we were to swap in a different religion, would be that if I put on a turban, say "Allah" once or twice a week, and put a Koran on my shelf, I would be a Muslim, regardless of what else I believed or did. This is simply not the case as nearly all Muslims will tell you.

I think this is a valid concern, but I wouldn't say it is a 'tolerance' issue so much as an 'authenticity' issue. This would be what happens when liberal Christianity ignores Barth and treats itself as a cultural and historical artifact, rather than a living, breathing, authentic religion in which people find meaning.

[Mere_Christian]

How does what liberalism has become, compare to what the Apostles wrote as the guidlines of a Christian life?

It seems to me, very, very little.

[Mere_Christian]

I think liberal Christianity is closer in some respects to the existential aims of Christ than the various brands of conservative Christianity are, in that Jesus created a radically-inclusive table fellowship which served the needs of the poor and the outcast.

But the goal was conversion. Repent and be baptised. Doesn't sound too lefty to me. "Hey whatever you want, waz up foo." Anything doesn't go with the faith delivered only once to the saints.

This is contrasted with the Second Temple with debt and purity codes which served the needs of the wealthy and the religious elites.

Taxes, taxes, taxes? Or makin' a buck on religion? Again, sounds very lefty. And throw in the TV evanga-hucksters.

. . . but I wouldn't say it is a 'tolerance' issue so much as an 'authenticity' issue. This would be what happens when liberal Christianity ignores Barth and treats itself as a cultural and historical artifact, rather than a living, breathing, authentic religion in which people find meaning.

Barth? Liberal Churches discard Peter, James, Jude and John like so much yesterday's newspaper. And Paul and Jesus don't get off any luckier.

That's a big problem. As big as it gets.

[MagusYanam]

But the goal was conversion. Repent and be baptised. Doesn't sound too lefty to me. "Hey whatever you want, waz up foo." Anything doesn't go with the faith delivered only once to the saints.

You're using an anachronistic standard. Remember to whom Jesus and John were preaching - they weren't talking to middle-class white North Americans, but to Hebrews and Gentiles who were systematically excluded from the political structures of their time. Repentance and baptism in the time of John the Baptist and Christ were overtly political acts of anti-imperial subversion. Baptism was a symbolic act that would have been comparable to burning draft cards - as it symbolised rejection of the trappings of the Roman imperial state, washing away the sins that came with participating in it.

Taxes, taxes, taxes? Or makin' a buck on religion? Again, sounds very lefty. And throw in the TV evanga-hucksters.

Um, no. See, we don't live in the Second Temple state, or in ancient Rome. We are citizens of a representative republic, so we do have some say in how taxes are spent.

Also worth note is that though Jesus rejected the Roman and Second Temple states, he did actively engage with the society in direct ways.

Barth? Liberal Churches discard Peter, James, Jude and John like so much yesterday's newspaper. And Paul and Jesus don't get off any luckier.

I'm guessing you haven't read very many thinkers of the Christian left. This sounds like it has been filtered through dishonest apologetics organisations with axes to grind.

[Goat]

But the goal was conversion. Repent and be baptised. Doesn't sound too lefty to me. "Hey whatever you want, waz up foo." Anything doesn't go with the faith delivered only once to the saints.

You're using an anachronistic standard. Remember to whom Jesus and John were preaching - they weren't talking to middle-class white North Americans, but to Hebrews and Gentiles who were systematically excluded from the political structures of their time. Repentance and baptism in the time of John the Baptist and Christ were overtly political acts of anti-imperial subversion. Baptism was a symbolic act that would have been comparable to burning draft cards - as it symbolised rejection of the trappings of the Roman imperial state, washing away the sins that came with participating in it.

I have to partly disagree with that. The Mikvah baths where common. They were part of the temple in Jerusalem, and very much part of the Jewish religion.

What was the political act was the reaching out to the poor and disfranchised. It isn't the acts that were political, but allowing those rituals to be given to the disenfranchised. It is now the 'what', but the 'who'.

[Mere_Christian]

But the goal was conversion. Repent and be baptised. Doesn't sound too lefty to me. "Hey whatever you want, waz up foo." Anything doesn't go with the faith delivered only once to the saints.

