What Is Liberal Christianity?

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by Dondi

But what he said was nothing specific, perse. He was just rather general of his view of fundies, which I could have taken offense, except that it wasn't directed toward me directly.

Dondi, I don't understand your talk about forgiving. Apparently you hated what taijais said on another thread. You refuse to admit it there. But you come over here and blow your stack. When confronted you say it wasn't bad enough to mention. Do you think he does not read this thread? This looks like anything BUT forgiveness to me. It looks like denial in its purest form.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

Dondi, I don't understand your talk about forgiving. Apparently you hated what taijais said on another thread. You refuse to admit it there. But you come over here and blow your stack. When confronted you say it wasn't bad enough to mention. Do you think he does not read this thread? This looks like anything BUT forgiveness to me. It looks like denial in its purest form.

It's called toleration. I don't have to like what taij said, but that doesn't mean I have to produce a reactive response to his thread. In fact, by NOT responding to his post in a reactive manner, I think I am showing civil restraint, which is hard for some folks to do. And I don't see anything in my post that would consitutes "blowing my stack" here. Your reading into it what it doesn't say. I said I could have taken offense, but didn't. There is nothing to forgive, for he wasn't directing his post at me personally. And besides, my post that you quote was in reponse to Abogado's inquiry, not taij.

And do I know that taij will read this? Sure, I am actually hoping he will, because I believe he will take what I've said in the same civil manner I have for his post. Because as i've said before, it's all about perspective.

[taijasi]

This is quick, apologies for my haste - but much more so for causing the uproar. I have no idea when I'll get to the other thread. I am glad I posted a response, though admittedly, the business about demonspawn might have been over the top. To have toned that part down, might have been helpful, but let me assure you, that was how I have felt on MANY occasions - even here at CR, at times, yet you've never seen me say such things directly TO someone.

Still, to post that response, on whatever thread it was, certainly took things a bit far (I cringe at the prospect of what I must shortly read, but then, it's my doing, and I will face the music). So again, please forgive a lack of good judgment, and know that what bothered me most was the prospect that I might be stalling that discussion. Did I feel somewhat put off by leastone's post? You're darn right I did. But there's no excusing that kind of response, and I've learned a great deal in the past couple of hours. Because this served to bring things to Light, in a positive way, I think my post managed to serve a useful purpose ... but that has everything to do with the character and the motive of the people posting on the Liberal Christianity forums. And it in no way justifies a bit of disprespect that I showed.

Originally Posted by Dondi

But I then realize that from his perspective he has every right to feel that way.

Maybe, but not to post as I did ...

Originally Posted by Dondi

But I do commend you, taij, for being civil about it your handling extreme fundys, though you definitely did not show it in your post.

I believe you experienced my true feelings for some of the fundie types - and certainly not all, I will add - but thank you very much, Dondi, for pausing, reflecting, and cooling down before you responded ... and thus for helping to move things forward, rather than detracting.

Originally Posted by Dondi

Instead, I hope to share some ideas about how fundamentalists view witnessing as a tool to reach the "lost"

Ahhhh ... and you see, this is precisely the kind of thing I think we need to work through. Wil, I am with you, and everyone, in this - I hope. Yes, I understand that this can be a person's perception, and yes, I realize the proselytism is often done out of the best of intentions (see my response to Ruby, below), but I'm sorry, this is patently offensive to me. For the same reasons Ruby jumped on me in another thread - and rightly so - I must object.

YOU (not you, Dondi, I mean the fundie person who is missionizing to me) are going out of your way to bring Christ to ME ... because you perceive me - for whatever reason - as being "without." Oh, the word you used, Dondi, is "lost." You know what, in some cases (certainly these kids at the college), I think I know who was lost and who wasn't, okay?

I mean, yes, I realize there is a great passion, a zeal, an enthusiasm, but what folks like this sometimes don't understand or simply refuse to acknowledge ... is that not everyone WANTS to come to their church, stand up and babble on in front of everybody things that frankly, I think belong in private conversation with one's intimates, and scream on & on about getting washed in the blood of Jesus. You dig?


