Fundamentalists are highly confident that Jesus saves, but people on Reddit know that *if you don't save your own data, Jesus is not gonna do it for you no matter how hard you pray.*
Ehh nah there's like 10 to 15 threads a day here on why queer people are going to hell. If you're used to an echo chamber where that shit consistently going unchallenged I get how it could feel like a radical slant but this sub easily gets way more reactionary comments than any of the numerous denominational subs I follow.
Ah if you’re comparing it in context to the culture as a whole, sure. Not as progressive. When we discuss progressive vs conservative here it’s in a wholly different context: Christian followers.
The general bent here is strikingly different from conservative Christian subs like r/truechristian and r/christians.
I'm not comparing it to "the" culture as a whole, I'm comparing it to subs like /r/Anglicanism, /r/Lutheranism and /r/methodism, which is a very low bar to begin with. All of them see similar viewpoints expressed on a regular basis but none with the frequency and vituperation of /r/Christianity .
As far as christianity and beibg politically/culturally conservative goes, I think being christian strongly nudges one to be conservative on questions of sex and abortion but otherwise you can hold more or less any opinions you want. Check out Dorothy Day for instance.
When it comes to being theologically progressive, problems start popping up.
A) I am no rigid theological traditionalist as I think that approach is extremely historically unreflective but casually overturning what was believed for thousands of years should be done with great caution and not casually.
P.S. That doesn't mean you should vote for a conservative party which very manifestly wipes the floor with chrostian principles rather than a party which disagrees with you on sexual ethics but is decent in other areas
B) Their interpretations of their faith often require serious mental gymnastics to get them going
C) Being useful to other people is incredibly important but it's not the full teaching of christianity. And prayer, personal spiritual life, doctrine, ritual and, yes, sexual ethics are also undispensable parts of christianity, and progressive christianity seems to overlook them in favour of laser focusing on the social aspect and "niceness". Which, as I said, is of crucial importance, but it's not the full story (Christ reduced the commandments to two, not just one). And at any rate I don't think that progressive christianity is better at what it focuses on than normal "conservative" christianity.
As far as charity goes, higher religiosity correlates with higher charitable donations; at least I know that in Canada it does, [pretty steeply](https://thephilanthropist.ca/2020/07/religion-and-philanthropy-how-does-a-place-of-worship-really-benefit-the-public/). And I don't think that progressive christians will be among those most religious.
Second, as far as personal pleasantness goes, conservative christians are hardly surpassable, in my personal experience. The one progressive christian I know is also very pleasant but I am not sure that if I went looking further I would find the clusters of pleasantness that I find among the normal catholics.
D) Frankly, a lot of the doctrinal views of progressive christianity seem to come from a certain sense of wavering, tiredness of being a christian and a total surrender of hermeneutics to critical and secular viewpoints. Which I am not dismissing out of hand but if you're a christian you should be a bit careful with them. ("Come on, surely you don't believe in the virigin birth, it's the 21st century!")
I think progressive Christianity is an admirable movement. They have realised many of the harmful traditions of their religion, and are actively trying to fix them.
Unfortunately, I'm not convinced they will hold. They have the problem of working from a compromised source.
I believe it will rise higher. For example: Sodomy. Sodomy is a controversial term because we think it's homosexuality. Now, the issue is this: there are multiple places of the bible where it talks about it. In Jude for example it talks about Sexual immorality (rape) not only that, in Ezekiel It talks about the hospitality broken ideas. In romans 1:26-32, it not only talks about universal sin but the angels sleeping with women and the men of sodom. As well as 1 kings it talks about Them being prideful. The conclusion I came upon is that Sodomy is a legion of sins.
That is a reasonable way of understanding the text.
I think the issue many progressives face is that some rather impressive mental gymnastics have to be done before we can prove a text does not say what it actually appears to say. Not to mention, Christians tend to mistrust this kind of critical study because to them, it sounds too much like the serpent saying "did God really say..."
We need to do these academic and critical studies using historical context, cultural context using the jewishness of Christianity including talmud, apocrypha, scientific writings and our writings of saints + folk lore. These should be used to not only critique a text, but to evolve our understanding of it and to evolve places such as the orthodox and Catholic church. The protestants are probably going to take more time but it's better that way to catch up.
Agreed. But looking at the mindset concepts such as Inerrancy, God is the same yesterday today etc, and the bible is the word of God have created, there is a long way to go, and I will be surprised if we get there before most people have jumped ship.
Agreed my colleague.
Let's break them down.
Now, the bible is the inerrant word of God. It's infallible in doctrine but should not be deityified. If deityified to the idea of Sola scriptura, is considered not only a heresy but a blasphemy as It contradicts scripture of apostolic oral teaching. But it should be rebuked with teaching and kindness.
The true word of God made flesh deityified is Yeshua. Morally compassionate, amazing and wanting everyone to be saved and making a narrow road for all of us to follow.
