Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[Publisher]

Publisher you and CMatt claim I didn’t read what you wrote. Rather than write two posts repeating myself, I must just point out that you both dodge the essential question. Are two lives involved or is one life involved when a woman terminates a pregnancy?

Will you please answer?

I believe you are both sincere in saying were you female you would not abort your child. But that is a specious and pointless and frankly silly argument. If pigs could fly we should all wear wide brimmed hats.

I believe that the decision to abort, in some cases IS difficult. But sadly because of the attitude that aborting is “a choice” or as you constantly refer to it “free will” and because it is so easily to access, so antiseptic, and so free of societal guilt, quite honestly for a lot of women it is birth control. Look at the statistics for multiple abortions.

As Elizabeth said, the time to counsel is BEFORE the woman engages in sexual activity because there is always the chance of conceiving. Once she conceives there are in fact three lives involved, the mother, the father and most importantly the baby.

It is not exercising free will to murder a born child is it? Why Publisher do you distinguish between the two situations?

I suspect that I won’t get answers to my actual questions, instead just more airy language about choices and freedom and God’s grace.

Lisa

You’re are correct…I won’t be answering your questions as I’m sure I will get more of the same less than charitable responses from you…and accusations…and dare I say “insults”…such responses which ential ad hominem remarks don’t really bring about a discussion…so you are correct, I won’t be responding.

Peace to you friend.

 

[LisaA]

You’re are correct…I won’t be answering your questions as I’m sure I will get more of the same less than charitable responses from you…and accusations…and dare I say “insults”…such responses which ential ad hominem remarks don’t really bring about a discussion…so you are correct, I won’t be responding.

Peace to you friend.

Not sure what insult you have imagined from the question: Are two lives involved or just one?

I think it’s obvious by your posts that you think only one of the lives matters, that of the woman who has the opportunity to exercise “free will” and experience God’s grace after taking the life of her unborn child.

I think CMatt believes two lives are involved but has posited the theory that the lives do not have equal rights, that the right of the woman “over her body” is paramount.

The reality is that no one has a good answer to justify abortion so they always punt at the end.

Lisa

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again our society has made sex and the related consequences such a minor issue that the man can feel free to leave the scene or if he’s feeling especially generous offer to pay for the abortion. It is a really unfortunate consequence of the 60s I think and has been a lose/lose result for all involved.

And it’s win/win/win for the sperm donor:

Free sex, no social or financial or practical consequences for his pleasure
Escape from decision-making and anonymity for him. (Privacy for him, public visibility for her)
The privilege of pretense to heroism by wringing his hands over “the difficult decision” she “has to make.”

Women, why do you keep allowing your men such unearned & illegitimate privileges? Such martyrdom for a non-husband is just weird.

 

[LisaA]

And it’s win/win/win for the sperm donor:

Free sex, no social or financial or practical consequences for his pleasure
Escape from decision-making and anonymity for him. (Privacy for him, public visibility for her)
The privilege of pretense to heroism by wringing his hands over “the difficult decision” she “has to make.”

Women, why do you keep allowing your men such unearned & illegitimate privileges? Such martyrdom for a non-husband is just weird.

Excellent point. One of my favorite Rabbis is always questioning how “women’s liberation” which spawned the free love, free sex, no strings attached, has benefitted women. He says given man’s nature, it’s a dream come true for the males who do not wish to take on responsibility. I particularly appreciatedy your comment about how men can turn a hideous situation into an opportunity to “be compassionate and helpful” as they completely abdicate responsibility to both the woman and their unborn child.

To bring this back to the thread, liberal Christian denominations that support “freedom” terminate pregnancy play the same role…sympathetic about the difficult decision, focus on the mother and the potential impact on her life in contrast to the actual words of Christ regarding protection of “the little ones.” It’s an interesting interpretation of Scripture isn’t it?