This comes down to best of intentions, but let's live and let live - and YOU go to your church, I'LL go to mine (or into my "closet" to pray, meaning, of course, the hidden chamber of the heart, the Sacred Space in every human being where the Living, Loving G-d DWELLS). Can you see how essentially opposite these two forms of worship are? And so, again, meaning well, you (you fundie, whoever, no one specifically) would come WITNESS to me, but brother, let me tell you, I'm witnessing too, and I don't like what I'm witnessing. Honestly, it makes me cringe, but in my better moments of composure, yes, I can even take on a whole crowd of such folks ... and I'll point out something:

Even in a great, writhing sea of emotion, where the people are undisciplined, and perhaps even where chaos reigns - as on a boat with a dozen men - it only takes one with a calm and a level head, to calm the rest. We have that expression, don't rock the boat. But again, it only takes one.

Interestingly, the reverse can be true. Where there is order, and balance, with harmony and reason prevailing ... it only takes one to make waves, to rock the boat, and more often than not, to capsize the damn thing and sink it.

Thank you, everyone, for making sure that the latter did not happen. I might not have been the only one out of line, but I sure as hell wasn't the guy in the first example.

Originally Posted by Dondi

There has to be a degree of respect when sharing. Even in debate.

Anything less, doesn't belong at CR.

Originally Posted by Dondi

Is it so twisted to show people how much God loves them by sending His Son to save them from their sins?

Nope, but if you want to show me, show me, don't TELL me. And by the way, as a Liberal Christian, remember, my take on this "saving me from my sins" business, is a good bit different than what Luther said, or Calvin, or Hobbes, or ... wait, you know what I mean. Bottom line, yes, I need to practice patience, and I need to learn to smile (see below) and nod, and just say, thank you kindly. Perhaps both here, as in the physical world, I will do best - if pushed - to just get up and walk away. I have had to do that. And, done calmly, it is a powerful way of teaching ... (done, remember, because I get sick of hearing the stuff, over, and over, and over) ...

Originally Posted by Ruby

For the fundy not to proselytize it means loss of his salvation.

But for me not to get up and walk away, sometimes, can mean the loss of my cool, or in the very least, the loss of a productive afternoon. I am always more than willing to pocket the little pamphlets, and I have a feeling that some here might be surprised if they could see how friendly I usually am with anyone who walks up and starts that kind of stuff. Why? Because I DO realize their motivation, and I do have some understanding of their beliefs. More so, I have experienced probably a great deal of what most folks mean, when they talk about, "The love of God, the love of Christ, the love of Jesus, the feeling of being saved, the STATE of being saved, the Grace of God," and a dozen or more other such things - many having to do with the power of the Holy Spirit, and Pentecost, and all that jazz.

Now it's interesting, Ruby, because you were saying elsewhere, that I do not know you, and that thus, there is only a certain degree to which I can say a thing like, "We all lack a perfect relationship with God," or "We are all striving toward perfection." Let me not generalize, but let me at least suggest that the Love of God which people discuss in about a thousand different ways (sic!) ... is not really a thousand different things. It is One. And I like to believe that we have all experienced it, and probably do, every so often, if not quite often. There, I will acknowledge, yes - I don't know much about your own, personal relationship with God. But I don't need to, and frankly, unless you feel like sharing, I don't want to!

Maybe that last part's not quite true, in your case Ruby, and as it happens, I actually do want to hear more, and know more, from most everyone here at CR - including, from time to time, someone who might have a new spin on the fundamentalist stance and proselytism that I am otherwise pretty darn well familiar with.

But from past experience, talking with folks ranging from the most fanatic of the fundies, to the most level-headed and down-to-earth of the Mormons (I like them, I relate), to the very well-intentioned, if narrow-minded Jehovah's Witnesses, I know enough ... to try to AVOID AT ALL COSTS letting them into my house, but folks, 99% of the time something else just manages to hold sway, and we end up chatting, and fruitless as I feel things have been ... I do at least know, that I've done them a service, because I've allowed them to share something with me. And that's not something I need. Companionship maybe? Hmmm, and how far is that from the Love that God wishes to share with us. ahhhh - ha

Now I'm losing myself (good), but I'm getting confused. let's see ...

