I see little value in thinking in those terms at all. They are only different views of the same thing. I would think we could generate more than two. Of course that glove fits the “right” and “wrong” hand.

Imagine a world with out “right” or “wrong” (and I don’t mean chaos). the two party system wouldn’t work.

I think the religious left has always been there, just without the fanfare and attention that is paid to their right brethren. And that doesn’t surprise me given (in my opinion) the tendency of the media to lean to the left. What good would it do to focus on religion as an issue if there are as many Democrats that are religious as Republicans?

One other comment: You seem to think that conservatives don’t care about social justice? I find that interesting…

Some clarifications:

I think the fact that we’ve seen evangelicals speak out more broadly on social justice actually shows that conservatives do care deeply about these issues. I would suspect “younger evangelicals” would still, in the big picture, consider themselves conservative, theologically and politically. That’s why I think the “labels” are no longer accurate. I apologize if the post implied otherwise.

Beliefnet has developed a “methodology” (their word) for understanding religious political demographics called the “Twelve Tribes of American Politics” (http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Politics/The-Twelve-Tribes-of-American-Politics-in-the-2008-Election.aspx). That might get us closer to an accurate view rather than the dualities of “left” and “right” or “right” and “wrong.”

I suspect whether we christians are religious right or left depends on how we see Jesus.

If we see him as someone who shows us how to have a personal relationship with God and we cherish the freedom to innovate and show the glory of God through personal endeavor, we are probably religious right. The religious right demands limited government to preserve resources for individual use. However, in this society, the Bush administration has shown that the Federal government has been too limited with regard to stock leveraging and bank lending. Consequently, resources available for individual use have been diminished and the dogma for limited government has be discredited.

The religious left - I don’t identify with them - seems to go beyond a personal relationship with God and, somehow, see Jesus as someone whose relationship with God means social justice.

Until we determine how limited government should be - a free economy cannot be a free-for-all economy - we on the right are going to have to suffer though the religious left’s endeavors to get resourves for personal use by redistribution of wealth. Hopefully this period of historically failed policies will not last too long.

Dave, not bad. The Social Justice that is generally referred to by the religious left is understood through the pervasive presence throughout scripture of the poor, the widow, the orphan, and others on the fringes, and the demands placed on those with the resources to help them.

One can read the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats as a literal statement of judgment against NATIONS, not individuals.

After all, one of my favorite Old Testament texts is Micah 6:8. “…And what does the LORD require of you, o man, but to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God”. If I am not working for justice, I’m missing one of the major points.

We can get into a political argument about the best way to bring Justice into practice if you like…..but that isn’t really the point. There are also significant Biblical texts that talk about the requirements, duties, and responsibilities of civil authority. Creating environments where the poor and disadvantaged are treated fairly goes all the way back to Deuteronomy.

“I would point to is the generational shift we seem to be seeing among evangelicals. Younger evangelicals are much more drawn to issues of social justice and the environment (think Jim Wallis) than their older counterparts (think Jerry Falwell).

“So much so that perhaps it’s no longer very helpful to think, at least in political-religious terms, of “left” and “right.”

Well Rev. Scholl, it may be convenient, but I think it ignores reality. I think the generational shift you refer to has to do with some evangelicals leaning left instead of all evangelicals leaning right.

And I think you overlook the impact of liberal religion, which has acted as the research and development wing for Christianity since Emerson.

And let us not forget!

It was religious liberals who preached abolition of slavery, not the conservatives who pointed to biblical passages condoning it. It was religious liberals who crusaded for temperance, and against child labor, not conservatives who complained about possible damage to the economy. It was religious liberals who worked for penal reform while the conservatives said prisoners deserved what they got. It was religious liberals who pressed for women’s and black’s suffrage, not conservatives who complained those two groups were not ready for the privilege of voting.

It was religious liberals like my grand-daddy, the Rev. Thamer Waldo Simer who— along with hundreds of liberal clergy— marched in Selma, Alabama with Dr. King while religious conservatives stressed the need for racial apartheid.

More recently, it is religious liberals who affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person— including gays and lesbians— by encouraging social recognition of their union, while religious conservatives would deny them that pursuit of happiness.

