Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[AbideWithMe]

Liberal Christianity isn’t all one thing. Some liberal Christians are heretical, even apostate, and I don’t condone that. But some are orthodox.

Yes.

 

[St_Francis]

People who follow Christ, even though some are making bigger mistakes than others, are seeking Him. No one has reached His perfection, not a single one of us here, yet we have hope to one day.
Those who are separated cannot be corrected. I think it is a mistake to make statements that can widen the divide that already exists. It’s the same as pushing them away. If pushed enough, deeper into their mistakes, they would have even a harder time seeing and accepting His truth.

As I mentioned before, I was replying to a post which seemed to me to be defending the existence of these liberal ecclesial communities which seem to be willing to accept just about anything at all.

And now people are not attracted to them; people are instead attracted to the more rigorous ecclesial communities, and to more formal and orthodox Catholic churches.

So why should we *insist *on “saving” these liberal communities when what we should be doing is spreading the *truth, *instead of their “everything is fine, everyone goes to Heaven, you’re OK, I’m OK” type of message?

My comment had nothing to do with pushing people away! The people are walking away from those types of places all on their own!

 

[CMatt25]

I know that last part (“In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase.”) isn’t entirely true.

My Episcopal parish, though small, has been growing steadily, from a 5 member house church 10 years ago to 150 members in a cool old historic church building, with an average age of 27. And this is in one of the most unchurched neighborhoods (Fremont) in one of the most unchurched cities (Seattle) in the US. We are “emerging” Anglo-Catholic with Benedictine influence. Liberal? I suppose, but still orthodox, not like Spong.

So while TEC may be declining overall, it’s very possible to buck the trend… and not even that hard, if you try.

Right. I said the same thing earlier about a small Episcopal church near me. Their priest has told me their Spanish lanquage service is already the heaviest attended but she’s kept track of the English language service for a good while now and the trend appears to be increased attendance at it as well. God bless and peace.

 

[triumphguy]

More…
nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinion/sunday/douthat-can-liberal-christianity-be-saved.html

An alternate point of view from a Franciscan Friar:
datinggod.org/2012/07/16/on-women-religious-how-i-continue-to-agree-and-disagree-with-ross-douthat/

Yet, there are things about Douthat’s particular take on current ecclesiastical and social situations that do not sit well with me. Some might be quick to label both of us as representative of different camps. Douthat, I imagine, would be categorized by some as “conservative” (whatever that means), while the same givers of names might want to categorize me as “liberal” (whatever that means). As much as it will inevitably upset all those quick to demarcate us and fit all people into their social or ecclesial taxonomy, I think he and I share more in common than what we don’t.

For example, I think his general thesis in the book Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics (2012), is for the most part correct. It is neither “too much” nor “too little” religion in the public square that is problematic, but so-called “bad religion,” or the heterodox expression of Christianity that many people for many different reasons advocate. The biggest problem is that most so-called “Christianities” (and it is plural) are simply not reflective of what the tradition actually professes, and instead is a fabrication created in the image and likeness of its adherent and not the Gospel.

But in this Sunday’s column, “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” Douthat makes some points with which I have to disagree. Without getting into the complexities of the Episcopal Church of the Anglican Communion, which Douthat spends most of his column discussing, I want to simply look at what he has to say about the Roman Catholic Church, especially concerning the women religious. Douthat writes:

Liberal commentators, meanwhile, consistently hail these forms of Christianity as a model for the future without reckoning with their decline. Few of the outraged critiques of the Vatican’s investigation of progressive nuns mentioned the fact that Rome had intervened because otherwise the orders in question were likely to disappear in a generation. Fewer still noted the consequences of this eclipse: Because progressive Catholicism has failed to inspire a new generation of sisters, Catholic hospitals across the country are passing into the hands of more bottom-line-focused administrators, with inevitable consequences for how they serve the poor.

But if liberals need to come to terms with these failures, religious conservatives should not be smug about them. The defining idea of liberal Christianity — that faith should spur social reform as well as personal conversion — has been an immensely positive force in our national life. No one should wish for its extinction, or for a world where Christianity becomes the exclusive property of the political right.

