I have recently had some enlightening and perhaps disturbing conversations about
Part of my motivation for writing this blog is to consider the legitimacy of this theological stance and to generate a broader awareness of the nature of
Theology has traditionally assigned meaning to human experience by superimposing Biblical wisdom on it. This tradition is based in the notion that the Bible is primarily God's statement about creation and about the proper relationship of obedience between humans and God, and that God has made this document available for the teaching, guidance and correction of humans. Some who hold that position refer to the Bible as "The Owners Manual for Humans."
Liberal Christians tend to turn that dynamic on its head. Modern scholarship makes a very strong case that the Bible is more a human creation than a divine one. That is not to deny the deep wisdom (even perhaps divine wisdom) that comes through these accounts of human encounters with God. But from this radically different perspective, we learn more about how God has been seen and experienced than we learn about what God expects of humans. This position allows for plenty of room for human-divine dialogue, however.
In practice, all people who make reference to the Bible, in any way, tend to place more significance on some passages than on others. For the sake of making a point, I will overstate the case a bit. More conservative approaches tend to focus on parts of the Bible that demonstrate a standard of personal morality and a concrete process by which people can be saved from eternal ruin. In short, these passages are about required behavior.
A more liberal perspective looks less at the absolutes and commands of God and more at the quality of relationship (of connection, if you will) between humans and the divine, among humans, and between humans and their own inner being.
Clearly, how people and churches answer this most fundamental question makes a world of difference.
Like any other religious person, I have my biases regarding which Biblical passages are most central. I consider myself a "gospel theologian." For me, radical inclusiveness is the essence of the gospel, and judgment, particularly about the superficial morality of others, is unacceptable. I begin with I John 4: 16b: "God is love." I then move to the practical description of love in I Corinthians 13, particularly verse 3-6:
"Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. (NRSV)
I try to imagine the "God Who is Love" behaving according to this description. We might say that love is radically relational and that the lover always tries to consider the healthy needs of the beloved. It is in that spirit that I welcome Jesus as a gift to humanity, given so that we might have life, and have it abundantly. (John 10: 10b)
If that isn't a functional definition of Healthy Liberal Christianity, then I don't know what is. By the way, in a loving relationship, there is always plenty of room for curiosity and questions, even fundamental ones.
May your loving relationship with a loving God enrich your life.
"No matter who you are, or where you are in life's journey, you're welcome here."
4 comments:
Reading your two recent blogs gives me a better understanding not only of Park Church, but also clearly reflects many of my beliefs. Esp. identified with your statement "A more liberal perspective looks less at the absolutes and commands of God and more at the quality of relationship (of connection, if you will) between humans and the divine, among humans, and between humans and their own inner being."
I believe that's me and my "seeker" within. Those attending at today's first meeting of "The Seekers Lunch" today seemed to exemplify those beliefs. I'm looking forward to more of these lunches in the future. Thank you, Martha Boland
Hey Wayne, good idea (got here through Rick). I like your style.
J. has recently started working for the same agency where I work. Our desks are fairly close to one another so we have become friendly. We live in the same town and have started carpooling to work. We also often eat lunch together.
There are two other people in our carpool---the wife of the local Baptist preacher, and another woman who attends a local fundamentalist church.
J. wears a pentacle. (She usually hides it under her blouse.) Before she started hiding it under her blouse I saw it and asked her about it. Not a practicing Wiccan; she says she doesn't know enough...but is learning. (And though she says she is learning about Wicca, I have noticed that she does not seem to have much appreciation for nature.)
She does not know much about Chrisitianity. What she does know is based on a the efforts of a brother---what she calls a "thumper"---who is trying to save her from hell.
"What is the difference," she asked me one day, "between a Catholic, a Methodist, a Protestant, or a Presbyterian." To begin with, I was surprised that she did not realize that protestant is NOT a denomination, but any Chrisitian denomination that does not identify as Catholic.
One day she said, "No offense, but this place has more religious people than anyplace I have ever worked before." That SHOULD have been a compliment, except for the preceding clause, "no offense." It was obvious that she did not think a lot of religious people was a GOOD thing.
It makes me sad. For so many people, when they hear the words "Christian" it means someone who knows the ONE right way to G-d, and they are determined that everyone else see it the same way they do. A "thumper." And some believers are reluctant to self-identify as "Christian" because they know that when people hear that word, they will automatically think "thumper."
"conservatives identify fundamental answers while liberals struggle with fundamental questions"
In this age of television (over books), computers (instead of figuring it out by hand, looking it up in a reference book, typing or hand-writing), sound bites, instant coffee, microwave meals, etc., we have come to want our answers to life's questions to come quickly and easily too. Perhaps that is why "fundamentalist" Chrisitianity has made such a surge in the past couple of decades. We don't want to make the effort to struggle with the fundamental questions; it is much more comfortable to have the answers. Then we KNOW whether we are "making the grade" or not.
Another reason fundamentalism is so strong is that they are the most vocal. They feel that they MUST tell others their view of God (and Jesus)---either to save them from a fiery eternity, or to gain a few notches on their own religious belt. (I can not say that without judging myself too. I don't think I was ever much of a Bible-banger, but there was a time when I worried that I did not have enough notches on my own religious belt and that I was sending loved ones to hell because I was reluctant to tell them about the Gospel.)
("Gospel." It means "good news." Is the version of Christianity that is often taught in today's churches really "good news"? Or does it invoke terror in the name of spirituality?)
What do we do to change that? Well...it seems to me that for one thing, those of us who are not "fundamentalist" also need to be vocal about what we believe.
Not strident. Not rigid. That's not what we're about. But willing to share what we believe (and WHY we believe that way) just as the fundamentalists are. Willing to share the joy we've found. (And willing to listen to others too.)
Crystal B
(Jesus asked that his followers be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, not brainwashed.)
Post a Comment