In the Agora has a post about this blog (thanks very much, Paul Musgrave.) The title of the post is “Liberal Christian Blog”, which got me thinking: am I a liberal Christian?
I don’t particularly object to the label itself, but in some respects I’m religiously conservative. I believe the New Testament (minus Revelation) pretty much describes events as they happened. I don’t believe in a “historical” Jesus that is different from the “religious” Jesus. I like the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. I don’t believe that all non-Christians are going to hell, but I do think that Christianity has something unique, a gospel of grace, that everyone should experience. I like liturgy.
As friend-of-the-blog Pastor Tony said so eloquently:
I am a social liberal because I am a Biblical conservative. I take God at his word and liberally apply it to this world which belongs to God, not a government and not a religion, to God! My conservative approach to Scripture convinces me that we are all God’s guests here and it’s time for all Christians to begin to act like it.
So what am I? If liberal or progressive Christianity implies a universalist view towards religion and an agnosticism towards the divinity of Jesus, then the label doesn’t fit. I am certainly not a conservative Christian. Historically I would be considered an evangelical Christian, but that label has been co-opted by the Christian right. Moderate Christian sounds like someone that believes, but not too much, lest they overdo it. We speak of mainline Protestant denominations, so am I a mainline Christian? Makes me sound like an intravenous drug user. Mainstream? I’d like to think so, but I’m sure evangelical Christians believe that they are the mainstream.
The fact that there is no good label for my flavor of Christianity tells me either that it is held by a very small number of people, or that it is a large but completely overlooked segment of Christianity. I believe it is the latter.
So, any good suggestions for a descriptive label?
Update: Okay, I am no longer in denial. I now embrace the label “progressive Christian.” I own my progressiveness. I accept it. I proclaim it even. My name is Bob, and I’m a progressive Christian!
Seriously, I have taken a look at the beliefs of those describing themselves as progressive Christians, and realized that my characterization of them above was not accurate, and that for the most part we are in agreement. So, my search is over.
[...] The distinction between progressive Christians that are theologically orthodox and those that are theologically liberal is an important one, and is a much more succinct description of my schizophrenia than I managed. [...]
That’s the problem–LABELS I don’t even think Jesus Himself would get all hung up on the lable of Chirstian.
The term “Liberal” has been co-opeted by the Right. (I hesitate to call them the “religious” right, because they are, effectively anti-religious). The term used to mean something like, A person who favors individual Liberty.
Thefreedictionary.com lists these definitions:
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
———————————
It’s only in the past 10 years or so that “Liberal” has become a dirty word in American Politics.
I, for one, reject this new, perverted definition of the term “Liberal”. I proudly call myself a Liberal. Especially A and B, above.
A lot of Liberals reject Christianity, or Religion in general, because it embodies Authoritarianism. That’s fine, but in my 20’s, I turned away from my brief period of Atheism, because I realized that I was blaming God for the shortcomings of people. It was HUMAN Authoritarianism I was opposed to. Not God’s authority. It was human beings, who were usurping God’s authority, posing as church leaders, trying to tell me how I should behave, how I should worship, how I should interpret scripture.
I can’t help believing in God. Even when I was an Atheist, I still talked to God. That’s when I realized, that I was rejecting God, because I couldn’t swallow the human authority standing behind the altar. When I realized that, it’s like everything fell into place for me.
I’m a Liberal, because I don’t bow to Human authority. My knee bends ONLY for my Creator.
People who believe that George W Bush was sent by God, are fooled.
Beth – yes, labels aren’t a substitute for the underlying substance, but… I suspect whenever the mainstream media do a story on Christians, they pull out a checklist: talk to a conservative evangelical, talk to a liberal (as in agnostic) academic, and talk to a Catholic. It would be nice to be able to add another checkbox to the list: talk to a <label> Christian. And for that you need a label.
Another example — the average unchurched person thinks of a Christian as a conservative evangelical. It would be nice for the average person to have another image to fall back on: a <label> Christian. But I think you need the label to differentiate it from the conservative evangelicals.
Maybe I overestimate the value of this kind of a short-hand “tag”, but in a complex world, people fall back on labels to simplify the complexity we see.
I don’t understand your comment about progressive implying a “universalist view towards religion and an agnosticism towards the divinity of Jesus.” Could you elloborate on that a little.
I’ve actually become quite fond of the label “Progressive Christian.” Progressivism represents the opposite of Conservatism, which I like. Lately, I have disowned Liberal entirely, as it has too many allusions to condoning immorality. Check out the Wikipedia article on Progressivism and see what you think. Also, for reference, the group Sojourners oftens identifies themselves as Progressive Christians.
I think that the problem with socialist and liberals is that they are intent on shoving their religion and politics upon everyone (they accuse the right of the same). If I want to give to the poor, then it should be my moral perogative. The problem is that social liberals believe that I should adopt their moral code, and have little or no respect for mine. I think that Christianity has little to do with your political makeup, although those on the right and left are allowing their ideology to overrule their Christianity. When you approach your Christianity from either direction–it has nothing to do with Christianity. Me? I’m a Christian.
You said: “I don’t believe that all non-Christians are going to hell”
What do you base this comment on?
It seems antithetical to the Christian faith.
The problem is that social liberals believe that I should adopt their moral code,
And what “moral code” is that? Nobody forces you to watch Desperate Housewives. The heart of Social Liberalism is “get the government’s nose out of my business” and “protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority” (Your right to throw your fist ends at my face).