Originally Posted by wil

So how do we handle it? To me unconditional love, love thy neighbor, all implies I surely have no need to jump off the handle and down their throat...especially after all of us have been there...and some of us may be going back!
...
The question again is this thing exists....be it proseleltyzing or what we perceive as uncaring individuals or hate groups...how do we move forward without promoting negative behaviour or acting like the pharisees?

Here is how my close friend during college handled it. Steve was a devout and pious Catholic, and I always looked up to him, and felt that he embodied very much the Love of Christ which we are all here to come to know and to share with others. Steve was quite open and friendly, when he was with people who can be likewise. He could sometimes be slightly withdrawn, but only where he knew instinctively that it was better to let other people do the ego dance. Steve had no interest in that.

And Steve and I had many an interesting conversation, as one, somewhat zealous esotericist to a rather more mature, well-balanced Catholic. So naturally, we sometimes disagreed, but seldom with any hard feelings or air of self-righteousness and superiority. That was just dumb.

Let me tell you what Steve did, on such days as when the Fundies set up their tables and did their accosting. Steve, who was very non-confrontational, and who really couldn't stand what these folks were all about (since he felt it was quite out of line with what Christ intended) ... would simple put his head down, and being quite perceptive in those days, I could feel him essentially pull in, or tuck in (withdraw) his aura, and dodge them. He was good at it, because I think his goal was to behave exactly as Christ would, and it almost reminds me of the scene before Pilate.

After all, what were these folks doing, if not JUDGING? And however well intentioned, that kind of proselytism and active engagement of passersby is just RUDE. It is to make assumptions, and to manifest something most unhealthy ... both spiritually and religiously speaking. For, in Steve's case, they had LIFETIMES of catching up to do, before they might hope to understand the "Christ in him." And as for myself, at that time, I tended to think likewise!

But anyway, Steve was a role model to me, because if I happened to be walking with him, I could usually get past those folks without incident, but if I was alone, the wolves would descend ... and the chink in the armor was soon exploited.

Okay, that's the extreme, but there's something I gathered from Steve besides just how to deal with extreme cases. He was polite and respectful, he was never presumptuous or self-righteous (certainly not often), and he always tried to make bridges, and find the commonalities in what was being said. And this is a Catholic, and one who was VERY much a conservative, though also a reasonable, reasoning, and level-headed one. I suppose only an esotericist will understand that he was a Baptized Catholic (in the truest sense), but that had everything to do with his approach.

There are folks here who often remind me of Steve, and others like him, for their openness, their tolerance, their inclusivity and inclusiveness of approach, and also their strong reasoning powers and ability to discern truth, when it is present. Steve knew what he believed, and his faith was strong, but he certainly didn't go out of his way to knock others around with it. That just didn't occur to him. And so he was as gentle as St. Francis, if also as strong - both inwardly and outwardly - as a Titan. He remains, as a spiritual presence to me, as the ideal Christian, despite being a Catholic. lol

(sorry, I couldn't resist this last part, but please understand I'm being entirely tongue in cheek)

Does it make sense then, if I say, that if we could all just be more like Steve ... then things would be fine? And that's helpful not just in dealing with over-zealousness, it helps when a post like mine, on that other thread, comes up. After all, whom does my account of Steve here, best serve? But perhaps it will reach others, as well ...

Namaste, Namaskar ... In Love & Light,

andrew (taijasi)

[JustifiedByFaith]

Dear everyone,

Wow! I didn't expect the horses to run out of the chutes so fast on this one... Just kidding of course. Say, I appreciate the responses to my simple thread question. It somewhat bothers me that there is really not a defined definition though? I am always uncomfortable with the word "liberal". This makes me concerned and cautious when I hear it tied in with Christianity. I get "red-flags" thinking that "sound doctrine" can be twisted to become more "touchy-feel"?
Does this make sense? I often see examples in the body of Christ where I am afraid that the "don't do's" have become the "Okay to do's". Is this caused by Liberal Christianity? Am I making any sense here?

