Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved

Prompted by Alan Jacobs's remark that: "Modern liberal Christianity has no religious reasons for existing. You can stay at home, read the NYT, and write a check to the Sierra Club and in that way completely fulfill the mission of the Episcopal Church — indeed, that would be better than going to church, since you’d use fewer fossil fuels than by driving. There is nothing liberal Christianity wants to achieve that isn’t done better by existing social service agencies, so why not close up shop and let the professionals get on with their work?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinion/sunday/douthat-can-liberal-christianit...

"As a result, today the Episcopal Church looks roughly how Roman Catholicism would look if Pope Benedict XVI suddenly adopted every reform ever urged on the Vatican by liberal pundits and theologians. It still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.

Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church’s dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase."

Maybe the reason the attendance numbers are down is because many of those who attend Episcopal churches are very unhappy with the decisions being handed down by the hierarchy?

The Episcopal Church struggled with splintering after the consecration of Gene Robinson as a bishop. I suspect this decision will further strain things, although it may be that those who have stayed or those who have joined since 2003 either support or at least accept the new rites.

In 2003, I had many friends who left the church. Some joined splinter Episcopal churches, not ECUSA. I basically determined that my faith would not be defined by whom I exclude.

One might also say "defined by whom I appeal to."

The Episcopal Church has long appealed to the authority of scripture, tradition and reason.

>2 fuzzi:

The Episcopal Church has an episcopate, but it doesn't really have a "hierarchy." Of the two houses, the House of Bishops is more conservative than the House of Deputies, which is made up of delegates selected democratically at the individual Diocesan Conventions, whose deputies are themselves chosen democratically by individual parishes and missions. The reforms of TEC--good or bad--are a result of being governed by a representative democracy, not a hierarchy which disregards the wishes of its members.

>3 richardbsmith: One of the things I always admired about the Anglican Church was that it was such a broad church. High-church Anglo-Catholics who were often more papist than we papists to low-church evangelicals, with everything in between, they didn't necessarily agree on everything yet they were still able to consider themselves one church. I think it's very sad that the language of exclusion and disunity now reigns.

that they may be one as we are one... may they be so perfected in unity that the world will recognise that it was you who sent me and that you have loved them as you have loved me. (John 17:22-23)

The original quote confuses me. Jacobs says liberal Christianity has no religious reason for existing and then says that social goals are better achieved by secular professionals, but surely there are many religious goals beyond achieving social justice--spiritual growth and development of individuals and communities, contemplation, communal worship and other things. Surely churches are meant o be more than social service agencies, and even in that role I think they can fill niches otherwise unfilled.

>9 quartzite:

I think he's acting on the presumption that, if a church does not adhere to his strict concept (dogma?) of what being Christian must include, that church obviously cannot possibly support spiritual growth, development of Christian communities, appropriate worship, prayer, etc. How could they if they have no 'real' faith?

Being a lifelong liberal Christian, of course, I deny his basic premise. And I've never considered the number of people in a particular church or denomination to be evidence of being aligned with the Gospel. Jesus said that truly following Him would make lots of enemies, cost us family members and friends, etc. A smaller Episcopal/Anglican Church may well find itself better at planting the seeds that lead others to Christ, even if they find Him in community with some other denomination.

Os.

On !:

Deniro, I'm curious if you
have an opinion* on one point in your source's declaration: "The Episcopal Church . . .is eager to downplay theology IN FAVOR OF secular political CAUSES".
Do you (1) agree that this "downplaying" is taking place?
Can you (2) specify exactly what "causes" are being referred to?
(My own opinion, for what it's worth, is that this "favor"ing of secular causes
sounds too good to be true.)

*I realize that it's in a quotation, and doesn't necessarily adequately represent your own views:

The problem, I think, is in viewing theology and "political causes" as the same sort of thing, so to one have requires downplaying the other. Now, that TEC favors certain progressive causes is, I think, fairly clear. But theology is an intellectual exercise like philosophy or economics--and many of the testimonies of people actually present at GC77 make it clear that theology certainly wasn't being downplayed there. It's only by understanding theology as necessarily static that casting it in opposition to secular political causes makes any sense at all, and I have to note that that understanding is in conflict with over a hundred years of social teaching in Douthat's own RCC.

I also have to question exactly what future a person might see for Christianity as a whole if liberal Christianity cannot be saved. Does anyone think that conservative Protestantism and conservative Catholicism can survive into the future as they now are? If so, they will only become more and more divorced from the cultural mainstream, a result that I really can't see as being good for anyone in the long run. If liberal religion proves not to be a viable project, the final result will be majority atheism--perhaps with an embattled religious minority--not a return to conservative forms of religion. If the critics of TEC think the writing isn't on the wall for evangelicalism or Roman Catholicism just because they aren't currently declining at the same rate as mainline Protestantism, perhaps the Spirit had better bring them the gift of prophecy.

This was, I think, Jacobs's point: that there is no point in having a church whose goals are mostly secular, such as achieving social justice, which are code words in the realm of public policy meaning usually redistribution of wealth or greater centralization of power in government. Social justice means, by the people I've heard use it, equality of income. How would a church affect that without entering political debates?

I don't think that a church can do much about social justice. They can help the poor. They can remind us that greed is not a virtue. But the argument seems to be that secular purposes have crowded out the religious message of the church.

The article also says this:

"What should be wished for, instead, is that liberal Christianity recovers a religious reason for its own existence. As the liberal Protestant scholar Gary Dorrien has pointed out, the Christianity that animated causes such as the Social Gospel and the civil rights movement was much more dogmatic than present-day liberal faith. Its leaders had a “deep grounding in Bible study, family devotions, personal prayer and worship.” They argued for progressive reform in the context of “a personal transcendent God ... the divinity of Christ, the need of personal redemption and the importance of Christian missions.”

If liberal religion proves not to be a viable project, the final result will be majority atheism--perhaps with an embattled religious minority--not a return to conservative forms of religion

No, not necessarily. I don't see why a return to conservative forms is out of the question. Witness the extraordinary growth of evangelical Christianity the past 25 or so years.

I would not be alarmed by what seems to be, in the quote by Gary Dorrien, a call to be more dogmatic. Dogma is not a bad word. It refers to specific ideas, rather than an open-ended "spiritualism" that means anything to anybody.

A church can't tell you who to vote for without suffering certain consequences; more than that, I think most people in liberal democracies don't want their churches telling them who to vote for and most pastors don't want to be put in the position of telling people who to vote for. But churches do and must address political issues all the time, because political issues are merely moral issues writ large. Saying that a church can't address systemic sins like poverty and racism is to tie its arms in a way which is itself immoral.

And we know that churches do have the capacity to successfully respond to systemic sin, because we have the record of their witness in the abolitionist and civil rights movements.

I won't deny that many liberal churches would benefit from more theological reflection and more devotions on the part of their members. Perhaps that's a sign that liberal Christianity is overdue for a transformation, or even a temporary shrinking. But if it's a sign of its dying, I can only conclude that Christianity as a whole is going to end up dying with it.

I don't think political causes and moral causes are the same thing.

15: "Witness the extraordinary growth of evangelical Christianity the past 25 or so years."

But it's been a growth fueled by a culture war that evangelicalism is doomed to lose. Yes, being able to cast themselves, however laughably for those watching from outside, as the persecuted victims has made for a powerful narrative. But it's a narrative that includes the seeds of its own self-destruction clearly within it.

Thanks for your prompt answer, deniro. You make some good points there.

". . .(a) church can help the poor (and) remind us that greed is not a virtue." (14)

Right, and I think that those two things might be "much", rather than the little that you make it sound.

How is a Christian community to respond to sins like racism and poverty if not through politics?

