Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[benjohnson]

It goes against reason to believe that a man and a man can be joined together to form one flesh. It defies logic, moral order, Scripture, Tradition, etc.
The argument is faulty from the get go.

I’m probably not paying attention, but no-one here seems to be arguing anything contrary to this. What I think Edwin is articulating is valuable.

Here’s how I would normally argue with “liberal”

Me: Stop being so darn tolerant that you think two males is the same as my family.
Them: But… Bob and Joe are so nice. The only thing wrong with them is their sex. So you’re just being mean and trying to deny them something you have.

Not that I’ve digested Edwin’s message:

Me: I know you have good friends that are gay, and they lead an otherwise good life, but it’s not the same as marriage. Call it something else, but don’t try to make it something it’s not by it’s very definition. You’re not doing them, or me, any good.
Them: Hmm…

 

[jam070406]

Grace & Peace!

Debating that was not Edwin’s point–nor was it mine. I don’t know that Edwin would disagree with you re: homosexual sex.

Unhappily for the both of us, however, you have proved my point.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

What point? Am I intolerant because I distinguish between right and wrong?

 

[jam070406]

I’m probably not paying attention, but no-one here seems to be arguing anything contrary to this. What I think Edwin is articulating is valuable.

Here’s how I would normally argue with “liberal”

Me: Stop being so darn tolerant that you think two males is the same as my family.
Them: But… Bob and Joe are so nice. The only thing wrong with them is their sex. So you’re just being mean and trying to deny them something you have.

Not that I’ve digested Edwin’s message:

Me: I know you have good friends that are gay, and they lead an otherwise good life, but it’s not the same as marriage. Call it something else, but don’t try to make it something it’s not by it’s very definition. You’re not doing them, or me, any good.
Them: Hmm…

If I missed where Edwin said that Episcopalians marrying gays, no matter their faulty logic, is wrong then I apologize.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

What point?

It’s fine. It doesn’t matter. It’s done.

Am I intolerant because I distinguish between right and wrong?

Of course not. No one said you were.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Look, the point I’ve been trying to make throughout is that liberals are not just arguing on the basis of tolerance.

They are arguing on the basis of qualities in homosexual relationships that everyone would normally recognize as good and holy.

Now if you want to argue that these qualities are somehow no longer good and holy when found in a homosexual relationship, that’s really a separate argument. (Elizabeth was right about me in the sense that I do get distracted easily). As I’ve indicated, I don’t think that’s a reasonable response, and I don’t think Catholic teaching requires you to say this. But even if you do say this, the point remains that liberals don’t think this way. They start at the “other end,” as it were. They start from qualities that everyone would recognize as good if they were abstracted from the homosexual relationship in which they were found.

And that’s simply not the same thing as just invoking “tolerance” in a blanket way.

Edwin

Edwin,

Then I am stuck with this…

Why not say–as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say–“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.

What do I do with that?

 

[LisaA]

Nor did I purport to do so.

I called you out on your blatantly unjust claim that Episcopalians have no norms except tolerance.

Edwin you keeping beating on this same point so I finally went back and looked at the original post. Please re-read what was written and note the references to a) acceptance (tolerance, support for, pick the word you like best) of any sexual activities or sexual relationship and b) abortion as a woman’s right.

I speak the truth. This is exactly what is seen in TEC. It seems like an unending series of more and more liberal positions with respect to both clergy and various forms of sexual relationships. The latest expanding rights to transgendered to be clergy. In the documents you have provided and in my previous relationship with the local TEC Cathedral I have seen nothing that would restrict abortion.

So why should I apologize for stating what TEC believes, teaches and demonstrates even at the highest levels of their clergy?

** 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.”**

IOW I have seen nothing that indicates there is any negative association in your creed or catechism or church with respect to any sort of sexual expression or rights to abortion. Allowing homosexual “marriage” or expression, allowing abortion is expressing “love and tolerance” for such views.

Again tell me where TEC tries to stifle any lustful urges or sexual activities by pointing out the many Biblical references thereto? Where is the prohibition against abortion as a “woman’s right?”

