Liberal people love Jesus too

Just for the record, as I have stated (I think) before I am both a liberal Christian and an Episcopalian, though my allegiance to Jesus supersedes any other identification.

I hear over and over from Fundamentalists that we Episcopals have ”thrown out the Bible” because they disagree with our understanding of it, especially concerning sexuality. Our services have more Scripture in them than ANY (and I have been to many services for many, many years) Conservative or Fundamentalist service I have ever attended. My own family of origin is a typical Southern Fundamentalist church, which I attended until I was 16 and could find a more meaningful and richer spiritual path.

Our Prayer book is 80% direct Scriptural quotations, we read from the Old Testament, the Psalms, the New Testament as well as the Gospel, EVERY SUNDAY. Over three years our communicants hear (the traditional way of receiving the Word) nearly the entire Bible.

There are maybe 7 verses about same-sex issues in the entire Scriptures, but literally thousands dealing with the poor, downtrodden, sick, widows, orphans and other needy. Jesus Himself issuing Judgments from the Great White Throne in Matthew 25 doesn’t mention sex at all, but He certainly DOES mention taking care of His people, in His name. And never does He mention that the people being cared for DESERVE the love we give them, modeling the Grace He gives us in His love and acceptance of us.

I regularly serve at my Parish’s Hospice ministry, and have been involved with food for the homeless, prison ministry, children of prisoners, health care for uninsured. We serve, in Christ’s Name, all sorts of “unholy” types of persons, and though we have a few faithful Conservatives, Charismatics, and other Fundamentalists, the VAST majority of the workers are Methodist, Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopal among other “Liberal” Churches.

I know the Fundamentalists have a mission to help in times of disaster and most likely do many other good works, along with many other faithful Conservative types. I don’t mean to suggest that they aren’t doing anything at all. I do notice that they seem to be overly concerned with purity during those times, but that is just me. (water from a beer vendor for example) So the question is, are we actually doing the Gospel here or just banging people over the head with it?

Remember the great witness of the Amish just recently? Well right after 9-11 here in Tulsa some Muslim friends told me that it was the Jews, Episcopals, Catholics, and UCC that reached out to them and helped protect them from reprisals. I know that liberal Christian men escorted veiled Muslim women to grocery stores so they could buy food for their children. Not a single Fundamentalist was part of those groups in those days. Didn’t Jesus tell us to do good things to those who despitefully use us? All I heard from Conservative Churches then was the thunder of bloody revenge.

Paul’s letter to the Galatians is a perfect case in point. Paul is worried that they are missing the whole point of the freedom of the Gospel. There are others telling the Galatian people that faith and freedom in Christ is not enough, you have to keep the Jewish law to be saved. I think people often take refuge in the Law when they become frightened of living by faith. Grace IS a risk, since life is comfortable and you can know where you are with rules and the Law. Is it fear that keeps us from taking a Gospel risk? Is the freedom of Grace that scary?

Also when Fundamentalists point at those Liberal Christians who permit different understandings of sexuality, be very aware that in their own Conservative, Fundamentalist Churches they do NOT follow the Bible either.

There are more verses telling women they WILL have pain in childbirth than there is about “that” issue. And, yes-Christian leaders tried to stop the practice of giving women anesthesia in childbirth, and if Queen Victoria weren’t the Queen of England at the time, they would have succeeded for a time. She had the influence to put a stop to the Church’s foolish resistance to freeing women from pain.

And last but not least, let me point out that the vast majority of Fundamentalists practice birth control, and NO CHURCH ON EARTH or in the entire history of Christianity permitted that until 1930 when the American Episcopals allowed it for married couples. Where in the Bible does it tell you that you can practice birth control? Do any of you?

I try very hard not to speak out of anger, or frustration, and please forgive that flaw in my personality. I am not perfect and never will be, and I do try very hard to watch out for that log in my own eye, it can get pretty big. All I am asking for is a bit of understanding that those Liberal people love Jesus too.