It religious liberals who have worked for a more inclusive and pluralistic society, while religious conservatives have attempted to thwart that process. To gloss centuries of work by religious liberals or to appropriate it to the convenience of the mainline is misleading.

To make a sweeping generalization, religious progressives seek to broaden our understanding and to question the emperor’s wardrobe. Religious conservatives try and take us back to our core values.

This has always been a tension in American religious life, and I don’t see it ending anytime soon.

As the lead minister of the largest Unitarian church in Missouri, this has been something I have paid particular attention to.

Thank you for your thoughts,

revdaniel

you need a correction on a huge logical error(aside from making stupid assumptions about only liberals valuing individuals): “Since religious liberalism has done good, all religious liberalism is good.”

Change is good in and only in that it move toward something good, and away from something bad.

Liberalism just moves-it moves “forward” implying “good” but this is not necessarily true; forward can be as bad and worse than backwards. In the past christian “liberals” were moving towards a truer understanding of God and the Bible. “Religious conservatives try and take us back to our core values” - I hope so. Any sane person would call a good thing because the core values of Christianity are based in absolute good. The “liberals” you want to talk about were doing that exact thing, not moving away from core values…so you are making several severe logic flaws. your liberals were doing what you accuse conservatives of.

Travis, and others, what I see is that the Church is shifting. As a Presbyterian, I always remember the old formula: Ecclesia Reforma, Semper Reformanda. Church Reformed and Always Reforming.

I see the American Church changing. The change I see is an increased focus on Mission, in it’s broadest sense. And that, to me, is a good thing. If that is a “liberal” direction for the church to go, so be it. We talk a lot about division in the church, and despair of healing the divisions. The divisions will not be healed by fine tuning of doctrine, or by finally agreeing on the right way to interpret scripture. The divisions will be healed as we go out into the world, together, and work for the Kingdom of God. As I’ve commented before: when you’re sharing an evening meal in a dining tent in a work camp after hanging drywall in southern Mississippi in June, you get a new understanding of what the term “Brother or Sister in Christ” means. We don’t have to agree on doctrine. We do, however, have to understand that each of us is called to service, and it is through service that our faith becomes whole.

Social justice and environmental preservation is not something Jesus demands. The passage “render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar” comes to mind, Matthew 22:20-22. Everyone has their own relationship to God. It is hard for me to see good news, born again evangelicals being drawn to social justice and environmental activism as part of their faith. We may have to redefine “evangelical”.

I would remind Evangelical Christians that Jesus was killed by the Establishment because he challenged their greed and power. One of Jesus’ last acts before he was crucified was his drive of the money-changers from the Temple.

Revdaniel,

I would like to make the point that labeling the successes of the faithful as the results of the efforts of the “left” is divisive and righteous.

The church has a history for social responsibility that is successful. To attemmpt to divide us by stereotyping those that were successful as “leftist” and those that weren’t as “rightist” makes politics out of faith.

I will resist the effort to make people wrong. I will stannd for what I believe in, and I can do that without stereotyping, or making people wrong for who they are and what they believe.

The Democrats (liberals) believe in sharing and helping those in need. The Republicans (conservatives) believe in individualism and the power to make a difference that begins first within me.

I supports both these views, and together they are the essence of being a Christian.

Dave, to your comment about how social justice and environmental issues don’t dovetail with being an evangelical.

Consider that the modern Evangelical movement had it’s roots in the early 20th century social upheavals that led to political progressivism. The early environmentalists (think Teddy Roosevelt) and early pushers of social justice (think women’s suffrage) all came out of a religious movement that became known as the second great awakening. The second great awakening led to the modern evangelical movement, and the founding of most of the major evangelical church groups. The United Pentecostals, the church of the 4-square Gospel and others all started then.

I would argue that the Bible does NOT celebrate individualism and individual achievement over all else. That is a very limited and simplistic view.

Jim Wallis is arguing that we’re on the edge of another Great Awakening. One that is going to move against the doctrine of selfish individuality and towards a new understanding of community, covenant, and social responsibility.

The, which came first, chicken and the egg debate of faith. Which comes first: delivering the word through love and caring (liberalism), or transformation of the individual itself (conservatism).