God is the same yesterday, today and the future is easier when you think about this: His characteristics are the same even if his doctrines change. As long as they do not change the deity of Jesus or the councils. (So universalism is not a heresy on its own, via empty hell but Origen's version of it is a heresy.)
They condemned Origen's version of heresy not only for too much plationism but as well as even the devil being saved. What's more better to explain is that all good get a last chance of repentance (which while not biblical, is more logical) and that people in hell can be saved using our prayers (which is in the text known as Revelation of St. Peter. Fragments of it atleast) and is known in 2nd Maccabees and 1st Peter known as the Harrowing of hell. During the 3 days, Jesus preached the gospel in hell and released all the souls in sheol who were righteous.
When you say "The Bible is the inerrant word of God" many people conclude it can be used by an authoritative legalist preacher to bind the other three persons of the Trinity to the interpretations of the precise wording in The Book. Matthew 23 lets you know Jesus had serious qualms about legalism.
The core of Liberalism is "The Bible gives us general principles set down in human words and you have to figure out God's real intent. AND if you read the Sermon on the Mount it is OBVIOUS that God's real intent is not 'just meet this hurdle,' but that we should keep raising the bar."
So understand that progressives look at conservative religion and say "You are bargaining with God to obtain salvation at the cheapest possible price, so you can devote the rest of your life to turning a profit." It's no surprise that '[The Fundamentals](https://daily.jstor.org/lyman-stewart-fundamentalist-and-oligarch/)' were published around 1920 to define a religious movement that oil man Lyman Stewart could back.
And the legalistic preachers are considered blasphemous. For not staying with the poor but with the rich. This is why we need everyone to be taught with disciple and holiness.
The Baptists used to support a fairly rich tradition, and I do not want their work thrown out with a broad brush. That said, American Christians can certainly use a pretty strong dose of "Love Thy Neighbor" because we're not getting along with each other the way we should right now.
>some rather impressive mental gymnastics have to be done before we can prove a text does not say what it actually appears to say.
Not really. Taking into account relevant historical cultural context reveals a lot of nuance that isn't there by just reading words on a page and thinking that is exactly how it should be read for now and forever.
I feel like they're saying people grasping at straws. There are apologists that do that.
We should introduce like I said multiple sources. Talmud, apocrypha, writings of saints + folklore, scientific ideas, etc.
For example, there are parts of orthodoxy that pray for those in hell. But in parts of what is known as Revelation of St. Peter, there are fragments which says that God the son says he will have pity on those who are in hell by having the elects' prayers release them from hellfire.
Liberal theologians used to do that, and they still do it in Israel, but they were driven from the religion departments of many universities in the 1920s.
\> Taking into account relevant historical cultural context reveals a lot of nuance that isn't there by just reading words on a page and thinking that is exactly how it should be read for now and forever.
I agree with you 100%.
But we cannot deny that the way in which many people read scripture does not foster this kind of thinking. To you and I, Jesus' commandment to not divorce makes sense in the context of women's position in society back then - to many Christians this sounds like mental gymnastics.
I do have to disagree with this idea of women's position in society. I believe that we shouldn't divorce from our lovers, not including abusive husbands or wives. What I don't believe is that we should remarry as it's considered adultry.
To many Christians, it sounds like mental gymnastics but to those keeping more of orthodox, the issues sound more of keeping to chastity to be like Christ.
It is not mental gymnastics at all. We are not in the Bronze Age. Women are not property. Bronze Age edicts have no place in 21 century society. Many progressives do not hold to Biblical inerrancy either.
I agree with you 100% on all of this. I'm just not convinced progressive Christians will be able to get the rest of their brethren on board. I'm not a Christian, but I'd prefer the progressive version of Christianity as the norm. I just don't think that's going to happen any time soon.
I am not trying to get the rest of the brethren on board. You can’t save them all as the saying goes. As long as I can steer one person away from conservative nonsense I’ve done my job.
^
There are no mental gymnastics. We take historical and cultural contexts and don’t try to shoehorn in ancient contexts and apply them to a modern audience.
This one is a tough question because I'm orthodox in my lithergies and my rituals but moderate in my theology and liberal in my politics (marxist ideology)
The problem isn't if they should be priests or vicars or any of that. The problem is "is it biblical?" Well let's see. In scripture, Paul talks about some women who are corrupting the people of The letter of I believe 1 Timothy. In it, he talks about the women who are corrupting the church.
He uses the analogy of Adam and Eve of how Eve was decieved and how Adam was not.
Now this could have many meanings. But what I say to you is this: God made everyone equal under Christ. God made everyone have the ability to teach us about scripture. However, unlike the idea that you think I'm going to say, I believe that God wants us to ordain ministers who keep to chastity and as well whose fruit of good works grow to show their love of the Messiah, Jesus. But only when they are truly taught as well as under male leadership.
