« Common ground? | Main | UM Bloggers Unite »

Comments

Joel T.

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.

BruceA

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.

Joel T.

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.

John B

"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.


Joel T.

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

United Methodist Blogroll

Blog powered by Typepad