There are presuppositions held that necessarily shape Douthat’s perception and conclusions. One unnamed presupposition is that the reason communities of women religious aren’t attracting “a new generation of sisters” has to do with the vast majority of these committed and selfless women’s appropriation of so-called “progressive Catholicism.”

As one religious sister reminded me so eloquently not too long ago, the sisters who are frequently labeled “progressive” because they don’t wear the old habits and the like are actually the more “loyal to the magisterium” by virtue of their obedience to the call of both the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI. Over the last half-century women and men religious were called to return to their origins and foundations to be more true to their charism. What they discovered was that they were all usually founded (a) to do evangelical work and charitable service such as education, healthcare ministries, and the like; and (b) their habits were often the simple outfits of the working class or poor of their day. This last point is certainly true with my community, for example. Francis of Assisi would only have worn a tunic and hood of the cheapest cloth, just as the poor workers of his time would have, and tied a belt with a rope instead of expensive leather.

It is not “progressive Catholicism” (whatever that means) that is the culprit, if that is the correct word, for the decline in religious women and men in the United States. It is, instead, a number of very complex and subtle social, ecclesiastical and cultural factors that come together to create the conditions we see today.

Take for example the empowerment of women in our North American context in the last century. As one older sister said to me a few years ago, what young woman who wanted to be in a position of authority or professional competence would become a nun today? The point, odd as it may sound, is that this was at one point a major factor. In the 1940s, for example, if a young, intelligent, creative woman had something to contribute to the world and may not want to be a wife or homemaker, religious life afforded her an opportunity that society was by and large not yet willing to offer. Even in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, women religious were effectively CEOs and significant public figures that were running hospitals, schools, universities and other ministries.

However, in the intervening years, the social-ecclesial contexts have reversed. The opportunities are manifold for women in the workplace (albeit not yet where they should be in terms of gender equality and the like), whereas the motivation to apply those skills and energies to the Church has decreased.

Women who respond to the call to religious life today are not seeking the same things that some of their older sisters in community might have in some senses. Therefore, from a purely sociological vantage point, there is less of a drive to pursue that way of life, even if a young woman did feel called by the Holy Spirit to a life of community, prayer and ministry.

But I know many young woman (and men, for the matter) who do feel the call, the intuition, the drive to live in religious life and minister in the Church — what it is they are looking for, however, is not offered to them. There are concerns about the priorities of those who have a more public voice and face representing the Church and legitimate questions about how those priorities align with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is significant pain centering on issues of ministerial equality and the role that gender and sexual orientation factor into who can and cannot serve the People of God. There are reasons to be skeptical of the use of power and authority, something that affects every human structure, even the church.

I, for one, do not think that there will be a sudden boom in women religious, nor will I suddenly find myself accompanied by a boom of male religious or diocesan priests, anytime soon. And this is not because of the failure or success of “progressive Catholicism” as Douthat posits. I’m not entirely sure what all the reasons are, but I do know that the more exclusive a community becomes, the less it resembles the Church of Jesus Christ who welcomed all to the table, especially the sinner.

Douthat should stick to the original thesis of Bad Religion instead of the partisan ecclesiastical politics that eerily reflect his dreaded “too much” or “too little religion in the public square” binary. It’s not a matter of “progressive” or “conservative” Catholicism, but rather what it means to live according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The women religions I know, a bit older perhaps and a bit fewer in number than previous generations, are focused on their baptismal vocation to live the Gospel. Perhaps if the rest of us followed their example a little more closely, we wouldn’t be so concerned or fearful of a change in their numbers — we’d be taking care of others and doing what they’ve taught us to do by their lives.

 

[Contarini]

More…
nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinion/sunday/douthat-can-liberal-christianity-be-saved.html

I wrote a response to this on my blog, and would welcome comments.

 

[Contarini]

As I mentioned before, I was replying to a post which seemed to me to be defending the existence of these liberal ecclesial communities which seem to be willing to accept just about anything at all.

And now people are not attracted to them; people are instead attracted to the more rigorous ecclesial communities, and to more formal and orthodox Catholic churches.

So why should we *insist *on “saving” these liberal communities when what we should be doing is spreading the *truth, *instead of their “everything is fine, everyone goes to Heaven, you’re OK, I’m OK” type of message?