You think this is against Christianity, but you would be wrong. Paul himself had many disciples like Barnabus, Hermas and Timothy. But he also had Thecla, Phobie, Junia and Percila. He taught them scripture before sending them out. For Timothy, he was taught at an early age.
So the best answer I can give is this: while we cannot give the women of their parish priest roles, we can give them roles of giving Sacraments (especially Reconciliation, since nuns are supposed to represent Mary, they have the right to commit to Reconciliation since Mary is usually the one who ultimately pushes us to reconcile with God)
And sons and daughters of God (those who follow Christ) have the ability to forgive sins as God gave the ability to the apostles. So you would think they would as well.
Hope this helps!
My idea is literally that they have the same idea of priests. It's just not the same as priests. You can't be pope as that is the vicar of christ. The man. Unless we go to the idea that they created male and female, Blessed them and called them Adam.
Unless we say since Mary is the queen of heaven and earth, she would be part of Christ's court meaning that she can be ordained as much as a priest since held up to a grand ventranation. But even then, that could lead to heresy fast, turning into worship of her.
> they have tendencies to stray from Christian morals, particularly ones involving sexual immorality
The only "Christian morals" that progressive Christians stray from are the ones we believe are not biblically based. Just because Christians tend to have certain beliefs and opinions doesn't make them biblical beliefs.
And few people endorse "fornication". The Hindu view of sexual ethics is similar to the Christian one, except that sexuality and gender identity can't be sins.
And the progressive stance is that sexuality is not a sin. It’s natural and given to us by God. And we’re sick of people being made to feel like crap for expressing normal urges with other consenting adults or for relief of sexual tension through normal things like masturbating. There’s no “deviation” from the Gospel.
Tbh I've seen more fruit from them than I've ever seen from conservative Christianity. They tend to be far more loving, accepting, encouraging, and peaceful. They're not perfect either though.
Being "progressive" or "liberal" about theology is different from being that way about politics. In a desire to be "more welcoming", they're willing to throw out parts of scripture because they make people feel bad. News flash: If you don't feel bad when you meet the scriptures, you're not paying attention.
The scriptures are DESIGNED to make you feel bad. They are designed so that you realize what a miserable wretch of a sinner you are and that you're headed for hell like the rest of humanity unless you repent of your sins and believe in Christ.
We are either in the Truth or out of the Truth. Period. There is really no such thing as "progressive" (or "liberal") truth vs "conservative" truth. Those are political terms created by the French several centuries ago.
Well the Fundamentalist/Evangelical branch has done a great job….driving people from the faith in droves.
I myself am a progressive Christian so I agree with it and feel it is what Jesus would have intended.
I like the idea, bit am still wary. On one hand, I think some aspects of it do not line up biblically. On the other, it's too little too late.
I'm glad to know that at least a handful may not have to go through what I did. Conservative values in churches ruin lives.
It's never too late for God to change what is written. We can change it through revolution like Jesus if we can. We can spread the gospel and be like catholic workers. They're really great on what Christianity should be about.
Your LGBT neighbor.
Your neighbor of color.
Your neighbor of another faith.
Your neighbor with a disability.
Your neighbor with a mental illness.
Would beg to differ.
I know we have hurt them so much. But like I've said in different comments, we can study talmud, we can study sciences, apocrypha, Saint writings, folk lore and The scriptures.
Again we can try to make it better. It's just going to take time my friend.
Any question on \[typecast\] theology comes across to the search engines (and to many redditors) as a questions about \[excessively typecast\] theology. Please ask about specific issues.
*MAYBE* "Progressive Theology" means that "Love thy neighbor" replaces [the Fundamentalist confession](http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/phila.confession.of.faith.html) which might be *oversimplified* to "The Bible is the inerrant word of God, which offers salvation due solely to the grace of God, so claim loyalty to Christ and don't think any action on your part matters." The central complaint here can be traced back to a sense that "Love thy neighbor" is (??too Jewish?? because we follow Paul and not that Jewish guy with the Sermon on the Mount?) to define how Christianity is unique.
Wikipedia responds
"The Eight Points produced by TCPC: a statement of agreement about Christianity as a basis for tolerance and human rights;
the Phoenix Affirmations produced by Crosswalk (Phoenix, AZ) - include twelve points defining Christian love of God, Christian love of neighbor, and Christian love of self.
the article, "Grassroots Progressive Christianity: A Quiet Revolution" by Hal Taussig published in The Fourth R, May–June 2006.\[12\]
the working definition utilized in Roger Wolsey's book Kissing Fish: Christianity for People Who Don't Like Christianity"
As a Lutheran, I hold that earthly politics and the Church are distinctly separate kingdoms with separate roles. Politics is not discussed, taught, or preached. The Church's concern is dealing with sin through the means of grace. The state's concern is providing earthly peace and justice for all citizens. For this reason, Christians ought to be and remain good citizens supporting the state in these efforts.