I don't think it is only "the persecuted victim narrative" which has caused the rise of evangelicalism. I think there is much more to it than that in its appeal. But I do know they emphasize the countercultural aspect of Christianity which has been there from the beginning, like the early Christians holding mass in the catacombs of Rome. I'm not saying it appeals to me, but this narrative, as you call it, while not dominant, is still not new.

20 -- To paraphrase liberal theologican Dorrien from the article: Bible study, prayer, worship, missions. Re-read the quote from 14.

What is conservative Christianity?

Helping the poor and preaching against greed are religious and moral acts, not political acts. Telling people, "If you want to help the poor, vote for Obama" is a political act. And I agree that most people do not want to hear at church whom they should vote for.

21: "this narrative, as you call it, while not dominant, is still not new"

No, of course not. Nor is it wholly absent from liberal Christianity, which is clearly countercultural in its opposition to social sin.

>24 barney67:

Giving the poor food is an important work of mercy, no doubt about it. But the Church is not living up to her full potential if she rests without removing the circumstances which keep the poor from being able to feed themselves. This is what Catholic Social Teaching--the teaching of Douthat's own church, mind you--calls "the two feet of justice."

What is the purpose of a church?

Is it an organization devoted to assisting others in material ways?

Or is it a place where people can come together and worship God?

The first is a good thing to do but not the primary purpose of a Christian church. Any charity can assist in that way, no 'religion' or church is needed to help the poor and needy.

So, if the main focus of a church is to assist others, then there doesn't seem to be a difference between it and any other charity.

The purpose of the Church--of which any individual congregation is no more than a limb--is to serve God. Worship and charity/justice work are the two primary ways this is done. The Episcopal catechism states that it is the ministry of the laity "to carry on Christ's work of reconciliation in the world" and of all Christians "to work . . . for the spread of the Kingdom of God."

The Church is the mystical Body of Christ. She is the hands and feet of Jesus on Earth.

You can serve God without ever setting foot in a church.

We are the body of Christ, all those who are God's children through accepting Him and His offer of salvation. I am not part of His Body just because I go to a building on Sunday morning or study the Bible or do charity work.

Well, we have differing ecclesiologies and soteriologies, of course. I wouldn't put quite the same stress on "accepting Him and His offer of salvation" as you do.

The Church--one, holy, catholic, and apostolic--is of course the source of the sacraments in an Anglo-Catholic understanding, and I'll grant that were it not for the necessity of the sacraments, then all the things the Church would otherwise be called to do she could do without her visible, institutional structure. But since that structure exists, what sense does it make to separate it from the other tasks Christians are called to perform? What sense does it make to have a church building and then only use it for worship?

Not only for worship, but primarily so.

What is the primary purpose of a Christian? What makes him/her different from another religious person? Is it charity and good works alone? Of course not, ANYONE religious or not, Christian or not, can do good charitable works.

So, why are we followers of Christ?

What makes a Hindu different from a Buddhist? Why are Muslims followers of Allah as revealed by his prophet Muhammad?

Seriously, cj...why are we followers of Christ?

That is a good question fuzzi. Why are we followers of Christ?

Geography, culture, family?

In some way or another, Christ has revealed Christself to us as Lord and Savior.

Woke up this morning to find 27 new posts on this thread. Let me make some random comments not necessarily linked to particular posts.

Working for social justice is a key part of the Christian mission, not an optional extra. Just because others can also do "charitable works" does not make it any less important as a Christian imperative.

There's an LT thread on liberation theology somewhere. It deals with addressing social, systemic and structural sin, not just helping the poor. As Dom Helder Camara said, "When I give food to the poor they call me a saint; when I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist".

It's a mistake to think that those who do social justice are not deeply rooted in scripture and doctrine. They are; it's not either/or but rather both/and. Liberation theology and Catholic Social Teaching are good examples of this. Liberation theology is based on many scriptural sources, including the Exodus story, the Old Testament prophets and Luke 4:16-20. It is not something that was invented by secularists, rather it is a praxis theology that developed from the lived experience of Christian communities.

It's not only "liberal" churches which do social justice. I believe it was the evangelical wing of the Anglican Church in Britain which began a big social outreach in the early part of the 20th century. The Episcopal Church of the Sudan is a product of the East African revival and is quite "conservative" in its theology, and indeed has severed ties with the ECUSA, but is nevertheless at the forefront of social justice.

Agreed that the church doesn't tell people who to vote for. In many places, it is a question of making sure that they have a vote; in Sudan this only occurred two years ago, and churches were in the forefront of working for it.

Not sure about leaving it all to secular professionals. In my experience of working with churches alongside secular professionals both have comparative advantages which complement each other. The church has played a key role in a number of peace processes in Sudan and South Sudan which secular bodies were unable to do.

For the bible literalists amongst us, I find Matthew 25:31-46 and James 2:14-24 quite persuasive.

removing the circumstances which keep the poor from being able to feed themselves.

This is where cj and I would disagree: on the definition of poverty, on what causes it, and on how it can corrected, if at all. "Circumstances"?...debatable. As is "social, systemic and structural sin," a loaded set of terms that require some analysis and questioning.

As for liberation theology, that's just watered down Marxism, which has never worked either. I don't know why any church would have anything to do with it. Another mixture of politics and religion.

>36 John5918:
Interesting that Matthew 25:34-36 does not say "I sat on my throne, and you worshipped me.’

Os.

>37 barney67: As for liberation theology, that's just watered down Marxism

That's a pretty meaningless slogan. It's not "watered down Marxism"; actually it's beefed-up Christianity.

>37 barney67: & 39: You are both right. Liberation theology is, as john points out, a "praxis theology" that developed out of the lived experiences of Christians faced by a Gospel injunction to social justice and surrounded by social injustices at every level.

However, "liberation theology" also became an excuse for some in the 1970's and 1980's to effect political Marxism, and that's where they got in trouble. As with pretty much every age in Christian history, some extremists allowed their worldly concerns (in this case, an ideological commitment to Marxism) to overtake and eclipse their godly concerns (in this case, liberation theology), and thereby gave liberation theology a bad name.

As with pretty much every age in Christian history, some extremists allowed their worldly concerns (in this case, an ideological commitment to Marxism) to overtake and eclipse their godly concerns (in this case, liberation theology), and thereby gave liberation theology a bad name.

Thank God Christians never do that with capitalism!

Seriously, back in the 1950s John Courtney Murray came under scrutiny for the sin of Americanism. His book, We Hold These Truths, which I highly recommend, was seen as an apology for the American System vs. Catholicism.

>41 Arctic-Stranger:: The "prosperity Gospel" is just as, if not more, insidious than the abuse of liberation theology.

Rachel Held Evans posted a good, interesting, and helpful blog post today in part responding to Douthat's article. I think her suggestions are good ones, powerfully needed, and that if liberal Christianity is going to surivive--or, more accurately, if the things we value about liberal Christianity are going to survive, because I have to agree with her that the partisanship is itself part of the problem--then we need to better find ways to make people like Rachel feel welcome in our progressive churches.

>43 cjbanning: I think her description of "the progressive, Mainline church" is a bit of a caricature. But her point that a lot of people are not at either end of the spectrum but somewhere in the middle is a good one. In England we used to speak of "middle of the road Anglicanism"; I don't know if that still exists. And I think in many Catholic parishes you will find most of the things that she lists as characterising the two ends of the spectrum.

I don't disagree that her description is a caricature. At the same time, I don't think err can discount the validity of the experience which gave rise to those false impressions. If people walk away with misconceptions about what we do or believe, at least part of the fault lies with us.

>2 fuzzi: The Episcopal church hardly has much of a hierarchy. It's designed to be rather democratic, actually, with great participation by lay persons. Decisions were not "handed down" but agreed to.