Lisa

 

[gmcbroom]

Or one could argue that Liberal Christianity doesn’t need to be saved. The issues brought up here for the past couple of pages seem to be polarized around same sex marriage and abortion. These are contentious subjects that really don’t belong in this thread due to there polarizing nature. There are people with Pro Life and Pro Choice views in every faith. So the real question is are we going to be side tracked by those two elephants in the room or are we going to focus on Liberal Theology. I hope the later not the former as it may be interesting to learn more about that unorthodox group.

Peace be with you

 

[Contarini]

Or one could argue that Liberal Christianity doesn’t need to be saved. The issues brought up here for the past couple of pages seem to be polarized around same sex marriage and abortion. These are contentious subjects that really don’t belong in this thread due to there polarizing nature. There are people with Pro Life and Pro Choice views in every faith. So the real question is are we going to be side tracked by those two elephants in the room or are we going to focus on Liberal Theology. I hope the later not the former as it may be interesting to learn more about that unorthodox group.

Peace be with you

There’s a reason why the thread has come to focus on these issues. In the article that kicked off the thread, Ross Douthat identified liberalism with a concern for social justice. This was challenged by a British Baptist theologian who argued that what really distinguished liberalism was its understanding of the primacy of experience, in response to modern challenges to the traditional concept of divine revelation. But these two things come together, because a distinguishing feature of contemporary society (as opposed to traditional Western culture) is its radical egalitarianism, particularly with regard to issues of gender and sexuality. Liberal Christians are very slow to conclude that the apparent teachings of Scripture and Tradition constitute adequate grounds for challenging this cultural consensus. They are very attuned to the danger of accepting ancient cultural norms as if they were divine revelation, and very poorly attuned (it seems to me, though liberals differ) to the opposite danger.

Hence, questions of gender and sexuality (and abortion is related to gender and sexuality–liberals are unwilling to consider the claim that personhood begins before birth because in their eyes this claim takes away from the full humanity of women and derives from a male desire to control women and punish them for their sexuality) are among the main points where liberalism today clashes with orthodox Christianity.

The other points of conflict have to do with Christian claims about the miraculous, questions of the historicity of Scripture, the relationship of science and faith, etc. But the dominant cultural concerns among liberal Christians these days tend to be about liberation versus oppression and the mandate (which they understand to be a Gospel mandate) to identify with the marginalized and excluded; these other, more “traditional” issues are still present, but are matters of relatively less pressing concern.

The major exception would be the relationship of Christianity to other religions, because, again, this issue has to do with exclusion and marginalization.

Edwin

 

[CMatt25]

Not sure what insult you have imagined from the question: Are two lives involved or just one?

I think it’s obvious by your posts that you think only one of the lives matters, that of the woman who has the opportunity to exercise “free will” and experience God’s grace after taking the life of her unborn child.

I think CMatt believes two lives are involved but has posited the theory that the lives do not have equal rights, that the right of the woman “over her body” is paramount.

The reality is that no one has a good answer to justify abortion so they always punt at the end.

Lisa

Lisa, no one has punted and I have seen neither Publisher nor I trying to justify abortion. And you wonder why Publisher won’t continue answering you? That’s what you don’t seem to get. We are justifying a woman’s right to choose and to do with her body as she determines. Not what Publisher or I determine. Nor what you or the Catholic Church or any other individual or faith community who is anti choice forces on her. You just don’t appear to get the points if you have read what either I or Publisher have written. Just because you don’t agree with the answer does not mean any one has punted or does not have a good answer.

Publisher very clearly has spoken of the sacredness of life along with God’s sacred gift of free will. He specifically made it clear he was not saying it was sacred to terminate a pregnancy. Even in the very heartwrenching personal stories he shared, he said he was there for his dear sister even if he might not have agreed with her decision. But it was her choice to make in regard to her body. Not his. Not mine. Not yours Lisa. You can decide in regard to your own body. You have free will on this matter as well.

Now here you say you think I believe in 2 lives but I give more credence to the rights of the woman. I’m actually ok with that. And by saying that I surmise you meant you give more rights or all the rights to the embryo/fetus. (Yes I know you call an embryo at the moment of conception a baby) Anyway there in lies part of the problem and gray area Lisa. No one including yourself has found a way to grant equal rights to both. If the right to choose is granted lets say for the first trimester and you want no choice whatsoever from the moment of conception, either the woman or the embryo is not going to have equal rights.