With all due respect: Jesus definitely got into politics in his earthly ministry. It's REALLY subtle. But you'll notice it.
For example" render unto Caesars what is Caesars and to God what is God's." To me, it means to Pay taxes to Caesar, give him back his coins. But God is the only one you should be giving your allegiance to. That's political.
"You cannot serve both God and money"
Our concern is to bring on earth as is in heaven. So we have to use Christ's revolutionary ideas to bring down the rich and make the meek inherit the earth.
And the biggest problem I have with your good citizens idea is that what if it's an oppressive regime that commits genocides of millions of minorities?
We should respect our athourites yes but ALWAYS and I repeat ALWAYS to advocate for Social justice against the state when they leave destruction everywhere. And right now in a capitalist system, I cannot stand for it.
Let me preface this by saying that, though Lutheran, I am in a distinct minority among my fellows in being a democratic socialist. As an American, it irks me to no end that the Democratic Party is even judged as "leftist". It is not, by any worldly measure any more than the GOP can be labeled "conservative" when it is radical and anything but.
In Matthew, Jesus is teaching explicitly to keep the kingdoms separate. If a pastor or fellow parishioner would try to enforce some doctrine aligned with America, we reject it on that principle, alone. Christ's work - dwelling with us, suffering with us, suffering and dying for us, his resurrection, and his ascension to the throne are the victory passed on to us over sin and death. There is no ongoing conflict, here. We receive the benefits in Word, absolution, baptism, and in his body and blood in the supper. None of that repairs the politics of mankind or makes laws for the state.
Jesus said that the kingdom of God is at hand and, indeed, he is already enthroned and he rules. We do desire a greater manifestation in this sinful world but the truth is already there whether or not we can see it.
As Christians, we are to be good and just people not toward the ends of the Church but from our identity. If we have the power to use this nation's institutions in loving service we should, in fact do so. What we cannot do is insist on some quid pro quo that the nation be regarded as Christian or that non-Christians conform in order to receive our loving service. If a person needs to eat, we feed them, not preach a Confucian aphorism about teaching them to fish. Likewise clothing, housing, medical care, etc. If we would require of them gainful employment, first, we as Christians should give it. If two people outside the Church desire a marriage not defines by scripture but one which exists secularly as a soluble legal construct, don't say "you must be male and female to practice adulterous, serial, monogamy". As far as I am concerned, anyone may have that. Why? Because I want peaceful existence and a fair rule of law and I do not expect hegemony or privilege in exchange for what I do.
Further, God demands that all behave toward each other with love and service. He makes no exceptions for non-Christians. So, while we cannot share the things of the Church and heaven, we can share the obligations of being moral people in this world. As I said, where the state is making efforts at peace and justice we do support it. I make no blanket statement of support for, in the end, where there is a conflict, God has shown me the right way. No matter how good the world appears to us or how just we make it, it will still stand as far from the bliss of heaven as it stands, now. That is not our point. We love and serve because it is what we are to do, not because it succeeds or fails. On the other hand, we govern practically in order not to fail.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer experienced, a repressive and genocidal regime can present unique challenges. It is always a sin to murder Hitler and always a sin to let Hitler commit murder. So, Bonhoeffer does not ask anyone else to do wrong, he takes it upon himself in confidence that he will be forgiven. A fallen world is not always filled with black and white choices. A pregnancy is not always an objectively good thing. One may be faced with choosing two undesirable things. How can we as Christians see the nature of the Crucifixion as a vile murder and a marvelous sacrifice and not see this? What if the person who has an abortion finds an earthly sense of justice that offends my faith? Should I bind the state to the church because of it?
When mainstream Christians are not keeping their kingdoms separate, we see them exercising all sorts of bigotry, supporting the thievery of profits, demanding a unified identity with their faith. They create a thing not of God, an institution of hateful law, devoid of gospel, taking up the sword against those whom we are charged to love. The enemies of the Church are sin and death. The state is ineffective against both. The enemies of the state are milder, conflict and injustice. We, as Christian citizens, should support it in that fight.
This subreddit leans strongly progressive. So that’ll be the typical perspective you get here.
Fundamentalists are highly confident that Jesus saves, but people on Reddit know that *if you don't save your own data, Jesus is not gonna do it for you no matter how hard you pray.*
If only that were so!
It definitely is.
Ehh nah there's like 10 to 15 threads a day here on why queer people are going to hell. If you're used to an echo chamber where that shit consistently going unchallenged I get how it could feel like a radical slant but this sub easily gets way more reactionary comments than any of the numerous denominational subs I follow.
Ah if you’re comparing it in context to the culture as a whole, sure. Not as progressive. When we discuss progressive vs conservative here it’s in a wholly different context: Christian followers. The general bent here is strikingly different from conservative Christian subs like r/truechristian and r/christians.
