Posted on 07/08/2005 6:47:12 AM PDT by rhema
Liberals today prefer to be called "progressives." They want to escape the negative connotations that have risen around the name for their ideology. The irony is that "liberal" was itself a label to make them sound better.
The term comes from a Latin word meaning "freedom." Technically, a "liberal economic system" refers to free market, capitalist economics, as championed by today's "conservatives." The classical approach to teaching and learning favored by many conservatives today is technically "liberal education," referring to the equipping of a free citizen. Such an education specifically designed for freedom is in contrast to John Dewey's self-styled "progressive education," designed to form the socialist worker.
The term "progressive" does capture an important part of the liberals' worldview. They believe in progress, that what is new is better than what is old, and that we need to keep changing to get better. Liberals/progressives look to the future and look down on the past. "Tradition" is seen as a bad thing, as are "traditional values" and "old-fashioned ideas."
Conservatives, on the other hand, want to "conserve" elements of the past. Cultural traditions—as in "our Western civilization" and "our American heritage"—are seen as good things. So are "traditional values" and the sense that basic institutions, such as the family, need protecting rather than changing. Conservatives too might work for changing society and challenging its evils, but the goal tends to be restoring a moral order, rather than the progressives' agenda of creating a society that is completely new.
Though "liberalism" has fallen into disrepute, "conservativism" has not been as effective politically or in influencing the culture as one might expect, given conservatives' political victories. Part of the reason is that conservatism has its own strains of "progressive" thought. Some people are conservative politically and economically, but liberal culturally, favoring abortion, sexual permissiveness, and other moral and cultural changes. Other hybrids include big-government conservatives, anti-American conservatives, and cultural conservatives who believe in progressive economics.
Todd Wilken, the Lutheran talk-show host, has identified another kind of liberal conservative. In an article titled "Bible-believing Liberals" in Issues, Etc. Journal, he observes that many Christians are conservative politically, economically, culturally, and in every other way except one: They are liberal/progressives when it comes to church.
"While they believe that the culture needs to return to its historic traditions, they think the church needs to abandon hers," Mr. Wilken writes. "While they believe men and women have defined roles in marriage and family, they don't see why a woman can't replace a man in the pulpit. . . . They want the Ten Commandments in the public square, but are unconcerned when those commandments are replaced with ‘principles for living' from the pulpit. To the Bible-believing liberal, ceremonies of a presidential inauguration are meaningful and inspiring, but the Sunday morning liturgy is boring. For the Bible-believing liberal, the differences between political parties are serious, but the differences between Christian denominations are petty. While they insist on a strict literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, they play fast and loose with the Bible and its theology, even while maintaining its inerrancy and inspiration. These are the Bible-believing liberals."
In other words, many Christians reject the dogmas of progressivism—the old is bad, what's new is good, we should change along with the cultural trends—in the culture wars, while embracing them in church.
"By definition, Bible-believing liberals consider themselves conservative," Mr. Wilken told WORLD. "They are completely unaware that they have started thinking and speaking like old-line liberals. When it is pointed out to them, they are incredulous and usually offended. They fail to see that, just like the old-line liberals, they have allowed the culture to call the shots in their church's teaching and practice. Most evangelicals consider themselves loyal footsoldiers in the culture war. However, while they have fought the culture's influence in society, they have surrendered to it in their churches."
Christians who want to conserve traditional values might start by conserving their churches. •
It is erroneous to call such people "Bible-believing."
What is the difference between liberals, progressives, socialists, communists and liars? (As for me, I don't see any.)
Has anyone else noticed the sudden appearance of these articles trying to compromise the Evangelicals? What's up with this?
People want entertainment and family activities from churches today. People shop around for the church with the best laser light show and largest gym.
The Bible? Didn't the Supreme Court rule that illegal?
Do any of these progressives realize or care that God is Constant?
Try visiting a "happy-clappy" church. They will all be holding their NIV Bibles while being entertained for an hour or so. They will be anti-abortion and will mostly vote Republican, but they won't tolerate traditional worship.
A fair enough critique.
They want the Ten Commandments in the public square, but are unconcerned when those commandments are replaced with ‘principles for living' from the pulpit.
"Principles for living" are derived from the 10 Commandments and other Biblical teachings. There's a place for both - as I recall, Christ's "principles for living" were, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your mind, and all your strength" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Sounds like Christ wasn't averse to the "principles for living" concept, was he???
To the Bible-believing liberal, ceremonies of a presidential inauguration are meaningful and inspiring, but the Sunday morning liturgy is boring.
Maybe the Sunday morning liturgy is boring. Nothing wrong with that; the Christian Faith predates the liturgy. The liturgy may be an outdated cultural relic that is irrelevant and incomprehensible to post-modern minds.
For the Bible-believing liberal, the differences between political parties are serious, but the differences between Christian denominations are petty.
Quick: can you give me the key, critical differences between the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and the Bible Presbyterian Church? Between the OPC and the Reformed Baptists? Between the Reformed Baptists and the Southern Baptist Colition? Many of the differences between those groups are trivial.
