Conservative - Liberal - Christian

[Gene Scarborough]

Bob Shieffer ended his show this mornining with a short essay based on the above main points.

He reminded us there is value in being "conservative" in that it is supposed to "conserve" something.
There is value in "liberal" in that it is supposed to be open to new ideas and possibilities.
Then he ended by saying, "Christian has to do with following Christ---and that has nothing to do with any political party."

Some pretty good points, I think, as politics and religion are mixing as never before.

So what do the intelligent members of this site think????

[Gene Scarborough]

[Tim Bonney]

Gene,

I don't see Conservative, Moderate, and Liberal as strictly political designations. And I do know one or two conservative Christians with liberal political views (Sandy comes to mind as one of them.) And I know some folks who are members of more liberal or progressive Christian groups that are political conservatives.

I would think that we need to differentiate theology and politics.

[Gene Scarborough]

I don't think so, Timothy!

What we need to do is define terms more clearly when it comes to "Conservative / Liberal."

The term "liberal" was applied to anyone not willing to say "the Bible is inerrant." I, frankly, don't know of any true "liberals" when it comes to Baptist or Methodist theology. What is now being called "conservative" requires an extension of the theological bench some 20' further to the right to accomodate those sitting on it these days in Baptist circles!

Bob Shaeffer did an excellent end commentary Sunday on his show. In it he pointed out good things about either the "conservative" or "liberal" term. I still ask of any Conservative (political or religious): "Conserve what????"

The Pharisees were conserving their position of control and gladly tried to get rid of Jesus!

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

Sorry, ED---I guess I'm just stupic!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

Most issues of real significance require more common sense than a certain philosophical mind-set.

Many of the ssue in any generation gravitate around change. The things generating this clash seem to be:

*Immigrants
*Islam growing in America
*continuing backlash over forced integration
*homosexual issues
*growing poverty among the middile class

I have named a few and welcome you to name some others. It would be logical to note how certain philosophies approach each issue and now stand on them.

Let's help one another explore this.

[Tim Bonney]

Gene I don't see a value to trying to avoid the terms "liberal" and "conservative." The terms aren't perfect and are at times miss used. But, when defined, they do describe an over all philosphy of faith or politics.

As to issues and common sense, one persons common sense is another person's nonsense. Saying a view is "common sense" is a simple way of dismissing an argument without evidence. "Common Sense" simply means a view is commonly held. It doesn't prove it is true.

[Gene Scarborough]

Maybe I wasn't specific enough on "common sense."

I have always been taught to look at any issue on the surface as well as what is looming beneath the surface. That makes up common sense for me. That is why I made Psychology my college major and part of my ministry = it looks for reasons behind odd surface behaviour.

An imporant issue revolving around the title is really what went on with CR. The surface was an Inerrant Bible. The motivating factor was those who were not in strong leadership to take over and run the show. Through the years our SBC organization had its bumps as certain people wanted to control over being open enough to let differing views exist rotating around the more important matter of missionary support. My common sense tells me was are all different and don't need to be put into a small bottle to qualify as Baptist.

The flash points in our history were the Scopes trials of the 30's---as science and religion clashed. Few were willing to see the common elements between science and religion. Most were so stoked over evolution trumping Genesis that they could not see a "both-and" position which makes far more sense to me.

Biblical studies and German criticism techniques were the flash point for the Inerrancy debate. Again is was the scientific method of biblical criticism vs. those who thought the Bible never could be questioned in its supposed perfection. In a way people prefered to make the text, itself, an idol they could worship rather than a witness to God whom we are supposed to worship and follow.

Now the homosexuality issue revolves around the same Bible vs. Science problem. The more science is unraveling the mysteries of sexuality and finding things not as simple as male/female, we have a battle royal going on. The sub-surface stuff involves egos and control of sexual activity. The folks who want to control and demand are against those saying, "If I love a same-sex person, it is God's way in my life and it is OK."

I hope this makes more clear what I was trying to say about "common sense." Look beneath the surface and take more into account than "what we have always done in the past."

[Tim Bonney]

I understand what you are saying Gene. And I also understand, as Ed has said, that no one issue makes some one liberal or conservative, or moderate, or whatever.

What I do see, as someone who has been out of the south a long time now and someone how has not been a Southern Baptist for a long time, is that many southerners and SBC people in particular are afraid of the word "liberal." It has been used as a pejorative term for so long that even persons who might want to identify as "liberals" are more likely to use the term "progressives" or even "moderates."

This is further confused when true "moderates" get called "liberals" by conservatives or fundamentalists simply because they view any more to the left than they are as "liberal."

On the other side of the scale persons who used to be quite confortable with being called "fundamentalists" instead want to call themselves "conservatives" or "evangelicals" rather than "fundamentalists" because those of us to the left certainly view fundamentalism in a negative light.

I think the worst offense is that some conservative Christians have co-opted the term "evangelical" to now only mean conservative or fundamentalist Christians. Yet to be "evangelical" in its original sense simply means to be focused on sharing the good news of the gospel.

And yet with all this label confusion people do have a tendency to fit somewhere on the theological sprectrum even if you can only describe it in relationship to others.

[Gene Scarborough]

It is a by-product of industrial psychology where they test words for their acceptabality to the average prospective buyer!

Years ago Chevrolet marketed its Nova in Mexico and it was a bust. In Spanish "no va" means "not go." Now if the customers had any sense they would have given them a test drive and found it was a very gas-efficient nice car, but no one was willing to look behind the name label!!!

Stupid, huh????

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

Is there such a thing as in intelligent conversation without disdainful insults?????

You know what I mean, buddy----so lets discuss rather than disgust one another today---shall we???

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And Gene, did you check the the snopes.com link, it shows the Chevy Nova story you posted to be an old hoax.

You may also want to take a look at this link with says in part the Nova was one of the most successful compact cars ever http://auto.howstuffworks.com/enlarge-i ... ery=1built And BTW, the only Chevy's I ever had where a 64 Bel Air, and an 88 Caprice.

[Gene Scarborough]

It will be interesting and the article points out all the subtle things going on in the Chambers of Congress!

[Gene Scarborough]

The State of the Union was both inspirational and as clear as could be about the need for Congress to get off its tush and do something!

The rebuttal was somewhat boring, but had its common sense as well.

What is the problem with at least 2 branches of government doing something to deal more concretely with the failed economy instead of waiting until after the election to do less rather than more as it has happened in the last 6 years since the "Great Recession" set in????

DUH???

[Gene Scarborough]