And there we are now back to square one. Society striving to determine legal rights and a law of the land in regard to this one of a kind issue. It is an issue like none other. Life is complicated with many gray areas and this world, Lisa, is not perfect. Far from it. Not everyone is going to be pleased with everything on this earth or with every law in a society of plural beliefs.

Our arguments are not pointless or silly as you stated in another post. And then you started talking about pigs flying. And at that point I realized Publisher is correct. It is pointless to respond to you further. It will solve nothing. So I too make this my last response to you on this thread with regard to the issue. There is no punt Lisa. Your game is just over.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, no one has punted and I have seen neither Publisher nor I trying to justify abortion. And you wonder why Publisher won’t continue answering you? That’s what you don’t seem to get. We are justifying a woman’s right to choose and to do with her body as she determines. .

Sorry but you are not very convincing. You say you justify a woman’s “right to choose” but you have never said by what authority (Scripture? Tradition? Science?) you believe she has that right. This nebulous and vague theory just hopes no one asks the question. The Bible says “Choose life” but these women choose death. Why? Because they can; thanks to Roe and other laws allowing this legal carnage.

But even the most ardent abortion supporter would not think a woman has a right to murder a baby or a handicapped child once he or she are born. So the real issue is that you and other pro abortion rights advocates have to dehumanize the unborn baby to justify your position.

Publisher very clearly has spoken of the sacredness of life along with God’s sacred gift of free will. He specifically made it clear he was not saying it was sacred to terminate a pregnancy. Even in the very heartwrenching personal stories he shared, he said he was there for his dear sister even if he might not have agreed with her decision. But it was her choice to make in regard to her body. Not his. Not mine. Not yours Lisa. You can decide in regard to your own body. You have free will on this matter as well…

Strawman alert! No one said Publisher thought it was “sacred” to help his sister abort her child. So forget that specious claim. Again you have elevated “free choice” or “free will” to godlike proportions. There is no other area of life where “free will” allows us to violate other laws of God is there? Is it “free will” to murder those outside the womb if they are an inconvenience? Is it free will to commit adultery? After all these people are doing with their bodies what they wish.

Your argument continues to fail because it is totally inconsistent and has no basis other than dismissal of unborn human beings as human beings.

Now here you say you think I believe in 2 lives but I give more credence to the rights of the woman. I’m actually ok with that. And by saying that I surmise you meant you give more rights or all the rights to the embryo/fetus. (Yes I know you call an embryo at the moment of conception a baby) Anyway there in lies part of the problem and gray area Lisa. No one including yourself has found a way to grant equal rights to both. If the right to choose is granted lets say for the first trimester and you want no choice whatsoever from the moment of conception, either the woman or the embryo is not going to have equal rights.
.

Incorrect as well as totally non-sensical. I do not give the unborn baby MORE rights but she has EQUAL rights to life. In your world the unborn baby has zero rights and the woman 100%. Carrying a pregnancy to term is not going to kill the mother (in the vast majority of cases so don’t pull out some obscure statistica about maternal death). So the mother can maintain both her life and that of the baby. Abortion on the other hand does result in the death of the baby.

There is simply no equivalence here CMatt. Yes the woman may be inconvenienced, she may have physical pain, she may have to make some kind of sacrifice. But at the end of the pregnancy she isn’t dead and neither is the baby.

And there we are now back to square one. Society striving to determine legal rights and a law of the land in regard to this one of a kind issue. It is an issue like none other. Life is complicated with many gray areas and this world, Lisa, is not perfect. Far from it. Not everyone is going to be pleased with everything on this earth or with every law in a society of plural beliefs.

Our arguments are not pointless or silly as you stated in another post. And then you started talking about pigs flying. And at that point I realized Publisher is correct. It is pointless to respond to you further. It will solve nothing. So I too make this my last response to you on this thread with regard to the issue. There is no punt Lisa. Your game is just over.

