I want to suggest first of all that the political analogy to describe these two wings of the church does not really work. The so-called liberal wing of the church does not parade a set of beliefs and statements and then invite people to choose between it and the typical conservative set of statements. Typically conservative evangelical statements would include something about the sovereignty of God, the necessity of salvation through the atoning death of Christ, the trustworthiness of the bible as contained in the original manuscripts and something about the work of the Holy Spirit. Conservative congregations will be invited to subscribe to a version of these beliefs, even they will differ slightly from church to church. It will, in fact, be possible to find quite deep divisions within the Protestant family of churches on, for example, the details as how we are saved. This will happen even though these churches are all reading the same set of scriptures. As a non-conservative, I do not want to labour this point at present, except to note it in passing.
If the liberal position were to be like a political party, we would expect it to set out another set of principles and statements of belief to compare with the conservative creeds. My understanding of the liberal position is that it operates in a quite different way so that we cannot easily set it side by side with the conservative statements and do a ‘compare and contrast’. The liberal insight into the Christian faith will, like the conservatives, start from the existence of Scripture. But its use of Scripture will be quite different. The so-called liberals will often, and this is infuriating to those who dislike their approach, refuse to commit themselves to a single interpretation of a particular passage. They will also not want to disregard a conservative interpretation unless it can be seen to lead to harm for those who think in this particular way. The words of Scripture will be taken, not to prove a point of doctrine, but as a witness to a transforming event which took place in response to an encounter with the man Jesus. The same encounter and the same possibility of transformation can be sought today. The formal creeds will be taken seriously as a statement of the impact of that man Jesus on individuals and a whole society. The follower today is invited, not to declare an intellectual assent to statements about what is ‘true’, but to become part of a movement towards a reality we call God, as glimpsed and made real by Jesus. That journey has less to do with intellectual assent than with becoming part of an adventure of discovery as we grow towards God in the activities we call prayer, worship and the demands of love.
It would be true to say that liberal Christians are extremely vulnerable to the taunts of other Christians who, for their own purposes, have defined the Christian faith in propositional terms, i.e. as a series of statements about reality and truth. When Jesus spoke about the Spirit leading a follower into ‘all truth’, the liberal-leaning Christian will see this as a call to a never-ending adventure of experience of learning and praying, both on their own and also with others. The conservative will hear the word ‘truth’ as being the correct answers to questions of ultimate significance. The idea that there is an individual, personal even, element to the discovery of what truth might be, is alarming and even heretical to their way of thinking.
In trying to represent two sides of a divide within the Christian tradition, I have to repeat the point that we are not comparing opposing positions about truth. What we are comparing are two distinct ways of discovering truth. One is saying that truth is to be found by following certain paths which have been well trodden by others so that nothing new needs to be entertained or discovered. The liberal path is saying that the Christian path is an invitation to newness and discovery. There are maps available but each person who receives a map of Christian way is invited to fill in many of the details of the map for themselves. There will be many obstacles along the path to be faced. Sometimes the way will seemingly be blocked by tragedy, questions or plain uncertainty. The person travelling along these ‘liberal’ tracks may seem lost, vulnerable and may suffer pain. He may even suffer the pangs of doubt. Although he may hear the call of his conservative brother to come back to a place of certainty and safety, he will resist that call because he has glimpsed a vision that the path to God will never be easy and his vocation is to pursue truth and righteousness along a particular route which belongs in some sense to him alone. Jesus has spoken to him in the words ‘Behold I make all things new’. He has interpreted these words to mean that he has to pursue a path that is being walked for the very first time. It is fresh because he has never been along it before and he senses that God’s personal vocation to him to be a Christian is indeed a ‘new thing’. He also hears the word of Psalm 23 that there is one who walks beside him. ‘He leads me beside still waters…’
A few weeks ago I reflected on the Christian journey being like a pilgrimage and in many ways this reflection is a continuation of that theme. The important idea here and in that other reflection is the idea of constant movement and change. I would like to suggest that movement and change are an essential element in what it means to be a Christian. The words that cluster around ‘salvation’, safety and being saved, suggest arriving at a place so that there is no need to go any further. The idea that we can ever ‘arrive’ in any sense on this side of the grave is, for me, something deeply troubling. If anyone ever told me that I had ‘arrived’ spiritually and I need go no further because my salvation was assured, I would immediately feel trapped like a butterfly in a dark hall. No, for me the liberal is a Christian who, while he does not have all the answers, goes on moving, goes on travelling until his last breath. Maybe the life beyond death also requires us to journey and to travel so that we can adjust to the new realities that are there, the ’things that pass our understanding.’
What a beautiful thought. Thank-you, Stephen. Much to think of.
Thank you English Athena for your kind words. It would appear that some of our regulars are away at present so it is good to know that one person at least is reading my thoughts. Remarkably I still keep finding things to say.
Thanks Stephen,
Luke 9: 49-50, I think this scripture should settle the matter.
However, Jesus was a lot more generous than the ‘Bible schools of the 60’s 70’s and 80’s.