Whether attendance numbers go up or down is, to me, irrelevant. The ECUSA made the right decision.

>43 cjbanning:-44: What struck me is that the reactive extremisim (where both sides drift farther apart because they construct their identities as a negative reaction against the other) is more pronounced in American Protestantism than it is in Roman Catholicism -- most likely because the former has organizational disunity as a foundational principle while the prioritizes institutional unity despite the diversity of opinion and practice.

Deleted a double post.

The episcopacy is the part of the Episcopal Church that I like the least.

(35) Thank you, cj, that was an excellent answer.

It seems to me that when deciding to join a church, a person first looks at the church's beliefs and asks, "Do I believe what this church believes?" rather than "Can this church bend itself to my preferences and desires?" One doesn't join a club, then immediately begin to try to change the rules of the club.

I know that Rachel Evans is trying to present herself as a rational moderate (and who isn't a rational moderate?) but her support for homosexuality puts her on the left end of the spectrum. It is very common, and disingenuous, for liberals to present themselves as moderates, common sense pragmatists, and to criticize their critics as being extreme, dogmatic ideologues. See Jonah Goldberg's The Tyranny of Cliches. Who after all would dare disagree with a moderate? It is a way of stacking the deck in one's favor.

It is laughable to say that liberation theology is "beefed up Christianity." Whittaker Chambers believed there is only one choice in life: Christ or Marx. Take your pick.

>51 barney67: It's laughable to say that liberation theology is watered down Marxism; I was responding in the same vein. Who is Whittaker Chambers? These neat little "either/or" slogans ("Christ or Marx", etc) are generally pretty meaningless. Have you ever read or (better still) experienced any liberation theology? Are you aware of what it is all about, or only the extremist manifestations to which Nathaniel refers in >40 nathanielcampbell:? I suspect there is far more danger of Christianity being subverted by capitalism than by Marxism via liberation theology.

Edited to add that I've just looked him up on Wikipedia and learned that "He is regularly cited by conservative writers".

It seems to me that when deciding to join a church, a person first looks at the church's beliefs and asks, "Do I believe what this church believes?" rather than "Can this church bend itself to my preferences and desires?" One doesn't join a club, then immediately begin to try to change the rules of the club.

As someone who took in around 200 new members to churches in a little more than 17 years, I can say that people do NOT look at the church's beliefs first. They may look at the pastor, and whether the pastor is an interesting/trustworthy/kind/helpful/dynamic/inspiring person. They may look at other members of the congregation to see how they would fit in, or if it is a friendly church. Those are probably to the two biggest reasons I encountered.

They also look at the worship, i.e. the music, length and style of preaching, and general feel.

People will leave a church because of doctrine, but they rarely join churches because of doctrine.

>53 Arctic-Stranger: Might also be worth pointing out that for a billion or so Catholics and probably Orthodox, they don't "choose" to join the Church, they are born into it. They may choose to leave at a certain point in their lives.

53 -- I find that, if true, a shame. It isn't the way I would do it. I suspect it is part of the "what can we get" mentality versus the "what can we give."

Our whole country is based on "what we get" and given the recent tax craziness, what we get for nothing. To think people will just turn that off on Sundays is unrealistic.

>55 barney67: Why is it a "shame"? It has frequently been said on these threads that religion is more than assent to a set of intellectual propositions. It is a much broader experience, which includes sense of community. And why assume all people are basing their choice on "what we can get"? Maybe some people feel they'll be able to give more and better in a caring community, a community which actually has some social outreach, for example.

I understand where that article is coming from, but on a personal level I find it a bit confusing. I grew up in the reformed Protestant tradition. About a year ago I joined the Episcopal church. I absolutely love it. We do quite a bit of Bible study, our minister certainly preaches the gospel, I go to contemplative prayer once a week, and yes, we are involved, with a bunch of other denominations, in a community organization to deal with sex trafficking, the foreclosure crisis, treatment of the elderly and other issues pertinent to the community. I don't see my own experience reflected in that article at all. I have absolutely no sense that I'm just doing this to be a good person. In fact, my faith has grown enormously in the past year and I've never been happier in a church.

>51 barney67: Whittaker Chambers believed there is only one choice in life: Christ or Marx. Take your pick.

"32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." - (Acts 4)

Hmm...

Os.

>51 barney67: Whittaker Chambers believed there is only one choice in life: Christ or Marx. Take your pick.

==========

The thinking that brought us Vietnam; Ngo Dinh Diem or Ho Chi Minh, Take your pick.

>59 Osbaldistone: Thanks, Os. I was thinking of that. The early Christian community described in Acts might be one of the few examples in practice where communism worked well. Maybe Marxism is just watered down Christianity?(!)

>54 John5918:, 57 Just came across this in the Grauniad:

one of the most familiar modern mistakes about faith is that it is something that goes on in your head. This is rubbish. Faith is about being a part of something wider than oneself. We are not born as mini rational agents in waiting, not fully formed as moral beings until we have the ability to think and choose for ourselves. We are born into a network of relationships that provide us with a cultural background against which things come to make sense. "We" comes before "I". We constitutes our horizon of significance {...} This, however, is a complete anathema to much modern liberal thought that narrows religious and ethical language down to the absolute priority of personal autonomy and individual choice..

>59 Osbaldistone: & 61 Those verses are not an example of communism. No one was forced to sell their property, and they did not sell all of their property. They sold it if there was a need to meet. While chapter 4 of Acts does not make this clear the story of Ananias and Sapphira in chapter 5 makes it very clear. Peter specifically asked them, "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?"

>53 Arctic-Stranger: I agree with you completely!

No one was forced to sell their property, and they did not sell all of their property. They sold it if there was a need to meet.

Something like: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

>63 ambrithill: How do you understand "communism", ambrithill? There's nothing forced about communism per se, although obviously most of the totalitarian political regimes which have appropriated communism as their political ideology have used force; that's what totalitarian regimes of any sort do, whether left or right wing. As I said, within early Christianity there was a positive model of what communism actually could/should be. It's unusual for me to agree with StormRaven (>65 StormRaven:); at least, I think we're agreeing!

66: I think we are.

I would define early Christianity as a good example of "commonism," not communism. By the way it works communism must be a forced system to work properly.

>44 John5918: You said, "I think her description of "the progressive, Mainline church" is a bit of a caricature." However, you did not express similar feelings for the other side. Do you think that she was possibly making a caricature of both?

By the way it works communism must be a forced system to work properly.

Actually, as defined, communism would explicitly reject force as a means of working. You may be thinking of what Marx regarded as the transitional form of "socialism", but communism is an extremely idealistic vision of society.

Like "Christianity" there are many different versions of "communism, from Marx and the early socialists, to Lenin and Mao, to the hodgepodge of American Revolutionary Communist Party. To call the way the Jerusalem church structured its life communism confuses the issue with an anachronism. The Greek word is koinenia and refers to a common life.

That said, there is no way any leaders of the Early Church would give Mitt Romney a pass on biblical economics. Current American capitalism would not shock them, but the overt participation by Christians and the adoption of it as integral to Christianity would probably rouse some prophetic ire, in the form of James or Amos.

From Concise Oxford Dictionary: communism - a theory or system of social organization in which all property is vested in the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

Conflating Acts 4 and the above definition: No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had (all property is vested in the community)...there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs).

There is a big difference between the communism practiced by the early church and that enforced, often violently by the USSR and China, where we know the elite did not share to ensure the needy were taken care of. [In fact, calling what existed in the USSR 'communism' merely repeats their 'great lie', in that they spouted Marxism while grasping at power and wealth at the expense of millions.] But the differences between the definition of communism as a political system and that practiced by the the early church are insignficant - people did not claim that what they possessed was their own - they acted as caretakers until it was needed elsewhere. No one went without, for they drew upon what the community held. Whether or not someone legally owned property is irrelevent (as far as the definition of communism is concerned) if they treat it as belonging to the community at large while they control it, and they make it available when there is a need, which is what the early church did, and the definition says.

