Like Button

Friday, September 29, 2006

"Moderate" Christians

Recently I asked if it was possible to deny the Trinity and be a Christian. I still don't know the answer to that one. Now I have a new question. Is it possible to be a moderate or liberal Christian? Okay, so that's not a sincere question. Of course, it is. Real Christians can be wrong about all sorts of things and still be Christians. (If you didn't chuckle at that, you probably missed the fact that it was intended for humor.)

But I still wonder about the difference and what causes it. According to John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, the primary difference between the conservative Christian and the moderate or liberal Christian is this: "The only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves."

This standard leads to some other conclusions. It's okay to allow the death of a person in a persistently vegetative state. It's loving to save people's lives through embryonic stem cell research. It's divisive to bring God into the public square. It's wrong to do anything that would make a homosexual feel humiliated. It's wrong to bring faith into affairs of a diverse State because the government never shares the same concerns as our faith. Senator Danforth says, "For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people."

So, the primary difference between the conservative Christian and the rest is that the rest are concerned with love, and the conservative Christian is not. Insisting that life is important and should be protected rather than ended is not loving. Believing that human life, regardless of its stage, is precious and shouldn't be routinely destroyed, even for the purpose of saving others is not loving. Those who believe that biblical marriage is important, that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, and that the best they can do for the acting homosexual is diminish their capacity to act that way are not loving. We who believe that what we believe is for the benefit of all and should, therefore, make it public are not loving. And if you are one who believes that God made laws in the best interest of His creation, and we are acting in the best interest of other people if we encourage the passage of such laws in our society are not loving.

"Experience unites; doctrine divides." This is true. But wasn't it Jesus who said, "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:18-19). Ironically, Jesus says this immediately following His command to love one another (John 15:17). Jesus also said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household" (Matt 10:34-36). Yes, we are to be people known for our love, especially for one another. Love, however, doesn't mean what many people seem to think. And the truth is that truth in general and Christianity in particular will not be inclusive; it excludes by its very nature those who are outside the truth. We need to be careful about our aims, intentions, and definitions.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Love is not a subjective standard as many would like to claim. I don't get to claim that any action is right because I define it is a loving action. There are those who make that claim but using it as a basis for anyone not lining up as conservative is using a straw man.

Love is God and God is Love so anything outside of His character is not love.

Where I believe conservatives differ from moderates or others is they feel it is their role to dictate what God is telling them to do. To his own master he stands or falls (Romans 14) - we do not need to serve in the role of accuser, prosecutor, judge or jury.

It is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between the two covenants and the fact that the new covenant was written on the heart and mind - not written in stone. The old covenant was replaced with a superior covenant but many conservatives would rather hold others accountable by the old covenant's commands.

Whether conservatives like it or not, it is an issue of connecting a person to the lawgiver and then letting God be God.

Matt 22:6"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Samantha said...

Hi Stan-
I just wanted to say, "Nice blog" :D

Anonymous said...

You know I always think of John as the apostle of "love." That is why he is my favorite, because he has such a tender way of expressing love, yet even that has limits according to the apostle. Last night in my evening devotional time I was reading 2 John 1.

"Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds." 2 John 1:9-11

Jim Jordan said...

Danforth: "The only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves."

Wrong. There's another one; "Love God above all things". That's the first commandment, and Danforth cherry-picked the second. Matthew 22: 36-40 (see Brian's post).

You can't kill a baby to save your brother as Danforth passionately advocates in his atrocious book.

You can't love your brother and hate God any more than you can hate your brother and love God.