What constitutes liberalism?

If your heart belongs to Jesus, is this a bad thing?

 

Politically speaking: It's all perception. The term "Liberal" is a moving target, "liberal" is what you perceive it to be. JFK who said "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" and proved the value of massive tax cuts by giving them to us was called a "liberal" when he was here with us.

" I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." Sen. John F. Kennedy, acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination, September 14, 1960.

HankD

 

Actually, Hank, tax cuts are a politically conservative concept.

 

Stop it, massdak, I can't take any more! </font>[/QUOTE]Goodness, i've not heard that
on the Internet for 15-16 years.
Yes, i knew one who called them
"brain-falling-out liberals".

Still, we need to talk about "enemy identification".

 

Does it follow that if one is theologically or doctrinally conservative that they are necessarily politically conservative?

I worked with a fellow who claimed to be a staunch conservative and only voted Republican. Yet, he is a Roman Catholic. Some of their ‘pet’ issues are really not politically conservative, not to mention ‘strange’. He didn’t really note any conflict. I guess its like one poster noted, “Liberalism is in the eye of the beholder.”

 

Not necessarily. Jimmy Carter was theologically conservative (having even left his home church becaus they were too liberal), but he was politically liberal.

OTOH, I'm a moderately theological conservative, but my voting record has often shown me to be a more die hard political conservative. Still, I never base my vote on political party affiliation, but issues at hand.

 

There you go...following your own heart..er..issues again!

 

And the close mindedness of fundamentalism is to be close minded enough to leave no room for brains!


The way I have typically seen this work out is:

</font>

• Liberals--historical-critical approach to scripture and reject historic Christian doctrines (virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc.).</font>

</font>

• Moderates--historical-critical approach to scripture but retain historic Christian doctrines (virgin birth, deity of Christ, etc.).</font>

</font>

• Conservatives--historical-gramatical approach to the scriptures taking historic Christian doctrines as presuppositions.</font>

</font>

• Fundamentalists--literal approach to the scriptures taking historic Christian doctrines as presuppositions.</font>

Evangelicals can be found in the last three groups with a majority in the third (conservatives). The difference is not in the doctrines upheld, but based upon the their willingness to question their presuppositions about the scriptures.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

You made my point about perception. JFK was a liberal but look what he said and did...

HankD

 

I think that's called voting my conscience. My advice to everyone is to always vote your conscience. Unfortunately, there are too many people who want you to vote their conscience.

Vote your conscience, and not someone else's. Let the other person vote his conscience, and not yours.

 

I think that's called voting my conscience. My advice to everyone is to always vote your conscience. Unfortunately, there are too many people who want you to vote their conscience.

Vote your conscience, and not someone else's. Let the other person vote his conscience, and not yours. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen and Amen!!!

 

And if you don't vote their conscience (ie agree with them), they feel justified in calling you bad names and kickin' sand in your face!?

 

CraigbytheSea said about the "true liberal":

I have to disagree. I know many, many conservative evangelicals who are extremely well-read, know the Bible really well, know the original languages, can debate Biblical issues well, etc. I am thinking of professors at various conservative seminaries, students, well-read laypeople, people in ministry, etc.

In my experience, a theological liberal is one who believes the Bible "contains" the word of God but is not the world of God; usually denies the virgin birth and sometimes Christ's miracles; does not believe Satan is a real entity; and believes there are many ways to God. Some of these people are educated but many have read and agreed with people like Elaine Pagels or the Jesus Seminar people without studying the refutations to those attacks.

Now here's the sad part. In many Barna polls done of Christians identifying themselves as born-again believers we have these results:

 

Sorry, I forgot to give the source of the poll I quoted.

SOURCE

 

I would say the gradual erosion of Biblical doctrine within the conservative evanelical church is a result of allowing liberal thology into the church. I work for a Christian publishing company and I think the word that comes to mind to describe what is happening in the Christian publishing industry and within the church is "compromise". Christians are throwing out "absolute truth" in exchange for "open mindedness" and "compromise".

 

The problem, NP, is that even the term "liberal theology" is relative. Professing a non-flat earth or a non-geocentric universe was, at one time, considered liberal theology. Abandoning laws that require church attendence were once considered liberal theology. The abolitionist movement was, at one time, considered liberal theology. The Zionist movement was, at one time, considered liberal theology. Allowing women to vote and own property was, at one time, considered liberal theology. Not requiring the wearing of headcoverings for women is considered by some as liberal theology. Even in my own lifetime, I have seen natural selection (separate from evolution) once referred to as liberal theology. Many claim that allowing women to have professions is liberal theology. Heck, even KJVO's claim that "modern version" readers are guilty of liberal theology, and non KJVO's accuse the KJVO sect of liberal theology.

Heck, even if we discuss any form of baptism except for strict immersion, the liberal theology label gets ready to be applied.

 

You are right, this has been a debate throughout the history of the church. I would clarify my last statements by saying allowing liberal theology on dogmatic doctrines. Most of those you stated are not dogmatic, but personal opinions or personal convictions. I think the problem with the church today is that they have allowed liberal compromise on the "dogmatic doctrines".

Even then we will have the problem of who is to determine which doctrines are dogmatic and which are not.

 

That, of course, leads to what is considered a docmatic doctrine? Many people take interpretational issues as doctrinal (headcoverings and KJVOism are just two examples). And that simply ain't so.

Right now, many are insisting that any interpretation outside of an earth created in 4004bc is doctrinal. Many believe our current ban on women preachers is doctrinal. Many are arguing calvinism as doctrinal.

Obviously, the core doctrinal issues are issues such as Jesus as Son of God, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, etc. We baptists have our own core doctrines such as Believer's Baptism, Separation of Church and State, Local Autonomy, etc.

 

I try not to use the words "liberal" and "conservative" because they are so relative. Maybe compromise on the essential doctrines is a better way to say "liberal theology."

I assume by "dogmatic" you mean "essential historic Christian doctrine?" If we disagree on what the essential historic Christian doctrines are, then we do have a problem. I was taught that essential doctrines have to do with the nature of God, the nature of Christ, the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement completed on the cross, and salvation by grace through faith. Some add that to believe Jesus is the only way to God and that Jesus can only be known by His name (not under other names such as inclusivism) are also part of essential historical Biblical Christian faith.

 

There are some "liberal christians" who would say that what you and I consider to be "essential historic Christian doctrines" or "core doctrines" are not true. I have talked to some who deny the virgin birth, they deny that the Scriptures are inspired, they deny that there is only one way to heaven. Those who hold to these beliefs I would consider "liberal".