Comments

[RC Hammer]

To love Jesus you must obey Him, that's true. Some people really love Him and obey Him. These people can be any race, party, or anything else. The thing you have to decide is if your really for Jesus. The Bible says:

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Matthew 12:30

So people must look at what they do and find out if what they are doing is for or agaisnt God. Either way though, God loves all of us sinners. No matter what.
GOD bless U all!
Hammer out.

RC Hammer

(P.S> If you want to further contact me go to http://theflippingsweetblog.blogspot.com. Thanks.)

[Paul]

On behalf of my constituents let me say, "Poppycock!" ;)

[thebarefootpoet]

It seems to me the minute we label ourselves "liberal" or "conservative", "progressive" or "fundamentalist" we have already lost something. When we pick "teams" instead of having honest interaction with those who are our brothers about different viewpoints of scripture it becomes an issue of winning and losing.

I don't understand why we separate the gospel into "doing" and "sharing" or talking. It's as if to demonstrate the love of Christ by focusing on a physical need while keeping your mouth shut is somehow not sharing the gospel while standing at the door and reading a track is. Or believing that straightforward conversation about the void between God and man and the acknowledgement of our fallenness and need for a savior is somehow less gospel than filling a bowl with soup. At any given time both of these are the gospel in word and deed.

[Monk-in-Training]

I think some Evangelicals or Conservatives might be concerned over the "works vs. faith" and the salvation issue.

This is a perplexing one, but as far as I can tell the vast majority of Liberals I am involved with would concur that we are accounted righteous before God only by the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through faith and not on account of our own good works or of what we deserve. No matter how many soup kitchens we run.

That being said, the Master commands us to obey Him and to grow in His kingdom by serving those whom we come in contact with. Widows, orphans, the poor, prisoners, all have a claim on our lives in Christ. (James 1:27).

I think salvation is to be about far more than just a one way ticket to paradise after this life. I think we are to begin living the Kingdom here, in this world. Serving others in His Name.

[Jason]

like the bumper sticker says:

God is not a Democrat. Or a Republican.

[Jared Cramer]

And, I'd say, even when it comes to sex, liberal Christians aren't just dancing culture's tune. In a culture that values individual rights and views sex as something between you and the other person, something you should be free to engage freely . . . the "liberal" Christians I know are talking about a sexual ethic that is about honesty and integrity and about expressing sexuality in a faithful, committed relationship that has been (hopefully) blessed by the church.

It's still radical and prophetic. Even, I would argue, more radical and prophetic than the silly things some evangelicals shout about sexuality.

[Monk-In-Training]

Lost Ben,
The key thing I want to point out is your assumption of our motives. I think you may be viewing Liberals through Evangelical glasses, and I don't know that you even realize it. I would like to challenge you there.

For example you say: "is that true Biblical obedience or is it merely a type of Christian influenced activism". I can assure you that in all the different groups I have been a part of I hear constant referrals to doing the Gospel, to serving in the Name of Christ, to fulfilling our Baptismal vows, to reaching out for Christ. I have never seen any sort of political activism in these groups. After all, hospice doesn't glean many voters, nor do homeless people, or people in prisons.

Also you mentioned that "That is one thing that concerns me about liberal Christianity. Is it substituting a weaker walk in favor of a closer one?"

I can tell you that some of the most faithful and true Christians I have ever met are of this "Liberal" persuasion. I have seen men that would strongly argue a more Liberal position on the Bible than even myself that pray for hours, work in very yucky conditions, and live out truly Godly lives. They deeply believe and have a shining faith in Jesus Christ.

These people get up in the middle of the night to pray at vigils, hold the hand of some one as they die that they don't even know well, feed smelly, crazy people, take care of wild kids whose parents are in prison, they do all sorts of things, including a "prayer quilt" that was stitched and knotted (each knot with a prayer) that my own brother was covered with when he died.