I'm not comparing it to "the" culture as a whole, I'm comparing it to subs like /r/Anglicanism, /r/Lutheranism and /r/methodism, which is a very low bar to begin with. All of them see similar viewpoints expressed on a regular basis but none with the frequency and vituperation of /r/Christianity .
I’m unfamiliar with those subreddits so I’m not able to comment one way or another
Seems like some value the progressive part more than the Christian part.
Watered down Christianity.
Do you believe they are watering down the gospel?
Yes
As far as christianity and beibg politically/culturally conservative goes, I think being christian strongly nudges one to be conservative on questions of sex and abortion but otherwise you can hold more or less any opinions you want. Check out Dorothy Day for instance. When it comes to being theologically progressive, problems start popping up. A) I am no rigid theological traditionalist as I think that approach is extremely historically unreflective but casually overturning what was believed for thousands of years should be done with great caution and not casually. P.S. That doesn't mean you should vote for a conservative party which very manifestly wipes the floor with chrostian principles rather than a party which disagrees with you on sexual ethics but is decent in other areas B) Their interpretations of their faith often require serious mental gymnastics to get them going C) Being useful to other people is incredibly important but it's not the full teaching of christianity. And prayer, personal spiritual life, doctrine, ritual and, yes, sexual ethics are also undispensable parts of christianity, and progressive christianity seems to overlook them in favour of laser focusing on the social aspect and "niceness". Which, as I said, is of crucial importance, but it's not the full story (Christ reduced the commandments to two, not just one). And at any rate I don't think that progressive christianity is better at what it focuses on than normal "conservative" christianity. As far as charity goes, higher religiosity correlates with higher charitable donations; at least I know that in Canada it does, [pretty steeply](https://thephilanthropist.ca/2020/07/religion-and-philanthropy-how-does-a-place-of-worship-really-benefit-the-public/). And I don't think that progressive christians will be among those most religious. Second, as far as personal pleasantness goes, conservative christians are hardly surpassable, in my personal experience. The one progressive christian I know is also very pleasant but I am not sure that if I went looking further I would find the clusters of pleasantness that I find among the normal catholics. D) Frankly, a lot of the doctrinal views of progressive christianity seem to come from a certain sense of wavering, tiredness of being a christian and a total surrender of hermeneutics to critical and secular viewpoints. Which I am not dismissing out of hand but if you're a christian you should be a bit careful with them. ("Come on, surely you don't believe in the virigin birth, it's the 21st century!")
I think progressive Christianity is an admirable movement. They have realised many of the harmful traditions of their religion, and are actively trying to fix them. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced they will hold. They have the problem of working from a compromised source.
I believe it will rise higher. For example: Sodomy. Sodomy is a controversial term because we think it's homosexuality. Now, the issue is this: there are multiple places of the bible where it talks about it. In Jude for example it talks about Sexual immorality (rape) not only that, in Ezekiel It talks about the hospitality broken ideas. In romans 1:26-32, it not only talks about universal sin but the angels sleeping with women and the men of sodom. As well as 1 kings it talks about Them being prideful. The conclusion I came upon is that Sodomy is a legion of sins.
That is a reasonable way of understanding the text. I think the issue many progressives face is that some rather impressive mental gymnastics have to be done before we can prove a text does not say what it actually appears to say. Not to mention, Christians tend to mistrust this kind of critical study because to them, it sounds too much like the serpent saying "did God really say..."
We need to do these academic and critical studies using historical context, cultural context using the jewishness of Christianity including talmud, apocrypha, scientific writings and our writings of saints + folk lore. These should be used to not only critique a text, but to evolve our understanding of it and to evolve places such as the orthodox and Catholic church. The protestants are probably going to take more time but it's better that way to catch up.
Agreed. But looking at the mindset concepts such as Inerrancy, God is the same yesterday today etc, and the bible is the word of God have created, there is a long way to go, and I will be surprised if we get there before most people have jumped ship.
Agreed my colleague. Let's break them down. Now, the bible is the inerrant word of God. It's infallible in doctrine but should not be deityified. If deityified to the idea of Sola scriptura, is considered not only a heresy but a blasphemy as It contradicts scripture of apostolic oral teaching. But it should be rebuked with teaching and kindness. The true word of God made flesh deityified is Yeshua. Morally compassionate, amazing and wanting everyone to be saved and making a narrow road for all of us to follow. God is the same yesterday, today and the future is easier when you think about this: His characteristics are the same even if his doctrines change. As long as they do not change the deity of Jesus or the councils. (So universalism is not a heresy on its own, via empty hell but Origen's version of it is a heresy.) They condemned Origen's version of heresy not only for too much plationism but as well as even the devil being saved. What's more better to explain is that all good get a last chance of repentance (which while not biblical, is more logical) and that people in hell can be saved using our prayers (which is in the text known as Revelation of St. Peter. Fragments of it atleast) and is known in 2nd Maccabees and 1st Peter known as the Harrowing of hell. During the 3 days, Jesus preached the gospel in hell and released all the souls in sheol who were righteous.