There is an answer, believe it or not. The egg comes first. Any transformation or change (genetic) begins with the egg. The chicken is the source of that life, yet the transformation to a new life form begins within the egg.

Jesus is the gift of eternal life, the source, yet the transformation begins first within the person.

Both are essential. One is first, yourself. You must learn to forgive and love yourself before you can forgive and love your neighbor. Jesus is here to remind us of this, and to forgive us and love us when we cannot forgive and love ourselves. Mathew 7:1-5

Do not collapse caring for your self with selfishness. Characterization of others as selfish would be a judgment. WWJD: care for himself and be generous in the same way.

I have to add that the whole “liberal vs. conservative” debate is a dstraction to Christianity.

We are taking two halves of the same whole and waging them against each other for the sake of righteousness.

This is exactly what God asked us not to do in the first story. Do not use the knowlege of “right and wrong.”

The religious right is neither. Nor have they ever been a majority, but always a most vocal minority.

Now by religious right, I am lumping Biblical literalists, fundamentalists, strict Protestant constructionists of all flavors: Survivalist, millennial Pentecostals, Catholics for whom a return to hierarchy, Latin and pro-life are the only issues, Zionist Jews, cultic Mormons and jihadi Muslims are all part of the religious right– in short, any sect which says “my way or the highway to hell” qualifies.

I call religious left anyone who believes in peaceful religious co-existence, a moral code based on love of God, neighbor and self, tolerance of differences, who believes it is sufficient, as Jesus and most prophets of different sects did, to worship God sincerely, to be and do good and the best for yourself, and help your fellow man as you are able. The rest is all addendum footnotes on dry leaves of dead scripture, which may be useful to consult, but aren’t soul marching orders. Most mainline Protestants, moderate to liberal Catholics, moderate to reform Jews, the overwhelming majority of Muslims and Mormons, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucists, and a passle of splinter religions, ethical groups, and even most non-cultic deistic humanists and New Agers share these traits. It doesn’t even matter if you call God your Higher Power, YHWH, Allah, the great Void, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Even amongst atheists, there are very few who are rudderless, with no belief system, even if that belief system doesn’t include the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God.

There are more things that unite the liberal religions than one usually thinks about; the same is true of the conservative religious right, once they get past their exclusionary labels. About the only real difference is that liberals are willing to give their neighbors the benefit of the doubt about their beliefs, and the conservatives are so convinced they have the only truth that they have drawn a tight circle around themselves, and don’t want to let people in or out.

Tell me again, why liberal religionists voting for Obama and the Dems is news? While you are at it, I’ve always wondered why the millenial Christians keep recruiting if only 144,000 of us are going to heaven.

Teresa, welcome

I could put it this way:

Religious Conservatives see doubt as a sin to be purged, while religious liberals see doubt as something to be explored and celebrated. The Religious conservatives (similar to the political conservatives) seem to have a hard time acknowledging the fundamental idea that they might be wrong, while the Religious liberal is more than willing to acknowledge that not only might they be wrong, but that someone else might be right.

By the way, before I get jumped for this: there are many on the extreme Left end who are just as “conservative” by my definitions above as many who consider themselves to be so.

Teresa,

That 144, 000 thousand I have recently begin researching and studying and praying for understanding because I was at one time sure that that number represented the number of total Jewish men that would be saved out of the world totally from the twelve tribes. Scripture does tell us that the 144,000 were MEN only.

But, upon further reading and research and hearing a number of different beliefs regarding the 144,000 men, I know now that I was wrong and had also been given much information from many different sources and different denominations and was never completely satisfied in my spirit that I had been given the correct information of who these men really were.

I stumbled upon this information concerning the 144,000. For the first time since my search for the answer of who these men will be, I am now pretty much at peace in my spirit that I now understand who these 144, 000 will be.

In your genuine search for understanding of God’s truths,in His timing He will give us understanding and clarity of all things. You can start here in your search for who these men will be. I think that you will appreciate this.

http://amazingbible.com/Documents/Bible_Prophecy/144000_Jews.htm

I am not advocating lberalism or conservativism as a choice that has to be made to be a believer.

For those who are so sure, Jesus was as well. Certainty, in and of it self, indicates nothing.

Would John the Baptist have been a liberal or a conservative? He seemed to have been very sure about his faith.