I also have issues with seeing Conservatives through impaired glasses, so I am certainly not perfect in any way here. Why do either Conservative or Liberals feel that we need to point out what we perceive to be a flaw in the other? I am glad you have been posting, it helps a very good discussion along. I also would like to have lunch again with you soon.

[The Lost Ben]

Society has all sides of the issues. When it comes to the church and society I think the question is which is following which sometimes.
I know someone who suggests that the Bible was only written by those trying to understand God in their time and that the interpretation and viewpoint of God has progressively changed ever since the first century. I see his point, but I don't think its that simple. I just think the church has become more diverse and so it only appears that way in many respects.
I think the message of the cross remains true and the call to serve is still central to our faith.
I read a magazine called "Relevant" and it has examples of young adults that want to change the world with their faith, but its not clear if they want to share the Gospel in the process.
To evangelicals like me that is admirable, but is that true Biblical obedience or is it merely a type of Christian influenced activism?
That is one thing that concerns me about liberal Christianity. Is it substituting a weaker walk in favor of a closer one?

[Monk-in-Training]

Ben,
Now I think I know who you are! ;)
Yes I know you challenge those in your own community and for the better.
I am not saying Liberal Christianity does go along with society, we are CONSTANTLY opposing it in many areas. Not just sex. Look at my post see how we oppose the society in War and in the Poverty issues. These are not going along with Rome.

I see conservative Churches filled with the powerful elite of our contry and draped in our Flag. Isn't that going along with society?

[The Lost Ben]

Let me share with you that I am always challenging the norm within my own fellowship of the faith. They don't readily embrace new approaches.
However, my doctrinal views remain traditional.
Is it possible for liberal Christianity to maintain its identity when it continues to go along with what society says its okay? Is that what the early church did? Were they stupid for not going along with Rome? Maybe they should have just embraced Roman ideology.

[Jared Cramer]

I empathize with a lot of your frustrations. Good post.

[A]

You are spot on.

[Annie]

I appreciate this, Monk. You are so right: it isn't in following the letter of the Law, it is in the spirit of the Law--which is love--and it always has been.

Annie

[BruceA]

Amen, MiT!

[Monk-in-Training]

Lost Ben,
I certainly will not censor you. I will however ask you to consider the words of one of our greatest Anglican spiritual guides and teachers of prayer, Evelyn Underhill:

"The coming of the Kingdom is perpetual. Again and again, freshness, novelty, power from beyond the world break in by unexpected paths bringing unexpected change. Those who cling to tradition and fear all novelty in God's relation to the world deny the creative activity of the Holy Sprit, and forget that what is now tradition was once innovation; that the real Christian is always a revolutionary, belongs to a new race, and has been given a new name and a new song.

And along with Primate Griswald, I pray that: May we indeed be guided by the creative activity of the Holy Spirit as we continue through these challenging days, and in the fullness of time may our various divisions find their reconciliation in the One in Whom all things have been reconciled, making it possible for us -- with one heart and one mind -- to sing a new song.

[Kevin Bussey]

Thanks MIT,

I'm glad to have you as a friend.

[The Lost Ben]

Well spoken. I know alot of people who say they love Jesus, but don't actually obey Him or know Him. I often see that in myself.
Liberals are the enemy of Christianity. I don't care what people say about liberals, because what liberals do is challenge the traditional interpretation of things. The challenge the interpretation of the Constitution and the Bible. I've never got the impression from the Bible that the interpretation is supposed to change with societal norms.
Hence, the reason for the fight against homosexuality is not because it's the most important issue, but because the fight has been brought to the front door of the church as a whole.
I agree that issues like birth control can easily be used to justify a progressive interpretation of scripture, but where is the condemnation of birth control found in scripture?
Anyway, my basic thought is that liberalism dares to neutralize any moral code, or dogmatic sense of right or wrong. And that, in my opinion is dangerous.
I'm sure that even the CEOs of Enron, Tyco, and Worldcom all performed acts of charity, but deep down they were corrupt. Good works alone cannot prove the motives of the heart.
Just a thought...don't censor me for it. Thanks.