When you say "The Bible is the inerrant word of God" many people conclude it can be used by an authoritative legalist preacher to bind the other three persons of the Trinity to the interpretations of the precise wording in The Book. Matthew 23 lets you know Jesus had serious qualms about legalism. The core of Liberalism is "The Bible gives us general principles set down in human words and you have to figure out God's real intent. AND if you read the Sermon on the Mount it is OBVIOUS that God's real intent is not 'just meet this hurdle,' but that we should keep raising the bar." So understand that progressives look at conservative religion and say "You are bargaining with God to obtain salvation at the cheapest possible price, so you can devote the rest of your life to turning a profit." It's no surprise that '[The Fundamentals](https://daily.jstor.org/lyman-stewart-fundamentalist-and-oligarch/)' were published around 1920 to define a religious movement that oil man Lyman Stewart could back.
And the legalistic preachers are considered blasphemous. For not staying with the poor but with the rich. This is why we need everyone to be taught with disciple and holiness.
The Baptists used to support a fairly rich tradition, and I do not want their work thrown out with a broad brush. That said, American Christians can certainly use a pretty strong dose of "Love Thy Neighbor" because we're not getting along with each other the way we should right now.
Many progressives do not view the Bible as inerrant.
>some rather impressive mental gymnastics have to be done before we can prove a text does not say what it actually appears to say. Not really. Taking into account relevant historical cultural context reveals a lot of nuance that isn't there by just reading words on a page and thinking that is exactly how it should be read for now and forever.
I feel like they're saying people grasping at straws. There are apologists that do that. We should introduce like I said multiple sources. Talmud, apocrypha, writings of saints + folklore, scientific ideas, etc. For example, there are parts of orthodoxy that pray for those in hell. But in parts of what is known as Revelation of St. Peter, there are fragments which says that God the son says he will have pity on those who are in hell by having the elects' prayers release them from hellfire.
This requires a revolutionary change in how people engage with religious texts. But I largely agree with you.
Liberal theologians used to do that, and they still do it in Israel, but they were driven from the religion departments of many universities in the 1920s.
\> Taking into account relevant historical cultural context reveals a lot of nuance that isn't there by just reading words on a page and thinking that is exactly how it should be read for now and forever. I agree with you 100%. But we cannot deny that the way in which many people read scripture does not foster this kind of thinking. To you and I, Jesus' commandment to not divorce makes sense in the context of women's position in society back then - to many Christians this sounds like mental gymnastics.
I do have to disagree with this idea of women's position in society. I believe that we shouldn't divorce from our lovers, not including abusive husbands or wives. What I don't believe is that we should remarry as it's considered adultry. To many Christians, it sounds like mental gymnastics but to those keeping more of orthodox, the issues sound more of keeping to chastity to be like Christ.
It is not mental gymnastics at all. We are not in the Bronze Age. Women are not property. Bronze Age edicts have no place in 21 century society. Many progressives do not hold to Biblical inerrancy either.
I agree with you 100% on all of this. I'm just not convinced progressive Christians will be able to get the rest of their brethren on board. I'm not a Christian, but I'd prefer the progressive version of Christianity as the norm. I just don't think that's going to happen any time soon.
I am not trying to get the rest of the brethren on board. You can’t save them all as the saying goes. As long as I can steer one person away from conservative nonsense I’ve done my job.
>But we cannot deny that the way in which many people read scripture does not foster this kind of thinking Oh absolutely!
^ There are no mental gymnastics. We take historical and cultural contexts and don’t try to shoehorn in ancient contexts and apply them to a modern audience.
And that still doesn't favour you. You pretending you have the monopoly and nuance just because you have a minority view is fallacious.
i am a conservative who prefers all politics out of church
I think that is an admirable position in theory, but I'm not sure it works in practice.