Here is a question I have for the Biblical scholars. Was John the Baptist a Christian?

Another, no, John the Baptist was not a Christian. He said of himself, after all, that he was not the Messiah, but the precursor or prophet. That doesn’t really matter, does it?

For those who have mentioned that these labels are limiting and really not appropriate…thank you. I’ve done some study on the Biblical concept of Unity. Unity, in the church, is NOT about agreement, or even really about understanding each other. Unity, is about having a common purpose. In the broad sense, then, Liberal, Conservative, mainline, independent, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic ought to all be able to come together for the common purpose of the Kingdom of God, and be able to unite around the cross, shouldn’t we? If we can’t, what’s wrong with us?

hs,

I agree “that the Bible does NOT celebrate individualism and individual achievement over all else.” but, in each faith relationship with God, Jesus does. The evangelical good news from Jesus is that, in individual relationships with God and neighbor, proactive love is better than blind adherance to law. Jesus’ words are for individuals, not groups and Christ is the Word, not the Bible. This focus on individual God relationships is the essence of what evangelical christians are about.

There is nothing selfish about love. I can see evangelicals getting involved in environmental and social issues but I don’t see how such issues can be more important than their personal relationship with God.
My argument is that if evangelicals think they are serving something greater than themselves by devotion to the environment or social issues, they are not really evangelical christians.

Dave, what I think is happening, is that the younger evangelicals in particular, are expanding their external focus into other areas. They are seeing and coming to understand that their faith informs their actions and their public priorities beyond abortion and gay marriage. They are reading their Bibles and finding a lot in there about their responsibilities to be good stewards of what God has given, to be concerned about the plight of the very poor, to be bothered intensely by the death penalty and how it’s administered, and so on.

That isn’t to say that they put these issues ABOVE their faith. They are putting their faith into action in these areas. They are, to put it bluntly, keeping their evangelical zeal, but removing it from the politics of their parents.

hs,

Unity is a good point to make. Relatedness is the source of our relationship with God. To act to label and divide and make others wrong for who they are is to be at odds with our relationship with God.

The common purpose is to be in a relationship with others, and that relationship brings us into the presence of God. When we turn away from another, we are turing away from God. When we turn towards another we are turning towards God.

The most challenging purpose we have as beings is to be in the presence of God. When we struggle to accept others, it is the presence of God we are fearing. We hide from this, the fear is not of God, but of who we are in the presence of God.

The easiest and most self righteous way to dismiss another human being is to label them.

Another,

Whether I am in the presence of other people or not, I feel I have more to fear if God is not with me than if He is. I suspect most of us feel the same way.

“The Religious conservatives (similar to the political conservatives) seem to have a hard time acknowledging the fundamental idea that they might be wrong, while the Religious liberal is more than willing to acknowledge that not only might they be wrong, but that someone else might be right.”

hs, you are a good and fair poster, but I have to disagree with this. The regilious liberal is just as sure that they are correct in their assessment of the Bible and the Word as any other segment of the religious spectrum. No one group has a monopoly on that. I know many on the left side religiously (and politically for that matter) and every one of them knows they are correct…just like I know I am correct

I do agree with you that working on issues like enviromentalism is an outward expression of how the Word of God has touched their lives and how they feel they are being called to act. Again, all segments of the spectrum do this, just not on the same issues.

The key question really that should come out of this whole discussion is why we haven’t all rallied around the Word of God together. That’s a doozie that is hard to answer…

Regarding the idea of the ever-reforming church:

In essentials unity
In nonessentials liberty
In all things charity

This is a credo of evangelical Christianity. Regardless of labels, the thing to remember is that all of these statements are equal. We cannot disagree on essential doctrine (i.e. there are things worth dividing on), we should allow disagreement without division (and yet still rigorously debate) non-essential doctrines. The trick is deciding which is essential and which is non-essential with love and respect for one another. If it’s ever-reforming we want, let’s make sure a reform is a reform, not just change.

Don’t fall into the “doctrine divides” nonsense. That brand of liberal theology will destroy the body of Christ if allowed to persist.

More on topic, I mourn the day that the environment takes first seat from the greatest of all mass killings in history. I know evangelicals feel a little used by the right on abortion, and they are getting tired of one-issue voting. But it is a one-issue that rightly trumps all others that I can readily think of.

