Why I Like Liberals

I like liberals.

This is not a joke

Seriously. It’s not.

I like a lot of liberals. Not all, mind you, but I like a lot of liberals. In fact, I like all of the liberals that I know personally. I say “a lot” because a few of them—at least their public personas, which is all I have to go by—just seem really, really mean-spirited, psycho, or just generally unlikable. But perhaps I’d like them, too, in person. For example, Bill Maher and Ann Coulter are actually friends, which suggests that what we see on the air may involve some role-playing. And to be honest, there are conservatives I don’t really like, either.

Now here’s a little secret: A lot of people think that I’m really, really conservative, but actually, I’m really not. I lean to the right, but I try never to fall over. I at least make an attempt to be open-minded. There are things that I appreciate about both liberals and conservatives, and my plan is to list some of those points in this and my next post (“Why I Like Conservatives”).

So, Liberals.

One of the best things about liberals is that they aren’t afraid to think outside of the conservative box. They have their own box, granted, but it’s at least it’s a different box.  Conservatives tend to be a fearful bunch, which ends up hurting them. They’re afraid of change, they’re afraid of new information, and they’re often afraid of challenging the status quo. Liberals love to challenge the conservative status quo. They ask really tough questions like, “why?” and “why not?”  That’s not to say that the status quo is necessarily wrong, but we won’t know unless it’s questioned.

So, I like and appreciate that there are those who question whether or not the Constitution is outdated, or whether the Bible is true, or ask why gays can’t be married. I like that liberals are so fearless, willing to “go where no man has gone before.” Again, this doesn’t mean that all of their theories are correct, but at least they ask questions and at least think they are willing to accept the outcome. And, sometimes they’re simply right. Just in the last 50 years, liberals have caused significant change in areas of women’s rights, racial equality, environmental issues, and so on. And, there’s more to be done, and we need to hear what they have to say.  Unfortunately, there are some liberals who are idealogs on one issue or another, which has negatively impacted the dialogs that could happen. The liberal box can be just as rigid as the conservative box, and sometimes “open minded” is just a term for having found a new box. I also think there’s a tendency with some liberals to fear not changing.  But, I never said liberals are perfect.

Liberals care

Another reason I like liberals is that they care, and they tend to be passionate about the things they care about. Liberals (speaking generally, of course) care about minorities, the disenfranchised, and the down-trodden. They tend to be more world-focused than conservatives. They care about the environment and about animals. And, they care about beauty—I don’t think it’s a coincidence that most artists, musicians, actors, and other creative people would consider themselves liberals. However, they often care to a fault, and can sometimes lose sight of larger issues. But, perhaps that’s important, too. I don’t know if it’s a right-brain/left-brain issue, or a heart vs. head issue, but in general liberals tend to see things differently than conservatives, and that brings beauty to the world.

And they act

I also like liberals because they do stuff to impact the world. At least in America, conservatives tend to be the “boot-straps” people, and there’s much to be said about the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” way of thinking. However, that often results in lack of action. Note that it is the more liberal churches who tend to be the most socially active, taking Jesus’ words to heart about feeding the hungry, healing the sick, etc. I admire that, and to be honest, I tend to really suck at those things, being somewhat anti-social.

Liberals are human people

There’s a tendency for many hard right-wingers to classify “libs” as the enemy, or evil. And, of course, liberals do the same thing to conservatives, but that’s not my focus here. But, as with any other labeled sub-set of people, liberals are individuals who think, and feel, and who want to be loved and accepted, just like the rest of us. We may dislike some of their ideas, but like Maher and Coulter, we should look to find areas of commonality. It’s easy to be an arm-chair politician and start seeing the work as black and white, never realizing that many of the folks we see arguing in Congress are having a beer together afterwards. People are people, as the song goes.

We Need Liberals

A world where everyone is conservative would be boring, and almost unbearable. It would be like the 50’s all over again, only worse. We need people to question and say things like “this isn’t right” and then try to do something about it. If liberals didn’t exist, we’d have to invent them (if only so we’d have someone to argue with).

