Continuing my response to Joel Thomas' liberal theology prepositions.
7. Doctrines, church authority and Scripture cannot be divorced from subjective personal experience.
This seems to me to deny the reality of ultimate truth. If everything is subject to a person's own interpretation, then there can't be any universal reality. Without a doubt, each person brings their own experiences to their understanding of doctrines, church authority and Scripture, but one must be open to the correction of the body of Christ. This is where our understanding of tradition comes into play.
8. Community wholeness in relation to God is as important as a personal relationship to God through Christ. (“Shalom” creation.)
No argument here from me. There are two great commandments, love God and love your neighbor. One cannot be fulfilled without fulfilling the other. I would question if most liberal Christians would be comfortable reversing this statement. A personal relationship to God through Christ is as important as community wholeness in relation to God.
9. An understanding that the Bible contains “all things necessary for salvation” but not necessarily all things related to salvation.
I guess I don't know exactly what Joel means by "not necessarily all things related to salvation" so really can't respond to this without some clarification.
10. A refusal to make creeds a test of faith.
The great creeds of the faith are invaluable in helping a Christian see the broad picture of what the Church has believed through the ages. However, they are not the litmus test which determines a person's faithfulness. What a person believes is important, for beliefs are the precursor to action. And it is one's actions which like the fruit of a tree that reveals one's true nature. There are some statements of faith that must be non-negotiable. For instance, that Jesus died for the sins of the world, was raised to new life, ascended to the Father, and will return again in victory. A person can not rightly be called a Christian if this statement of faith is not a part of their personal creed.
11. Openness to “finding Christ in the culture.”
I believe this is most definitely true. Indeed, I believe it is one of my chief duties as a pastor to help people find Christ in their everyday lives and the culture in which they live.
12. Doubt is not inherently the enemy of faith, but can be used by God to engage that very faith.
God is big enough to handle our questions. Jesus even questioned the Father, "My God, why have you forsaken me?" Too often, the Church has seen honest questions as an attack upon the faith. Still, it is those who have questioned the established order who have lead the Church to it's greatest revivals. That said, there are some essentials which must be held above question.
13. A strong commitment to social justice.
This is an area where we conservatives can learn from our liberal sisters and brothers. And I don't believe that conservatives are against social justice, it's that we want to see it achieved in different ways.
14. The idea that self-reflection is a necessary component of faith.
I'm not sure why Joel lists this among the beliefs of liberals, it seems to me to be a more conservative idea. Self-reflection and self-examination are necessary steps toward repentance and personal holiness, both which are emphasized by conservatives.
15. Acceptance that the Bible incorporates an intentional tension between “universal” and “exclusive” salvation. (To remind us that God alone judges?)
I'm afraid I see little evidence in the scriptures that point toward "universal" salvation. Perhaps one can make some case for it by proof texting, but clearly the scripture as a whole teaches that salvation comes by faith and in particular, faith in Jesus Christ. I do wholeheartedly agree that God alone judges.
I'm going to be out of town for a couple of days in order to attend a workshop put on by Ginghamsburg UMC in Ames, but I hope to conclude my responses to Joel by the end of the week.
One of the reasons conservative United Methodists might say certain of the points I make aren't exclusive to liberals is the problem that United Methodist conservatives accept as conservative many views that many non-United Methodist conservatives find liberal. Because I wasn't attempting to define liberal theology solely in terms of United Methodism, but in a broader context, I realize that may throw conservative UM's off a little.
Many non-UM conservatives consider doubt repugnant to the faith and of the devil.
Non-UM conservatives tend to absolutely hate and repudiate the term "finding Christ in the culture" believing instead that Christ must be accepted and confessed by name. Indeed, same for many UM's. Not even a majority of UM's would probably accept Rev. Adam Hamilton's view that John 14:6 is hyperbole.
Most non-UM conservatives and many UM conservatives would say that everything related to salvation is found explicitly in Scripture.