I can see the appeal of the new and different, but after 4 years, we may remember why we took strong stands where we did.

God is always with you.

My point is: you may or may not be present to him.

Fear who you choose to fear. If you must fear, it is best to fear God.

Tim, you quoted me, but not completely. I noted in my next paragraph that many hard end liberals fail this test of admitting they might be wrong just as blindly as many on the hard right do.

Since abortion got dragged into this, I’ll make this comment that I’ve made many times before: There are a small number of cases where I believe a case can be made that an abortion is only one of several evils. In those cases, the people involved need to be free to make the best decision they are able to make without having outsiders passing judgment on the decision.

What are the essential tenets of the Christian faith? Good question…and one that has yet to be settled after 2000 years of argument

Showme,

You make a good point. My view is slightly different. I believe Jesus was killed because he challenged their authority. Their authority: to declare what it will be, what is right for others. A way of being for human beings that will always result in abuse.

Greed is only one outcome.

Power is a good thing, and Jesus is here to show us another way with it, a more authentic relationship of power. One that comes from within, that can be trusted and shared.

I believe Jesus was hear to engage us in a conversation with God to ongingly guide each of us in our choices. The threat of a power that comes from within each of us is what created the fear that caused others to kill Jesus.

Acknowledging that source of power requires a trust, strength, and faith in each other that is difficult to generate. People know themselves, they have little faith in others. Jesus is here to shows us: it is possible, the sacrifice it requires, and the love it produces.

“What are the essential tenets of the Christian faith? Good question…and one that has yet to be settled after 2000 years of argument ”

Not really. Not for anybody that accepts the authority of scripture. Throughout the history of the church, the various creeds have pretty well laid it out. And we pretty much get the same results through a logical reading of scripture.

The confusion is usually around making a biggrer deal out of a nonessential doctrince than we need to. But I don’t see a lot of variance around the essentials, but I do see a lack of uniting around what we need to unite around, even though we already agree. We would rather divide on things that don’t have any bearing on salvation.

I agree that Jesus is clear about what he is sharing with us. It is his purpose. When he speaks, it is clear.

One clear recommendation, do not judge.

Of all, it is the most difficult. When judgment is present, love is not.

God’s guidance to us is clear, do not partake in the knowledge of “right and wrong.” The manifestation of the use of this knowledge of sin is judgment. This is the first tenet, and the most conveniently forgotten.

I suggest the confusion comes from taking our choices, and declaring them the “right” choices, for ourselves and others.

It begs the question, if I am not compelled to do the “right” thing to glorify God, what else could be my purpose?

That space, that emptiness. that void, that clearing of nothingness is what frightens Christians the most.

It is a conversation that the leadership of some religions think the common believer can not take on and they begin to generate doctrine for us, morality, as if Jesus and God can not speak for themselves.

Mike: here are a few essentials, to me…see if you agree.

Christ Crucified and Risen
God is Sovereign
Original Sin
Virgin Birth
(there are more)

A few non-essentials:

The role of homosexuals in the Church
The question of who can be ordained
Evolution vs Creation
What does “divine inspiration of Scripture” mean?
(there are lots more for this list)

Christ Crucified and Risen
God is Sovereign
Original Sin
Virgin Birth

Of these for me, God is, resurrection and eternal life, and sin. There are more.

I will accept the belief that the story is perfect, and that every aspect, fact, and demonstration of it is essential and serves God.

I will not use that belief to judge another.

Hs,

This can get a bit convoluted if we don’t air one important factor. There are essential doctrines for salvation (If you don’t buy into them you could be called a cult of Christianity)
and then there are essential doctrines that you don’t really need to understand or believe to have salvation, but are not left open for debate in sctripture. (things that you have to agree on

-The diety and humanity of Christ (otherwise the next one doesn’t mean much)
-Christ Crucified and Risen
-God is Sovereign
-Original Sin (the depravity of humanity ie we all need salvation)
-Virgin Birth (essential but you can probably be saved without understanding or accepting this)
-Triunity of God (same as for virgin birth)