Gosh another non-sensical argument. There is nothing ‘gray’ about life and death. Gray is deciding what to wear, not whether to kill someone.

I really hope you think about your position and at what point does an unborn baby deserve the protection of those who thankfully made it into the outside world?

Lisa

 

[CMatt25]

But the dominant cultural concerns among liberal Christians these days tend to be about liberation versus oppression and the mandate (which they understand to be a Gospel mandate) to identify with the marginalized and excluded; these other, more “traditional” issues are still present, but are matters of relatively less pressing concern.

Because this makes sense to me is a reason why mainline - liberal Christianity is attractive to me.

 

[CopticChristian]

Lisa, no one has punted and I have seen neither Publisher nor I trying to justify abortion. And you wonder why Publisher won’t continue answering you? That’s what you don’t seem to get. We are justifying a woman’s right to choose and to do with her body as she determines. Not what Publisher or I determine. Nor what you or the Catholic Church or any other individual or faith community who is anti choice forces on her. You just don’t appear to get the points if you have read what either I or Publisher have written. Just because you don’t agree with the answer does not mean any one has punted or does not have a good answer.

Publisher very clearly has spoken of the sacredness of life along with God’s sacred gift of free will. He specifically made it clear he was not saying it was sacred to terminate a pregnancy. Even in the very heartwrenching personal stories he shared, he said he was there for his dear sister even if he might not have agreed with her decision. But it was her choice to make in regard to her body. Not his. Not mine. Not yours Lisa. You can decide in regard to your own body. You have free will on this matter as well.

Now here you say you think I believe in 2 lives but I give more credence to the rights of the woman. I’m actually ok with that. And by saying that I surmise you meant you give more rights or all the rights to the embryo/fetus. (Yes I know you call an embryo at the moment of conception a baby) Anyway there in lies part of the problem and gray area Lisa. No one including yourself has found a way to grant equal rights to both. If the right to choose is granted lets say for the first trimester and you want no choice whatsoever from the moment of conception, either the woman or the embryo is not going to have equal rights.

And there we are now back to square one. Society striving to determine legal rights and a law of the land in regard to this one of a kind issue. It is an issue like none other. Life is complicated with many gray areas and this world, Lisa, is not perfect. Far from it. Not everyone is going to be pleased with everything on this earth or with every law in a society of plural beliefs.

Our arguments are not pointless or silly as you stated in another post. And then you started talking about pigs flying. And at that point I realized Publisher is correct. It is pointless to respond to you further. It will solve nothing. So I too make this my last response to you on this thread with regard to the issue. There is no punt Lisa. Your game is just over.

Matt,

I understand all you write, your position, however for me…leaving a decision for what I determine in my paradigm to be “murder” just is not accpetable. You agree with the right to choose… this equates with me the right to murder…do you accept this?

 

[kbwall]

Why would we want any individuals to be excluded from His truth? Christ placed importance on the single sheep being returned. It’s seems to me that there is an importance of having a ‘flock’ come back. In all things, love…

Saving liberal Christians is different from saving liberal Christianity.

“Saving liberal Christianity” doesn’t even make sense. One might as well save cancer.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Saving liberal Christians is different from saving liberal Christianity.

“Saving liberal Christianity” doesn’t even make sense. One might as well save cancer.

kbwall, some of us would be happy with a non-mercurial definition of “liberal Christianity” – you know, something that its apparent cheerleaders could commit to. After that we could frame an opinion about whether such a creature is worth saving.