It seems that Ananias and Sapphira tried take credit for fully doing there part to fill the need while actually holding back, treating the proceeds of the sale of property as their own (which is in contradiction of Acts 4:32 No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own), and Sapphira, at least, lied about it before the church and God.

If you grant that communism according to the above definition could be manifested in many forms, I think you have to grant that what is described in Acts is one of those forms. It certainly is not capitalism, nor is it what was practiced by the surrounding communities.

Os.

edited for punctuation/corrected italics

Edited to add the bracketed text to the third paragraph.

>68 ambrithill: By the way it works communism must be a forced system to work properly.

Interestingly enough, it seems that one of the best examples of successful communism may well in be that in Acts, where no one was forced. But one could argue that the Ananias and Sapphira story had the effect of force on those who witnessed or heard about it. But even so, becoming a member of this community was wholly voluntary, so one accepts giving up ownership of property when one joins. The 'force' from the Ananias and Sapphira story regards deceit and lies, not legal control of property or forced participation.

Os.

ETA - Marxist theory holds that pure communism is a stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from a superabundance of material wealth, allowing for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals. (extracted from http://www.economictheories.org/2009/05/full-communism-ultimate-goal.html)

There are communist communes still in existence, but obviously they are all voluntary societies.

>71 Arctic-Stranger:
I don't consider the existence of a community that meets the definition of communism to be something else simply because it was before Marx. Marx's theories were, in part, based on his observation of history.

The Columbia Encyclopedia (according to FactMonster.com, at least) says "Communism as a theory of government and social reform may be said, in a limited sense, to have begun with the ancient Greek idea of the Golden Age...The Neoplatonists revived the idea of common property, which was also strong in some religious groups such as the Jewish Essenes and certain early Christian communities. These opponents of private property held that property holding was evil and irreligious and that God had created the world for the use of all humanity."

Wouldn't many religious monestaries (regardless of the specific religion) be considered communist? [Marx would role over in his grave, of course.]

Os.

ETA text in brackets in last ¶

Agreed that the word "communism" is a later invention, but nevertheless what is described in Acts definitely fits under the definition of the word.

>68 ambrithill: ambrithill, where do you get the idea that communism must be forced in order for it to work properly?

>69 ambrithill: Good question, and challenging. Rereading it, I don't think her characterisation of the "conservative evangelical" church is such a caricature, but then that's not my church so I may just be demonstrating my bias or my ignorance there.

>69 ambrithill:, 76

Since I'm familiar with conservative Christianity only from outside, I'm willing to stipulate that RHE's account of conservaative Christianity may well be a caricature. But if so, then what I said back in 45 applies equally: that one can't just discount the validity of the experience which gave rise to those false impressions. If people walk away with misconceptions about what conservative Christians do or believe, part of the responsibility for those misconceptions has to be laid at the feet of conservative Christianity.

>76 John5918: I suppose I get the idea from the real world application of communism rather than from the theory of communism.

>77 cjbanning: I would agree that your perspective is correct for both liberal and conservative Christianity and that both need to take responsibility for their own shortcomings. I think my question was based on the fact that even in these LT discussions predispositions and preunderstandings come to the front but rarely is the liberal view looked upon with the disdain that the conservative view frequently receives.

>78 ambrithill: But discounting the biblical application of communism? And the many communes (>74 Arctic-Stranger:), monasteries (>75 Osbaldistone:) and other real world applications? Focusing only on totalitarian regimes which used communism as their political ideology?

>78 ambrithill:
Even if you consider them truly communist, I wouldn't consider the USSR (and its client states), China, or North Korea as "working properly", though they were run by force. The USSR blew apart, China has adopted a totalitarian capitalism, and North Korea is just hell on earth. But none of these were ever truly communism in practice. Cuba might come close, but isolated on small island and with support (until recently) from the USSR.

Os.

Anglican Church in Wales modernisation plans unveiled (BBC)

Justin Welby, Bishop of Durham (Guardian)

Bishop Welby of Durham – former oil executive, Libor scandal inquiry member and possible next archbishop of Canterbury – discusses corporate sin and the common good

A New Christian Convergence by Brian McLaren

"My general hunch is that in the short run, the most conservative streams of Christianity -- in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox settings alike -- will constrict, tighten up, batten the hatches, raise the boundary fences, demand greater doctrinal, political, and behavioral conformity, and monitor boundaries with increased vigilance. Doing so will increase commitment (and anxiety) among the "true believers," but it will also drive away their younger, more educated, and less isolated members."

Wishful thinking. I'm especially intrigued by the bit about "younger members." Perhaps older, conservative members are simply more mature when it comes to religion than their younger counterparts who are unwilling to commit to traditional doctrine because it demands something of you. So much easier to be "free and open and unnattached." The word here usually used is "spirituality" rather than religion.

More educated? He equates conservative doctrine with "less educated." That is nonsense. I have found it to be quite the opposite.

The idea that communism is "true in theory and has never really been put into practice" is so old and tired that I can't believe anyone believes it anymore. I see writers all the time mocking statements like this.

If only you'd read Whittaker Chambers…

>86 barney67: I can't believe anyone believes it

Especially since the early church practiced it, and seemed to be quite happy with it.

Os.

That's your story, Os.

>88 barney67:
No, the "Acts of the Apostles" was written long before my time.

Os.

>88 barney67:
From Concise Oxford Dictionary: communism - a theory or system of social organization in which all property is vested in the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

Conflating Acts 4 and the above definition: No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had (all property is vested in the community)...there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs).

As I indicated in post 72, 73, and 75, above, the USSR's claim to be communist was false. American's have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the idea of communism because of what was claimed to be communism by power-hungry regimes. But real communism requires free participation, the sharing of wealth, and the care for those in need. I don't shy away from labeling the early Church as communist simply because of the bad (and mostly irrelevant) experiences with dictatorial states claiming to be communist.

Os.

Actually only the Jerusalem church practiced this, and it was pretty much a failure. When Paul talks about taking up offerings for the poor, it is assumed by some reputable scholars that he is referring to the church in Jerusalem.

>91 Arctic-Stranger:
Yes. Didn't Paul work out a compromise with the Jerusalem church that they would reconsider at a later time their initial stance on un-circumcised Gentiles if Paul would collect an offering from the other churches for the ministry in Jerusalem? I think Paul spent most of the rest of his ministry meeting his part of the deal.

Os.

"Recovers a religious reason for its own existence"

Salvation I think is still its central theme. And promoting the teachings of Christ within the home and church.

>92 Osbaldistone:

Yes, and in his letters, he refers to the offering for the poor, which is probably the early Jerusalem church which went bankrupt.

>94 Arctic-Stranger:
Well, perhaps it wouldn't have if Ananias and Sapphira had not cheated! ;-)

Os.

Anyone can become saved.

>90 Osbaldistone: The first definition according to Merriam Webster online:

1. a: a theory advocating elimination of private property

This was never the case in Acts, which is why, as I said earlier, it should be commonism in the case of Acts.

>95 Osbaldistone: Ananias and Sapphira did not cheat, they lied to the Holy Spirit. Peter told them it would have been fine to have kept all of the money for themselves, if that is what they chose to do.

>97 ambrithill: (re: post 95)

Sorry, I muddied the waters with what was meant as a wise-crack only. It wouldn't have worked as well if I had said 'lied' instead of 'cheated'.

Os.

