Can Liberal Christianity be Saved?

From a NYTimes article:
Can Liberal Christianity be Saved?

The article is about how the Episcopal Church has basically modernized and liberalized itself over time, by becoming more egalitarian, by relaxing positions on doctrine or being accepting to other faiths, and now by blessing same sex partnerships. But the article also talks about how there has been a rather significant long-term decline in membership.

Why do you think this may be? Why is liberalization of religion correlated with reduction in membership and adherence?

Does a liberal theology likely lead to secular agnosticism? If theology is relaxed and multiple worldviews are accepted, does it result in theological apathy or confusion?

Or does a liberal theology likely lead to strong belief in spiritual concepts that no longer require any place of worship? That specific views are still held, but those views are open and non-exclusive?

Does an open, accepting religion inherently kind of shoot itself in the foot in terms of spreading and growing?

Penumbra said:

Why do you think this may be? Why is liberalization of religion correlated with reduction in membership and adherence?

Click to expand...

I think a big part of it is taking the morality issues from the religious dogma and giving back to the people. This in turn weakens any power the church would have over it's members.

Does a liberal theology likely lead to secular agnosticism? If theology is relaxed and multiple worldviews are accepted, does it result in theological apathy or confusion?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, Hinduism is a good example of liberal theology that doesn't lead to secular agnosticism. As the article described the church accepting many faiths is a sort of Universalism that liberal theologies tend to go towards.

I don't think it is confusing because all the greatest religious leaders all spoke of love and acceptance. It is more of an optimistic view compared to thinking god just tolerates us.

Or does a liberal theology likely lead to strong belief in spiritual concepts that no longer require any place of worship? That specific views are still held, but those views are open and non-exclusive?

Click to expand...

That is a strong possibility. I've heard numerous individuals always speak of god and even whatever religion they grew up with and stat that, "god wouldn't care if I go every sunday". Almost as if going to church is the first thing to go. Not always but very likely.

Open non-inclusive mind set is a huge part of liberal theologies. You can't be liberal if your so busy judging how wrong people are.

Does an open, accepting religion inherently kind of shoot itself in the foot in terms of spreading and growing?

Click to expand...

Maybe a bit because an open liberal sort of church isn't looking for followers they are looking for brothers and sisters. While a church that has a strangle hold on morality kinda scare their flocks into submission. Hopefully an organization isn't just looking for power over people if they are just trying to help people spiritually.

Penumbra said:

Does a liberal theology likely lead to secular agnosticism? If theology is relaxed and multiple worldviews are accepted, does it result in theological apathy or confusion?

Click to expand...

I think it does lead to agnosticism for many. Once the seed of doubt is placed it grows pretty fast. If one doctrine can be relaxed, all the others seem much easier to relax as well. Of course, we can't ignore that there must also be members of the church who are dissatisfied with the relaxed approach and gravitate towards more traditional religions. They probably see it as somewhat of a betrayal of the values that held them to the church in the first place.

Or does a liberal theology likely lead to strong belief in spiritual concepts that no longer require any place of worship? That specific views are still held, but those views are open and non-exclusive?

Click to expand...

I would agree with this as well. If a religion you have faith in suggests that other faiths are worthy of consideration, you are more likely to find another faith that suits you better than the original. When the restraints of location and time are lifted, you are more likely to find more and more excuses not to attend. God won't really mind after all.

Does an open, accepting religion inherently kind of shoot itself in the foot in terms of spreading and growing?

Click to expand...

It seems a bit negative to put it in these terms. As any church requires members to exist, I must concede that the Episcopal church must as well, but its really a question of priorities if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I can't speak for the church itself, but it seems that this is at least an acceptable outcome of 'sticking to their values of liberalism' if not an intended one. If I were to venture a guess, I would say they are far more concerned with 'not being THOSE guys' as they are with membership. They don't seem to be interested in the 'moral majority' or the 'Christian Right' as it were and are legitimately interested in spreading goodwill and peace. Obviously just my opinion of what I see.

This particularly recent development of allowing same sex marriage can't have had much effect as yet, and I imagine it may stabilize their membership to a certain degree. I've met many homosexuals who were raised in more traditional environments and still have a strong belief in their church and the structure and ceremony of it, but can't reconcile the fierce anti-gay position of the church they've come to love. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Episcopal church sees a huge influx of these members after making this decision. Time will tell, of course.

idav said:

I think a big part of it is taking the morality issues from the religious dogma and giving back to the people. This in turn weakens any power the church would have over it's members.