As to creeds, this is sometimes a matter of semantics. One may find it difficult to join the UMC if one rejects (or at least refuses to recite) since both the Apostle's and Nicene creeds, particularly since the membership questions are based largely on the Apostle's creed. Nevertheless I agree with those who say the UMC is non-creedal, as stated by the official website. However, many UM's, both liberal and conservative say we are creedal. My point is that salvation relates to repentance of sin and accepting Christ, such that belief in the specifics of the creeds cannot be determinative of salvation. I agree that certain basic beliefs are central to Christianity.
As to community wholeness, this is not much of a divison between liberal and conservative UM's. But it is for some fundamentalists, some of whom can focus nearly 100% on the personal relationship with Christ.
As far as "subjective personal experience" everyone interprets the Bible; the question is, what are the parametes for interpretation? However, because everyone experiences reality somewhat differently (including the fact that many words don't mean precisely the same thing to one as another, for example that some say with respect to the Bible that "infallible" and "inerrant" are the same' others says there are at least subtle differences.) I think the paramaters for interpretion are broader for liberals than conservatives, and they tend to be broader for conservative UM's than for Southern Baptists. On the other hand, I chuckle at what one of my church members told me in Bible study: "I don't interpret the Bible, I just look at its plain meaning." Clearly, though, some of that "plain" meaning she had gotten from relatives, prior pastors, earlier Sunday school and Bible study teachers, etc.
Posted by: Joel T. | October 13, 2006 at 12:12 AM
I don't think that Joel's #7 denies the reality of ultimate truth: It simply acknowledges that our understanding is limited.
You're right about the importance of being open to correction, yet that too is an element of personal experience. There are some Christians who seek to surround themselves only with others who think like themselves, and their opportunity for growth is limited, IMO.
We need to strike a healthy balance, I think, between recognizing that there is objective truth, and that we as sinful beings cannot fully grasp it.
Posted by: BruceA | October 16, 2006 at 12:29 AM
Bruce,
I agree. Sometimes I'm accused of relativism, but that is a misunderstanding because I do indeed believe there is such a thing as absolute truth. However, to pretend that any one person, or even denomination will know truth comprehensively on every single issue doesn't make sense in light of Scripture's "we see as in a mirror dimly" or as in "a glass darkly."
With respect to the Bible, I honestly am not sure that we can take Paul's writings on the role of women in the church and say without a doubt we know what he meant for all churches of his time or for churches of our time. However, when it comes to God, God has an absolute true plan for women in relationship to the church and we simply do our best to discern it. For Southern Baptists it is "no women preachers." For United Methodists it is "yes to women preachers." Does that make one denomination or the other in favor of relativism? No, it means they have discerned differently and we may never know in this life with absolute certainty what God's view on the topic is.
Posted by: Joel T. | October 16, 2006 at 07:39 PM
"Sometimes I'm accused of relativism, but that is a misunderstanding because I do indeed believe there is such a thing as absolute truth. However, to pretend that any one person, or even denomination will know truth comprehensively on every single issue doesn't make sense in light of Scripture's "we see as in a mirror dimly" or as in "a glass darkly."
I'm in agreement with you, Joel, that no one can "know truth comprehensively on every single issue." We need to be open to learning from the wider body of Christ.
I do have a question for you. Do you think that "absolute truth" is discernable? Is it possible for us to say without any hesitation, "this is the truth, no if's, and's, or but's about it"? If so, what then differentiates, absolute truth from cultural truth.
Posted by: John B | October 17, 2006 at 08:53 AM
John,
It depends on what you mean by absolute truth. If you are speaking of women as preachers, whether it was right or wrong to invade Iraq, or whether small government or activist government is better, then I say no. However, if you are talking about such things as murder, theft, greed, cheating on exams, etc., then I say yes.
Posted by: Joel T. | October 18, 2006 at 06:31 PM