Great blog Stephen.
Peace, Chris
I had trouble getting on the site the other night. Maybe some of the others have had the same problem.
Stephen, your writing resonates with me to an extent. When I first became born again, I attended Sunday services that adhered to strict liturgical programmes, I was someone whom you would call a ‘conservative’ Christian . At a later date, a friend introduced me to what you would term ‘liberal’ Christianity (ie someone who attends Charismatic/Pentecostal, tongue talking, Holy Ghost meetings). I had initially found the new experience most fascinating and it deepened my relationship with God. It was wonderful. It became even more fascinating when I met someone whom you would describe as ‘traveling along a liberal track’. Unfortunately, I believe this person went off the track. Some of his experiences (eg the things that he said) were questionable and not entirely biblical. In my opinion, the path of a liberal traveler is fraught with danger (eg of straying from scripture). From my experience and observation of this person and where he ended up, I would much rather remain safe. Stick with being conservative rather than attempt to be liberal. Just look at the Peniel experience. It is a tragedy.
We may be at cross purposes, but for the reasons explained above, I am very cautious and have huge reservations about the liberal path.
I will need to give your blog comment a bit of time. I am about to go out but wanted to say that we seem to be travelling along different tram lines. I will need to explain what I mean by ‘liberal’ but fear you may not like the fact that liberals challenge many of the old conservative positions and that includes the way they interpret and use the bible. The word ‘biblical’ that you use is questionable for me as it implies an understanding of the bible text that is a long way from what I understand as liberal. Will need to explain myself more later.
If the word ‘Christian’ means that we use selective use of scripture to support a set of doctrinal beliefs, then I’m not sure that it is in anyway right?
The reliability of the gospels is (I believe) essential. In the end you believe them or you don’t. I find them convincing but I do doubt a lot.
I have been thinking further about the liberal/conservative split in the church. You Anon 9.56 appear to be thinking about another split, which is much written about in the States, between Pentecostal/charismatic Christians and those of a more biblical/non enthusiastic bent. The anti-charismatic tribe is led by John MacArthur among others. For me this debate is fairly remote as I can see the strengths and weaknesses on both sides. The liberal/conservative divide is quite different. It is a question of whether you believe that because we have the Bible we have all the revelation we need. The liberals would hold on to the insight that history over 2000 years has allowed the Christian faith to change and develop in quite extensive ways. The liberal Christian will expect that these changes will continue. Old ‘biblical’ certainties will be challenged and this will make conservative Christians uncomfortable. Certainty is a word that does not really come into the liberal vocabulary. The liberal learns to live with uncertainty, paradox and constant questioning. It is also a place of freedom and we believe that God honours the one who can live with questions even if we never have the consolation of final answers. As I wrote in the post above, we do have the ‘comfort’ of one who walks alongside us.
Stephen, I am not thinking about the Conservative – Charismatic/Pentecostal split. I am alluding to the Conservative – Liberal split. For example, this person will commit quite blatant sins over and over again sometimes justifying his sins because he claimed to know the all consuming love of God which stemmed from his intimate personal relationship with his God, he felt that nothing would stand between him and his God, not even his sins, etc. This is true to a large extent and ultimately so, and God does forgive our sins absolutely, but I wouldn’t put up with such a person. Why doesn’t he curb his sins rather than preach the love of God and continue to sin and excuse/justify his blatant sins? Is this an aberrant of liberal Christianity or is it actually liberal Christianity?
The above is only one aspect of the his attitude/behaviour. There are other aspects that are equally worrying.
My reference to sins above has nothing to do with homosexuality. I personally do not have any issue with two consenting adults of the same sex who are in love with each other and wishing to live together or get married. As far as I am concerned, it is totally their business.
What I have an issue with as far as homosexuality is concerned is the issue of pederasty – it can become a slippery slope. I am speaking from my own knowledge, not of my own personal experience, but that of another. This person said that he was sexually aroused as a boy of eight because by a man touched his genitals.
Thank you Stephen for another thoughtful and well-written article. I do admire your thorough and careful approach. I have a few thoughts arising.
Firstly, I decided a while back that labels divide, and that henceforward I would simply call myself a follower of Jesus.
Secondly, as regards the approach to Scripture, it seems to me that you can put yourself under it or over it. I aim for the former, wanting to absorb the bible into my system and shape my life by it. The latter was typified for me by the professor of theology who wrote of the doctrine of hell, “This is the kind of doctrine which, even if it could be shown to be biblical, would have to be rejected on the grounds of reason and conscience.”
Finally, it so happens Ireland the book of Exodus today (we are travelling across the Rockies by train on a dismal day), and I was struck by the contrast between the people creating their idea of God (the golden calf) and God instructing Moses that the tabernacle was to be made in a certain way. That instruction was carried out to the letter. The result was that the presence of God was so strong that Moses could not even enter the tabernacle (chapter forty). That is what I want: that God is so real and present in my life that people sense him in everything I do and everywhere I go.