You're using an anachronistic standard.

I hope not. Sorry.

Remember to whom Jesus and John were preaching - they weren't talking to middle-class white North Americans, but to Hebrews and Gentiles who were systematically excluded from the political structures of their time.

Most white guys fit into the gentiles labeling.

Repentance and baptism in the time of John the Baptist and Christ were overtly political acts of anti-imperial subversion.

Baptism is a gentile word. Ritual immersion is the Israelite/Hebrew act of cleansing and commitment.

Baptism was a symbolic act that would have been comparable to burning draft cards - as it symbolised rejection of the trappings of the Roman imperial state, washing away the sins that came with participating in it.

I'm just not seeing that. What happned with John and sinners in the river was an Israelite ritual. Nothing anti-Roman about it.

Taxes, taxes, taxes? Or makin' a buck on religion? Again, sounds very lefty. And throw in the TV evanga-hucksters.

Um, no. See, we don't live in the Second Temple state, or in ancient Rome. We are citizens of a representative republic, so we do have some say in how taxes are spent.

You have heard of Nancy Pelosi haven't you? Or Arnold Sschwartzeneggar? Both hail from Left and Right. And like the Roman republic, we the people have no voice in taxation by our modern-day elites.

Also worth note is that though Jesus rejected the Roman and Second Temple states, he did actively engage with the society in direct ways.

I guess this is where the Two-Jesus concept comes from. Cuz' the Jesus I'm seeing said to Render to Caesar what's His and to God what is God's. I mean, that looks pretty accepting of Rome and Jewish rule.

Barth? Liberal Churches discard Peter, James, Jude and John like so much yesterday's newspaper. And Paul and Jesus don't get off any luckier.

I'm guessing you haven't read very many thinkers of the Christian left. This sounds like it has been filtered through dishonest apologetics organisations with axes to grind.

Dishonest apologetics organizations covers both left and right propaganda. I'm thinking of "hot-button issues" of today, that are celebrated in liberal Churches, that the Apostles condemned in very direct ways, many years ago.

But I'm open to read anything, so feel free to suggest whomever.

[OnceConvinced]

Liberal churches. Christian or not?

Per Jude?

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,
To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:

Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.


Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.

They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

It seems like the answer would be "NOT," in several "Churches" we have among us today.

This scripture here seems to be talking about extremes. I very much doubt it is relating to the typical Christian church we see today where more is tolerated and where the leadership of the church would rather not judge. No church leaders that I see are "giving license" to any sort of immorality. Do you see churches where imorality is justified or even encouraged as ok?

I think liberal Christianity is closer in some respects to the existential aims of Christ than the various brands of conservative Christianity are, in that Jesus created a radically-inclusive table fellowship which served the needs of the poor and the outcast.

But the goal was conversion. Repent and be baptised. Doesn't sound too lefty to me. "Hey whatever you want, waz up foo." Anything doesn't go with the faith delivered only once to the saints.

It seems you see "liberalism" as endorsing or encouraging immorality. That is not how I see it. I see it more as simply tolerating more and less judging, but at the same time I see it as the church wanting to keep their members in a place where they can recieve decipleship and to ultimately be guided in the right direction.

This is contrasted with the Second Temple with debt and purity codes which served the needs of the wealthy and the religious elites.

Taxes, taxes, taxes? Or makin' a buck on religion? Again, sounds very lefty. And throw in the TV evanga-hucksters.

It may be that many churches are liberal because they fear losing numbers and want to keep the tithes and offerings coming in. However that would be a very cynical viewpoint, especially when you see that many church leaders of more liberal churches genuinely want to serve God, provide a place everyone to come, no matter who they are, and be a light to the communities. In my experience, pastors of more liberal churches show more of the "Fruits of the holy spirit" than those in conservative and judgemental churches.

[Mere_Christian]

Liberal churches. Christian or not?

Per Jude?

Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James,
To those who have been called, who are loved by God the Father and kept by Jesus Christ:

Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance.


Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you.