I got the joke. I bet they are dying for a mulligan on that decision. (BTW that is the first time the word "church" is used in Acts. "And the church was afraid."

>97 ambrithill: I just wonder why some people are trying so hard to avoid the word "communism". What's wrong with it? Why do you have to invent a word like "commonism"?

>100 John5918:
It's the phychic (emotional and spiritual) assault of living through 40 years of the Cold War as (for those in the US) the primary enemy of a powerful empire (USSR) which claimed to be true to Marx's idea of communism.

Communism and socialism have been practiced in differing forms (and probably various degrees of adherence to the modern definitions of the terms) probably throughout human existence. I know ambrithill posted a differing definition of communism, but the second definition in his source is similar to the one I posted from the Concise Oxford - "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed". Replacing 'owned in comon' with 'vested in the community' (from the Concise Oxford) makes the comparison to the Acts church more apparent.

Not being a student of Marx, I can't comment on the differences in the three definitions posted so far, but clearly, the early Christians (in Jerusalem, at least) lived in a community that adhered to much of what communism is. I don't know much about monastic life in other religions, but Christian monastic life is clearly communist in structure - no private property, all work for the commonweal, all contribute as able and receive as needed. Same for many communal Christian communities around the world, as well as many that are not based on any religious belief at all.

Outside of monastaries, they tend to be short lived (100 yrs or less), but that is not necessarily a measure of success or 'goodness'. While they exist, they quite often provide for the spiritual and physical needs of their members in ways that capitalism and the free market cannot. Many are well served by the presence of such voluntary communist communities.

But perhaps we need a new word so we can bypass the emotional response the word 'communism' elicits for most Americans.

Os.

>101 Osbaldistone: Thanks, Os. You're probably right. Once again it is an "American" thing. I don't think there is such a visceral anti-communist feeling in Europe. Communism, if not widespread, is pretty respectable there. I was just reading this morning about a French town with a communist mayor, and you can still read your Morning Star in Britain. Communist parties don't tend to win national elections but they exist and occasionally get a few members elected. In Sudan the communist party has been one of the champions of freedom and its long-standing leader who died recently after years in hiding from the regime was much respected.

In place of the the liberal/conservative dichotomy, I think we're better off talking about tension (the word and concept comes from John L. Allen Jr.). Basically, religions that provide and demand a lot of people tend to do better than ones that don't.

The concepts map onto each other fairly closely--"conservative" denominations tend to fill up more of your life and require more of you--but it gets at a more convincing sociological explanation. People respond to a rich and demanding experience more than to theological orientation per se.

To speak of Catholicism, it's clear that there's been a drop. But it's not easy to map it to "liberalism" and "conservatism." Vatican II and shortly after was a "liberal" moment, but it was over relatively soon, and it also coincided with a fundamental shift in Catholic sociology. That is, in the course of a half-century Catholicism moved from a series of tight-knit, all-encompasing communities of marginalized and recently-arrived ethnicities to a successful, mainstream, suburban and deracinated omnigatherum. These trends dovetail to some extent, insofar as Vatican II questioned the general feeling that Catholicism was the sole repository of the truth--the lowering of a theological wall just as sociological walls were falling. But I think it's very hard to disentangle the sociological and the theological here. In recent years, while "traditionalists" have seen some successes, they are tiny—a rounding error in the larger story of decline, presided over by increasingly conservative bishops and, again, muddied by sex-abuse problems.

To speak of Episcopalianism is to speak of a church that was never large in the United States—at it's peak in 1964 it had only 3.6 million members. It mattered because Episcopalians were the elite. They were never even 2% of the American people, but they've been 31% of Supreme Court Justices, and were sometimes a majority. Episcopalianism has fallen so far in terms of social clout—it provides so much less status than it once did—that this downfall ought to be explanation enough. Departures over gay marriage happen in the context of a far larger, long-term swoon.

>103 timspalding: in the course of a half-century Catholicism moved from a series of tight-knit, all-encompasing communities of marginalized and recently-arrived ethnicities to a successful, mainstream, suburban and deracinated omnigatherum

While that might be true of USA and perhaps even Britain, it is not the case in, say, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Austria, Bavaria and other places where Catholicism was the religion of both the majority and the elite.

But generally I think there's a lot in what you say about tensions and broader sociological trends. As far as the latter go, an increase in individualism and pluralism over and above shared social values, and a changing attitude towards authority and establishments, might also be factors.

>104 John5918:

Absolutely. although I took the OP as being primarily about the US. (The Anglican Church isn't dying, for example in Africa, the Episcopal church certainly is.)

The death of Christianity in Europe is not, I think, mostly about "liberalism," but about a long-running anti-religious and anti-clerical strain in European history. Certainly Catholicism in, say, France has declined since the 60s, but French observance was at current American levels in the 19th century. The anti-Christian tide has swept everything under—Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, liberal and not. Sure, you can point to something like the Danish church and blame it on liberalism, but that won't explain Greece, whose church never had a Council of Trent still less Vatican II, but has church attendance rates equivalent to America's least religious state, Vermont.

(105) I thought Oregon was the least religious state...

Depends on the measure, I think.

~85

"Wishful thinking. I'm especially intrigued by the bit about "younger members." Perhaps older, conservative members are simply more mature when it comes to religion than their younger counterparts who are unwilling to commit to traditional doctrine because it demands something of you.

....He equates conservative doctrine with "less educated." That is nonsense. I have found it to be quite the opposite."

Well, let's see. Traditional doctrine stated that Moses wrote the "Five Books of Moses" and/or that they were dictated to Moses by G-d on Mt. Sinai. Traditional doctrine among Orthodox Jews is that the text of the Torah is invariant since Sinai, and that G-d even affixed the crowns on certain of the Hebrew letters.

Traditional doctrine among Christians stated that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were Apostles or their companions writing first or second hand accounts of Jesus and his teachings. Traditional doctrine was that all the letters attributed to Paul were written by Paul.

Traditional doctrine stated that the whole Bible was in some sense dictated by G_d, and, therefore, that every word in it was inerrant.

Today, no one with any education in these topics believes any of those traditional doctrines.

We know that most of the texts are composites. We know that the Five Books of Moses weren't written by Moses and aren't nearly as old as Sinai.

We know that none of the Gospels were written by Jesus' companions or their companions.

We know that many of Paul's letters weren't written by Paul and that there were significant divisions between Paul and the other apostles (something we should have known by simply reading the letters attributed to Paul), so if the texts accurately reflect what G-d was dictating to Paul he must have been speaking unclearly to the Jerusalem Church.

We know that there numerous variant texts of both the Old and New Testaments.

Only those who "have true faith," in the sense of believing in religious bumper stickers, believe those formerly core traditional doctrines.

So it would appear that the characterizations you reject are true.

>108 lawecon: "Today, no one with any education in these topics believes any of those traditional doctrines." Since there are many, many very-well educated people who do believe these things, or at least some of these things, I suppose you are really saying that an education is not valid unless it agrees with your views. Yep, that is what I call being tolerant!

Yes, if we're going to make empirical claims, they ought to be judged as such. This one is clearly wrong.

~110

Really. So your "consensus of the scholars" on this point, Tim, is that there are educated people on these topics that believe some or all of those traditional views. Could you give us an example of which views and which educated people? Or is this just another of those matters that is "obvious" to you?

~109

What I am saying is what I said, ambrithill, not what you would like me to have said. Let me expand so you get it.

If you have an education on these topics. If you have reviewed the literature on any of these topics and don't have pre-formed faith commitments to a contrary TRUTH BEYOND DOUBT, you will conclude that these traditions are factually false.

I am sure that there are professors of religion at Southern Baptist and Calvinist Bible Colleges who disagree, but that begs the condition for being "educated," rather than for just reinforcing one's pre-existing conclusions.