My comment had nothing to do with pushing people away! The people are walking away from those types of places all on their own!

I think Douthat identifies liberal Christianity with social concern, and sees this as a good thing. So by “saving” liberal Christianity I think he means “finding a way to continue the positive social emphasis of liberal Christianity without its doctrinal vacuity.”

Whether caring for the poor is really “liberal” has been challenged by a number of people, particularly by this British Baptist theologian.

But I think that’s what Douthat is after with the “saving” language.

The basic problem with his argument–as I pointed out in my blog post and as a number of liberal commentators have pointed out as well–is that it’s accusing liberalism of simply following cultural fads, while using the fact that it no longer seems culturally popular as an argument against it.

I think what is happening is that one kind of “oldline” liberalism is dying (and good riddance), and another, much more interesting and serious kind, is struggling to be born.

My fear, as a conservative (in the basic sense that I think the core of Christianity is creedal and we should uphold this creedal core uncompromisingly), is that conservatives will just become the new “mainline” with all the same corrupting effects.

Edwin

 

[cheese_sdc]

Why would we want to save it? Liberal Christianity has done more to destroy the Church than any outside influence ever has.

Let it die.

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to Mass, one a Conservative and the other a liberal. The Conservative stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—cafeteria Catholics, dissenters, adulterers—or even like this liberal. I read Church documents and don’t use ABC.’

“But the liberal stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’ “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

 

[Trebor135]

cheese_sdc–the analogy seems apt, but here’s the thing. Liberal Christianity doesn’t really focus on sin at all, except where intolerance toward others and indifference toward the environment are concerned. Those two things, rightly understood, constitute personal and societal flaws, respectively, that we must address. But most of the time the former is redefined from love of others as children of God to celebration of everything those children of God might wish to do.

Liberal Christianity inspires the attitude that we can be complacent about how we conduct our lives because God is loving. Conservative Christianity, on the other hand, instills the attitude that we must be vigilant about how we conduct our lives because God, while loving, is also just. Those who subscribe to liberal Christianity, therefore, are more likely to fit the profile of the Pharisee than the publicon–if they see nothing wrong with themselves, what is there to repent of?

 

[cheese_sdc]

cheese_sdc–the analogy seems apt, but here’s the thing. Liberal Christianity doesn’t really focus on sin at all, except where intolerance toward others and indifference toward the environment are concerned.

I know lots of “liberal” Christians that would disagree with you.

 

[Trebor135]

I know lots of “liberal” Christians that would disagree with you.

Great What other personal/societal flaws are they concerned about?

 

[LisaA]

I know lots of “liberal” Christians that would disagree with you.

I suspect Cheese refers to the public positions of these religions, not the statements or beliefs of individual members or pastors of these churches. I noticed you identify as U.U. which is IMO the personification of a liberal “church.” I put the phrase in quotes because as a CPA the definition of church in the IRS regs would clearly put UUs on the outside…no creed, no set of beliefs, no focus on a diety. I’m now a Catholic but was raised by atheists who were perfectly at home in the UU churches all their lives. So I am pretty familiar with the public face of this group. Sin doesn’t seem to be widely accepted or discussed. As Cheese noted, lots of talk about the enviornment, total acceptance of any sexual activities and abortion at will.

I see much of the same attitude in the Episcopal Church although they still are clearly a creedal and liturgical church. But there are literally no standards of behavior other than being “tolerant” of any kind of behavior, activity, sexual mores or lack thereof. Conveniently ignoring the multiple Biblical references to homosexuality, the sanctity of marriage, the love of children (even those in the womb!) they soldier on, focused only on “love” and “tolerance.”

Through the Episcopal Church I encountered James Wallis, one of the spokesmen for “social justice” in the church although I believe he is of a more Bible believing church. Watching him try to justify his fellow liberal pastors support for abortion was a tapdance that would have put Sammy Davis Jr to shame.

At any rate what’s the point? If there are no expectations, no standards, no models of how to live as a Christian why would you waste an hour every Sunday?