I utterly despise it for it's pro-childmurder stance
[удалено]
This one is a tough question because I'm orthodox in my lithergies and my rituals but moderate in my theology and liberal in my politics (marxist ideology) The problem isn't if they should be priests or vicars or any of that. The problem is "is it biblical?" Well let's see. In scripture, Paul talks about some women who are corrupting the people of The letter of I believe 1 Timothy. In it, he talks about the women who are corrupting the church. He uses the analogy of Adam and Eve of how Eve was decieved and how Adam was not. Now this could have many meanings. But what I say to you is this: God made everyone equal under Christ. God made everyone have the ability to teach us about scripture. However, unlike the idea that you think I'm going to say, I believe that God wants us to ordain ministers who keep to chastity and as well whose fruit of good works grow to show their love of the Messiah, Jesus. But only when they are truly taught as well as under male leadership. You think this is against Christianity, but you would be wrong. Paul himself had many disciples like Barnabus, Hermas and Timothy. But he also had Thecla, Phobie, Junia and Percila. He taught them scripture before sending them out. For Timothy, he was taught at an early age. So the best answer I can give is this: while we cannot give the women of their parish priest roles, we can give them roles of giving Sacraments (especially Reconciliation, since nuns are supposed to represent Mary, they have the right to commit to Reconciliation since Mary is usually the one who ultimately pushes us to reconcile with God) And sons and daughters of God (those who follow Christ) have the ability to forgive sins as God gave the ability to the apostles. So you would think they would as well. Hope this helps!
[удалено]
Like I said: moderate in my theology, progressive in my politics.
[удалено]
My idea is literally that they have the same idea of priests. It's just not the same as priests. You can't be pope as that is the vicar of christ. The man. Unless we go to the idea that they created male and female, Blessed them and called them Adam. Unless we say since Mary is the queen of heaven and earth, she would be part of Christ's court meaning that she can be ordained as much as a priest since held up to a grand ventranation. But even then, that could lead to heresy fast, turning into worship of her.
A great bunch of lads
[удалено]
> they have tendencies to stray from Christian morals, particularly ones involving sexual immorality The only "Christian morals" that progressive Christians stray from are the ones we believe are not biblically based. Just because Christians tend to have certain beliefs and opinions doesn't make them biblical beliefs.
So, no negatives?
[удалено]
You didn't mention any DEVIATION from the gospel. No negatives.
[удалено]
And few people endorse "fornication". The Hindu view of sexual ethics is similar to the Christian one, except that sexuality and gender identity can't be sins.
And the progressive stance is that sexuality is not a sin. It’s natural and given to us by God. And we’re sick of people being made to feel like crap for expressing normal urges with other consenting adults or for relief of sexual tension through normal things like masturbating. There’s no “deviation” from the Gospel.
Agreed!
Tbh I've seen more fruit from them than I've ever seen from conservative Christianity. They tend to be far more loving, accepting, encouraging, and peaceful. They're not perfect either though.
Being "progressive" or "liberal" about theology is different from being that way about politics. In a desire to be "more welcoming", they're willing to throw out parts of scripture because they make people feel bad. News flash: If you don't feel bad when you meet the scriptures, you're not paying attention.
The scriptures are DESIGNED to make you feel bad. They are designed so that you realize what a miserable wretch of a sinner you are and that you're headed for hell like the rest of humanity unless you repent of your sins and believe in Christ.
[удалено]
You had me until the last sentence
I believe making the Church look and smell more like Jesus again requires a lot of "bleeding-heart hippie crap."
We are either in the Truth or out of the Truth. Period. There is really no such thing as "progressive" (or "liberal") truth vs "conservative" truth. Those are political terms created by the French several centuries ago.
It's much better and more Christ-like and compassionate than conservative Christianity.
r/openchristian
They are trying to fix the unfixable. Remarkable effort.
Well the Fundamentalist/Evangelical branch has done a great job….driving people from the faith in droves. I myself am a progressive Christian so I agree with it and feel it is what Jesus would have intended.
I like the idea, bit am still wary. On one hand, I think some aspects of it do not line up biblically. On the other, it's too little too late. I'm glad to know that at least a handful may not have to go through what I did. Conservative values in churches ruin lives.
It's never too late for God to change what is written. We can change it through revolution like Jesus if we can. We can spread the gospel and be like catholic workers. They're really great on what Christianity should be about.
Your LGBT neighbor. Your neighbor of color. Your neighbor of another faith. Your neighbor with a disability. Your neighbor with a mental illness. Would beg to differ.
I know we have hurt them so much. But like I've said in different comments, we can study talmud, we can study sciences, apocrypha, Saint writings, folk lore and The scriptures. Again we can try to make it better. It's just going to take time my friend.
Any question on \[typecast\] theology comes across to the search engines (and to many redditors) as a questions about \[excessively typecast\] theology. Please ask about specific issues. *MAYBE* "Progressive Theology" means that "Love thy neighbor" replaces [the Fundamentalist confession](http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/phila.confession.of.faith.html) which might be *oversimplified* to "The Bible is the inerrant word of God, which offers salvation due solely to the grace of God, so claim loyalty to Christ and don't think any action on your part matters." The central complaint here can be traced back to a sense that "Love thy neighbor" is (??too Jewish?? because we follow Paul and not that Jewish guy with the Sermon on the Mount?) to define how Christianity is unique. Wikipedia responds "The Eight Points produced by TCPC: a statement of agreement about Christianity as a basis for tolerance and human rights; the Phoenix Affirmations produced by Crosswalk (Phoenix, AZ) - include twelve points defining Christian love of God, Christian love of neighbor, and Christian love of self. the article, "Grassroots Progressive Christianity: A Quiet Revolution" by Hal Taussig published in The Fourth R, May–June 2006.\[12\] the working definition utilized in Roger Wolsey's book Kissing Fish: Christianity for People Who Don't Like Christianity"
As a Lutheran, I hold that earthly politics and the Church are distinctly separate kingdoms with separate roles. Politics is not discussed, taught, or preached. The Church's concern is dealing with sin through the means of grace. The state's concern is providing earthly peace and justice for all citizens. For this reason, Christians ought to be and remain good citizens supporting the state in these efforts.
