Stan, at his
blog, laments about that which he says he simply can't understand. He says, and I quote...
To me, the mind of the liberal Christian is inscrutable. I will never understand.
He then proceeds to offer several examples of disagreements with liberals that he finds "inscrutable." The problem, it seems to me, is that he hasn't asked/won't listen to liberals when they explain their positions.
He says, by way of example...
"I'm told that God's Word requires open borders... I don't see anything in my Bible that says or suggests, "You shall not
do anything that blocks the free flow of refugees from other countries
to your own." But the liberal Christian would like to make it a law that
we open our borders and embrace all who come at whatever cost because
it's there in the Bible."
First of all, of course, there are all manner of liberals and there may indeed be some who say this. But I know of none. This is not our reasoning or what we say. So, Stan does not understand our position because he doesn't even understand what we are and aren't saying.
I, and folks like me, have made it clear that we do not agree with treating the Bible as a holy rule book. That saying, "God wants us to behave certain ways and all we have to do is find what ways God wants us to act by citing a passage in the Bible that addresses it, then we're okay..." is not faithful to what the Bible teaches or what reason would tell us.
We make it clear that the Bible is written to a specific audience, the ancient peoples found in its pages... and equally make it clear that we should be wary about lifting pre-historic rules found in biblical stories and saying, "This teaches us what God's rules are about slavery, or how to treat women, or gay folk or wars or enemies or polygamy..."
No, I/we do NOT say "Let's have open borders because the Bible says so." Clearly, the Bible NEVER addresses modern foreign policies in a world such as we have today.
So, Stan misunderstands. To crack the code of the "inscrutable mind" of liberals, then, Stan should begin by asking "Am I understanding you aright?" and proceed from there.
(For the record, I support MORE open borders, but not wholly open borders. I support reasonable border policies that do not promote harm and that allows for refugees seeking safety to find that safety and I do so as a matter of support for human liberties, which includes the right to self determination... NOT because the Bible says to have open borders.)
Stan continues in his confusion, citing another example...
Almost everyone is clear that the Bible is not ambiguous about the sin of homosexual behavior... [there is NOTHING like unity that this is "the Bible's" and certainly not God's opinion about homosexual behavior - DT]
The liberal Christian is concerned that some might try to pass laws that
would try to forbid sexual sin. "Oh, no," they argue, "you can't make
your laws based on your religious views." Now, hang on a minute! Didn't
you just say that we should make immigration laws based on your
religious views? But not this? I don't get it.
What people like me argue is that we ought not cause harm to others. We note the very real reality that LGBTQ folk HAVE experienced harm throughout the millennia. Oppression, mockery, beatings, imprisonments and death all have been a common reality for gay and queer folk. We argue that human rights argues in FAVOR of self determination and AGAINST causing harm.
We DO argue that trying to force your solely religious opinions on others by force of law is a wrong, as it is counter to human rights and the right to freedom of and from religion. It is a right that conservatives almost always would support... when it comes, for instance, to fundamentalists from other religions forcing their views on others by force of law. By and large today, even many fundamentalist Christians would oppose forcing sexual morals by law in our nation... they would typically oppose, for instance, fundamentalist Muslims from outlawing gay behavior and imprisoning gay folk. But we hold this position because of support for/belief in human rights.
So, Stan fails to understand because he doesn't ask.
One more. Stan says...
One of the serious problems brought to light by liberal Christians is
the problem of poverty and the opposing problem of excessive wealth. The
solution to this problem, they say, is to pass laws that will tax the
rich and give to the poor. Heavy taxes. It's a good thing, so it ought
to be a law. Generosity is biblical, so we ought to make it the law.
Again, we support a progressive tax scheme (as opposed to a flat tax or regressive tax scheme) NOT because "the Bible says generosity is good, therefore, let's tax the wealthy..." but because it is a rational way of dealing with taxation in a nation where some people have more than others. A flat tax across the board, for instance, would be deadly to the poorest, as if you are scraping by on $10,000 a year, barely feeding your family, then scraping by on 10% less (or 20% or whatever) becomes draconian. Therefore, reason and justice would say that such a tax scheme is not rational or moral. It would lead to unwanted results. On the other hand, if those making over, say, $1,000,000 a year were taxed at 50% or even 70% (as has happened in the past in the US), they STILL have hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to "scrape by" on and it's not like it's any great hardship.
A progressive tax scheme, then (we reason) maintains incentive to get wealthy and yet does not oppress or harm the poorest. Reasonable and reasonable. Many of us DO note that the Bible (and other faith traditions and human rights traditions) would argue against treating the poorest in a shabby manner, but we do not argue that, "The Bible says 'Do unto others..." therefore, BECAUSE the Bible says that, let's enact it as law..." Rather, we hold a rational argument that may be informed by our various faith traditions, but is still based upon reason, not religion.
So, Stan concludes, erroneously...
Contrasting "conservative" and "liberal" in Christian terms means
generally, first and foremost, a worldview based on Scripture versus a
worldview based on the world. Still, it seems completely irrational that
liberal Christians would conclude that it is ungodly to have a biblical
worldview and argue that Scripture should be interpreted through a
cultural, current-world filter. Really?
No, not really.
No, liberals do not have a worldview based on "the world..." what does that even mean? AND conservatives do not hold a worldview based upon "Scripture." Rather, we all hold worldview based upon our reasoning. Conservatives reason that the Bible says X, Y and Z and they REASON OUT that, "therefore, we should support these positions..." but they reach that position USING THEIR REASON.
Likewise, liberals believe that the Bible teaches X, Y and Z, that reason teaches 1, 2 and 3, that other philosophies teach Alpha Beta and Gamma and WE REASON out that, "Therefore, I hold these positions..."
And it's all based on conclusions we reasoned ourselves into. Human reasoning. We all may be seeking more perfect, divine answers, but we all rely upon our reasoning because that's how the human mind works for all of us.
Thus, I'm NOT arguing that "scripture should be interpreted through a cultural, current world filter..." Not really. No. Stan misunderstands because he doesn't ask.
Should he ask, however, there are the answers to some of his questions and misunderstandings.
What would be nifty is if Stan (and really, this is not an attack on Stan, but on this line of reasoning which is common to the fundamentalists' brain) and others would read, learn and change what they've stated that is simply false to reflect the reality of the Other's position.