BTW Douthat is also hard on the conservative, evangelical churches that have been swept up in the prosperity gospel mania so he’s an equal opportunity critic.

Lisa

 

[Contarini]

But there are literally no standards of behavior other than being “tolerant” of any kind of behavior, activity, sexual mores or lack thereof.

That’s just obviously, objectively false, as this extract from our official Catechism shows quite easily.

Your use of the word “literally” just puts you even deeper into the hole.

You have borne false witness against your neighbor, and you owe all Episcopalians an apology. (I readily believe you have done so out of rashness and not out of deliberate malice, but it’s still a serious thing to do.)

No question that this is a pretty short and vague catechism compared to the Catholic one–I prefer (for all its difficulties) the more thorough and rigorous moral teaching of the Roman Communion. But your statement was simply false.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

More…
nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinion/sunday/douthat-can-liberal-christianity-be-saved.html

Just,

Liberal Christianity

Was Christ Liberal or Conservative?

Christ is, was, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow

Christianity is, was, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow

Liberal Christianity exists outside the norm of Christianity and its life and death are not related to life or death of Christianity.

Liberal Christianity was, is not the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

 

[LisaA]

That’s just obviously, objectively false, as this extract from our official Catechism shows quite easily.

Your use of the word “literally” just puts you even deeper into the hole.

You have borne false witness against your neighbor, and you owe all Episcopalians an apology. (I readily believe you have done so out of rashness and not out of deliberate malice, but it’s still a serious thing to do.)

No question that this is a pretty short and vague catechism compared to the Catholic one–I prefer (for all its difficulties) the more thorough and rigorous moral teaching of the Roman Communion. But your statement was simply false.

Edwin

Edwin you’re right I have no malice in my comments, only experience. I read your Catechism and quite honestly it’s very very nebulous. The devil is in the details and there aren’t any. They speak of love of all human persons as being in the image of God. OK what about unborn human persons?

What the E’s say sounds very nice but it doesn’t translate into anything definable. Where are the standards and expectations? How do you put this into practice? What is “love” as they define it? Is love putting scissors in the head of an unborn baby because the “love” of the mother is more important?

I totally lost respect for your church when they first elevated the divorced homosexual alcoholic Bishop (Gene Robinson I think was the name). I was very involved in an Episcopal Cathedral at the time and was horrifed because it was clear the important thing was not to find the best and most holy leader for your church but to be “courageous” and “tolerant” by conveniently ignoring this was a very very flawed man. It seems like P.C. is the new god. Your current Bishop Shori has been quoted doubting the divinity of Jesus and maybe she’s not all that sure there is a God.

I suppose I sound mean an intolerant but I see no guidance for your flock. The shepherd left the building long ago and the sheep are wandering. Please come back…

Lisa

 

[cheese_sdc]

I suspect Cheese refers to the public positions of these religions, not the statements or beliefs of individual members or pastors of these churches. I noticed you identify as U.U. which is IMO the personification of a liberal “church.”

Actually, I was thinking of when I was a Catholic, before I converted to the UU church. Broadly saying that “liberal” Catholics aren’t concerned with personal sin is a grave misrepresentation of them. And continuing to do so will only further alienate people from your Church.

Of course, I live in Louisiana, so I only have met progressives here. I can’t speak for all “progressive” Catholics.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin you’re right I have no malice in my comments, only experience. I read your Catechism and quite honestly it’s very very nebulous. The devil is in the details and there aren’t any.

I agree. But your statement was still erroneous. It’s nebulous but there’s plenty there that goes beyond “tolerance.”

They speak of love of all human persons as being in the image of God. OK what about unborn human persons?

You won’t get any disagreement from me on the hopeless inadequacy of the Episcopal Church’s stance (or lack thereof) on abortion.

I’m not a big fan of the 1979 Catechism. But that doesn’t make your original statement true. It wasn’t true and I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge the fact.

What the E’s say sounds very nice but it doesn’t translate into anything definable.

Again, it’s still more than just talking about “tolerance.”

I disagree that there are no clear practical implications.

Your current Bishop Shori has been quoted doubting the divinity of Jesus and maybe she’s not all that sure there is a God.

She’s been quoted out of context to make her appear to say a lot of things she didn’t say.