Even with the differences between the Evangelicals, the Catholics, the Orthodox, and the Mainline Protestants, it must be realized that, in the end, all are ultimately Christian denominations that affirm, or at least believe everything in, the old Creeds. It's a cliche, but it works - what we, as Christians, have in common is far greater than our theological disagreements. No, we should not trivialize our differences - as an Evangelical, I have very significant and real differences in my theology from a Catholic, for instance, and to claim otherwise would be denial. On the hand, we should not magnify those differences so that they seem greater than they are.
"Conserving their churches"? Is that the new Great Commission? Because my church is more interested in reaching the world and making disciples. And yes, our music and style are rather modern - spare me the blather about how the music of the 1600's (much of it wonderful and timeless, by the way) is somehow "Biblical" while newer music is somehow wrong. Psalm 98 says "Sing to the Lord a new song".
Perhaps "someone" is running for President who might benefit from such drivel? After all, "she" and others in her party are wondering how to appeal to "c"hristians as opposed to "C"hristians. Even Pelosi had a big pow-wow to figure out how to shape the party message to appeal to them.
Well said.
Hi Par,
You wrote:
"Try visiting a "happy-clappy" church. They will all be holding their NIV Bibles while being entertained for an hour or so. They will be anti-abortion and will mostly vote Republican, but they won't tolerate traditional worship."
Just a few questions:
1) The NIV translation is bad/wrong? Please enlighten me as to the best translation.
2) What exactly is "traditional worship"? Hymns? Liturgy? My church is a Bible-believing church, yet we don't sing hymns. We even have a BAND! Please let me know what's wrong.
Kharis
Every time I drive by a church with a sign out front saying, "God's doing a new thing!", I want to vomit. He isn't doing "a new thing", MAN is doing the new thing, and it isn't right!
Or as the less educated churches here in NC say, "God's doin' a new THANG!" The other one I dislike is "Get in, get out, or get run over!" Now THERE'S a nice Christian attitude...
AMEN! You mean those "seeker friendly" "purpose driven" charismatics?
I go to what you would consider a "happy-clappy" church. I'll be holding my King James Version Bible and praising God and studying His word for an hour or two. Yes we sing praise choruses (Shout to the Lord etc) but we also do an old hymn from time to time.
(For the uninformed, the King James, New King James and several other bible versions were translated using formal equivalence, that is, word for word translation. The NIV and several other versions were translated using dynamic equivalence, that is, thought for thought translation. A formally equivalent version will always be closer in meaning to the original manuscripts as the translators' opinions don't get as much chance to enter into the work. I actually use a parrallel KJV/NIV to get the best of both worlds. Greater readability from the NIV but greater accuracy from the KJV. In case of conflict the KJV wins out due to more accurate translation technique)
Now define traditional worship? Is a group of people singing hymns not traditional worship? After all that's what Jesus and His disciples did. Of course they probably didn't sing "Amazing Grace" or "How Great Thou Art" but since Jesus is God He can probably get away with it right? < /heavy sarcasm>
Worship is worship no matter what the music is or the songs being sung. Worship is an attitude of the heart and can be done in church or in a fishing boat or while driving to work etc. Don't get caught up in formulaic definitions of worship (First, second, and last verse of any song from the approved hymnal. But any hymn older than 150 years should be OK)
These people are not conservative and are definitely not Christian
No, and I didn't say that it was. The old version of the NIV, to which I referred is, however, the translation favored by many in evangelical churches. I even have a couple of copies around the house. The new version of the NIV, recently released, is pure garbage and should be burned if a copy comes into your possession.
Please enlighten me as to the best translation.
Depends on what you want to do with it. Some are better with the old testament, others with the new. The King James is excellent for reading aloud because of the way that it sounds, but is not the best study Bible because some of the language is archaic. The New King James is good, as it retains most of the good qualities of the KJV with the language being somewhat more accessible to most folks. Some folks like the ESV, but it is too politically correct for me. NIV is OK, as is the NAS. Even the RSV is OK.
2) What exactly is "traditional worship"? Hymns? Liturgy? We even have a BAND! Please let me know what's wrong.
You don't give enough information to know whether anything is wrong. I will be happy to give you some things you might want to look for to see if there is a problem, however.
The type instruments used (or the lack thereof) is a matter of preference, not theology. The tunes played may or may not be a problem.
1. What is the purpose of the music. Is it to entertain the audience, or is to lead them in their worship of God.
2. Why are the folks playing the music. Are they doing it for the glory of God, or are they performing for the folks in the room.
3. Look at the words. Do they focus on God, or on man.
4. What does the Bible say about worship and the use of music in worship? Is what is being done Biblical or not?
My church is a Bible-believing church, yet we don't sing hymns.
If you don't sing hymns, do you all exclusively sing Psalms? Nothing wrong with that, but I don't find it to be Biblically mandated.
"Worship is an attitude of the heart and can be done in church or in a fishing boat or while driving to work etc."
Thank you. Man looks at the outward appearance ("happy clappy" or hymns and liturgy), but God looks on the heart. 1 Samuel 16:7
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.