But perhaps Tim can cite to a plethora of cases to the contrary. As he points out, this is an empirical question.

(108) No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you. - Job 12:2-3

Yes, I know fuzzi. But, you see, I've already accommodation your perspective in my remarks.

Sometime you might tell us what the HS has imparted to you about the above quoted snippet. I would really be interested, since it is not at all obvious to we unSaved.

I think the views in question are stupid—from very stupid to merely wrong, depending. But it remains a fact that some people who have received educations in these topics, including many more educated than either of us, hold them. As such your statement is factually untrue. We don't get to be right about empirical questions by wishing it.

~115

As usual, I'm not going to get any specifics from you. Just that you know this is true. Very empirical.

There are lots of people with PhDs in religion who hold some or all of the views you list. Do I need to go troll through faculty listings at conservative colleges?

~117

Well, I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "have an education in these matters" and "conservative college".

Let's say I start out believing that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Subsequently I get a Ph.D. in geology from the College of The True Word, where lectures are given on how the Earth is 6,000 years old and the fossil record is a test of faith by G_d. I guess in your vocabulary I am highly educated in geology.

To those of us who have gone through a Ph.D. program and a J.D. program, however, that sounds ridiculous.

>118 lawecon: Ahhhhhhhhhh, now I get it! If ti sounds ridiculous to lawecon it cannot possibly be true.

~119

Ahhhhhh, I get it!! if it justifies ambrithill's faith position facts don't matter. That is the whole point of ambrithill's faith position.

Today, no one with any education in these topics believes any of those traditional doctrines.

That would include the entire faculty of Gordon Conwell Seminary, half the faculty of Fuller Seminary, the entire Faculty of Westminster Seminary....and I have not even started on the Baptist schools.

of course LE can just say that if they believe it, they are not educated. Its a neat trick.

~121

Let's say that you and Tim and ambrithill are right about this one, Arctic. Conclusions are evenly divided among those educated in bible studies and related fields concerning whether the Torah was dictated to Moses by G_d on Sinai, concerning whether the Gospels were written by Jesus' apostles, concerning whether all the letters attributed to Paul in the NT were written by Paul, and concerning whether the dead arose from their graves and walked among the living at the time of Jesus' death on the cross.

Might be, might not be. It depends on which distinguished scholar you talk to as to which answers you get. And it would be entirely irrelevant and ridiculous to consider the status of the scholar who was stating his conclusions as either clergy or laity, as Southern Baptist or Reform Jew. None of that has anything to do with their positions and the critical facilities with which they approach their specialty. Who could doubt that they have thoroughly reviewed the literature from all angles and have come to an objective and disinterested conclusion regardless of how they make their living or what their affiliations may be?

OK, well, I guess then, Arctic, that your own position is also a coin toss. Certainly your facial credentials are less than a Distinguished Professor of Bible at the Southern Baptist University of Universal And Unquestioned Truth, and as you have already pointed out, arguments and evidence don't matter.

So get in line, start taking lessons from ambrithill and fuzzi before you end up burning in eternal hell fire !!
Chant after me: Inerrant, inerrant, the scriptures are inerrant, and every letter in them is divinely inspired both in their composition and in their interpretation by the true and saved believer.

>122 lawecon:

Neither of us are saying fundamentalists and inerrant-ists are right. We're not saying their arguments aren't bad. We both think they're wrong and their arguments bad.

No, we're merely making the obvious, uncontroversial and truly incontrovertible assertion that the proponents of these views are not all lacking in education. That was the statement you made, with which we disagreed. We took it no further. The rest of this is a smoke screen designed, I think, to point out that, while provably wrong about the statement you made and we're challenging, you're right in some other way, about something else, against some imaginary Tim and Arctic. We concede that you are.

~123

Once again, Tim, I suggest you read before you start to respond.

I didn't say that those expressing fundamentalist views were "lacking in education." As I recall, there are several Nobel Prize winners who have such views. What I said was that "If you have an education on these topics. If you have reviewed the literature on any of these topics and don't have pre-formed faith commitments to a contrary TRUTH BEYOND DOUBT, you will conclude that these traditions are factually false."

I stand by that statement, since it is self-evidently as true as "if you have an education about geology, if you have reviewed the literature on the formation of the Earth and don't already have a faith commitment to the Earth being only 6,000 years old, you will conclude that it is much older." If you have been attacking some other statement, about fundamentalists being generally uneducated, well, then, I can't do anything for you other than to suggest that you go to a good optometrist

You might also note that Arctic is not confused. He cites specifically to those who he has concluded are respectable scholars "on these topics," yet who have concluded that the Torah was dictated to Moses by G_d on Sinai, the Gospels were written by Jesus' apostles, the letters attributed to Paul in the NT were written by Paul, and the dead arose from their graves and walked among the living at the time of Jesus' death on the cross. Those "educated in these topics," Tim, not those who have a Nobel Prize in Mathematics or Physics. (In fact it is quite evident that this was your position too, Tim, until you apparently started to rethink and reformulate your position.)

Actually, what you said, and what we quoted in reply was "Today, no one with any education in these topics believes any of those traditional doctrines."

You may add "educated in those topics" to everything I wrote before. My point was not that there are PhDs in chemistry who believe these things.

121,124 Wow. You really don't understand. And you have no idea what my position is, nor could you understand it. You have your own interpretative lense which is unclouded by the reality of what people actually say.

Let's say that you and Tim and ambrithill are right about this one, Arctic.

By "right" you mean that there are people educated in the field who believe in inerrancy. You certainly cannot mean that we hold to it. That would be a very stupid conclusion to draw from my post, and you are clearly not that kind of imbecile.

This is another of those little discussions which has got bogged down in a "he said/I didn't say" dynamic, which frankly can be quite tedious.

In a less polarised setting most of us would actually be agreeing, as Tim says in >123 timspalding:. The majority of serious biblical exegetes no longer accept those things, as lawecon says. However there is a minority of biblical literalists who do not accept exegesis and who think differently, and they are "educated", but that doesn't really change the underlying point, only the typically lawecon way in which it was expressed.

>128 John5918:

Agreed.

~128

I think that there is a lot of truth to that, John. But "the typical lawecon way in which it was expressed," is not just some bombastic litigator rhetoric. Whether Tim and Arctic want to admit it or not, there really is a difference between education and dogma. To consistently confuse the two at length says a great deal about where they are coming from. It doesn't have to be that they are fundamentalists themselves, it could well be that they are postmodernists who don't really believe that the ordinary truth criteria we apply to all other fields don't apply to Western religions. But whatever it is, such a persistently maintained confusion is revealing.

Strangely enough I'm almost certain that Tim and Arctic would have no trouble at all drawing this distinction in other intellectual fields (which is why I've referred to geology several times). The geologist who maintains that the Earth is 6.000 years old isn't just in a minority, he isn't, in any meaningful sense, a geologist, despite his degrees. He might "have been educated in geology," but he is "not educated in geology today." He has rejected his education.

Actually, I think that this discussion relates back to the discussion you and I have had several times, John. Christianity, unlike Judaism, IS a creedal religion. The creed to which you adhere determines what "type" of Christian you are.

However, things aren't the same as they were in 1500 CE. All creeds are not equal, in that they are all based on WHOLLY untestable "faith" propositions. Some creeds assert things about the texts they rely on, or the traditions that they rely on, or the world outside the creed that are simply false. They can adjust to the disparity and still maintain their intellectual viability, or they can continue to maintain their original dogmas and become an antique curiosity.

History and biology tell us that the dead don't and didn't get up en mass and walk among the living, astrophysics tells us that the sun doesn't and didn't stop in the sky for a day, textual criticism and analysis (which wasn't invented for religious texts, but is a generalized study) tells us that the Books of Moses are a composite written over many centuries.