[Paladin]

Thanks Taij

I really think there is a lot of what you see in Steve in you, otherwise how could you recognize it?

JBF,

I'm not sure what the do's and don'ts in your doctrine are so it's hard to tell what the label "liberal" would entail. As far as I know and understand there is a strong desire among many Christians to have an outer doctrine to guide, and console them. The Christian mystics of history and up to the present day seek an inner connection that is beyond mere "feeling" though I know of none who would do away with scripture. To me it is possible to fulfill and yet trancend all the do's and don'ts to reach a higher ground of sorts. Such as expecting that you don't have to tell an honest man that stealing is wrong, it simply wouldn't enter his mind to violate that law. Christ gives us a model to get past ourselves and go beyond mere humanity to something deeper and richer. This is what is referred to as transpersonal experience. Though not a common term it speaks of getting beyond self actualization and going toward self trancendance. I think Kendo put it best when he said " I don't want to be just a Christian I want to become Christ"

Peace
Mark

[JustifiedByFaith]

Originally Posted by Paladin

I think Kendo put it best when he said " I don't want to be just a Christian I want to become Christ"

Peace
Mark

Dear Paladin,

Amen to that!

"...that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."

Philippians 3:10-11

[flowperson]

Originally Posted by JustifiedByFaith

Dear everyone,

Wow! I didn't expect the horses to run out of the chutes so fast on this one... Just kidding of course. Say, I appreciate the responses to my simple thread question. It somewhat bothers me that there is really not a defined definition though? I am always uncomfortable with the word "liberal". This makes me concerned and cautious when I hear it tied in with Christianity. I get "red-flags" thinking that "sound doctrine" can be twisted to become more "touchy-feel"?
Does this make sense? I often see examples in the body of Christ where I am afraid that the "don't do's" have become the "Okay to do's". Is this caused by Liberal Christianity? Am I making any sense here?

Justified:

Ummm...excuse me if I point out the fact that you seem to be substantively repeating the observations that you stated in Post #1. So I guess you could say that, no, you aren't making much sense, at least to me.

I tried to compose and write as comprehensive and detailed an explanation of the nature of Liberal Christianity in post #2 that I could dredge up. But here you are trying to start the discussion "all over again" by implying "all over again" that Liberal Christianity it is some sort of "touchy-feely" concept, which implies a viewpoint similar to what was mentioned in your first post.

Now the ensuing discussion ended up causing a valuable member of this forum to walk away in disgust and anger. That is not what most of us are here for. We are here for civil and respectful discussions of belief that lead to new vistas of understanding and knowledge. Your implications tend to lead the discussions into recursive patterns. Recursive, or circular, discussions lead to non-productive verbal activities, and cause frustrated participants to do just what Abogado did, which, while you may not have directly intended it to happen, did, and he did walk away because of his frustration with the situation. I, for one, will miss his experience, presence, and intellect, even though he is a lawyer; and, aside from the fact that I have often been accused of being a lawyer in the past.

Now if I detect this sort of manipulative effort and behavior on your part, or on the part of any other who may have and express direct or indirect distaste for what we discuss in this garden, then I will not hesitate to call you or them on it. Those of us who consider ourselves to be "Liberal" or "Progressive" got to the places we are in because we sense that there is "something more" out there regarding the life of the man Jesus, and we are still looking for it, wherever it may be. We are "seekers" more than anything, perhaps similar in nature to those I used to work with who sought cures and vaccines for terrible afflictions. We are here to understand and support each other, not to undermine, however how subtly and sweetly, the beliefs and intellectual pursuits of our brothers and sisters.

If you have any direct questions about the materials that I composed and presented in post #2, please ask them and I will do my best to directly answer them. Your statement "huh" in post #3 didn't seem like much of a question to me. And in lieu of a more detailed set of questions from you regarding what I have written, I, for one, plan to thoroughly disregard your last post.

flow....