I have strong disagreements with her, but there have been a lot of malicious and unjust things said about her. I try to treat her the same way I wish liberal Catholics would treat Pope Benedict (well, not quite, because she clearly doesn’t have the kind of authority he does, but I mean in terms of charitable construction of her words and actions).

Anglicanism is very local. My bishop is someone I deeply respect. I do not intend to go on being Episcopalian should I move to a new location, and I am trying to work up the guts (after years of indecision) to seek full communion with the Catholic Church even under present circumstances, while still trying to find ways to maintain a relationship with my brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church.

Edwin

 

[Trebor135]

Actually, I was thinking of when I was a Catholic, before I converted to the UU church. Broadly saying that “liberal” Catholics aren’t concerned with personal sin is a grave misrepresentation of them. And continuing to do so will only further alienate people from your Church.

Of course, I live in Louisiana, so I only have met progressives here. I can’t speak for all “progressive” Catholics.

OK, how would you define “liberal” or “progressive” Catholics? What personal sins are they concerned about?

 

[Trebor135]

That’s just obviously, objectively false, as this extract from our official Catechism shows quite easily.

What do

VI To show respect for the life God has given us; to work and pray for peace; to bear no malice, prejudice, or hatred in our hearts; and to be kind to all the creatures of God

and

VII To use our bodily desires as God intended

really mean if abortion and homosexuality are openly or tacitly accepted?

You later acknowledge,

No question that this is a pretty short and vague catechism compared to the Catholic one–I prefer (for all its difficulties) the more thorough and rigorous moral teaching of the Roman Communion. But your statement was simply false.

But standards that one cannot pin down (i.e., in particular and important cases) are hardly standards at all.

 

[Contarini]

What do
VI To show respect for the life God has given us; to work and pray for peace; to bear no malice, prejudice, or hatred in our hearts; and to be kind to all the creatures of Godand
VII To use our bodily desires as God intendedreally mean if abortion and homosexuality are openly or tacitly accepted?

They mean quite a bit, because they set the parameters for the debate.

Lisa claimed that we have no standards except tolerance. Trying to find out how God intended us to use our bodily desires, and then being obligated to follow those intentions, is a very different standard than “tolerance.”

Proponents of abortion and homosexuality have the task of showing how these practices conform with the standards set forth. I agree entirely that this is inadequate. All I’m saying is that Lisa’s characterization was false. Tolerance isn’t even mentioned per se in this text.

I’m arguing a very specific point, and you guys are trying to get me to defend the 1979 Catechism as a whole, which I’m disinclined to do (not because I particularly disagree with what it says, but because as you point out it doesn’t say anywhere near enough).

But standards that one cannot pin down are hardly standards at all.

I don’t think that’s true. Vague standards have value, because they lay out the criteria that one must meet, even if they don’t dictate just how they are to be met.

Pro-gay folks can’t just argue that we should be tolerant of gays–they must, as per the Catechism, address the question of what God intends.

Edwin

 

[LisaA]

Actually, I was thinking of when I was a Catholic, before I converted to the UU church. Broadly saying that “liberal” Catholics aren’t concerned with personal sin is a grave misrepresentation of them. And continuing to do so will only further alienate people from your Church.

Of course, I live in Louisiana, so I only have met progressives here. I can’t speak for all “progressive” Catholics.

I have no idea what you are talking about in reference to “liberal Catholics.” I was speaking of the liberal mainline churches such as Episcopalian, UCC, Unitarian etc not the Catholic Church. Further I said this in reference to what you hear from the pulpit, not a concern with PERSONAL sin.

From my experience, from my reading, from hearing the same of friend who were or still are members of these churches, they rarely speak of sin, commandments, covenants or anything God might expect OF us in our life here on earth. Instead the focus seems to be on “tolerance” and “love” and such nebulous topics. When I was a Methodist (on my way to becoming Catholic) I remembered thinking that about half the service was taken up with announcements and socializing rather than hearing the Word.

I don’t mean that we should be subjected to an hour of fire and brimstone but this disconnect from Biblical teachings seems a bit odd for a church. We don’t anyone to have their feelings hurt…

Lisa