Those who "believe" to the contrary in the face of such studies and evidence are not "educated." While you claim (I think wrongly) that there is no behavioral or creedal boundary to Christianity, there is, hopefully, at least this methodological boundary.

I hope, because if there isn't such a methodological boundary, if Christians can deny the evidence and reasoning of modern "sciences" and still be accepted as authentic by their fellow Christians, then Christians really are quite dangerous to civilization - still, after all the centuries you've had to learn better.

>130 lawecon: As usual, I don't disagree with most of what you say. Perhaps it hinges on what one actually means by "educated".

While you claim (I think wrongly) that there is no behavioral or creedal boundary to Christianity

I would nuance that a little. There is a credal boundary, which includes some recognition of Jesus the Christ, and usually the Nicene Creed, amongst other things. In some cases the boundary is of course clear: you are not a Christian; neither is my Muslim colleague Imad; nor my Hindu friend Sudhir with whom I will be going to dinner tonight. However in other cases it can be difficult to discern exactly where that boundary lies, particularly with those who self-identify as Christians. There are many Christians whom I believe to be misguided and plain wrong in both their belief and their behaviour, but they may still believe enough of the foundational stuff that I would be wrong to accuse them of not being a Christian (even though I might describe their behaviour as "un-Christian"). Many of them would not return the complement, of course. Since I am not "born again" and "saved" in the way they understand it, and I don't accept the bible literally, I have heard it suggested that I am not a real Christian.

~131
"Since I am not "born again" and "saved" in the way they understand it, and I don't accept the bible literally, I have heard it suggested that I am not a real Christian."

Not to get off topic to the second degree (off topic on an off topic sub-thread), but I think this says a great deal about the difference in your attitudes and my attitudes. As we are discussing in the Chik-Fil-A thread right now, my approach is to treat people on the basis they establish. Some guy points a gun at me and offers to shoot me, I will shoot him first if I can (or otherwise render him as unable to shoot me). Some guy with forelocks and a wool coat tells me that I am not a real Jew, I will start looking critically at his Judaism.

Obviously the above examples are limited, because they address single instances of behavior, when the real issue arises when the behavior is not aberrant but persistent. But with that qualification, I would characterize my attitude as "justice" and yours as "turn the other cheek."

I see my approach as respectful of the personhood of those with whom I am dealing. If someone wants to to shoot me, I don't think that they are a confused child who needs counseling, I think that they are a dangerous adult who has decided to commit murder. If someone concludes that I am not a real Jew, I will respectfully assume he is doing so from a well thought out and firm conviction, not that we could really get along if I would just agree to live my life as he lives his life. And so forth....

>132 lawecon: Thanks, lawecon, and I agree about the difference of attitudes.

Much of my life and work is also connected with justice, but I find it anything but straightforward. Apart from concepts such as restorative justice and transitional justice, I have come to understand justice as a complex issue which is tied up with mercy, peace, forgiveness, love, reconciliation and a lot of other things. Of course I'm not referring simply to legal justice. But that discussion really would take us off topic!

On the practical example that you give, on the many occasions when people have pointed guns at me and threatened to kill me, I think any attempt on my part to resist would have led to me being dead very quickly. The more conciliatory attitude seems to have kept me alive to date...

I keep waiting for the conversation to come back around to whether liberal Christianity can be saved... ;)

I think fuzzy's question is key: "why are we followers of Christ?"

I follow who I admire. But of course there's more to it. I was raised a Christian, and though my beliefs have turned very liberal, I do not see that as reason to give up my heritage. And I think there are lots of others in the same boat: We like being "Christians!" Ghandi was a great fella, but Jesus is still our fave.

For me, Bible scholarship is also a passion, and that strengthens my heritage. It doesn't seem odd to me that I have developed a deep respect for Jesus and am happy to associate with him...even calling myself a follower of him.

Finally, I've seen lots of conservative Christians turn liberal, but I don't personally know of any liberal Christians that turned conservative, so from my perspective, church attendance is hardly the measuring stick of its growth and the real question is whether conservative Christianity can be saved.

These are the futures I can see for conservative Christianity:

1. Conservative Christianity succeeds in transforming the culture and we "return" to so-called "traditional" values. Divorce and abortion rates drop; marriage rates rise; homosexuals resign themselves to lives of celibacy or living as heterosexuals. Don't see this one happening, but obviously it's the outcome actual conservative Christians are hoping for.

2. As the culture becomes more progressive, conservative Christianity begins to look more and more "out of it." The stability we presently see in non-denominational conservative churches begins to erode, and conservative Christianity withers away into nothingness.

3. As the culture becomes more progressive, the remnants of conservative Christianity become more entrenched and radicalized. This strikes me as the worst case scenario.

4. As the culture becomes more progressive, the remnants of conservative Christianity become content to let the world pass it by, but manages to avoid becoming radicalized. It becomes content to just live in its own little world-in-exile, like the Amish.

5. Conservative Christianity eventually bows to the cultural consensus, it just takes more time than with the mainline denominations. It continues to be a stable source of spiritual inspiration.

6. Conservative Christianity eventually bows to the cultural consensus, but without managing to speak to the culture in any meaningful way, and withers away into nothingness.

Probably # 4.

What many conservative Christians may fear is the progressive society dictating what they can believe or do, such as outlawing displaying religious texts or speaking about faith in the public sector, based upon someone else being 'offended'.

~133

"Much of my life and work is also connected with justice, but I find it anything but straightforward. Apart from concepts such as restorative justice and transitional justice, I have come to understand justice as a complex issue which is tied up with mercy, peace, forgiveness, love, reconciliation and a lot of other things. Of course I'm not referring simply to legal justice. But that discussion really would take us off topic!"

I think that we can sometimes get hung up on terms. Yes, those various sorts of justice all use the human word "justice," but each refers to something quite distinct. When I use the term "justice" I usually mean, before anything else, reciprocity, "balancing the scales."

==================
"On the practical example that you give, on the many occasions when people have pointed guns at me and threatened to kill me, I think any attempt on my part to resist would have led to me being dead very quickly. The more conciliatory attitude seems to have kept me alive to date..."

I suspect that is because you had no way to effectively be reciprocal, and probably have a policy of not developing such a way.

Incidentally, I am not opposed to that mode of life. I long ago read and have great respect for Adin Ballou
(Isn't that odd, Librarything has no listing for him.)

~136

Well, if that is the fear it is ridiculous and bespeaks of a disassociation from reality.

>137 lawecon: Adin Ballou: see http://www.librarything.com/author/ballouadin

Thank you.

RE: the educated/uneducated discussion, I add these little bombs

Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding. - Ezra Pound

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde

A learned fool is more a fool than an ignorant fool. - Moliere

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem. - G.K. Chesterton

Os.

~135: Interesting analysis! I, too, think #4 appears most likely. It seems trendy and rather Biblical to cling like martyrs to a little community. Perhaps hoping the end will hurry up and arrive.

>136 fuzzi:, 142

I find 5 or 6 most likely, myself. I agree that 4 is very Biblical, but I'm not optimistic that evangelicalism has the needed Yoderian quality necessary to avoid radicalization, given the aggressiveness of its current pursuit of culture war.

There is another option, one which has been occurring in Russia since Solzhenitsyn; the subculture aligns itself with another subculture. In Russia, the Orthodox aligned with the Tsarists; those folks who longed for the good old days of Peter, Alexanders and Nicholases. (And a few Ivans.)

One church was disciplined because it refused to put an Icon of the The Tsar (and when Russians say The Tsar, they mean Nicholas II, who was the most incompetent of the lot) in the Sanctuary. (They had it in the alcove.) Of course, now Nicholas is a saint, so his icon belongs in the Sanctuary.

