Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?
16th July 2012
Hint: No.
IN 1998, John Shelby Spong, then the reliably controversial Episcopal bishop of Newark, published a book entitled “Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” Spong was a uniquely radical figure — during his career, he dismissed almost every element of traditional Christian faith as so much superstition — but most recent leaders of the Episcopal Church have shared his premise. Thus their church has spent the last several decades changing and then changing some more, from a sedate pillar of the WASP establishment into one of the most self-consciously progressive Christian bodies in the United States.
As a result, today the Episcopal Church looks roughly how Roman Catholicism would look if Pope Benedict XVI suddenly adopted every reform ever urged on the Vatican by liberal pundits and theologians. It still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.
It’s hip, and trendy.
Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church’s dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase.
Guess it’s not working.
July 16th, 2012 at 06:57
Episcopalians labor under the misconception that Christianity has a Pure Message underlying the accretion of tradition and medieval superstition.
They fail to realize that in the Platonic sense there is no ‘essance’ beneath the ‘accidents’ of Christianity. When the superstition and irrational arbitrariness are subtracted, nothing remains.
July 17th, 2012 at 04:59
I wish you had mentioned that these “liberals” have launched a vicious campaign of lawsuits against the conservatives who dare to leave with the buildings that they paid for.
July 18th, 2012 at 11:48
The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church is a blooming idiot. As soon as she was chosen for the job, I knew the whole enterprise was doomed. (Actually, I probably knew it sooner than that, but didn’t want to admit it.) I’m still nominally a member, but if there were any viable alternative that didn’t involve hours of driving, I’d bail.
July 18th, 2012 at 21:15
**Episcopalians labor under the misconception that Christianity has a Pure Message underlying the accretion of tradition and medieval superstition.
They fail to realize that in the Platonic sense there is no ‘essance’ beneath the ‘accidents’ of Christianity. When the superstition and irrational arbitrariness are subtracted, nothing remains.**
What have you done or read that has landed you on this opinion? In all my observation of your responses I have been fairly impressed that you are well read. A post like this makes me think there is a huge gap in your resources. Have you ever read Thomas Aquinas? Ravi Zacharias? John Lennox? Norman Geisler? Mother Theresa? David Menton? Alexis de Tocqueville’s observations of the influence of Christianity on the founding of the “most enlightened and free nation on earth”? C.S. Lewis? Philip Johnson? Robert Cirico? Or Heaven forbid read the Bible itself though in context?
Of course atheism has done so much more for humanity. It stands impeccable and glorious in its contributions to humanity, hospitals, orphanages and universities that it has founded are too numerous to mention. It’s easy to see why you don’t ever fault its substance.
I have no problem with your rejection of Christianity, but to say it has no substance reveals a (willful?) lack of comprehension on your part.
And of course it could just be you taking a cheap shot.
July 18th, 2012 at 21:17
Previous post directed @ Dennis of course.
July 18th, 2012 at 21:55
And exactly what substance does it have, pray tell?
A myth about a demi-god who was born of a virgin at the winter solstice who dies and comes back to life once a year at the spring equinox? All of those ideas were kicking around the Mediteranean for at least a thousand years before the Jews got hold of them. They’re the basis for at least a dozen religions that we know of.
I’ve read Acquinas, Menton, Buber, Athenasius, C.S. Lewis, and many, many others. I’ve also read the Bible–both new and old testaments–from cover to cover: King James, Standard Revised, New International, Douhey, and some lesser translations; I’ve also read the Apocrypha, the Pseudopigrypha, the Gnostics, and some of the Qumran translations. And I’ve read De Toqueville, although he really isn’t relevant here as he never spoke directly to the substance of Christianity but to his interpretation of its effects.
And I say it’s all based on superstition and blind adherance to tradition. Take those away and there is nothing left.
To say that it has any substance speaks to a willful blindness on your part, I think.
July 19th, 2012 at 10:43
“read the Bible itself though in context” An interesting phrase, that. What exactly do you mean by ‘in context’?
If you mean ‘interpret it in accordance with church doctrine’, then yes, at one time I did.
Then I decided to read it as it is, rather than as others have told me it is, and decide for myself what it actually said.
As you have discovered, I came up with a number of interesting variations from the Accepted Wisdom.
Since then, I’ve listened to what the churches and preachers say about it with a large dose of scepticism. After all, their livelihood depends on folks believing in a “correct” interpretation, and also believing that said churches/preachers are the ones capable of delivering such “correctness”.
July 21st, 2012 at 10:36
Well, when you quote the Bible out of context, I assume you read it the same way or you are intentionally being dishonest.
By in context I mean not quoting it out of its context like you did in a previous post regarding the parable of the talents. You ascribed to the “Master” the same traits that the person that got only one talent did. He said He was an unfair master who reaped where he had not sown. He thought God to be cruel and selfish (much like you expressed in your post) so he wasted the talent God had given him. As a result, his resources were taken from him and given to the person who had used his talents wisely.
You first quoted this passage out of its context stating that Christians/Americans live to take from the poor and and give to the rich.
Mat 25:29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
When you take this verse out of context you can make it mean what it does not. That is exactly what you did.
**Since then, I’ve listened to what the churches and preachers say about it with a large dose of scepticism. After all, their livelihood depends on folks believing in a “correct” interpretation, and also believing that said churches/preachers are the ones capable of delivering such “correctness”.**
A valid point about churches and preachers but what about people like me? I have nothing to gain. It could be that I have experienced something truly life changing and hope to share it with others. Could it be as simple as that?
**If you mean ‘interpret it in accordance with church doctrine’, then yes, at one time I did.**
As life has gone on I have had to reassess what I was taught from the church. Many of the things I was taught I have found to be misunderstood or just wrong. I once threw out the baby with the bath water which it sounds like you have but there are core truths I could not escape i.e. that evil is alive and well. If evil exists there has to be some antithesis to it. If then, good and evil exist there must be an objective law to differentiate the two. If there is a moral law, then there must be a Moral Law Giver. In searching these out there is a world of discovery and wonder.
Best regards Dennis.