Let's Try This One More Time, Mr. Huston
Jonathan Huston of Talk2Action has lobbed another mortar round at Chalcedon. He takes issue with my explanation of how my audience understands the description "liberal Christian." He does so because he did not take kindly to my referring to "liberal Christians" as oxymoronic. He writes:
Huston is making a false claim here. I never stated that anyone was both secular and religious at the same time. This is what I wrote:
I don't believe Huston is twisting my words, however. I think he's still misunderstanding the terminology. In this sense, he's right. Using terms like "liberal" in multiple ways is confusing. I'll try and make this more plain for him. Wish me luck!
Huston goes on in his post with much ado about logic; but it's all pointless. Why? He missed the key portion of my original sentence.
It really matters not that Mr. Huston feels the descriptive "liberal Christian" makes sense to him. It's not my claim, nor did I invent the terminology. It's been used for years. I tried to explain my usage of the term as an attempt to clear up his previous misunderstanding. Oh well. Huston, as usual, jumped on a rabbit trail over semantics and has left the debate entirely.
So, let's try this again. Mr. Huston, the majority of our readers are NOT people like yourself. They are typically from the conservative Christian community. I try to write for them, NOT you. THEY (key word) understand a "liberal" to be a left-wing political term (i.e., democrat). That's their base, unsophisticated, simplistic way of interpreting that label. However, THEY (key word) use the phrase "liberal Christian" when describing someone who discounts the infallible authority of Scripture. In this sense, Christians who are open, free, and independent enough to criticize the veracity of the Bible are considered to be "liberal" in their beliefs. This has nothing to do with pro-choice, pro-gay, or pro-welfare political perspectives. Christians who do not question the veracity of the Bible, and maintain a strict absolutism, are considered "conservative" in their beliefs. This also has nothing do with political philosophy. However, both paradigms, when transferred to political parties, often land in Democrat or Republican groups respectively.
The problem is that Christian conservatives are using the word "liberal" in two different ways, yet with similar meanings. This is what Mr. Huston is struggling with. "Liberal," when used by itself, means a political point of view. "Liberal Christian" means a theological point of view. However, I think the double-usage is permissable. The concept of being "liberal" or "open" and "progressive" is valid whether one is discussing their political beliefs or beliefs about the Bible. There is no logical fallacy here. We may have to create a picture chart for John though. He's missed this point twice now.
People often use single terms for multiple descriptions. For instance, the way Talk2Action uses "dominionism" is NOT the way we understand the phrase. However, I understand the way Talk2Action uses it, and I try to communicate with them in the manner they prefer. I wish they'd return the favor.
You see, John, it doesn't matter that it appears illogical to you. It's not intended to be sensible to you. It's terminology readily understood by MY AUDIENCE. You're certainly welcome to disagree with that terminology, but that's an uphill battle if you intend to correct it. It's embedded.
So, can a person be both liberal and Christian? It all depends upon what you mean. I wrote that there were numerous southern Baptists that were politically liberal and yet held conservative beliefs about the integrity of the Scriptures. Huston apparently read over that portion in his rush to answer. Can a person be theologically liberal and still be a Christian? That is where the debate lies.
To a biblically conservative Christian it appears oxymoronic to doubt the veracity of the Scriptures and yet claim a genuine belief in the Christian faith -- which is based upon the Bible. Like it or not, that's how we see it. Does that mean that Mr. Huston is not a Christian? I don't know. I can only say that IF he doubts the truth of the Bible, then he appears oxymoronic. But, that's a statement about logic, not a judgement upon a man's spiritual condition. That's between him and God. And that has nothing to do with politics.
BUT, all of this hoopla does highlight an important necessity. If there is to be more dialogue between radically opposed camps it will be helpful to clarify long-used terminology. This also reinforces something I've written more than once: understanding a religious group as vast and complex as contemporary protestantism is an immense task. Whereas Christian branches such as Catholicism are somewhat homogeneous, protestantism is replete with innumerable sects, beliefs, and meanings. Talk2Action has their work cut out for them if they suppose they can address the whole.