So, yes, I like liberals.  Quite a bit, actually.

Posted in Random Thoughts | 4 Comments

Evangelical Estrangement

Even though I was never truly one of “those” evangelicals (I always held to the Lutheran definition), I resonated with a number of things in a post I read today entitled, “Dear Evangelicalism: I Don’t Think This Relationship Is Going To Work.”

I do not share a number of the author’s opinions, such as that evangelicals are obsessed with guns or that only conservatives are obsessed with power and control. And, I’m not sure that I could say that it’s not what evangelicals believe (I generally consider myself an Episco-Lutheran).  But, he touches on a number of shared concerns, or at least issues that I have chosen to challenge myself with, such as the places of women in church, and the church’s belief that the only sins that count in America are not being Republican and not being straight (yes, this is hyperbole. Unfortunately, I’m aware that I must label my literary devices).

2014 is going to be a challenge

2014 is going to be a challenge with respect to my interactions with the evangelical church. I’d like to find a church to become involved in, but I have disagreements in so many areas (baptism, communion, cultural attitudes), that it becomes difficult. I  am, however, firmly committed to the Gospel of salvation by grace and not by works, and think I could deal with a lot of secondary disagreements. To start off my challenging year, I’m reading “Pastrix,” which I’ll comment on down the road. Talk about challenging your belief in grace…

Discuss

I’d love to hear some discussion on the linked article, if you’re inclined.  Like I said, I agree with some points and differ on others, but appreciate the article as a launching point for contemplation and discussion.

Posted in Church | 2 Comments

Okay, I just couldn’t resist

Posted in The Gospel Uncensored | Leave a comment

What’s up with the Lutherans? Part 2

This is an addendum to my prior “What’s up…” post. I’m not trying to pick on the Lutherans, but since I was raised Lutheran and still hold to a very Lutheran-ish theology, I just can’t help going “What??” as I encounter various Lutherans online.

I’ve already discussed that for many Lutherans, the key Lutheran writings, aka The Book of Concord, takes the place of the Bible as the foundation for Christianity. I get that the whole idea is that Lutheranism is the accurate interpretation of Scripture, but just assume for once that Luther or Melancthon may have been wrong. In fact, I’m pretty sure some of those who followed Martin made a few errors, especially in the whole 3rd use of the Law thing (no, I won’t discuss that again).  If you don’t always go back to Scripture, you’ll never know if the Confessions are wrong about something. And if they’re right, Scripture will back up your position.

The thing is…

The thing is, in my mind Lutherans are supposed to be the “grace people,” not the “follow our rules or be cast out into outer darkness” people.  Trust me, we have enough fundamentalist wackos in our country without adding those calling themselves Lutheran into the mix.  This whole “Lutheran Fundy” attitude is new to me… there’s probably a good reason why certain branches of the Lutheran Church were never spoken of when I was growing up.  Granted, my grandfather came from the Swedish/Augustana Lutherans and had been influenced by pietism. When my father was growing up, playing cards were forbidden, for example.  But by the 60’s, we were part of the Lutheran Church in America, which had lost much of the pietistic influences.

Pietistic errors aside, Luther is widely recognized as the person who rediscovered the Gospel in the Western church. The word “evangelical” was first used by Martin Luther to identify those holding to a theology of salvation by grace.  However, it would seem that for some who call themselves Lutheran, grace takes a back burner once you are baptized, and it’s right theology and rules from there on out.  At least that’s the way it reads.

This week’s stupid Lutheran discussion

I belong to a Facebook group called “Confessional Lutheran Fellowship.” It seemed like a good way to learn what’s gong in in Lutheranism, and discuss theology on occasion. I’ve seen some stupid things posted on occasion, but this past week someone asked, “Is a female pastor a pastor?”  It started out a bit surprising when the 2nd person, a female, responded, “No. She’s a sinner in rebellion to the Word of God.”  Female pastors were then referred to as false prophets, and “preistitutes.”  Seriously.  So I did what I normally do, and replied “yes.”  Some people appreciated my honesty and bravery, someone else told me that I couldn’t be a Confessional Lutheran and hold that position.