Ironically it seems as if YOU disagree with TEC on the issue of homosexual relationships being elevated to the equivalence to marriage. So why do you demand an apology from me for pointing out this IS TEC’s position?

And no I’m not trying to obfuscate to avoid dealing with the serious issues related to the liberal churches. I am trying TO point out that its failure to address the nebulous foundation for these completely new “interpretations” makes TEC and other liberal denominations more and more irrelvant. If you want to hear “if it feels good do it” you don’t need to go to church…just watch a couple hours of TV.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

You haven’t been reading the various threads on marriage equality…the assertion is not necessarily made in this particular thread…so…not a “strawman”…but perhaps not tied to this thread.

As far a “abaondoning Scripture”…that too is inaccurate…no “liberal” Christian believes that scripture is being “abandoned”…it’s not understood the way YOU understand it…it is firmly beleived that “liberal” Christians ARE being faithful to scripture. Not everyon accepts your understanding of Natural Law…as a Friend scripture is very important to me…I know of no Friend who claims to have “abandoned” scripture…nor any UCC, MCC, TEC, or any other faith community who seeks to understand and embrace the gospel in our modern age with some of the complexities of experience not addressed specifically in scripture…but these complexities are sought to be understood within the context of how scripture is understood…no one has “abandoned” scripture.

Publisher a) I don’t think there is a “liberal” or “conservative” version of something like 'thou shalt not murder."

Natural Law does not have ‘versions.’ It is what it is. IOW no amount of tap dancing, interpretaton or meditation will allow two men to procreate. Therefore you cannot in any way claim that two men in a sexual relationship are equivalent to a man and woman. The latter were designed to be a pair, to procreate, to utilize their unique and complimentary natures. The former may have love for each other but by nature, cannot function as do a male and female in marriage.

I don’t know about Quaker theology but if they claim that Scripture supports homosexuality or the murder of unborn babies, they need to take another look. Most liberal faiths simply claim that certain passages of Scripture are outmoded, mired in the past or no longer applicable in today’s world…thus I claim they abandon Scripture.

Again you make grand claims that Scripture has not been abandoned but the prohibition against murder is relatively clear as are the references to homosexuality. Thus would you mind providing me with the Scriptural reference that would support homosexuality, abortion, etc? Those issues have been elevated in the liberal churches as to be almost a non-issue.

Lisa

 

[stewstew03]

Every heresy has legitimate concerns at its core, and the heresy is never defeated simply by being suppressed. It is defeated when the Church manages to recognize the legitimate concerns that prompted the heresy and incorporate them into orthodox teaching.

Edwin, I agree with a good portion of what you’re saying here (i.e, we should not misrepresent those whom we oppose), but do you have any examples of the above assertion?

Thanks!

 

[Publisher]

Publisher a) I don’t think there is a “liberal” or “conservative” version of something like 'thou shalt not murder."

Natural Law does not have ‘versions.’ It is what it is. IOW no amount of tap dancing, interpretaton or meditation will allow two men to procreate. Therefore you cannot in any way claim that two men in a sexual relationship are equivalent to a man and woman. The latter were designed to be a pair, to procreate, to utilize their unique and complimentary natures. The former may have love for each other but by nature, cannot function as do a male and female in marriage.

I don’t know about Quaker theology but if they claim that Scripture supports homosexuality or the murder of unborn babies, they need to take another look. Most liberal faiths simply claim that certain passages of Scripture are outmoded, mired in the past or no longer applicable in today’s world…thus I claim they abandon Scripture.

Again you make grand claims that Scripture has not been abandoned but the prohibition against murder is relatively clear as are the references to homosexuality. Thus would you mind providing me with the Scriptural reference that would support homosexuality, abortion, etc? Those issues have been elevated in the liberal churches as to be almost a non-issue.

Lisa

Friend Lisa, I’m not saying there are “different versions” of natural law…just your different understanding of it than mine…each of us may be difficient in understanding such “natural law”.

I do not have the “luxury” of claiming I must beleive what my religous community instructs me to believe…Friends must discover and implement how we follow the Light…that responsibility rests squarely on our shoulders as we seek to undertand the Mind and WIll of God corporately and individually.