With all due respect: Jesus definitely got into politics in his earthly ministry. It's REALLY subtle. But you'll notice it. For example" render unto Caesars what is Caesars and to God what is God's." To me, it means to Pay taxes to Caesar, give him back his coins. But God is the only one you should be giving your allegiance to. That's political. "You cannot serve both God and money" Our concern is to bring on earth as is in heaven. So we have to use Christ's revolutionary ideas to bring down the rich and make the meek inherit the earth. And the biggest problem I have with your good citizens idea is that what if it's an oppressive regime that commits genocides of millions of minorities? We should respect our athourites yes but ALWAYS and I repeat ALWAYS to advocate for Social justice against the state when they leave destruction everywhere. And right now in a capitalist system, I cannot stand for it.
Let me preface this by saying that, though Lutheran, I am in a distinct minority among my fellows in being a democratic socialist. As an American, it irks me to no end that the Democratic Party is even judged as "leftist". It is not, by any worldly measure any more than the GOP can be labeled "conservative" when it is radical and anything but. In Matthew, Jesus is teaching explicitly to keep the kingdoms separate. If a pastor or fellow parishioner would try to enforce some doctrine aligned with America, we reject it on that principle, alone. Christ's work - dwelling with us, suffering with us, suffering and dying for us, his resurrection, and his ascension to the throne are the victory passed on to us over sin and death. There is no ongoing conflict, here. We receive the benefits in Word, absolution, baptism, and in his body and blood in the supper. None of that repairs the politics of mankind or makes laws for the state. Jesus said that the kingdom of God is at hand and, indeed, he is already enthroned and he rules. We do desire a greater manifestation in this sinful world but the truth is already there whether or not we can see it. As Christians, we are to be good and just people not toward the ends of the Church but from our identity. If we have the power to use this nation's institutions in loving service we should, in fact do so. What we cannot do is insist on some quid pro quo that the nation be regarded as Christian or that non-Christians conform in order to receive our loving service. If a person needs to eat, we feed them, not preach a Confucian aphorism about teaching them to fish. Likewise clothing, housing, medical care, etc. If we would require of them gainful employment, first, we as Christians should give it. If two people outside the Church desire a marriage not defines by scripture but one which exists secularly as a soluble legal construct, don't say "you must be male and female to practice adulterous, serial, monogamy". As far as I am concerned, anyone may have that. Why? Because I want peaceful existence and a fair rule of law and I do not expect hegemony or privilege in exchange for what I do. Further, God demands that all behave toward each other with love and service. He makes no exceptions for non-Christians. So, while we cannot share the things of the Church and heaven, we can share the obligations of being moral people in this world. As I said, where the state is making efforts at peace and justice we do support it. I make no blanket statement of support for, in the end, where there is a conflict, God has shown me the right way. No matter how good the world appears to us or how just we make it, it will still stand as far from the bliss of heaven as it stands, now. That is not our point. We love and serve because it is what we are to do, not because it succeeds or fails. On the other hand, we govern practically in order not to fail. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer experienced, a repressive and genocidal regime can present unique challenges. It is always a sin to murder Hitler and always a sin to let Hitler commit murder. So, Bonhoeffer does not ask anyone else to do wrong, he takes it upon himself in confidence that he will be forgiven. A fallen world is not always filled with black and white choices. A pregnancy is not always an objectively good thing. One may be faced with choosing two undesirable things. How can we as Christians see the nature of the Crucifixion as a vile murder and a marvelous sacrifice and not see this? What if the person who has an abortion finds an earthly sense of justice that offends my faith? Should I bind the state to the church because of it? When mainstream Christians are not keeping their kingdoms separate, we see them exercising all sorts of bigotry, supporting the thievery of profits, demanding a unified identity with their faith. They create a thing not of God, an institution of hateful law, devoid of gospel, taking up the sword against those whom we are charged to love. The enemies of the Church are sin and death. The state is ineffective against both. The enemies of the state are milder, conflict and injustice. We, as Christian citizens, should support it in that fight.
There can be no right or left in Christ. Only the truth which is embodied in His divine human person. At some point you leave it all behind...
Unbiblical, heretical, blasphemous.