[lunamoth]

Hi All, thank you for bearing with us.

I think the question has been asked and answered JBF. As Flow has said, "we are here for civil and respectful discussions of belief that lead to new vistas of understanding and knowledge." Simply challenging the answers one receives without appearing to listen to the responses or bringing in fresh perspective is not conducive to that respectful dialogue.

With that let's carry on, keeping in mind the kind of civility in discussions we all would like to see cultivated here at CR.

Thank you.

lunamoth

[Dondi]

taij,

Thank you for that lenthy and enlightening response. See, I've gained a broader perspective already and you have given me some valuable insight that I believe will have some direct effect on how I approach people with the gospel in the future.

First, however, I want to clarify something from you response to my sharing you some of the methods for witnessing. I wasn't going to employ them here for the purpose of witnessing to you or anybody else here. That is against the rules anyway. Rather, I would only demonstrate why fundies use them to share the gospel. It would only be to show motivation. I merely wanted to return a perspective from my point of view in response to some of the assumptions that has been made about reasons fundies are adamant in sharing the Gospel. I can understand fully why you would object to another trail of fundy bunk which you've obviously been exposed to. And I my intention is not to invoke negative vibes brought on by a "oh, no, here we go again" defensive stance against fundamentalist. But I'll respect your wishes by not bringing it up. It was only meant to provide a better understanding.

Suffice to say that please at least understand that there are less confrontational and objectionable means of witnessing than the ones you've encountered.

But like I've said before, I'm not pushy when it comes to sharing my faith. If one doesn't wish to listen, fine. I'm not really out to change anyone's religion. You are obviously not in need of conversion. As Jesus said, "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." It is the sick that I wish to reach. I'm looking for those who have never known the love of God in any form or fashion. And if I can point the way even a little in hope that they will have just a glimpse of the "Brazen Serpent", then at least I have the satisfaction of imparting hope in what may be an otherwise dismal life. There are people who need God, but don't know the way. Now you might regard some the fundy's methods as sick and misguided, but if done properly, it has given hope to many, including myself. Maybe there are other ways one can share one's faith, i.e. showing. But how in the world are we to know who needs the Lord if we don't try and reach out to others. We aren't out to judge, for their is only one Judge, but we try to gage if someone has at least a desire to seek the Lord. And that is not judging, that is caring.

[RubySera_Martin]

Dondi, thanks for sharing your perspective. It sounds like perhaps you have found an acceptable way of witnessing. An idea came to me to share for what it's worth. I speak as an "apostate" from the perspective of the fundy. Some people feel a need to admonish and remonstrate me for leaving. You addressed this question and perhaps I'll share more on it in another post. For now I just wish to share that perhaps it is the Spirit's responsibility to convict people. I ask that Christians commit their concerns about me and other apostates to God. We have given much deep thought to religion. Otherwise we would not have left. That is the impression I get from others in my age bracket who left.

I have also talked with strong and committed and genuinely sincere Christians who feel as I do about it being the Spirit's responsibility to bring people to God, to convert people. I get the feeling from Andrew's post that his friend Steve was one of these. My experience has been that there people are willing to speak of their faith if they are asked but they don't put it out there, they don't make the offers or in any way "push religion."

My question would be: Why do fundies feel they have to push religion? They are, after all, living by the same Bible as these other Christians. Why can't they trust the Spirit?

Andrew (taij) mentioned what he wants versus what the fundies want. Andrew, from what I have seen and how I understand fundy religion, "what I want" is outside the realm of legitimate protest. It does not count for them because they believe we will go to hell and that in the end we will thank them. They think we just don't know what we want. And therein lies my chief complaint. It disregards, and thereby violates, the individual. That is why I wonder if perhaps a decent compromise would be to trust the Spirit but to be available when and if a person wants to learn more.

I don't know if this makes sense. It's an issue I have given much serious thought because it clashes with the humanist values of most of society. Not being allowed to witness and testify impinges on the fundy's right to freedom of religion. Witnessing and testifying to people who don't want it impinges on their right to freedom of religion and thought. So I simply don't know the answer.