In American the Evangelical sub-culture has aligned itself with a reactionary political subculture, and has done so in a way that most evangelical Christians see little difference between their theology and that of the very conservative wing of the Republic Party. They read the Bible through the interpretive lens of that group, ignoring very large parts that counter it. (If they truly loved their country, they would take much more seriously Jesus' words that a house divided against itself cannot stand.)

As that happens, they will either a) become pretty irrelevant, even as the tsarist Orthodox are now irrelevant in Russia. (They found another subculture align with--the Russia mafia.) or b) become a force to be reckoned with--very powerful, since they have rich backers or c) separate and create a Utah like place, where they can live in peace and carry out their beliefs. Texas comes to mind.

>144 In America the Evangelical sub-culture has aligned itself with a reactionary political subculture, and has done so in a way that most evangelical Christians see little difference between their theology and that of the very conservative wing of the Republic Party.

There is a movement within evangelicals which sees the danger of the church getting tied up in secular politics and rejects the idea of a Christian nation on pretty solid Biblical grounds. I don't know enough about evangelicals to know how large or how healthy this movement may be, but I've been encouraged by what I've heard.

Os.

Yes, most definitely. I recently heard a story on "historian" David Barton (who has no degrees in history, and who teaches that the Founding Fathers were designing a Christian nation). One of Barton's most vociferous critics was a professor from Grove City College, which is by no means a hotbed of liberalism. (Grove City has refused, and I think still refuses all Federal funding, because they do not want the Government to have a say in how they education their students.)

There are a few enclaves. Are they enough? Time will tell.

The problem is that...well I once asked a friend of mine who came to the Presbyterian Church from the Assemblies of God if he missed being in a denomination that was conservative. He said no, because the Presbyterians, with their commitment to diversity, had to give him a seat at the table. He was taken seriously by the denomination (and in fact later got a job in the headquarters).

"But in the Assemblies," he said, "When they disagreed, they said I was of the Devil."

Those who do not fit into the mainstream are often marginalized with no discussion, because they cannot have truck with Satan. When challenged, the hard core evangelicals will resort to casting their opposition as lock and stock and barrel in with Old Scratch, and their challenges, instead of being taken, are to ignored and avoided at all costs.

ETA: I used to be more optimistic, and would defend evangelicals against their detractors, but this last Republican primary showed me I was wrong in doing so.

>146

Gregory A. Boyd (evangelical pastor of Woodland Hills Church, St. Paul, MN) preached a sermon series on the myth of the Christian nation back in 2004, during the runup to the presidential election. As a result, he lost about 1,000 members of his 5,000 member church. I like to think that the 4,000 who remained are reason for optimism. The subtitle of his book based on that sermon series is "How the quest for political power is destroying the church".

Os.

but this last Republican primary

Presidential?

Yes. Mostly. Some local races have just been extra nails in the coffin though.

Reading back through an old journal that I used to keep, I found this quote which had struck me 15 years ago from Another Roadside Attraction by Tom Robbins:

what I hated in the Church was what I hated in society. Namely authoritarians. Power freaks. Rigid dogmatists. Those greedy, underloved, under-sexed twits who want to run everything. While the rest of us are busy living - busy tasting and testing and hugging and kissing and goofing and growing - they are busy taking over. Soon their sour tentacles are around everything: our governments, our economies, our schools, our publications, our arts and our religious institutions. Men who lust for power, who are addicted to laws and other unhealthy abstractions, who long to govern and lead and censor and order and reward and punish; those men are the turds of Moloch, men who don't know how to love, men who are sickly afraid of death and are therefore afraid of life: they fear all that is chaotic and unruly and free-moving and unchanging - thus... they fear nature and fear life itself, they deny life and in so doing deny God. They are presidents and governors and mayors and generals and police officials and chairmen-of-the-boards. They are crafty cardinals and fat bishops and mean old monsignor masturbators. They are the most frightened and frightening mammals who prowl the planet; loveless, anal-compulsive control-freak authoritarians, and they are destroying everything that is wise and beautiful and free. And the most enormous ironic perversion is how they destroy in the name of Christ who is peace and God who is love.

>146 Arctic-Stranger: the Presbyterians, with their commitment to diversity, had to give him a seat at the table. He was taken seriously by the denomination...

"But in the Assemblies," he said, "When they disagreed, they said I was of the Devil."

Those who do not fit into the mainstream are often marginalized with no discussion, because they cannot have truck with Satan. When challenged, the hard core evangelicals will resort to casting their opposition as lock and stock and barrel in with Old Scratch, and their challenges, instead of being taken, are to ignored and avoided at all costs.

This dynamic is often seen in conversations on LT. Those from the historic worldwide Churches who question the beliefs of the evangelical fundamentalist literalist "born again" "saved" Christians are often countered with bible quotes intended to suggest that any such disagreement over interpretation of the scripture and tradition is actually back-sliding, false prophecy, of the devil, listening to "men" rather than to God.

>151 listening to "men" rather than to God

I think we are meant to listen to men/women. The Body of Christ is made up of such imperfect souls. It's from this well that I find novices to teach, mentors to guide, and pals who will take me to task when I've slipped my moorings.

Os.

>152 Osbaldistone:: I don't trust myself to "listen to God" without the guidance of those around me who I know are far holier than I am. I can just imagine--quod Deus avertat!--what would happen if I was left on my own to figure this stuff out.

>144 Arctic-Stranger: "If they truly loved their country, they would take much more seriously Jesus' words that a house divided against itself cannot stand."

Is this statement only applicable to conservatives and not liberals? I noticed you only mentioned the one and not the other.

>154 ambrithill:
Since Arctic was responding to a post entitled "These are the futures I can see for conservative Christianity", it wouldn't have made much sense to try to introduce a discussion of any liberal religious group who's theology was aligned with the extreme liberal wing of a political party.

I assume, as I suspect most, if not all on this thread would assume, that of it applies to anyone, this quote applies to any Christian individual or group.

Os.

Back to the red herring on communism...

After Capitalism: 'In the anti-worlds of daily struggles the world beyond capitalism is to be found' (Guardian) (a leftie pinko commie rag if ever I saw one)

lol

"As odd as this may seem today to modern proponents of “family values,” who often cite Jesus as one who was simpatico with their views, Jesus appears to have opposed the idea of the family and to have been in conflict with members of his own family. This opposition to family, we will see, is rooted in Jesus’s apocalyptic proclamation. Jesus’s opposition to the family unit is made clear in his requirement that his followers leave home for the sake of the coming kingdom. Doing so would earn them a reward: Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left a house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and the sake of the good news, who will not receive them all back a hundred fold in this present time— houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and lands, along with persecutions— and in the age that is coming, life that never ends. But many who are first will be last and the last will be first. (Mark 10: 29– 31) His followers are to be concerned for the coming kingdom, not for their families. This is a hard saying in Jesus’s historical context. The men who became his followers by leaving their homes, in most or all instances, would have been the principal breadwinners of their households. By leaving their families high and dry, they almost certainly created enormous hardship, possibly even starvation. But it was worth it, in Jesus’s view. The kingdom demanded it.
No family tie was more important than the kingdom; siblings, spouses, and children were of no importance in comparison. That is why Jesus is reported as saying (this comes from Q): “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters and even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple” (Luke 14: 26; Matthew 10: 37). 4 A person must “hate” his or her family? The same word is used, strikingly, in the saying independently preserved in the Gospel of Thomas: “The one who does not hate his father and mother will not be worthy to be my disciple” (Gospel of Thomas 55). If we understand hate here to mean something like “despise in comparison to” or “have nothing to do with,” then the saying makes sense."

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (pp. 320-321). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.