They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

It seems like the answer would be "NOT," in several "Churches" we have among us today.

This scripture here seems to be talking about extremes.

Spong and Crossan hail from liberalism and I would say, qualify as extreme. But I'm also thinking that many other agreements that liberal churches hold to are extreme. Leftist politics buck Apostolic truth.

I very much doubt it is relating to the typical Christian church we see today where more is tolerated and where the leadership of the church would rather not judge.

"Leadership" of a Church is required "to judge." That's why we have them where they're at.

No church leaders that I see are "giving license" to any sort of immorality.

Homosexuality seems quite licensed in liberal Churches. Again, contradicting the very voices of the New Testament.

Do you see churches where imorality is justified or even encouraged as ok?

Yes. In liberal Churches. Marxism and lascivious licentiousness seem quite encouraged.

I think liberal Christianity is closer in some respects to the existential aims of Christ than the various brands of conservative Christianity are, in that Jesus created a radically-inclusive table fellowship which served the needs of the poor and the outcast.

But the goal was conversion. Repent and be baptised. Doesn't sound too lefty to me. "Hey whatever you want, waz up foo." Anything doesn't go with the faith delivered only once to the saints.

It seems you see "liberalism" as endorsing or encouraging immorality. That is not how I see it.

Two sides of the issue. Liberalism has gobe too far in several theological places.

I see it more as simply tolerating more and less judging, but at the same time I see it as the church wanting to keep their members in a place where they can recieve decipleship and to ultimately be guided in the right direction.

It's interesting how "liberalism" has caued schism more than running up the numbers. The Anglican Union and the Lutherans come quickly to mind.

This is contrasted with the Second Temple with debt and purity codes which served the needs of the wealthy and the religious elites.

Taxes, taxes, taxes? Or makin' a buck on religion? Again, sounds very lefty. And throw in the TV evanga-hucksters.

It may be that many churches are liberal because they fear losing numbers and want to keep the tithes and offerings coming in.

That's sinful.

However that would be a very cynical viewpoint, especially when you see that many church leaders of more liberal churches genuinely want to serve God, provide a place everyone to come, no matter who they are, and be a light to the communities.

Yet it is those "right-wing" labeled Churches that are sending out the missionaries to Africa, Haiti, Central and South America and running the outreach programs to the poor here in the US. That would be fruit to me.

In my experience, pastors of more liberal churches show more of the "Fruits of the holy spirit" than those in conservative and judgemental churches.

Jesus and the Apostles were conservative and judgmental. Ever read the story of the woman caught in adultery?

I wonder if this was something like what Judah and Tamar went through?

You know Jesus's great grand father and grand mother.

What's more compassionate, conservative or liberal beliefs?

[MagusYanam]

But I'm open to read anything, so feel free to suggest whomever.

Walter Rauschenbusch is a good start, as is Marcus Borg. FD Maurice is a bit of an archaic read. Ched Myers has a long book but one definitely worth reading, Binding the Strong Man. Sren Kierkegaard and Karl Barth are more theoretical and more advanced, but their theology is excellent (particularly Barth's The Humanity of God - recommended over his Church Dogmatics).

Homosexuality seems quite licensed in liberal Churches. Again, contradicting the very voices of the New Testament.

I hold that St Paul was condemning something very specific: to wit, the systematic exploitation of young boys by older men in Roman society.

Marxism and lascivious licentiousness seem quite encouraged.

Marxism is a political viewpoint. It is not in itself immoral, though taken to extremes as a dogma, it can lead to some very gross immoralities.

I see 'lascivious licentiousness' used too often as a buzzword, and I'm not certain what it means anymore. Care to elucidate?

It's interesting how "liberalism" has caued schism more than running up the numbers. The Anglican Union and the Lutherans come quickly to mind.

And yet, it's not the liberals who are leaving these churches.

Yet it is those "right-wing" labeled Churches that are sending out the missionaries to Africa, Haiti, Central and South America and running the outreach programs to the poor here in the US. That would be fruit to me.

Unless those missionaries are doing something constructive to ameliorate the physical conditions of these poor people, I wouldn't consider it 'fruit'. That said, liberal church missionaries go to the same places to do good works (for example, the Mennonite Central Committee).