Now, you can talk all you want about an evil conspiracy of Hollywood Homosexuals trying to brainwash you through the TV. But at it’s root, Social Liberalism stems from Jesus’ “Judge not lest ye be judged” statement. If someone wants to lead a sinful life, and is not hurting anybody else, then the government should not interfere. Their sin is between that individual person, and God. If you’re worried about your Children seeing someone else living-it-up in sin, and then somehow compelling them to a life of sin – well, it’s not the Government’s job to raise your kids, and teach them that premarital sex (or whatever your Moral Bailywick is). It *IS* the Government’s job to educate your children, and arm them with information they need to not become a public health threat (ie. Don’t have premarital sex, but if you do, wear a condom so you don’t spread AIDS).
If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one. If you don’t like homosexual acts, don’t have them. If you don’t want your kids having premarital sex, teach them to not do it. (But don’t insist that my desire to educate them about safe sex is immoral – I am not going to trust that all parents are going to effectively teach abstinance, so I WILL rely on the government doing what it can to protect MY kids from AIDS, insofar as it’s a public health threat).
Moral issues are PERSONAL issues. Public safety issues are Goverment issues. It does not injure your kids to teach them about safe sex. Nor does it encourage them to have premarital sex. Again – it’s YOUR job to teach your kids MORAL behavior. If it doesn’t sink in, then that’s not the Government’s fault. That’s YOUR failure.
and have little or no respect for mine.
The US Constitution does not compel me, or any other US Citizen to have a respect for your moral values. Are your feelings hurt? Boo Hoo.
If you want to live in a country where Homosexuality is banned by law, then Saudi Arabia is the land for you. Either there, or any one of dozens of other Fascist Theocracies around the globe.
Kevin -
That statement is antithetical to conservative Christians, but not to the rest of us. C.S. Lewis, who was no liberal, believed that those in other religions who truly sought God would find Him, even though they had never heard of Jesus nor been baptized. The operative verse is John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” I take this to mean that whomever Jesus leads to know God and for whom he has prepared a room in heaven will be saved, whether they are a Christian or not.
I totally, probably, understand what Bob is saying. I too am socially progressive but theologically conservative or fundamentalist. I do believe that one can please God without Jesus, but that our salvation is assured in his name. Personally, I like the assurance. Being judged by what I know and did is a bit scary. Nice to know Jesus has it covered. This makes me a little bit liberal theologically, because real fundies would disagree with what I just said.
And I find that the labels don’t fit. I am no universalist, because I don’t believe the Bible teaches that all will be saved. If that were true, the early church wasted a lot of time and energy and blood in proclaiming Christ. They should instead have gone about saying how wonderful it was that everyone would be saved and to relax and be happy.
A problem with the label of liberal or progressive, either one, is that the conservative religious right immediadely lumps you with those who have rid the Bible of almost everything that supports the diety of Christ, like the JEsus Seminar did. Or Bishop Spong, who is oh so wrong. Worse, they lump you with atheists and wiccans and Marxists, and so on. Call you baby-killer, anti-American, and the list goes on. They can only see the left and right of it. Instead they should see that we are all on the same page, trying to keep our Republic, as Ben Franklin admonished. The alternatives are anarchy on one hand and totalatarianism on the other, both fascist and socialist.IMHO
Pat
I really feel the same way a lot of times. I’d love to call myself an “evangelical”, but I can’t relate to the culture much at all. I’ve recently discovered liturgical churches and have discovered that I absolutely love them. Add to that the fact that my politics are fairly liberal-leaning, and that some of my theological speculations put me beyond the pale of the evangelicalism I’m around, and I feel like pretty much can’t use the term any more. (That being said, a lot of my best friends are evangelicals, and contrary to what the stereotypes are, they’re often some of the nicest people I’ve ever met.)
I doubt we agree that much, however. While I’m not going to definitively condemn anyone to hell, I pretty much reject the phrase “faith alone”, if not the doctrine altogether, which prevents me from ever being a true Lutheran. (I’m currently attending a Methodist church; there aren’t a lot of Lutherans around here, anyway.) Based on my reading of the Bible, I think that the only way to have “assurance” of salvation, if there even is such a thing, is to both have faith in Jesus and to be an extremely good person, and even then I can’t say that there’s assurance. (If I died today, I honestly don’t know if I would go to heaven or not. I am way too sinful. The way I see it, Jesus really meant what He said in the Sermon on the Mount; that is one part that I take literally that most Protestants say is just meant to set up an “impossible” standard. And quite frankly, I don’t have the faith to live up to it, at least at this point.) This is why I can’t call myself an evangelical; not only am I suggesting the possibility that people who aren’t professed Christians are saved, I’m also pretty much explicitly stating that good works, or at least a desire to good works, seem to me like they’re as necessary as faith is (or that they are a major part of true faith). (Of course, I’m not God, so I could be wrong.) I find myself agreeing with C. S. Lewis more often than not, at least based on Mere Christianity and the quotes I’ve seen from him (and, on a side note, I’m surprised that so many evangelicals like him so much, since some of what I’ve read in Mere Christianity is VERY foreign to evangelicalism). I really can’t call myself a “liberal Christian” for the same reason that you can’t (altho I seem to fit some definitions of it, just like how I fit some definitions of “evangelical”).
A friend of mine told me I’m too hung up on labels and that I need to not worry about them so much. She’s probably right.
Bad news for you: Jesus spoke more about hell than heaven and made it clear that alot of people are going there. The
labels “progressive/liberal”asn’t created by the so-called right but by people that want to impose their traditions of man into the christian faith. So you’re right: you are progrssive.