If Ortiz believes he's in a "War of Ideas," then he needs some better ammo: in the face of all reason, he falsely claims that liberal actually means secular. That's like saying that peanut butter means chocolate -- two things that may share the same space, and taste great together, but are distinctly different. Then Ortiz takes his error a gigantic leap further and claims that Christians who are liberal are also secularists. Huh? It's impossible to be both secular and religious at the same time; these are two distinct concepts. See, secular means "non-religious." It's all in this Venn diagram that I borrowed from a public school that teaches secular subjects like logic and science.
Huston is making a false claim here. I never stated that anyone was both secular and religious at the same time. This is what I wrote:
For my audience, when saying someone is a "liberal" that typically refers to a secularist, left-leaning, unbeliever.
I don't believe Huston is twisting my words, however. I think he's still misunderstanding the terminology. In this sense, he's right. Using terms like "liberal" in multiple ways is confusing. I'll try and make this more plain for him. Wish me luck!
Huston goes on in his post with much ado about logic; but it's all pointless. Why? He missed the key portion of my original sentence.
"For my audience..."
It really matters not that Mr. Huston feels the descriptive "liberal Christian" makes sense to him. It's not my claim, nor did I invent the terminology. It's been used for years. I tried to explain my usage of the term as an attempt to clear up his previous misunderstanding. Oh well. Huston, as usual, jumped on a rabbit trail over semantics and has left the debate entirely.
So, let's try this again. Mr. Huston, the majority of our readers are NOT people like yourself. They are typically from the conservative Christian community. I try to write for them, NOT you. THEY (key word) understand a "liberal" to be a left-wing political term (i.e., democrat). That's their base, unsophisticated, simplistic way of interpreting that label. However, THEY (key word) use the phrase "liberal Christian" when describing someone who discounts the infallible authority of Scripture. In this sense, Christians who are open, free, and independent enough to criticize the veracity of the Bible are considered to be "liberal" in their beliefs. This has nothing to do with pro-choice, pro-gay, or pro-welfare political perspectives. Christians who do not question the veracity of the Bible, and maintain a strict absolutism, are considered "conservative" in their beliefs. This also has nothing do with political philosophy. However, both paradigms, when transferred to political parties, often land in Democrat or Republican groups respectively.
The problem is that Christian conservatives are using the word "liberal" in two different ways, yet with similar meanings. This is what Mr. Huston is struggling with. "Liberal," when used by itself, means a political point of view. "Liberal Christian" means a theological point of view. However, I think the double-usage is permissable. The concept of being "liberal" or "open" and "progressive" is valid whether one is discussing their political beliefs or beliefs about the Bible. There is no logical fallacy here. We may have to create a picture chart for John though. He's missed this point twice now.
People often use single terms for multiple descriptions. For instance, the way Talk2Action uses "dominionism" is NOT the way we understand the phrase. However, I understand the way Talk2Action uses it, and I try to communicate with them in the manner they prefer. I wish they'd return the favor.
You see, John, it doesn't matter that it appears illogical to you. It's not intended to be sensible to you. It's terminology readily understood by MY AUDIENCE. You're certainly welcome to disagree with that terminology, but that's an uphill battle if you intend to correct it. It's embedded.
So, can a person be both liberal and Christian? It all depends upon what you mean. I wrote that there were numerous southern Baptists that were politically liberal and yet held conservative beliefs about the integrity of the Scriptures. Huston apparently read over that portion in his rush to answer. Can a person be theologically liberal and still be a Christian? That is where the debate lies.
To a biblically conservative Christian it appears oxymoronic to doubt the veracity of the Scriptures and yet claim a genuine belief in the Christian faith -- which is based upon the Bible. Like it or not, that's how we see it. Does that mean that Mr. Huston is not a Christian? I don't know. I can only say that IF he doubts the truth of the Bible, then he appears oxymoronic. But, that's a statement about logic, not a judgement upon a man's spiritual condition. That's between him and God. And that has nothing to do with politics.
BUT, all of this hoopla does highlight an important necessity. If there is to be more dialogue between radically opposed camps it will be helpful to clarify long-used terminology. This also reinforces something I've written more than once: understanding a religious group as vast and complex as contemporary protestantism is an immense task. Whereas Christian branches such as Catholicism are somewhat homogeneous, protestantism is replete with innumerable sects, beliefs, and meanings. Talk2Action has their work cut out for them if they suppose they can address the whole.