Jesus and the Apostles were conservative and judgmental.

Nope. They stood against the contemporary religious and political systems of imperial domination and opened their table fellowship to all, including to outcasts, Gentiles, heretics, lepers, prostitutes and tax collectors. They rejected the market economics of their time in favour of collective ownership of the means of subsistence. They treated men and women as equals, and the only people of whose discipleship Jesus was sceptical were the rich young man who would not share his wealth and the scribes who came to test him. Far from conservative, they would actually have been considered quite radical.

[Mere_Christian]

But I'm open to read anything, so feel free to suggest whomever.

Walter Rauschenbusch is a good start, as is Marcus Borg. FD Maurice is a bit of an archaic read. Ched Myers has a long book but one definitely worth reading, Binding the Strong Man. Sren Kierkegaard and Karl Barth are more theoretical and more advanced, but their theology is excellent (particularly Barth's The Humanity of God - recommended over his Church Dogmatics).

I'm on it.

Homosexuality seems quite licensed in liberal Churches. Again, contradicting the very voices of the New Testament.

I hold that St Paul was condemning something very specific: to wit, the systematic exploitation of young boys by older men in Roman society.

Gay eroticism is pederastic.

Marxism and lascivious licentiousness seem quite encouraged.

Marxism is a political viewpoint. It is not in itself immoral, though taken to extremes as a dogma, it can lead to some very gross immoralities.

Hmm, I hear a leftist talking. I see totalitarianism on the horizon.

I see 'lascivious licentiousness' used too often as a buzzword, and I'm not certain what it means anymore. Care to elucidate?

Highly sexualized pop culture. As in the world of today from liberalism. That death and destruction are provable outcomes is not debateble by sane people. Look at the AIDs levels in Washington DC.

It's interesting how "liberalism" has caued schism more than running up the numbers. The Anglican Union and the Lutherans come quickly to mind.

And yet, it's not the liberals who are leaving these churches.

Cancer does not leave its host. Parasites and disease are not easily rid of. They literally "take over." Asin what we have in pop culture secular and church.

Yet it is those "right-wing" labeled Churches that are sending out the missionaries to Africa, Haiti, Central and South America and running the outreach programs to the poor here in the US. That would be fruit to me.

Unless those missionaries are doing something constructive to ameliorate the physical conditions of these poor people, I wouldn't consider it 'fruit'. That said, liberal church missionaries go to the same places to do good works (for example, the Mennonite Central Committee).

I know what libs and conservatives are doing for the Church. The right side is keeping the faith as it was delivered. The left, well, parasites hardly stop of their own accord.

Jesus and the Apostles were conservative and judgmental.

Nope. They stood against the contemporary religious and political systems of imperial domination and opened their table fellowship to all, including to outcasts, Gentiles, heretics, lepers, prostitutes and tax collectors.

And some the needed to return to the pagan and tax collector status. That is conservative and judgement.

They rejected the market economics of their time in favour of collective ownership of the means of subsistence.

Jesus-ruled communism? Versus Karl's nightmare, I'm cool with that.

They treated men and women as equals, and the only people of whose discipleship Jesus was sceptical were the rich young man who would not share his wealth and the scribes who came to test him.

You mean like the filthy rich Hollywood Elites driving the Leftist liberal-licentious worldview, or the Liberals that say Jesus wasn't God and was eaten by dogs after his disgraceful execution?

Far from conservative, they would actually have been considered quite radical.

Conservatives are considered quite "radical" as we sit and write. We want morality and justice and both of thise things have been corrupted by a parasitic liberalism that has chnaged the meanings of both words. Like say, "marriage" for example.

To Jesus (and God at the beginning), marriage is a man and a woman . . . to Liberalism, it means anything goes.

I am excited to be interacting with the kinds of people that developed the conditions of Sodom and Gomorrah (Liberalism, progressive-ism, lascivious licentiousness uber alles).

Once a disease and its cause is discovered, it can be isolated and a cure sought.

The goal of the Gospel.