Not necessarily, Hinduism is a good example of liberal theology that doesn't lead to secular agnosticism. As the article described the church accepting many faiths is a sort of Universalism that liberal theologies tend to go towards.

I don't think it is confusing because all the greatest religious leaders all spoke of love and acceptance. It is more of an optimistic view compared to thinking god just tolerates us.

That is a strong possibility. I've heard numerous individuals always speak of god and even whatever religion they grew up with and stat that, "god wouldn't care if I go every sunday". Almost as if going to church is the first thing to go. Not always but very likely.

Open non-inclusive mind set is a huge part of liberal theologies. You can't be liberal if your so busy judging how wrong people are.


Maybe a bit because an open liberal sort of church isn't looking for followers they are looking for brothers and sisters. While a church that has a strangle hold on morality kinda scare their flocks into submission. Hopefully an organization isn't just looking for power over people if they are just trying to help people spiritually.

Click to expand...

I agree with all your points except:

idav said:

You can't be liberal if your so busy judging how wrong people are.

Click to expand...

Most of us do it all the time. If any, a liberal (like me) can very well say how wrong people are for being so uptight for example

See my sig...

Maybe the Episcopalians need to proselytize much much more than they do. At least, I get the impression that they don't do all that much in the way of selling their services to people. Maybe they have a distaste for it.

Conservative mega-churches, on the other hand, are pretty savvy when it comes to selling themselves. I've read that those churches, on average, have huge turn-over rates in their congregations. Yet, they grow because they aggressively proselytize and bring in new members even faster than they lose them.

The Episcopalians -- and other liberal congregations -- might be likely to go the way of the ancient pagans if they don't proselytize. Most of the pagans didn't, while the early Christians were quite active at it. All else being equal, the organizations with the best marketing are the organizations that win in the end.

Christianity was never meant to be a "religion," but a "way" -- a way of life that can embrace any religion or human endeavor. Conservative Xy embraces a sort of "circle the wagons" pardaigm: Closed and closely-monitored membership, clearly and narrowly-defined beliefs, a tendency to gravitate toward like-mindedness, usually based upon a uniform interpretation of the bible, and narrowly-defined ideas of "good," "God," "salvation," etc. Usually, conservatism embraces a marked distinction between "sacred" and "secular," or "of the word/of God's kingdom."

Liberal Xy tends toward the opposite: A looser approach to "who's in/who's out," less strictly-defined beliefs and a broader approach to interpretation, a greater embrace of diversity, a willingness to explore ideas such as "goodness," "grace," "salvation." A liberal friend of mine once commented on a colleague by saying, "He takes Jesus way too seriously." Liberals tend to give human beings a lot more leeway and a lot more power in the spiritual process.

Therefore, it's no surprise that liberal churches tend to report lower rigid membership, based upon it's approach. It's also no surprise that liberals tend to find support and inspiration outside the walls of their churches, because their churches are willing to concede that they don't have a corner on the market, and that any inspiration is good. Additionally, many liberals don't espouse the same formulaic salvific "plans" that characterize the conservative approach. Many liberals see themselves as basically OK, while many conservatives must rely on God's election of them for salvation.

I think that Xy is basically (in its healthiest and "purest" form) a humanist movement, espousing the concept that humanity has reached divine status in the person and avatar of Jesus.

Sunstone said:

Maybe the Episcopalians need to proselytize much much more than they do. At least, I get the impression that they don't do all that much in the way of selling their services to people. Maybe they have a distaste for it.

Conservative mega-churches, on the other hand, are pretty savvy when it comes to selling themselves. I've read that those churches, on average, have huge turn-over rates in their congregations. Yet, they grow because they aggressively proselytize and bring in new members even faster than they lose them.

The Episcopalians -- and other liberal congregations -- might be likely to go the way of the ancient pagans if they don't proselytize. Most of the pagans didn't, while the early Christians were quite active at it. All else being equal, the organizations with the best marketing are the organizations that win in the end.

Click to expand...

Don't you think there could be a link though, between relaxed theology and less proselytizing?

If people take a more relaxed and more inclusive view of theology, then perhaps there is less to proselytize about than from a conservative exclusive religious standpoint.

"You need Jesus in your life for salvation!"

vs.

"Join our congregation, if you want to. Either way, you'll be ok; there are multiple ways to truth."

It seems to me that if people are less likely to believe that other people need a specific religious message for salvation, and that people are ok in their own faiths, then they might be less inclined to spread their religion.