 

[dzheremi]

While I do not believe in making abortion or any other single issue a sort of litmus test of the Christian faith, it is really important to look at the early church to see what was (and is, and ought to be) the stance of the Apostolic Churches in line with that of their forefathers. When we do that, it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that abortion is wrong and criminal in the eyes of the people of God. As our father St. Basil the Great wrote in his letter to Amphilochius (4th century):

The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. With us there is no nice enquiry as to its being formed or unformed. In this case it is not only the being about to be born who is vindicated, but the woman in her attack upon herself; because in most cases women who make such attempts die. The destruction of the embryo is an additional crime, a second murder, at all events if we regard it as done with intent. The punishment, however, of these women should not be for life, but for the term of ten years. . . . Women also who administer drugs to cause abortion, as well as those who take poisons to destroy unborn children, are murderesses. (source)

I find the phrasing “enquiry [sic] as to its being formed or unformed” to be very interesting. It seems to show the antiquity and irrelevance of the “but fetuses aren’t people” argument which is central to the framing of abortion as a personal/civil rights issue. I suppose there is nothing truly new under the sun. I hope that we will spend more time seeking after the wisdom of the Fathers than arguing with one another over those things they settled hundreds upon hundreds of years ago.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I hope that we will spend more time seeking after the wisdom of the Fathers than arguing with one another over those things they settled hundreds upon hundreds of years ago.

But didn’t you know, dzheremi, that the wisdom of the Fathers is just so, you know, irrelevant and passe? Even religion must change with the times!

(Of course, the nature of that change, the objects of change, and the reason for any change seem to need no rationale to those whose underlying religion seems best described as, Whatever society tells us we should believe.)

 

[fred_conty]

I personally do not believe in “liberal” or “traditional” but only what the church teaches.
If the church teaches that a same sex marriage is to be rejected, then it is to be rejected.
Now it is up to the same sex individuals whether they will abide or not abide.

As Jesus sent his disciples off to towns to announce the good news, he said to those that accept them that is where they stay, and if rejected, to shake the dust off their feet and move on.

Then he gave warning of the consequences to those that rejected them.

I believe Jesus was right, what do you think?

 

[pangaious]

I agree with JRKH. IMHO being so quick to judge only makes those we want to educate close their ears tighter. We also forget that those same conservative christian evangelicals we side with and sound like so much in this thread are the same ones:confused that we also want to educate about the issues and dogmas that they differ with us. Are we going to educate them with the assault of negatives we’ve seen here?

 

[Elizabeth502]

What is a Catholic-comma-Buddhist?

(I’m wondering if you are a baptized Catholic who is now instead practicing Buddhism.)

 

[pangaious]

I can be mistaken, but I believe that no one really addressed the issues raised in the book and only cringed at the mention of the name Spong and went on another direction from there. Apparently some of the issues in the book might have been addressed indirectly this way, but, for the most part, unconciously, since most probably did not read the book.

 

[pangaious]

Elizabeth, I’m no Thomas Merton by any stretch of the imagination, but he cooperated with Buddhist monks and they learned from each other. I’m assuming that you know Merton. However, if you do not, he was a Trappist monk, a contemplative. He was also a scholar and a mystic. Mysticism sometimes can transcend religions. So, Christian mysticism can and has more in common with its Buddhist counterpart than Christianity and Buddhism have with each other. The Sufis, a branch of Islam, as you might well know, also have much in common with Eastern Thought as well and have gotten in trouble for it.
To answer your query more directly, it is usually elements of Buddhism that we use to enhance our Christianity and these do not contradict it. If it does, then we do not use it.
In regards to what is “a Catholic, comma, Buddhist”, it is just the way it comes out after one answers the initial questionnaire and chooses more than one religion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, I’m no Thomas Merton by any stretch of the imagination,

I am extremely well acquainted with Thomas Merton and read most of his books some time ago. It’s also in my posting history on this forum. He was a Catholic, not a Buddhist. His later interest in some similarities between some forms of Christian prayer and Buddhism did not overtake his Catholicism. He did not convert to Buddhism.

To answer your query more directly, it is usually elements of Buddhism that we use to enhance our Christianity and these do not contradict it. If it does, then we do not use it.

Who is “we?” Are there two people registered under your user name?

In regards to what is “a Catholic, comma, Buddhist”, it is just the way it comes out after one answers the initial questionnaire

There’s a CAF “questionnaire?” Funny, I never filled one out. Is that a new requirement in registering?

and chooses more than one religion.

A person cannot genuinely affiliate with more than one religion. One is either a Buddhist or a Catholic.