Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    What got me started on this string was the frequent use of "liberal" in
    a variety of contexts.  Bonnie tells me that in this conference I'm a
    "liberal", whereas I think of myself as a fundamentalist or maybe
    radical.  That is to say, I seek the foundations or roots (radical
    means pertaining to the root in its Latin origin) of God's reality.
    
    I have the feeling that "liberal" has gotten such a bad rap this last
    decade or so that it's come to mean, "not me", to some folks.
    
    So if you think of yourself as liberal or conservative, or if you feel
    comfortable identifying others as such, tell us why.
    
    DR

    �There is clearly a strain of thought that sees a division between�an
    intellectual approach to God -- typified in my mind by a UU church I
    once attended -- and one that sees God's �world-view as revealed
    already and not subject to questioning. 
    
    The first asks the second why God gave us our minds.  The second asks
    the first why�they presume to define God who has already revealed
    himself.
    
    DR

    It's easy to see the split between ecclesiastical and congregational
    right in the discussions about this file and its management.  Is it
    human nature that when we drop the doctrinal reins of an hierarchy that
    we get so much dissension we long for some authority who will just shut
    us up so we can get on with "life"?
    
    Some of us (myself included) are tempted to laugh at the Roman church in
    its dealings with folks like Matthew Foxx, but is not that the opposite
    pole of "I feel that you don't ..." and "Please don't flame" or "I am
    compelled to say that..."?  
    
    We long for authority, which we can hate when we get it.
    
    DR
    
    

    �This one fits me.  If you have to call me anything, don't call me a
    liberal, call me a New Ager!
    
    There are those who believe a new dispensation has come upon us.  We
    call it the Aquarian Age or the New Age.  In my case, I am looking to
    the Second Coming of Christ.  �I believe that Peter's quotation of Joel
    applies here and now --
    
    And in the last days it shall be, God declares
    that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
    and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
    and your young men shall see visions,
    and your old men shall dream dreams ...
    
    It is in this context that I believe many spiritual marvels occur
    amongst my family and associates.  I hear of yet more wonderful things 
    elsewhere.
    
    Lest I get carried away, there are those who believe that God has
    revealed his will once for all, and it is for us to seek to discern
    that will and follow it.
    
    Love,
    
    DR

    I don't like labels. Labels attempt to say everything about a person.

     No one can now that much about a person to be able to define them with
     a label.

    When I was in high school I was labeled a canook (SP?) because I was
    from a French speaking part of town. This labeled gave the impression
    that I was from Canada, which I'm not, and I speak French, which I
    don't, even though I wish I could. By labeling me, they never really
    got to know me. They only could understand their own stereotypical
    interpretation of what a person who from a French ethnic background 
    is. To bad they didn't get to know the real me, then they would of
    had some real things to talk about, hee hee! -:)

    Peace
    Jim

    I don't care much for labels either.  I think they are useful for a
    frame of reference - some ideas to spring from, but what usually ends 
    up happening is that the label becomes a tight little box the person 
    or object is crammed into.  
    
    Maybe people don't feel as though they have the time to get to know 
    one another.  Maybe there is a fear of this kind of intimacy between 
    ourselves, between ourselves and God.  Boxes and labels are safe aren't 
    they?  They're also BORING and restrictive and fragmented.  Are we so
    afraid and disturbed by our world, its events and the people in it, that 
    we have to resort to stuffing each other into boxes?
    
    Karen
    
    p.s.  Gee Jim, can't wait to get to know you better! ;-) :-)
    

    Oh, and one more thing. :-)
    
    Labels are necessary because we live (at present anyway) in a relative
    world.  Labels are the ego's mode of expression, and we depend upon our
    ego for our physical survival.  But, we are not just our egos and
    therefore not just the labels our egos attach to us.  The "trick" is 
    to first know that something of ourselves lie beyond the ego, then 
    learn how to go beyond it and the language/labels it uses, to get 
    around more peacefully and compassionately in this world.
    
    Karen
    

    I like to "take on" an unpopular label (such as "liberal" or "liberal
    Christian") and prove by my life and beliefs that such a label is
    misunderstood.   (Of course, I only do this if I truly feel that the
    label has an unwarranted negative reputation and if I truly believe
    that the "correct" meaning of the label fits.)
    
    Guess I like to "shock" or surprise people.
    
    :^{}
    
    Nancy

    We humans suffer from "hardening of the catagories".  Labels are
    useful, but only when used with blurry or fuzzy edges (flexibility)
    in the realization that no label can ever be completely adequate or
    completely accurate.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I guess my motivation for this string was an exploration of the term
    "liberal" as used herein.  Am I correct that as used herein it means,
    "person who's not attuned to the GOLF::CHRISTIAN way of thinking?"
    
    By that definition I'm a liberal, but I feel that's a long way from the
    root of the meaning.
    
    DR

re Note 37.10 by WMOIS::REINKE:

>     I guess my motivation for this string was an exploration of the term
>     "liberal" as used herein.  Am I correct that as used herein it means,
>     "person who's not attuned to the GOLF::CHRISTIAN way of thinking?"

        I hope that's not how we see ourselves here!  Also, I think
        we must distinguish between conference moderation policy,
        which I hope is and remains "liberal", and the
        self-identification of the participants, which I hope
        continues to cover as wide a spectrum as it now does.
  
        In a recent reply, I quoted a definition of "liberal" from
        the Random House dictionary:  

           "open minded and tolerant, especially free of or not bound
           by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc."  

        Other definitions of "liberal" include "favorable to progress
        or reform,"  "not strict or rigorous; free; not literal,"
        "free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant," "favoring or
        permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to
        matters of personal belief or expression," and "favorable to
        or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom
        possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by
        governmental protection of civil liberties."