So personally, I don’t feel bothered about distinctions between different parties within the church. I simply I want a church that obeys Jesus.
The idea that sin doesn’t matter because God loves us (I paraphrase), is an old heresy. Paul speaks of it. “Should we sin more so that there will be more of God’s grace?” (I paraphrase again). I’m sure there are people who do this, but it isn’t really the Liberal/Conservative thing. I rather got the impression that Anonymous is using the words in almost the opposite sense to the way they are used on this side of the pond. Liberal isn’t a dirty word over here! Conservatives tend to be a bit literal minded about the Bible, but not necessarily fundamentalist, though some are. Now, since the Bible isn’t always clear, though much of it is, you can get two very sincere, prayerful, nice Christian individuals, who differ on the interpretation of some of those points. So the idea that you can say, “This is what the Bible says, and it’s obvious, and that’s that”, isn’t always true. Anonymous seems to have what on this side of the pond would be called a Liberal interpretation of the gay question. (Give or take the bit about paedophilia. Homosexual is not synonymous with pederasty. Most children who are abused, are abused by heteros, for the simple reason that there are more heteros about)
Conservatives are apparently more likely to be “charismatic”, and are likely to be anti equal opportunities for women! You know, men are the head of the church, Jesus didn’t have any female disciples, that sort of thing. (I know my prejudices are showing!) Liberals may be charismatic, but seem to be less likely to be so, realise that the Bible isn’t always that easy, so tend to assume that scholarship will move on, and opinion change, and are usually fine with women doing the interesting and high status stuff, and gays having relationships. But all that is a bit broad. That’s the way we describe things over here. So I do think Anonymous and Stephen are at cross purposes, here. But your friend who believes that he can continue in sin, well, what can I say? Not much of an advert for our faith, is he? And does he not believe there will be a judgement? Try not to be too harsh, but don’t be afraid to express your opinion, that would be my advice, for what it’s worth.
Thank you, EA. I still maintain that my friend is a liberal Christian. I have not explained other aspects of his behaviour, but what Stephen had written in the last two paragraphs above describe my friend very well indeed. He lives it (ie liberal Christianity).
As far as homosexuals are concerned, they should find their own kind who are of age and keep homosexuality within their own circle. If they choose to go out with someone of the opposite sex, that is fine too. I have a huge problem with homosexuals who are trying to make more homosexuals by converting heterosexuals or those who are borderline, eg. by touching a child’s genitals.
I think we all have a problem with criminal behaviour. In the UK an offender as you describe would be locked up. This has little to do with gay marriage. I have never met a gay man or woman who wanted to change anyone else.
I do not think that those who disagree with homosexuality should be forced to provide services for homosexuals such as weddings, B&Bs, etc or face the penalty of losing their licence or livelihood. Similarly, I do not think that an anti-abortionist should be forced to carry out abortions.
What about people who disagree with there being black people? In this country, you can’t refuse to serve a black person, and quite right too. Gay people just are the way they are, it’s not a lifestyle choice.
The Bible does not say that those who are black will not enter the kingdom etc. I do not object to homosexuality between consenting adults. In fact, I am genuinely happy for them if they choose to have a relationship, eg live together or get married, but I do not wish to be positively involved. I would expect Christians to tolerate homosexuals and vice versa. I did not say celebrate, I said tolerate. Live and let live.
Similarly, I have no objection if a heterosexual couple choose to live together rather than get married. Again, I am happy for them. They don’t need my approval or disapproval.
I think Christians should tolerate others and in turn we can expect to be tolerated. Otherwise there will be war, which is so unnecessary. That does not mean we cannot have our own opinion on such matters.
My post at 10:57 above should read “inherit” the kingdom, not “enter” the kingdom.
The point I was trying to make is, if you are able to celebrate another then great, but if you are not able to, you should at the very least tolerate them. It would assist in eliminating war.
I slept on the issue regarding whether or not one should allow homosexuals to lodge in one’s B&B and had a discussion with someone this morning. I have concluded that if I am happy to allow heterosexual couples living together, adulterers, idolators, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, swindlers, extortioners, revilers, slanderers, liars, the abusive etc (that is almost everybody) to lodge in my B&B, I will have to apply the same rule for homosexuals. Homosexuals ought not to be singled out. In God’s eyes, no one person is better than another.
Just want to explain that I am the writer of both 5:19 on 8.8.15 and 1.54 on 9.8.15. Goes to show that it takes time to think through these issues. Not everyone has necessarily finalised his/her views on such issues.
It’s always good to talk things through. And good to accept people can change their minds.
The biggest division among Christians is between those who think they posses the truth and those who are trying to find it.For me all certainty is a denial of faith. Many years ago a man called Geddes Macgregor expressed it very well in a book entitled “Christian Doubt”. My Christian faith is about Living with Questions and not about knowing the answers. We are all like Abrahan going out “Not knowing whither he went”. For me that is the essence of faith. It is a hard path just because there are no certainties – only sign posts..