Again…no one has made any of the claims you assert concerning Quaker beliefs…again…another caricature on your part. Seems to be a constant tactic to put one on the defensive…I have no need of defending myself against Catholic belief…or your belief…I accept the scriptues as a God inspired record of how others experienced God in their midst.

I beleive scripture teaches us to “work out our own salvation”…it is a terrible and awesome thing to do so. Each of us will stand before the Presence and give account of our lives…I stand square in the Light…as the old gospel song declares…“it is well with my soul.”…and where I fail…there is God’s astounding grace and mercy…and this grace and mercy is extended to all who seek Him with sincere heart…“I know whom I have beleived and am persuaded that he is able to keep what I have committed to him against that day.”

Peace to you friend.

 

[LisaA]

Friend Lisa, I’m not saying there are “different versions” of natural law…just your different understanding of it than mine…each of us may be difficient in understanding such “natural law”.

I do not have the “luxury” of claiming I must beleive what my religous community instructs me to believe…Friends must discover and implement how we follow the Light…that responsibility rests squarely on our shoulders as we seek to undertand the Mind and WIll of God corporately and individually.

Again…no one has made any of the claims you assert concerning Quaker beliefs…again…another caricature on your part. Seems to be a constant tactic to put one on the defensive…I have no need of defending myself against Catholic belief…or your belief…I accept the scriptues as a God inspired record of how others experienced God in their midst.

I beleive scripture teaches us to “work out our own salvation”…it is a terrible and awesome thing to do so. Each of us will stand before the Presence and give account of our lives…I stand square in the Light…as the old gospel song declares…“it is well with my soul.”…and where I fail…there is God’s astounding grace and mercy…and this grace and mercy is extended to all who seek Him with sincere heart…“I know whom I have beleived and am persuaded that he is able to keep what I have committed to him against that day.”

Peace to you friend.

Publisher, I said I DONT know about Quaker theology so I am hardly misinterpreting it. Since neither you nor CMatt or other liberals will provide any basis for their beliefs I give up trying to understand your point of view. What I’ve gotten from this discussion is that “Liberal Christians believe what they believe because they believe it.”

Kind of like a parody of that old Alice Cooper song…we don’t need no Scripture, we don’t need no Magisterium, we don’t need no thought control…preacher leave them kids alone!

I guess that works for you! Peace and enjoy your journey
Lisa

 

[stewstew03]

But even if you do say this, the point remains that liberals don’t think this way. They start at the “other end,” as it were. They start from qualities that everyone would recognize as good if they were abstracted from the homosexual relationship in which they were found.

This is a rather sunny view of liberals in general. Do liberals recognize “truth” as good? One would not think so based on the distorted propaganda that permeates the debate on same-sex marriage. Is Dan Cathy, for example, really homophobic and bigoted? Those words are thrown around too often. A homophobe is someone who “fears or hates” homosexuals or homosexuality. Can one be in favor of the traditional notion of marriage without being labeled as someone who fears or hates homosexuals? A bigot is one who is intolerant of other beliefs or opinions. Do we really need to use this label every time someone disagrees with the so-called “gay agenda”?

Clearly, the SSM debate has absolutely nothing to do with social justice, and has everything to do with “normalizing” abnormal behavior - and marginalizing those who hold traditional beliefs about marriage.

I love gay people and believe they should be treated with dignity and respect. But that does not mean that I have to give up my Christocentric beliefs about (1) homosexual behavior and (2) the institution of marriage.

Or does it?

 

[stewstew03]

Kind of like a parody of that old Alice Cooper song…we don’t need no Scripture, we don’t need no Magisterium, we don’t need no thought control…preacher leave them kids alone!

I thought that was Pink Floyd!?

 

[Publisher]

. Since neither you nor CMatt or other liberals will provide any basis for their beliefs I give up trying to understand your point of view. Lisa

Like I said…I’m in excellent company with CMatt.

Peace on your journey as well friend.

 

[LisaA]

I thought that was Pink Floyd!?

You are absolutely right! Mixing it up with “School’s Out.” Anyway the thought is the same. Appreciate your previous posts.

Lisa

 

[stewstew03]

You are absolutely right! Mixing it up with “School’s Out.” Anyway the thought is the same. Appreciate your previous posts.