-The role of homosexuals in the Church (essential, but not for salvation – anybody LIVING an openly immoral lifestyle has no role in church leadership)
-The question of who can be ordained (essential, this is not left just something arbitrarily decided by men, it’s in scripture.)
-Evolution vs Creation (God has to be the creator to be sovereign, so this is an essential. There is room for argument over how God created, but he did create)
-What does “divine inspiration of Scripture” mean? (I would say we don’t have to understand what it means, but it is essential to accept that scripture is in fact from God, or we have to question the above list of obvious essentials)

-Understanding of endtimes eschatology and prophecy
-Understanding of spiritual gifts (tounges, etc.)
-Understanding of the role of baptism (accept that you should be baptized)

Norman Geisler wrote really good 2 part article for the Christian Research Journal on this, both from a historic and logical approach. I’ll post a link when I find it.

Another-
also, it’s more about not screaming where scripture whispers than finding ways to judge. But, we should unite around truth, and we need to all agree on what that is and not allow lies to infiltrate. That’s not judging, that’s discerning.

Hi Mike,

Thank you for responding. I will make a quick reply and then read your post more completely.

“God is Soveriegn” is a good example. For me, when I read the Bible I hear God call himself “I am”. To Moses, “I am who I am.” For me, God is.

It is not for me to declare more for God than he does for himself.

My church has many prayers and hymns that declare God soveriegn. I will accept “God is soveriegn” in praise and exaltation, but not as definition.

Khalid Shah shared a quote from his text and I was struck by its poignancy.

Woe to those who define God.

When I read that it brings me to my knees. I am overwhelmed with reverence and humbleness.

Many well intentioned people feel compelled to add something, but we do so for ourselves. As humans, I believe we must toil to remain clear.

Mike and Another: Thanks for the comments. Allow me to expand my thought…

The “non-essentials” I mention are those doctrinal points that lead to what one could call the “Church Divided”. Example: Anytime we come up with a list of Sins that are forbidden, then we also create a list of Sins that are to be ignored by default. So, to say to the Homosexual: “you are a worse sinner than me” is ultimately a very, very dangerous statement.

Disclaimer: I do not accept Biblical Literalism as the right way to go. At it’s base, is an assumption that “I” am capable of clear understanding. I was taught, and I believe, that there are many layers to even the simplest Biblical text, and literalism only focuses on the top, shallowest layer. Hence, as an example, I read the first 3 chapters of Genesis, right along with understanding part of modern Cosmology and Molecular Biology…and see no contradictions.

As far as essentials go, I’m an old-line Reform Calvinist. Good Old 5 point Calvinism about sums it up.

Absolute Sovereignty
Utter Depravity
Irresistible Grace
Unconditional Election
Free Will

For an exposition, there is an excellent book called “The Institutes of the Christian Religion” that explains it all. Of course, it was written over 400 years ago, in Genevan French….but hey, that’s the challenge.

Am I getting it? (or is it literal, chuckle)

Absolute Sovereignty - God
Utter Depravity - Sin
Irresistible Grace - Forgiveness
Unconditional Election - God
Free Will - Choice

Unconditional Election occurs for me as a very human intellectual construct to explain a seemingly unreconciled aspect of God and the world.

Another,
Declaring what God has defined about Himself is entirely different that defining God. We praise Him for who He is. Without being able to know about Him, we cannot know Him, and would be hopelessly lost without chance of salvation. In other words, how can you follow something you cannot describe? The basic attributes of that something define it, so without them you cannot know it, and furthermore could not discern it from a something different. So if I ask you what God you serve, not by name, or by affiliation with Isreal or the Bible, how do you describe Him to me? You have to understand and then declare the attributes He has revealed to us.

hs,
I really do agree that we make an unfairly big deal out of homosexual sin (but I would maintain that homosexual BEHAVIOR-not inclination or temptation-is in fact sinful). It is not worse than any other sin. I would add that I would no sooner be able to allow a practicing alcoholic, spouse abuser, heterosexual cohabiter, etc., to hold position of authority of any kind in a church. It’s not about just homosexuality, but about being actively and unrepentantly involved in sinful lifestyle that disqualifies you. Overall, we are very wrong in a heavy-handed treatment of homosexuality, after all we are to bring the gospel to all.