[Dondi]

Thank you Ruby. I am learning. I'm learning to be discerning when it comes to people. Like Kenny Roger's, I'm starting to "know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, and know when to run". When Jesus sent His disciples out to preach the gospel, He told them that if they are not received in a house to just "shake the dust of your feet" and move on.

Another thing that I am learning is that Jesus knew how to approach people where they are. He had an innate sense of where the person was spiritually and had a way of speaking truth to them in a personal way, like the woman at the well, or the diminutive Zacchaeus, or the noble Nicademous. I suppose witnessing is an art. And in order to be effective, we must hone our talent, study human behavior, and read the signs people display. Learn to find the needs in peoples lives and minister to them compassionately and acceptantly. You are right, Ruby, it is the Spirit that draws and we must be sensitive to the wisdom of the Spirit as we deal with people.

Another major change I'm implementing is that while I know from my own experiences the consequences of sin (God knows I've made a mess of things in my life in the past), I'm no longer prone to dangle the "H" word in front of folks when I share. I think it is sufficient enough to warn about the consequences sin in this life NOW, rather than add the possiblility of hell later. But don't get me wrong, I not going point to any particular sin in a person's life, for that would make me appear judgmental, which is the least effect I want. People know what their sins are, so I need not remind them. Rather, I would stress how sin affects our relationship with God and with each other. And how God wants us to learn how to love more perfectly. Because "love covers a multitude of sins". When we learn to love God and others, the natural outcome is that we will be less prone to sin. Would you not agree?

As far as impinging on people's right to freedom of religion and thought, which you, Ruby are so against, well, we live in a world of many influences. Some good, some bad. But as Paul Simon sang, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". We have the power to choose, to listen or not to listen, and that is a freedom we can exercise.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally posted by lunamoth:
Simply challenging the answers one receives without appearing to listen to the responses or bringing in fresh perspective is not conducive to that respectful dialogue.

Is it okay to ask for clarification? I find Flow's Post 2 somewhat difficult to understand. I suspect the part I bolded is the offensive part. So I assume it is okay to ask for clarification. I will go through it and rephrase to see whether I've got it right.

Originally Posted by flowperson

Justified:

Try this.

The term "Liberal Christianity" (or some might refer to it as Progressive Christianity) infers that the past, and beliefs related to it, may be questioned and examined in the light of contemporary research and interpretation.

Liberal or Progressive Christianity believes it is okay to question and examin beliefs that were held in the past as doctrine. It should not take place lightly, but in a way that fits with today's understanding of the world and universe according to research findings like in science or psychology.

The results of such rigorous researches and interpretations are then available, upon consensual agreement by the examining and questioning parties, to be extended into new avenues of belief concerning what has gone before and its relevance to current conditions.

The researchers have to come to an agreement about the new discoveries before they are made available to the public. When the researchers have come to an agreement, then the new information is fitted into the belief system, keeping the old parts that are still good and only replacing the parts that are out-dated.

This should be contrasted with "Conservative Christianity" which, in the main, rigidly and purposefully ties itself to cannonical texts, approved by church hierarchy as "acceptable" in the past; and, such texts, liturgies, and rituals are incorporated into formats which are prepetuated and preserved through orthodoxy and strict hierarchical governance of the institutions which practice them.

In contrast, Conservative Christians mostly hold strictly and purposefully to the biblical text as it has been approved in the past by the church hierarchy. The hierarchy of the church makes sure the old beliefs are kept in place by incorporating them into liturgies, texts, rituals and other formats that can be passed on from generation to generation. These are kept in place by church government that keeps a strict eye on them.

One could summarize these definitions by saying that Liberal Christianity, through the methods that it employs to obtain and apply newly discovered knowledge in its practices, strives to move its understandings of the past forward in time: while, the Conservative Christianity approach tends to "freeze" interpretation and understanding of past events central to its beliefs in the past and encourages its participants not to accept or practice new ideas that may be proposed by others concerning the Christian Faith.

