Stones Cry Out

I'm politically libertarian and morally and theologically conservative, at least by United Methodist standards.

I don't think that a person can be a good Christian and can work eagerly with organizations that are openly hostile or contemptous of Christianity. Sure, there might be some temporary need or some common ground -- for example, the admirable work that the ACLU has done for the rights of the accused -- but I've noticed that some liberal Christians can so easily bond with Leftist figures or organizations that despise Christianity. Example: Jimmy Carter getting cozy with Michael Moore.

I hate to say it, but I find that if you scratch a liberal Christian hard enough, you'll find an athiest or panthiest underneath. Yesterday, I was involved in a lengthy comment thread at WesleyBlog about a recent UMC declaration of opposition to the Bush Administration's proposed federal budget. The liberal commentors were saying that this was a great idea, because the Bible and Wesleyan principles assert caring for the poor, and of course the evil Bush Administration disregarded the poor in the formulation of this budget proposal. I argued that this was a subjective, partisan political issue and the Church should not take a stance one way or another. Eventually, the conversation veered off topic and the liberals began saying that the conservative Methodists were causing trouble by insisting that Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation.

What? Come again? These people were espousing universalism -- not authentic Christianity of any denomination.

Later that day, prominent liberal Methodist blogger Beth Quick put up a post praising the wisdom of Bill Moyers, who called for liberals to 'retake Jesus'. Bill Moyers has only been contemptous of Christians, and yet this ordained UMC pastor was giving him a place of honor.*

At least in my denomination, I think that the church, for liberals, is primarily a vehicle for social justice activism. Certainly concern for the poor is a Christian duty and a Wesleyan tradition (as I commented at length on my own blog), but for many of these liberal Methodists, Jesus is at most a figurehead, not a Savior and Redeemer.

How do you scratch a liberal Christian and find out? Corner him and ask him these questions: "Do you believe that you are condemned to hell by your sinful nature? Do you believe that the redeeming blood of Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation? Do you believe that this grace is a free gift to you from Christ, which you cannot earn or merit?" If the liberal starts stammering, obfuscating, or mentions phrases like 'social justice' or 'great teacher' -- if he says anything other than an unqualified yes, than that person is not a Christian.

*No offense intended to Beth (if you read SCO). I respect you and your work. But I disagree with you on this subject very strongly.

I tried to comment over at Matt Crash! yesterday, but the server was giving me all sorts of errors.

The basic point I wanted to make is this:

This whole topic depends very much on what you mean by "conservative" or "liberal". Are you referring to those "liberals" who think, perhaps, that government should be involved in charity? Or are you referring to "liberals" who think Jesus is not the only way? There's a big difference between the two.

I think the Bible is very clear on certain points, and in those cases, people (whether they call themselves "liberal" or "conservative" or something else) can be on the right or wrong side.

The particular issues you mentioned -- views of taxes and welfare -- don't strike me as issues where the Bible is all that clear (I actually can't think of *anything* the Bible says that would be relevant to the question of taxes.)

The Bible does make it clear that it's our responsibility, individually, to care for the poor. If someone wants to completely abdicate that responsibility to the government (an ultra-liberal position), they've clearly crossed a Biblical line. But if someone wants the government to be involved simply because they think it allows individuals to care for the poor better when the government is providing some basic needs, I don't think they're on the wrong side of scripture. They might be on the wrong side of rationality sometimes, but not the wrong side of scripture.

Hey Matt. I left an apology on your original post, and I'll apologize briefly here too. I didn't mean to make assumptions about your character or a personal attack on you.

LotharBot makes a good point in that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are heavily loaded. I mean them in the political sense, and even then I personally don't exactly fit into either.

I think one of the core issues might be that conservatives are assuming that liberals think that works will get them to Heaven, and the corresponding assumption of liberals thinking conservatives are saying that they don't have to do anything - they're saved and therefore free from obligation. But as I talk to people on both sides, I think the differences are not that pronounced.

But I think (I hope!) that we are all concerned with, e.g., the poor, but that we differ on how we choose to deal with the situation. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the Bible speaks clearly about being generous towards them, defending them, and *not* oppressing them. The Bible speaks to both the individual and Israel as a nation. What this means to me practically is that, as an individual and in my local community (i.e. my church), I do everything I can to love the poor. And when I vote, I vote to protect them and love them - albeit from a distance.

I don't trust either of these things to "fix" the problem, but I believe that's what Jesus has asked us (me, specifically) to do.

I don't have time for a better explanation right now, but I hope that's one example, not of how liberalism is necessarily Christian or conservatism is not, but of how I think that neither camp (conservative nor liberal) encompasses all Biblical principles, and as such I disagree with each camp at different times and in different ways.

I agree with John "if you scratch a liberal Christian hard enough, you'll find an athiest or panthiest underneath". The Scriptures are absolute. They do not allow for the ideals of man that the liberals are pushing for.

For example, how can an abortionist be a Christian? How can a Christian deny that Christ is our only Savior, or not allow the public display of the cross or the Ten Commandment?

Christ was not an appeaser. He constantly steped on the toes of those in athority and those who thought they had all the answers.

No, a liberal is not a Christian. I will also add that not all conservatives are Christian either.

"No, a liberal is not a Christian."

That's an extremely strong statement. I don't have the time nor desire to give a real response, but I'd at least say that you need to carefully define what you mean by the term "liberal" before making such a broad accusation.

Neither group, politically conservative or politically liberal, has exclusive rights to godliness or foolishness.
Hell will be populated with people of all political persuasions.
Heaven will be populated with people saved by grace. "No one is worthy, not one."
I can disagree forcefully with someone's political (or religious) views, but only Christ knows their standing in grace.
The only judgement I can make about another is not based on their liberal or conservative politics but on their response to the question posed by Christ, "Who do YOU say that I am?"

With respect to John and Adam, I was speaking almost exclusively about economic matters. I think I've gone to great pains on both SCO and my personal blog to establish that.