On election, I know the hardline Calvinist (darn fundamentalists…) in you would consider this an essential. I would argue that it may be an important issue, but there is so precious little in scripture regarding it that I think it cannot be considered a real essential. You don’t need to understand or believe it for salvation, it doesn’t affect what or who you reach out to, how you are to act, and is therefore not worth dividing over…but debate over it is clearly a good thing.

Regarding Biblical literality, I think there is a certain degree of it we have to accept or we would be in a chaotic situation of believing anything about any essential subject, and would again have no assurance of salvation. For example the gospel account has to be taken pretty literally regarding Christ, His crucifixion and resurrection. But I would say that full out literality is not necessarily an essential required for salvation.

On origins, do you accept at very minimum that God is the creator regardlessof method? By that, He spoke and all that exists came about (one way or the other) and that everything did not come from nothing without Him? That’s where I would draw the line on an essential doctrine of God as the creator (sticking with the basics required for salvation viewpoint).

On a side note (and maybe for a different day’s discussion), I would argue your point about evolution and it’s agreement with scripture: if for no other reason because a cruel, unguided process that requires much death does not really mesh with the concept of an un-fallen world.

Here are the Geisler articles I mentioned plus a good article on why essentials are important that cites Geisler:
http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2708569/k.B787/JAE1001.htm

http://www.equip.org/site/c.muI1LaMNJrE/b.2708579/k.B7B7/JAE1002.htm

http://www.equip.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=muI1LaMNJrE&b=4126537&content_id=%7BD2E77A22-D435-45B9-AEBB-BD37505C7122%7D&notoc=1

Hi Mike,

On last observation and I am complete. I appreciate your staying engaged.

Soveriegn - a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.

It occurrs as worldly and limiting.

Again, Moses asked who should I say you are, and the answer is clear, “I am who I am.”

I would suggest it is human and archaic, was created in world view of monarchies battling for divine authority, and like much doctrine had a wordly intent, in this case to shift loyalty in a system of monarchs to one supreme ruler.

King of Kings. as it were.

It seems inappropriate for us to make such a claim.

I can’t imagine enough words to put after the declaration that he is.

Thanks for listening.

Mike,

I read something else you wrote, and I want to share something I believe is essential to believing.

It is the word.

I believe that it is essential to acknowledge that God spoke the world into existence. How that manifested itself, I do not have to reconcile to believe.

It is essential that God declared it for himself. Creation is the manifestation of intent.

Intelligtent or not, it is intentional.

As a being it is contrary to my existence to dismiss my choices in the matter of my being to chance.

I am a being of power, created in the image of a being of power. If I accept that, then my choices, responsibility, and consequence leaves nothing to chance, and everything to who I say I am and have the integrity to be.

There is what is, and there is who I declare myself to be.

I believe that it is the power of my speaking, that creates the possiblity for my transformation.

The word made flesh. It can not happen without relationship and the listening for me as a being.

God’s creation of us put the listening for him into existence. He is complete, we are complete.

Consider the baby, that first gasp, breath, and cry. What I hear is “I am!”

Mike,

“Regarding Biblical literality, I think there is a certain degree of it we have to accept”

I hear something in this, another distinction may be to see what is esential and what is of value.

There is one moment in reading the Bible, among many, but one that touched me in a deep and moving way.

It is the story of the women in the town who was about to be stoned by those around her for sinning, and Jesus stopped and confronted those who were judging her with the call to be responsible for themselves.

“Who among you….”

It made a difference for me in my life.

Who am I to say what is the most important aspect of the story to believe. Who am I to say what small word, detail, or act will touch another and make the difference in their lives.

I believe it all serves a purpose.

The distinction may be me that we create distractions when we debate what is essential. If we declare for another what they must believe, it will generate an automatic defense to question us. There is nothing wrong with that, it is who we are as human beings (orignal sin).

Jesus is a master of being the truth. He stepped aside from argument and debate. His most telling remark, for me, is in John. He is asked who he is, badgered to declare himself for them (we beleive to cause him to misstep). Finally in frustration (I imagine) he asks, “Who do you say I am?”

We must each come to him, on our own, supported by each other and him.

The story is essential. No soul is less than any one part of it.