Don't you think there could be a link though, between relaxed theology and less proselytizing?

Click to expand...

A good liberal approach "sells" the prospect on the aspects of providing a place for the prospect to grow and minister fully, as opposed to the standard proselytization tack of selling based on a scare tactic of needed salvation ("What if it were today?!")

Penumbra said:

Don't you think there could be a link though, between relaxed theology and less proselytizing?

If people take a more relaxed and more inclusive view of theology, then perhaps there is less to proselytize about than from a conservative exclusive religious standpoint.

"You need Jesus in your life for salvation!"

vs.

"Join our congregation, if you want to. Either way, you'll be ok; there are multiple ways to truth."

It seems to me that if people are less likely to believe that other people need a specific religious message for salvation, and that people are ok in their own faiths, then they might be less inclined to spread their religion.

Click to expand...

I think you're probably right that it's more difficult to come up with an attractive, effective marketing strategy if your message is basically, "We're one of many legitimate options". But I don't think it's necessarily impossible to do so. I once read that Buddhism has, by and large, taken that approach over the centuries, and yet, Buddhism is the third largest of the world's religions, after Christianity and Islam. It is also known as a proselytizing religion, despite being relatively low key about it.

sojourner said:

Christianity was never meant to be a "religion," but a "way" -- a way of life that can embrace any religion or human endeavor. Conservative Xy embraces a sort of "circle the wagons" pardaigm: Closed and closely-monitored membership, clearly and narrowly-defined beliefs, a tendency to gravitate toward like-mindedness, usually based upon a uniform interpretation of the bible, and narrowly-defined ideas of "good," "God," "salvation," etc. Usually, conservatism embraces a marked distinction between "sacred" and "secular," or "of the word/of God's kingdom."

Liberal Xy tends toward the opposite: A looser approach to "who's in/who's out," less strictly-defined beliefs and a broader approach to interpretation, a greater embrace of diversity, a willingness to explore ideas such as "goodness," "grace," "salvation." A liberal friend of mine once commented on a colleague by saying, "He takes Jesus way too seriously." Liberals tend to give human beings a lot more leeway and a lot more power in the spiritual process.

Therefore, it's no surprise that liberal churches tend to report lower rigid membership, based upon it's approach. It's also no surprise that liberals tend to find support and inspiration outside the walls of their churches, because their churches are willing to concede that they don't have a corner on the market, and that any inspiration is good. Additionally, many liberals don't espouse the same formulaic salvific "plans" that characterize the conservative approach. Many liberals see themselves as basically OK, while many conservatives must rely on God's election of them for salvation.

I think that Xy is basically (in its healthiest and "purest" form) a humanist movement, espousing the concept that humanity has reached divine status in the person and avatar of Jesus.

Click to expand...

I think there's a degree of uncertainty about what Christianity was meant to be.

Most early Christians seemed to be under the impression that the world was going to end soon, so I don't think they were preparing for their religion to exist for 2,000 years and have billions of adherents.

Jesus' character in the Bible was pretty open with hanging out with people, but also pretty divisive:

Luke 12:49-53
“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Luke 14:25-27
Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

And Paul seemed even more conservative. I don't think I have to post quotes, as from my observation, liberal Christians tend to be more likely to exclude Paulian theology anyway with more of a focus on the gospels.

It doesn't really seem to me that Jesus as he was portrayed in the Gospels or Paul as he is portrayed in his letters would have fit well within the Episcopalian church.

sojourner said:

A good liberal approach "sells" the prospect on the aspects of providing a place for the prospect to grow and minister fully, as opposed to the standard proselytization tack of selling based on a scare tactic of needed salvation ("What if it were today?!")

Click to expand...

So how do you think the liberal approach is doing in this regard, if they are reporting reduced membership?

Are they trying to sell this message, or are they selling this message but not effectively?

In reports about happiness and religion, community is often cited as a key component of happiness. But community seems to be a pretty difficult thing to articulate in a marketing approach.

Liberal Christianity is going to be just fine. It's not really the new kid on the block.

Christianity has always been controlled by cultural mores. And Christianity has never been a visionary leader. It usually follows at least 50 years behind the cultural style, taste, and values that it attempts to embrace.

There are "liberal" people in churches that "Christianity" has no power to change.

And there are "conservative" people in churches that "Christianity" has no power to change.

The liberal Christians typically have the presence of mind to know that they aren't "following the Bible" in a more literal sense. The conservative Christians are under the delusion that they are following the Bible, as we know.

This has been going on since Christianity began.