In summary of these definitions, it could be said that Liberal Christianity, with the methods it uses to find and examine new knowledge, tries to move forward, progress, from the old beliefs. While Conservative Christianity tries to "freeze" traditional understanding of central beliefs, and discourages its members from accepting new ideas, etc.

This research and application process is essentially what scholars at research institutions do continuously, and this process is used to test the applicability of science and technology all of the time before it is allowed into the public realm. This is the sister process to traditional educational programs that feeds them fresh information for educational purposes as it is verified over time.

Scholars are universities are always testing science and technology to see how it will fit into the public realm before it is made available to the public. This new information is verified over time. As that happens, education programs (university courses?) feed this fresh information to students.

I think the rest of the post explains the history of progress, or how people viewed progress throughout history. So it seems Progressive or Liberal Christianity accepts new information and ideas that better reflect today's situation. And Conservative Christianity holds onto old doctrines and discourages its members from accepting new ideas.

Am I anywhere near what you are saying, flow? Justified was asking about sound doctrine. I'm asking myself exactly how or if sound doctrine is of concern to Liberal Christianity. It seems it is but that Liberal Christianity uses a different standard for measuring sound doctrine that Conservative Christianity does. The liberals want it to make sense in light of present-day understanding, but it also has to keep the parts of tradition that still fit in. The conservatives believe sound doctrine means keeping the old beliefs that the church has sanctioned over time.
If this is what you mean, it is about like I thought but it's far more clear than anything I could put into words.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Thank you Ruby. I am learning. I'm learning to be discerning when it comes to people. Like Kenny Roger's, I'm starting to "know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, and know when to run". When Jesus sent His disciples out to preach the gospel, He told them that if they are not received in a house to just "shake the dust of your feet" and move on.

I feel encouraged by this. May I ask a question? I have always thought that "shake the dust of your feet" means to pronounce judgment over the people who would not accept the gospel. Does it perhaps signify just as much that the person has committed responsibility to God so that it is an act of submission rather than of judgment?

Another thing that I am learning is that Jesus knew how to approach people where they are. He had an innate sense of where the person was spiritually and had a way of speaking truth to them in a personal way, like the woman at the well, or the diminutive Zacchaeus, or the noble Nicademous. I suppose witnessing is an art. And in order to be effective, we must hone our talent, study human behavior, and read the signs people display. Learn to find the needs in peoples lives and minister to them compassionately and acceptantly. You are right, Ruby, it is the Spirit that draws and we must be sensitive to the wisdom of the Spirit as we deal with people.

Yes, this agrees exactly with the thoughts that were going through my mind. I thought you do have a point about the people you have seen who really needed the message but I didn't know how one would put it into practice, so this sounds like maybe there is a way.

Another major change I'm implementing is that while I know from my own experiences the consequences of sin (God knows I've made a mess of things in my life in the past), I'm no longer prone to dangle the "H" word in front of folks when I share. I think it is sufficient enough to warn about the consequences sin in this life NOW, rather than add the possiblility of hell later. But don't get me wrong, I not going point to any particular sin in a person's life, for that would make me appear judgmental, which is the least effect I want. People know what their sins are, so I need not remind them. Rather, I would stress how sin affects our relationship with God and with each other. And how God wants us to learn how to love more perfectly. Because "love covers a multitude of sins". When we learn to love God and others, the natural outcome is that we will be less prone to sin. Would you not agree?

Because my experience has been from the humanist perspective I now understand the NT that way. In order for me to answer your question I have to translate it into humanist language. My way of stating it is that when one learns to be true to oneself, the "natural outcome is that we are less prone to [being selfish, and more prone to bring forth fruits of the Spirit]. Since I believe being true to oneself is love of God, and since I believe fruits of the Spirit are the natural outcome, I think we are saying the same thing with different words. It seems like we arrive at the same changed life that is changed in a positive way and brings forth the same kind of behaviour. So I would say I agree. Maybe my humanist language causes problems for you. I don't know how to overcome that. It is the only way I have been able to see God's love. That is why I have to use this language to figure out my answer to your question. I hope that is okay.