About 150 comments into the discussion, it turned to the issue of whether Communion was really Communion if “administered” by a female pastor.  Then it just got weird.  I then jumped in to point out that these rules they were discussing were not Scriptural, but based on church tradition.  While one person “liked” my comment, I also got this response:

Alden, our Lord Jesus Himself establishes the Office of the Holy Ministry as the essential public office of His Church in Matthew 28. Making disciples by means of Word and Sacrament is precisely what Jesus gives there. And we see this very thing playing out in Acts 2.42 “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” which explicitly locates the Sacrament in the Apostolic Office. This is precisely how the matter is treated in the Symbols of the Church, so if you would be a Lutheran and Christian, you would agree.

Contrary to my impulsive, combative nature, I did not respond, and for the most part abandoned the discussion. I probably could have explained that Acts 2:42 says that the Apostles taught. Period.  Since no one believes teaching is a purely apostolic function, his argument disintegrates completely.  Not to mention his presumption of “Office” in Matt. 28.

The benefits of being a Lutheran expatriate

One of the benefits of being a Lutheran expatriate is that I’ve had 35 or so years of non-Lutheran context.  In that evangelical milieu, I have retained the essence of Lutheranism. But I came back to a Lutheran theology after sitting under a variety of more contemporary theological teaching, and don’t look at Scripture through merely one filter.

I don’t have a problem with church structure.  For example, I’m very comfortable in Anglican churches, and respect those in Eastern Orthodox traditions. However, I also recognize that the New Testament does not set a “head pastor” model for churches.  Elders are discussed, as are those who serve in various functions. I am aware that while Paul makes statements about women no being over a man, I also see women being named as prophets, and being “counted among the Apostles.”  You can have a pastor, but you can’t claim it’s the Biblical model.

Besides, in the New Testament, leaders are those who serve. No one has a problem with women serving men. And when it comes to Communion, there are no requirements at all, except for Paul’s short teaching as to how it should be presented.  It was a meal, after all.  It only became a token ritual later on.  (No one could have become drunk sipping wine from a common cup.)

All this talk of “Offices” and rules are completely foreign to the NT.

The Gospel Uncensored

When I wrote The Gospel Uncensored from Ken Blue’s sermons, I never anticipating having to deal with a Lutheran legalism.  But presenting any sort of church rules—especially those that are used to disparage someone else—is not unlike requiring circumcision or dietary rules.  In the discussion thread I mentioned above, it was actually stated that women who become pastors are unrepentant sinners and are destined to hell.

Seriously?  In Galatians, the only people Paul suggested should go to hell were those imposing rules on the Galatian Christians.

It’s okay to believe that women should not be pastors. Traditionally, this has been accepted, and it’s difficult for people to change their perceptions. And, there are arguments on both sides. But, holding people to man-made rules is clearly condemned by Paul, as is judging others.  These attitudes are just plain evil.

I should mention that not everyone in the Facebook discussion were condemning, and many stood up to those who were clearly out of line. But, there seemed to be an unfortunate number of people who were so entrenched in their legalism that there was no room left for grace.

An interesting twist

I have had to deal myself with my thinking about women pastors, peeling away various filters that have been in place for years. However, I occasionally attend an Episcopal church with a female priest, and I like her. She is there to serve, and does it well.  I’ve also met a female Lutheran pastor who I think has the same heart. However, I have a greater problem with some female pastors in more contemporary churches, as the servant leadership mentality is often notoriously missing, with pastors often occupying a separate class than others. There, pastors are assumed to be “over” the church. In that case, I would firmly be against women in that role. However, I’m also against men in that role…

Bottom line, I’m thinking I should probably just leave that Facebook group, as it’s clearly a much narrower group than it claims to be.  And, I don’t need that kind of irritation.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Church, The Gospel Uncensored, Theological Musings | 3 Comments