Lisa

Thanks Lisa, likewise.

FYI - I started a separate thread here regarding the question I posed to another member (Contrarini), i.e., must we give up our Christocentric beliefs about (1) homosexual behavior and (2) the institution of marriage, or risk being castigated by the gay community…?

 

[Contarini]

Edwin you keeping beating on this same point so I finally went back and looked at the original post. Please re-read what was written and note the references to a) acceptance (tolerance, support for, pick the word you like best) of any sexual activities or sexual relationship

And I have shown that this is false. The dominant faction in the Episcopal Church defends sexual relationships in which certain qualities of goodness and holiness can be discerned. It does not accept all sexual relationships without qualification, and it is nothing but slander to say that it does.

I speak the truth. This is exactly what is seen in TEC.

No, it isn’t.

In the documents you have provided and in my previous relationship with the local TEC Cathedral I have seen nothing that would restrict abortion.

The Episcopal Church has made some statements that imply some limits on abortion, but you’re certainly right that the de facto stance is very strongly “pro-choice,” which is why I haven’t engaged that part of your claim. I have focused on your claim about sexual morality, which just isn’t true. There are all kinds of sexual relationships that are not approved of by the Episcopal Church.

So why should I apologize for stating what TEC believes, teaches and demonstrates even at the highest levels of their clergy?

You shouldn’t. But with regard to sexual morality you have done the opposite. You have entirely ignored the explicit statements in Episcopal documents speaking of criteria by which sexual relationships must be evaluated to determine if they are good and holy.

The clearest such statement is found in the document I cited a few posts ago, “To Set Our Hope On Christ,” sect. 2.25, citing Resolution DO39 of the 73rd General Convention: “The Episcopal Church has called all in relationships of sexual intimacy to the standard of life-long commitment ‘characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication’ and the ‘holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.’”

You said:

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

That is completely false in light of the statement I cited above.

IOW I have seen nothing that indicates there is any negative association in your creed or catechism or church with respect to any sort of sexual expression

Standards may be expressed positively as well as negatively. The passage I cited named a number of standards.

I await your apology.

Ironically it seems as if YOU disagree with TEC on the issue of homosexual relationships being elevated to the equivalence to marriage. So why do you demand an apology from me for pointing out this IS TEC’s position?

Because you didn’t just say that. You said that there were “no standards” other than tolerance. That just isn’t true. You can argue that the standards are inadequate, and I will agree. But when you said that you were none, you bore false witness.

Thank you for at least noticing that I have said in nearly every post that I did disagree with TEC. Some people still don’t seem to have gotten that message!

I know you aren’t deliberately speaking falsehood. It’s as if you and others on this thread just can’t see a meaningful difference between “no standards except tolerance” and "a number of standards which are good in themselves but are inadequate in terms of historic Christian moral teaching.

But there is a difference. And not only should this be recognized simply as a matter of telling the truth, but until you recognize it you will be severely handicapped in defending the orthodox position.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

Then I am stuck with this…

What do I do with that?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Well, a very vague idea, but not enough to respond meaningfully.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If I missed where Edwin said that Episcopalians marrying gays, no matter their faulty logic, is wrong then I apologize.

Well, technically the Episcopal Church still hasn’t approved of gay marriage. The new liturgy, recently approved on a provisional basis (and subject to the approval of local bishops, which my bishop as refused to give), does not use the word marriage but borrows many elements from the marriage liturgy. My priest, who like my bishop (and myself) disapproves of this development, thinks that the people who drew up the liturgy intend to to be in effect a marriage ceremony but just aren’t using the words. Still, words matter.

As to where I have expressed disapproval of the Episcopal Church’s stance and/or of liberal Christianity in this thread, it would be hard to find a post in which I have not done so. Counting a statement I made on abortion, and counting my references to the inadequacy and vagueness of the 1979 Catechism, I have expressed or implied such disapproval in posts 71, 75, 78, 82, 88, 89, 90, 94, 144, 146, 158, 161, and 163–that is to say, in practically every post in which I have addressed these issues. I thought I had done so, but I went back and checked each post to be sure. I was particularly vehement in post 163, the post to which you appeared to be responding and which you quoted in your “response.”