Do I demand a beleiver believe it, by declaring it essential? No. That would be something else.

What a great discussion, about essentials…Thanks to you all.

My interpretation of the Calvinist doctrine of Election is really quite simple: GOD does all the work of salvation. GOD chooses who GOD chooses, GOD draws, GOD dispenses grace, GOD saves. My action (free will) is to accept or deny. That’s it.

On Scripture and Creation: I put it this way. What we are learning about DNA in particular is very, very interesting for the believer. Consider this: We have a Language, with only 4 letters (ACTG) and 24 three letter words (the essential amino acids). String those words together in the correct order, and we define ALL OF LIFE. To expand the metaphor, we humans each have 26 pairs of sentences within us (the chromosomes) that create in us all the diversity that is Humanity. Pretty awesome, to me. Evidence of the hand of God? It’s persuasive, to me.

Or, consider this: Genesis 1:11-12, and 1:18, in the Hebrew, say, respectively: “Let the EARTH bring forth green plants…and Let the WATERS teem with life…”. The fossil evidence suggests that there was, in a flash of geologic time the so-called Cambrian Explosion. Where, suddenly, the earth went from sterile to full of life. Evidence to support the scripture? Perhaps.

Last, consider this: On the subject of the 6 days of creation. A detailed understanding of Relativity and Time leads to a startling conclusion. From the perspective of an observer outside the Universe (God), Only 6 days would have passed for the entire period of cooling, coalescing, and springing forth of Life. For us on the inside of the Universe, many Billions of years have passed. There is, again, no contradiction.

Reference Material: “The Language of God” by Dr. Francis Collins and “The Science of God” by Gerald R. Schroeder.

Thanks hs.

Another,
I too am enjoying this.

First, I agree that trying to understand the supremacy of God is ultimately futile. But, we do know about Him the things that He has revealed. Does He not want us to at least attempt to convey Him to people that don’t know Him? How could we do that without understanding Him?

Debate over essentials should not become distractions because there is not much room for debate on the true essentials. If we are debating an essential doctrine either a) there’s not enough scriptural evidence to base any good doctrine on, so it cannot be essential, or b) one of us is not accepting a clear or obvious point of scripture. God in His wisdom gave the essentials in a pretty clear way because He wanted us to know it without question or confusion. Scripture screams the essentials and whispers the nonessentials. Let’s not scream where scripture whispers, but also not let the obvious truths that scripture screams of become unimportant whispers. I think a lot of squabbling would go away if that point were more often adhered to.

Lastly, you seem to take a word-faith theological approach that I cannot agree with. Your take on “the word” to me is very out of context. It’s well understood that the word (in John) or logos is a term for Jesus. I hate to be divisive, but there is bad teaching regarding spoken words and their power, and it ties into a misunderstanding of faith and the nature of God. Kenneth Copeland stuff. Just be careful with that line of theology.

Okay, if any of that was overly combative, I apologize.

No offense.

To share another thread. I had a revelation about the child schoolyard rhyme. “Stinks and stones may break my bones, but your words will never hurt me.”

I had always experienced that as a taunt. I suspect because it was always directed to me as a taunt because of something I may have said that hurt someone’s feelings. Words do seem to hurt us. Then I realized that I have the power to give them meaning.

Now I speak it as a promise. “…but your words will never hurt me.” I promise to never let words turn me against you, yours or mine. A promise of committment and faith.

As a believer, I am committed to listening for God’s voice in everything I hear.

All powerful people understand the power of the word, and it can be applied to any purpose. All things, good or bad, are delivered through words.

When I accept Jesus, I declare it. When I accept God, I declare it. If I do not declare these things for myself and the world, they do not exist out in the world. They are only in my head. Not an altogether safe neighborhood to be alone in.

I can make a case for a relationship with God, myself, and no others. As a Christian, I am committed to that relationship through Jesus. I engage in a conversation ongingly to that purpose. I can witness to that through my acts, and when I speak my intentions are clear to others. The integrity between my words and acts is my power as a being. Jesus showed me this.

Another childhood rhyme, “Jesus loves me, yes I know, cause the Bible tells me so.” For me, and I believe in the story of the Bible, Jesus is true to his word. I am grateful others have kept the faith with the word so that it is present for me.