But I'm curious on your response if bring a liberal Christian. Please explain.
Well, like with anything, where ever 3 or 4 are gathered, you'll find 5 different opinions about it! But here's a general outline:
First of all, I find it funny that we're called "liberal Christians." If you don't know church history, you might be tempted to think that "liberal Christians" are some emerging movement within Christianity that's come out in the last 50 years or so. We're often labeled this way by other Christian (those who aren't "liberal,") who say we're rejecting traditional Christianity. But in fact, most "liberal Christians" actually prefer a more traditional (1) worship, (2) mission work, and (3) interpretation of Scripture than those who reject the label.
(1) Worship
Most liberal Christians (though not all) seem to prefer "liturgical worship," which means we come from the older Christian traditions -- i.e. Catholic, Lutheran, etc. We like to use the same rituals that have been used for thousands of years, because we see that it puts us in a community of saints with billions of Christians throughout time and space. That tradition is important to us.
Now, mind you, I'm not saying Lutherans are "better" than Baptists or anything like that. I'm simply pointing out a trend, and showing one way that we're different. Most (not all) liberal Christians are found in liturgical churches. Most (not all) liturgical churches are more "liberal" in the other ways (see below). It's not 100%, but it is a trend.
(2) Mission work
We tend to emphasize social justice. It's not that we ignore other Biblical messages, we just don't see them as important, based on what we see in the Bible. We've been accused of throwing out the 10 commandments, and that's not true. We do believe in the 10 commandments. We just think that Jesus' message about how we should treat others was way more important than not coveting your neighbor's wife and such, and our preaching, teaching, and missions reflect that.
The biggest example that comes up is homosexuality. On the extreme liberal side, some liberal Christians will say that homosexuality is okay, and that the Biblical statements against it are misinterpretations. On the more moderate side, some will say that homosexuality is a sin, but that it's no worse than, say, lying, or gossiping, or smoking. In between, you'll see a variety of other beliefs. For example, some make a distinction that homosexuality per se isn't a sin, but acting on it is, and gays need to learn to be abstinent and love the Lord. Some will say that homosexuality is incompatible with a Christian life, but who are we to judge non-Christians? These people will likely support gay rights. You can imagine other ideas in that vein. While these different ideas all exist within "liberal Christianity," what we do agree on is that we don't really think it's that big of a deal, certainly not one that warrants as much attention as some other churches seem to give it. Jesus never mentioned it, but he mentioned feeding the poor hundreds of times. Perhaps we should spend less time worrying about who is sleeping with whom, and more time feeding them. Thus, social justice.
(3) Biblical interpretation
We liberal Christians follow the older tradition of understanding the Bible as parable, allegory, or various other types of literature, and we are less likely to take certain passages literally.
For example, many liberal Christians accept evolution as compatible with OEC, recognizing "yom" as describing periods or epochs rather than 24-hour periods. We're also more likely to understand Prophetic literature as God speaking (through the Prophets) to people of their own time rather than predicting future events.
This is how the Hebrew Bible was understood for over a thousand years before the time of Jesus. The "meta" meaning was always more important than the base, literal meaning. Always. This is how Jesus and all of his disciples, and Saul before his conversion, would have been taught, and how they in turn, would have understood the Old Testament. This is how the earliest Christians would have understood it, and how all Christians understood it until very recently. It wasn't until the late 1800s, in fact, when a few American preachers with no seminary training made the "inerrancy" claim that the literal meaning was even considered, let alone raised up as the "only" acceptable interpretation.
I hope that helps. If you have some more specific questions, feel free to ask.
We have an 11-year-old boy who is awesome and brilliant. Hoping to find like-minded people to chat with.
4
2
2
1
1