Didn’t you actually read it?

Edwin

 

[LisaA]

And I have shown that this is false. The dominant faction in the Episcopal Church defends sexual relationships in which certain qualities of **goodness and holiness can be discerned. It does not accept all sexual relationships without qualification, **and it is nothing but slander to say that it does.

The Episcopal Church has made some statements that imply some limits on abortion, but you’re certainly right that the de facto stance is very strongly “pro-choice,” which is why I haven’t engaged that part of your claim. I have focused on your claim about sexual morality, which just isn’t true. There are all kinds of sexual relationships that are not approved of by the Episcopal Church.

You shouldn’t. But with regard to sexual morality you have done the opposite. You have entirely ignored the explicit statements in **Episcopal documents speaking of criteria by which sexual relationships must be evaluated to determine if they are good and holy. **The clearest such statement is found in the document I cited a few posts ago, “To Set Our Hope On Christ,” sect. 2.25, citing Resolution DO39 of the 73rd General Convention: **“The Episcopal Church has called all in relationships of sexual intimacy to the standard of life-long commitment ‘characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication’ and the ‘holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.’”**You said:

I await your apology.

Because you didn’t just say that. You said that there were “no standards” other than tolerance. That just isn’t true.** You can argue that the standards are inadequate, and I will agree**. But when you said that you were none, you bore false witness.

Thank you for at least noticing that I have said in nearly every post that I did disagree with TEC. Some people still don’t seem to have gotten that message!

I know you aren’t deliberately speaking falsehood. It’s as if you and others on this thread just can’t see a meaningful difference between “no standards except tolerance” and "a number of standards which are good in themselves but are inadequate in terms of historic Christian moral teaching.

But there is a difference. And not only should this be recognized simply as a matter of telling the truth, but until you recognize it you will be severely handicapped in defending the orthodox position.

Edwin

Edwin OK I think I get your point. You are right, in saying there are no standards, I was using hyperbole rather than a literal truth.

That being said, it’s fine to point to these written standards, carefully crafted and not objectionable in themselves. But the standards still fail for two reasons:

They suggest TEC, its clergy or its members can JUDGE the relationship when the qualities discussed are among the most private and personal areas of a sexual relationship. When that relationships is a man/woman marriage there is at least the Biblical support, the tradition, the sacrament to give an outsider some evidence that the relationship is ordained by God, is intended and is holy.

When you start with a homosexual relationship none of those things are true. It is inherently disordered, based on a lie, opposed to natural law, unhealthy, non-procreative and clearly against Biblical commandments. So for TEC or its members to simply say we can accept these relationships as equivalent to man/woman marriage is going out on a very long theological limb on the theory that they can somehow determine that this particular homosexual relationship is “holy.” I bolded some of the pertinent passages and have to note that they elevated Gene Robinson when it appeared that few if any of those characteristices were exhibited by him in his life before and after coming out.

Now I don’t think you are any apologist for TEC’s position on this or on abortion. So yes there are standards but as you apparently agree, they are very very inadequate. I just have to wonder what is the collective conscious that initiated this incredible departure from Scripture and tradition in TEC and in other liberal mainline denominations. As i’ve said before, I spent a few years in the Methodist Church and I assure you John Wesley as well as his incredible mother are both spinning in their graves at what is happening in TMC these days…pro abortion, gay is in, gay is out, gay is in if single, gay can be “married.” It’s like watching a tennis match to observe the constant change within these churches. Build your house upon sand and watch what happens…

Lisa

 

[CopticChristian]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Well, a very vague idea, but not enough to respond meaningfully.

Edwin

Edwin,

Why not say–as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say–“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.

Homosexual acts are disordered and sinful whether it is 1 or 10000.

Homosexual relationships absent any sex walk a fine line once acts are performed in deed or in mind as to distinguish the two is contrary to Scripture, Tradition and Church teaching.

Homosexual relationships having acted are in danger of further acts and represent a near occasion of sin. It would be appropriate to say that the near occasion, the relationship is no longer of any good regardless of any good that is seen.