        I offered the first definition above as a definition of the
        conference moderation policy, not as a definition of the kind
        of Christian who "belongs" here.  I would hope that radicals,
        traditionalists, conservatives, evangelicals, and even
        fundamentalists would all feel welcome to participate here
        precisely because the conference moderation policy was
        "liberal".

        Bob

    re: .11
    
    Amen, Brother Bob

    I have been labelled a "radical" by some.  I strive not to be radical,
    however, but to be compassionate.
    
    "Quaker" and "Methodist" were both originally derogatory terms.
    
    Funny how one acquires a label while in pursuit of something else.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>    "Quaker" and "Methodist" were both originally derogatory terms.
 
	As of course was "Christian".

			Alfred

Liberal

Since I was the first to actually use this word in relationship to this
conference, I'll explain myself (again).

This is a "liberal" (Christian) conference *precisely* because of the 
guidelines which started the conference which refuse to "limit" (or "define")
what is considered "Christian" and what is "not".  This is one of the
ways that the conference (or an individual) can be considered "liberal".

There are other ways to be labelled a liberal, but this is the classic
one.

Collis

    Collis,
    	if you want us all limited to the straight-jacket of your mind-set,
    or whatever, "Oh, well". We are "liberal" enough to accept you
    and Mike V. and the others in between and the only way you need be
    "liberal" to participate here is that you accept Gil and Richard and
    all those between as having valid - if possibly incorrect - opinions. I
    do not feel that this conference presents any other "liberal"
    restrictions. Read through TOOK::UU if you want to see an essentially
    "liberal" conference. I like the variety here and can only wonder at
    the appeal of a conference which pre-defines what thoughts are or are
    not acceptable. 

Dave,

  >if you want us all limited to the straight-jacket of your mind-set
  >or whatever, "Oh, well".

???

Where did this come from?

I continually feel (think) when I read your responses that you didn't
understand what I was saying.  What goes through my mind (maybe it's
accurate and maybe it's not) is that, as I said in a previous note,
you have boxed who I am and what I believe into a pre-defined category
and you respond not to what I say, but to your pre-conceived ideas of
where I'm coming from.  Maybe the problem is on my end?  Whatever, we
are certainly *not* communicating if I understand what you are saying
above and you think this is an appropriate response to what I wrote.

As I understand what I wrote in .15, I took no "pot-shot" at being a
liberal, I did not question whether this was good or bad.  All I did
(as I see it) was to explain why I thought the "liberal" label was
correctly applied to this conference.  If you disagree with this, then
please state what you disagree with and why and we can seriously discuss
this.  You might show me where my understanding is deficient and, if it
is, I'd be pleased to change.

You are quite right in saying that "conservatives" are welcome in this
conference (if that's what you said).

  >I... can only wonder at the appeal of a conference which pre-defines
  >what thoughts are or are not acceptable.

I think there is some value in being in an environment where every
thought is "acceptable".

I think there is more value in being in an environment where God's
standards are accepted at face value and used as a measuring rod.

Collis

    	In earlier notes, in other strings, you seemed to be favoring
    greater definition in this conference. Definition of what a christian
    is, for example. In 37.15 you said "This is a "liberal" (Christian)
    conference *prcisely* because of the guidelines which started the
    conference which refuse to "limit" (or "define") - here I run out of
    quotable text, but there was more. One day I'll learn how to extract
    quotes for inclusion. 
    	Your earlier preference, your stance as a conservative christian,
    and your use of the term "refuse" suggest that you would prefer that
    things were otherwise, that a stricter format - perhaps more to your
    liking - be imposed. Your latest response would seem to negate that
    understanding of the preceding.

    in re .17
    
    Collis
    
    which human through our limited perspective defines what God's
    standards are?
    
    If one listens with their heart and finds Gods voice answering
    differently than what you hear..
    
    which of us is right?
    
    Bonnie

Re:  37.18

Dave,

  >In earlier notes, in other strings, you seemed to be favoring
  >greater definition in this conference. Definition of what a christian
  >is, for example. 

Actually, the only explicit think I have said about this conference 
as a personal opinion is that I believe that there *is* a place for a 
conference which such a definition is not made.  If you want, I can look 
up the note.  It was in a topic discussing the purpose of this conference, 
I think.  Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

  >Your earlier preference, your stance as a conservative christian,
  >and your use of the term "refuse" suggest that you would prefer that
  >things were otherwise, that a stricter format - perhaps more to your
  >liking - be imposed. Your latest response would seem to negate that
  >understanding of the preceding.

Actually, I wasn't trying to express an opinion about this conference
in .15.  I was just trying to explain why I viewed the label "liberal"
appropriate for this conference.

Collis

Re:  37.19

    Bonnie
    
  >which human through our limited perspective defines what God's standards 
  >are?

Humans do not define God's standards.  God does.
    
  >If one listens with their heart and finds Gods voice answering
  >differently than what you hear..
  >    
  >which of us is right?

God is always right.  The question is, "how can we best know what God
is saying?"  There have been many answers to this question down through
history.  Experience, tradition, reason and revelation (the Bible) are
all valid ways of understanding who God is.  (I'm not in the "Bible
only" camp!)  The Bible, in my opinion, is the best test because it
is a constant and has been breathed by God (thus being inerrant).  But
we are not to ignore the other three.

Therefore, the question is not whether or not you agree with me.  The
question is whether or not you agree with God (as He has revealed Himself
in the four ways listed above.)

Collis

    re: .18
    consider me corrected. What seems is not always what is.

    
    Labels put barriers between people and they put barriers between 
    people and God.
    
    I'd just rather be myself...for whatever that turns out to be. (;^)
    And you to all be yourselves as well.  
    
    Then we can dispense with the assumptions that go along with the labels
    and get down to some real conversations.
    
    Cindy