As time goes by, Christianity will probably become more and more uncomfortable for moderate to fundamental Christians. This is so for with every passing year, more and more passages in the bible will seem outdated and out of touch with modern thinking, in the light of new scientific discoveries and new social mores.
One example of this would be the way women are treated and viewed. On the whole, as time passes, women are given more and more respect and given higher and higher positions of authority, in keeping with the times.
The coping mechanism which kicks in would be to rationalise new doctrines, and to refine them, and to say, look here, this is what the bible really says, we've been getting it wrong all this while.
All this leads to internal confusion; thus you have people like Jimmy Carter leaving the SBC.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Agreed, because for moderate and fundamentalist Christians the scriptures are immovable and unchangeable. Liberals have the latitude to change by taking what they find to be valuable from the bible and disregarding other parts. I think it is ashame that "picking and choosing" has such negative connotations in the Christian world you and I came from.
Liberal Christianity sounds to me like pseudo-Christianity, i.e. not Christianity at all. It's almost like atheism, but retaining the traditional and nice aspects of Christianity like Christmas and Easter, I suppose. Sort of like a mushy organisation. Nothing bad about that, I suppose. I wouldn't know, I don't think I've ever experienced anything like that.
I think such liberal christian churches would vary according to the leadership and organisational style, since it's more or less independent of the Scriptures.
I used to feel that wasn't Christianity at all, but why not? It is not Christianity by the fundamentalists definition, but who says they get to make up the definition? They will say it is the traditional definition, "orthodox." I say, who cares? Get rid of the definition if it does no good. That said, I am not a liberal Christian. But I am working to divorce myself from the fundamentalist mindset that says there has to be a black and white definition like that.
It seems to me like you're either trying to convince yourself, or/and the general views of society, the people around you. More of the former, I take it.
As the bible says, it is hard for you to kick against the pricks.
But no harm trying, I suppose. Just hope it doesn't give you a headache. What would the point be, though?
Nope, not trying to convince myself, except that I want to be less fundamentalist personally. If anything, I want fundamentalists to know there is an alternative, in other words, they are not always right. Ultimately I am fairly apathetic about the beliefs themselves of liberal Christianity, but am not apathetic about the right fundamentalists claim to be able to declare what is right and wrong for other people.
"... I want to less fundamentalist personally." Still sounds like you're trying to change yourself, but I shall not belabour the point.
I hate to admit it, but the fundamentalist are basically right to take the bible very seriously, for without it, Christianity would not be theistic at all, but deistic. And that would not be Christianity at all. Christianity must be about Jesus Christ. And we know nothing of Him except for the bible.
I meant be less fundamentalist in general, not less fundamentalist Christian.
Post a Comment