Liberal Churches

[Locker]

Question:

What Churches have become liberal? During my sales travel's, I went to a Presby Church and it lost its reformedness for sure.

Anyone else know what demoninations have gone off the deep end into liberalism, New age-ishness, wacky World Church-ism?

Seems like many have...

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Maybe it's not so much a denomiation (though maybe Episcopal? I ran into a very pluralistic one in New York City)... I mean, I went to a Baptist church near my dorm which was "progressive"...which was why it was crap and did nothing for me except waste my time.

[Blacknad]

Virtually all modern day churches are liberal.

By that I mean they take a liberal view on things the Early Church did not.

Like the command to 'sell everything you have and give to the poor'.

The Church has, in large part, sold out to this capitalist, consumer culture and has become weakened in its affluence.

Regards,

Blacknad.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

Hey don't diss capiltaism.

[Canuckster1127]

Liberal is usually a relative term. It means anyone to the left of my position and religiously as well as politically it has come to be something of a prejorative term.

I do tend to agree that mainstream denominations have gone somewhat liberal. There are always exceptions however based on the smaller unit and even down to the local Church itself.

United Methodist is a case in point. Overall, the denomination has gone very "liberal" but there are specific UM churches that remain very much committed to the faith and resisting the overall trend within the denomination. Asbury Seminary remains a feeder into the UMC that overall remains quite evangelical and conservative.

[miller]

During my sales travel's, I went to a Presby Church and it lost its reformedness for sure.

Just to clarify, the main sect of Presbyterians the USPCA is liberal, however there are others like the OPC, I attend, and the PCA that are still conservative.

[Canuckster1127]

During my sales travel's, I went to a Presby Church and it lost its reformedness for sure.

Just to clarify, the main sect of Presbyterians the USPCA is liberal, however there are others like the OPC, I attend, and the PCA that are still conservative.

That is overall true. I'm in a PCA Church currently.

[Swamper]

I go to a Cumberland Presbyterian church, which is generally more conservative than mainstream Presbyterian (although CP did allow the ordination of women before PCUSA did).

[ray]

Many churches today are more interested in obtaining new converts than preaching the Word. Because of this they water things down so visitors will feel comfortable. Unfortunately this becomes a cycle and the Word gets lost as the watering down continues.

Ray

[FFC]

Many churches today are more interested in obtaining new converts than preaching the Word. Because of this they water things down so visitors will feel comfortable. Unfortunately this becomes a cycle and the Word gets lost as the watering down continues.

Ray

This is very true. The whole councel of God should be presented in love.

[JohnClark]

The liberalization (or rather, the appearance of liberal denominations) of the church is most likely a result of the wanning temporal power of the church. Back in the days when the Catholic church was as or more powerful than the goverments of the countries it operated in, it was relatively easy to enforce conformity. Now that the church has no ability to do that, differing views are able to spring up and attract followers without fear of retribution.

[Judah]

Talking of liberal churches...

Here is a book on Liberal Theologies that might be of interest to folk: Wayne A. Grudem's Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism?

Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary - the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world, has written a very good review of it here.
I quote excerpts from his review...

This new book is one of the most urgently needed resources for evangelical Christianity, and it represents one of the most insightful and courageous theological works of our times.

In this new book, Grudem considers twenty-five different patterns of argument put forth by evangelical feminists, and demonstrates that every single one of them either contradicts or compromises the authority of Scripture.
In considering the arguments put forth by evangelical feminists, Grudem is careful to avoid ad hominem attacks on egalitarian scholars and spokespersons. Instead, he considers each of their arguments with considerable scholarly care and attention, drawing the logical conclusions from the methodological assumptions the egalitarian scholars embrace.

The mainline Protestant denominations began to ordain women in the mid-1950s, and it took some evangelicals less than twenty years to move in the same direction. Grudem's concern is to demonstrate that the hermeneutical moves necessary to justify the ordination of women to the pastorate subvert biblical authority. Furthermore, these same interpretive maneuvers open the door for a complete reshaping of Christianity.

In a brief historical analysis, Grudem demonstrates that denominations move through "a predictable sequence" of theological liberalism. First, biblical inerrancy is abandoned. Then, in turn, the denomination endorses the ordination of women, rejects biblical teaching on male leadership in marriage, sidelines pastors who are opposed to the ordination of women, approves homosexual conduct as morally valid in at least some cases, ordains homosexuals, and elects homosexuals to "high leadership positions in the denomination."

Grudem considers the fact that many evangelical feminists claim the right to prioritize certain biblical texts, while relativizing others. Others attempt to dismiss certain passages as "disputed" in order to eliminate their functional authority in today's church. Grudem effectively undermines these arguments, showing once again that the acceptance of these arguments requires the subversion or outright rejection of biblical authority. These maneuvers are absolutely incompatible with an affirmation of biblical inerrancy.
In a series of capable considerations, Grudems looks to a host of alternative arguments made on behalf of the ordination of women, ranging from those who claim an authority of experience or "calling" above Scripture to others who claim that women can teach and preach in the church so long as they do so under a male pastor's authority.

Finally, Grudem returns to the issue of homosexuality, arguing that the hermeneutic employed to advocate egalitarianism leads, if pressed consistently, to the normalization of homosexuality as well. "The approval of homosexuality," he notes, "is the final step along the path to liberalism."

...the book serves as an arsenal of arguments to use in revealing the crucial weaknesses of the egalitarian proposal.

Has anybody here read this book?
If so, what did you think of it?

One of the saddest days in the history of the Anglican Communion was last Saturday with the ordination of Mrs Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church in America, bringing with her non-orthodox doctrine and schism within the church.
On the same day, here in New Zealand the Anglican Bishop of Dunedin went ahead despite protest and ordained a practising homosexual man as deacon within the Church of England in New Zealand. This too flies in the face of orthodox doctrine and further cements schism within the church.
Both these ordinations show the "path to liberalism" as described by Wayne Grudem.
For those who are interested, more here.

[Turgonian]

BTW, I don't have a problem with the ordination of women, and I'm a biblical inerrantist. See here.

[Judah]

Turgy, the ordination of women to leadership roles within the church is one that is argued to contradict Scripture. It is a matter of headship and that man has been given headship over women, not the other way around. This is not a matter of worth and value, or of male-female equality, but of a distinction in roles that reflect God's creation ideal.

Wayne Grudem and John Piper discuss this at length in their paper entitled "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism".

Feminist thinking challenges any differentiation in male/females roles other than specific biological capability, and this is yet another aspect of today's cultural values being used to challenge, and impose themselves upon, traditional Biblical truths.
It has been proposed (also by Grudem) that the same revisionism that allows women to assume headship roles has also heralded the entry of practising homosexuals into the ordained ministry as well. The latter is regarded as a lifestyle of deliberate sin and incompatible with one of increasing sanctification. It flies in the face of the recommendations set forth in 1 Timothy 3 regarding the characteristics of those who would be given leadership roles in the church. Women certainly do have roles within the church, but not the same headship ones as do men.

Translated into current practice, I can also point to a survey carried out in 2002 at the request of the Church of England which showed that ordained female clergy were less orthodox (traditional, conventional) in their Christianity - more prone to the liberal theologies that had allowed their ordination in the first place. This included frank disbelief in many significant doctrines defining Christianity. I have noted these alarming survey results here where there are links to further analysis.

The over all trend is an alarming one. You just need to read the interviews with, and sermons and prayers given by, the new female Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church in America to see what I mean. For instance, you as a Biblical inerrantist, Turgy, would surely be alarmed that this woman does not show any commitment to John 14:6 and says prayers to "our Mother Jesus" - would you not? See here.