Somewhere you said witnessing is an art. I love that. A spirit-guided art. Yes, I think we are having a meeting of the minds, at least to some degree.

As far as impinging on people's right to freedom of religion and thought, which you, Ruby are so against, well, we live in a world of many influences. Some good, some bad. But as Paul Simon sang, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". We have the power to choose, to listen or not to listen, and that is a freedom we can exercise.

I've been doing a lot of self-examination over the past several days. I believe I am hyper-sensitive to this because of my history. What you describe seems to allow room for a person to say "I'm not interested" when you try to witness to them. I think that is fair. It's a whole lot more respect than many people in my life have shown me so that is a good sign.

Oh, I feel so much more hopeful just knowing that there might be a way for all of us to live in the same world.

[RubySera_Martin]

Dondi, seeing that a meeting of minds may be possible gives me the courage to answer a post you addressed to me yesterday. I was feeling too confused to respond at the time. Perhaps it will help bring about more understanding. Here it is:

Originally Posted by Dondi

It hurts, doesn't it.

Dondi, I was deeply touched by this post. However, the fact remains that I had to twist my brain to do what had to be done to become a member of the church. Not becoming a member of the church was not an option because it meant being ostracized by my entire social universe.

Several decades later when I wanted to join a less old-fashioned church I was forced to twist my brain and confess that I'm a sinner. Again, not becoming a member of a church was not an option at the time.

I've moved away from that church, too. For a time I attended a more liberal church on a very regular basis at considerable cost to myself. I went through the process to become a formal memeber, but I could not cross the final step of lying about what I believed. I had finally gotten strong enough to stand up for my beliefs.

[RubySera_Martin]

Above I tried my hand at interpretting flow's definition of Liberal Christianity. I have a story from personal experience that might show Liberal Christianity in real life. I'll post it for what it's worth.

This story that serves two purposes:

1. a suggestion for what liberal Christianity is
2. evidence that I have truly experienced a different kind of Christianity than I was raised with.

I have, since then, learned that there are traditional Christians alive today who understand how to be true Christians. I don't know what it would be like if I tried going to church with them. But at the school where I am studying I have been fully accepted as a member of the institution regardless of my beliefs. Students and profs alike have been openly accepting of me.

I have been very wary but I found myself in a situation where I had to speak openly about my beliefs in order to pass a course I needed for my degree. I went in trembling in my shoes and fully expecting to be charged with heresy and/or blasphemy but I really had no choice. I told my personal experience on which my belief was based and explained how I arrived at my belief. And it was fully accepted by both students and prof.

For the final assignment for that course we had to write an essay on "Why I am Christian." I felt like the Day of Judgment had come early that year. I felt so distressed that I had to call a special meeting with the prof. By then I knew that he was very tolerant but I could not find the strength to actually ask permission to write "Why I am Not Christian." He gently prodded me to find another definition for Christian.

It felt hopeless. I hadn't the faintest idea what he meant. He knew that I like Tom Harpur. He suggested that Harpur identifies as Christian. I wanted to protest that Harpur is not a real Christian because he does not believe in salvation through Jesus' death and resurrection. Before I could reply my prof said something that helped me past that block.

Then I remembered what Harpur had said in his intro for The Pagan Christ. He said Christmas and Easter had more and deeper meaning for him since he discovered via research that the Jesus story comes from a variety of ancient myths. To me that legitimized his claim to the Christian name. I further realized that a person who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ is just as rightfully a Christian as a person who follows the teachings of Menno Simons is a Mennonite or as the followers of Karl Marx are Marxists.

Some Christians disagree very, very strongly with this. However, my prof accepted that and gave me a very good grade. Since the grade is mostly an evaluation of scholarship, I cannot take the grade as a full endorsement of my statement. He went beyond assigining a grade. He wrote a fairly lengthy comment with suggestions on what kind of theology I might find more compatible with my beliefs. So far as I am concerned, that was a full endorsement of my qualifications to identify as a Christian. Since people are asking for a definition of liberal Christianity, I offer this as one suggestion.