Intellectuelle

This is interesting... identifying the camps within the Church as political designations. Although both are going to claim scriptural authority for their mandate. Is this reading back into it, though? It is possible since -depending on what your Christian doctrinal choice is- groups tend to drift to acting politically in a way that expresses these views. ie Most conservative Christians are conservative/Republican politically, but not all....

The only thing I am not sure of here is the idea of "In contrast to Christians through the ages, the denominational left has substituted sentiments for facts, passions for authority, and subjectivity for reason."

There has been both through the ages. I think it is the Reformation that placed s stong emphasis on authority as coming from scripture... and then came the anabaptists who used that as a launching pad for something more subjective... and came back round again. There has been a see-saw between a reasoned and a subjectively experienced faith, and both are necessary. At times the Reformers could have been considered "the Left", then the Anabaptists were "the Let"...now they are in different positions.

I think it was Schaeffer who pointed out how our modern age has increasingly moved away from the idea that there is real truth. This is the big shift, but all parties act as if there is truth- just that the liberal are more elusive in naming any sort of idea that they can claim to know truth to even act. They sort of borrow it temporarily.

Most of their truths are grounded in ideas of the social gospel of the nineteenth century. They divested themselves of all the others, especially any pietistic ones. This is answerable to the political Left of today.

I think it is easier to speak of both the religious and political as philosophically grounded in certain premises. That is probably what is being done in this article... but doesn't it confuse things to read it through the ages as politically understood in contemporary terms?

And yet, still, reason and analysis are not going to render truth, necessarily. Most particularly because the outcomes of reason and analysis are going to be dependent on the basic premises they work from.

====
I only know of the Emergent movement through the internet, but they seem a strange mix of the two streams. I have surmised that they actually are composed of people with very different foundations which will at some point cause them to separate.
That was just an idea I had- not a real theory or anything.
====
great post, Melinda- I enjoyed reading the linked article and insights on the mainline decisions... and that byline just made my day: "Making it up as we go" Tonkowich hit the nail on the head with that.

The "modern worldview" that Tonkowich rightly observes the "progressive" side puts their faith in is more than truth-by-democratic-vote, individualism, and subjectivity -- it's also faith in scientific discovery (and technological advancement) as well as enlightenment hoodoo.

It's about consciousness-raising -- finding the "potential" we can all realize if we just have the "courage" to shed the shackles of tradition (a.k.a "tribal mentality," etc.)

In other words, it's a belief in the basic goodness of man, or in salvation via discovery of this "higher consciousness," not in man's basic depravity and salvation entirely outside of himself.

Bonnie :)

It is in that last statement(what you've said is so true) that there is the great divide for those who will follow the cross or go another way.

If you look at this one,though, "It's about consciousness-raising -- finding the "potential" we can all realize if we just have the "courage" to shed the shackles of tradition (a.k.a "tribal mentality," etc.)" - couldn't you see placing Christ and His teachings in that category? The terms can respond to gospel truths, and that is where I think that today's Liberal Christians become so convinced their view is the right one. Consciousness-raising can answer to those who have ears to hear; "finding the "potential" we can all realize" can answer to finding life in the words that Christ speaks to us;"shed the shackles of tradition" is leaving the traditions of men behind with its dead pharisee blindness.

In many ways the new humanism is simply our faith in heresy form. What is obvious now is how they deducted God from the liberal theology, but earlier on there were still vestiges of lip-service to real Christianity.

It is interesting that you point up the reliance upon science- which has been a modern substitute for both God and salvation ... as that is proving less and less reliable there is a shift toward an individualized and self-manufactured spirituality. Witness the widespread infiltration of Wicca into mainstream denominations such as Methodists. It enters under the wings of feminism, but eventually is promoted on its own.

Hi Ilona,

I'm not sure whether those who consider themselves progressive have snuck the gospel out of those terms or borrowed them from "new-age" philosophy -- I tend to think it's the latter. I think they've tried to co-opt God onto modern philosophy because their allegiance is to all things modern rather than to that which is timeless. They've tried to legitimatize their philosophy in this way. But it's really just the myth of "newer is better." It's the vanity of assuming that "now" is better than "then." It's a false hope! I agree with you that it would be great to reinterpret those metaphors along gospel lines.

I see what you're saying. I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt to some who want to try to sincerely adhere to Christianity. But like it is being pointed out- they are on shifting ground.

But your view is the one most generally applicable.