Liberal: "Not literal or Strict"
Religion: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects"
I think there is an instinctive desire to think that which is not liberal is automatically oppressive and bigoted. That is because for us, the word liberal is commonly used to mean broadminded and tolerant. The context in which I have used it when I say Christianity is not liberal, (and this is essential to clarify at the start so that people do not misunderstand-) is liberal in the sense of "not strict" or "Not bound by literal confines".
There are 2.1 billion Christians in this world. In 1994, they formed 33% of the world's population. Yet, every individual Christian differs in his individual beliefs from the other. If religion was what each individual followed, then there would be 2.1 billion religions and not one. Thus, another thing that I want to make clear is what I mean by religion- what the diverse followers of a faith believe collectively at the barest minimum.
The belief in Jesus. Thus, by this definition, if you are born Christian and do not believe in God (Atheist) or are doubtful (Agnostic) you would not be one. Thus, the definitions of what constitutes a Christian and Christianity are not liberal. (You can be Buddhist and not believe in any God-non-theistic. You can be Hindu and believe in Jesus-henotheistic.)
The second thing is whether you believe Jesus was the Only Begotten Son, a divinely inspired human, or a physical manifestation of God himself, he existed at some point, walked among people and spread his teachings. However, this was 2007 and odd years ago. To ensure the continuity of the teachings, Christians have the benefit of religious text- The Holy Bible, which was a selection of teachings that the compilers believed best represented the will and desire of God. Depending on your denomination, you may have more books, but that will be the bare minimum.
Now if the framework of Christianity is literal, then why are its followers so diverse. My argument is that though they are many reasons, the central hub of many of the arguments stem from one source.
The Holy Bible.
There is a reason for this. As I mentioned before, it is our one tangible connection with a Divine Messenger that walked among us that we keep with us. It is one common denominator across most American denominations, respected by the liberal and radical alike, so why is this the cause of the most divisiveness?
If any of you have read about the Terror Management Theory , this will make a lot more sense to you. But basically it postulates that people are aware of their own mortality and purposelessness. In the vast scheme of things, we feel insignificant, useless, specs of sand. They experience pain, suffering, injustice, pain, loss. It blows.
Religion offers two big motivations- the reassurance that we are worthy, and the promise of an eternal life of some kind that is free of suffering,- either freedom from a cycle of births and deaths, or a life in the company of the being who created us. Thus man lives life reassured, and in the pursuit of that great reward.
But in most religions, that path is not easy. You have to check behaviors that are not desirable, you should align your behaviors towards those desired. If you do- you get that good stuff. If you don't, there is usually a less desirable or outright nasty alternative- for example- you get born again to live life all over, or you go to a state that is opposite of Heaven.
In Christianity, Jesus was sent to show us how you can reach that desired state. The guidelines of Jesus are in the Bible. And tell you what- it can look so deceptively simple if you look at it literally. You do those 10 commandments, accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and then you give away all of your possessions and off you go, right? While you are randomly flipping pages, here are some other things you may think apply.
1.Jesus called a woman a dog because she was a Canaanite.
2.Jesus wants you to gouge out your eyes if it viewed sin.
3.Jesus wants you to hate your dad and mom.
4.Jesus wants you to eat flesh and blood.
5.Jesus does not want you to marry a divorcee
6.Keeping slaves is fine.
7.Jesus wants you to hate life
8.Killing kids is fine
9.God prefers men to women
10.God hates gays and will destroy cities where people engage in homosexuality.
That was the point I tried and failed to make in my previous post. Literally speaking, the Bible can and does provide enough fodder for someone who wishes to use it to create discord and rancor. If you look at it literally.
Yet, every Christian will sense the inherent dichotomy in the above. Jesus tells you for example, that what you do to your worst enemy is as you did to Him? Then why would ripping little ones being dashed to pieces be okay? He says judge not lest you be judged then how can he judge a woman based on her nationality?
Now about the Canaanite story that caused so much discord the last time I posted it. Do you know the amount of times that selective passage is quoted to `prove' that Jesus and his message was exclusive only to a few? I went to Catholic School my entire life, I went to a Catholic college as well. I have heard that passage quoted a thousand times and it made me very nervous because my last name is very similar to above said woman's nationality. All eyes would swivel towards me as I sat trying to look as inconspicuous as possible. I was six for God's sake!. It was nearly a decade later when I heard the `complete' version. The complete version changes things, doesn't it ? Changes the entire thing.
Everyone does engage in a bit of interpretation. Even the origins of the compilation of the actual Bible was based on what was interpreted to better represent the Will of God. Obviously Jesus did not mean loathe your father, for example. Even a radical who spotted himself checking out a woman's impressive chest is not going to pluck his eye out. But that is just it, right? Everyone interprets, but the difference is the ends they serve.
My father used to say that people seek out religion for direction as they are not comfortable with ambiguity. He said Eastern religions teach you to be comfortable within that ambiguity, but Western religions by being `seemingly straightforward" actually teach their followers about how deceptive simple answers can be. That is typical Hindu reasoning and you may not agree with him. But my point is this. By taking the Bible as a literal document, without applying a broader perspective to its teachings, it is highly possible that the teachings will be limited also. Then, again, I said everyone `interprets'.
So, if everyone interprets, who is a literalist?
1.Believes that the Bible is absolute, literal, infallible and the word of God. Any interpretation done of it just distorts the message.
2.Believes that what his beliefs are based on a literal understanding of the Bible.
3.Believes he is a stronger believer and more righteous because of this literal `translation' as that means he has not softened the Will of God and has taken it as it was meant.
It does not mean that his understanding actually is. He just believes it is. Now then, life for a Literalist is very tough. Why? Because of Jesus. Jesus can be very nice and compassionate and that can be a bit of a bummer. Here he was all ready to be all righteous and along comes this guy who says love everyone and don't judge anyone. So what does he do?
1.Make himself as visible as possible: Ever notice how conservative Christians are the first in the limelight everytime a certain `social debate' comes into the limelight? To debate him, mainsteam media goes for maximum impact which for them means they will bring in some `Scientific' or `Agnostic/Atheist' sort. Thus, the paradigm is the Conservative as the Christian perspective, and the other perspective as outside the realm of Christian religion. The moderate or progressive Christian is too `boring' to make the cut.
2.Make it palatable: It is not about anti gays, of course not! It is definitely not about suppression of free expression and speech. How could you misrepresent them like that. They are about FAMILY VALUES. Now if you challenge it, you automatically get dubbed as anti-family, which makes you look like a bum. There is a reason why anti-abortion groups are called Pro-LIFE. But you already knew that.
3.I am the victim: In America atleast, Christianity has never been under threat. But hey, you can't fault them for trying. If you remove the 10 commandments from public display you are mocking Christainity. If you don't want to teach Creationism at schools, you are spitting on Christ. If you want a secular legal system, you are chipping away the roots of the Church. As vanguards of faith, they stand for all, protectors of the faith.
4.Take advantage of the opposition: People with strong convictions are people with spine. So, a person who is accepting of other people's convictions `obviously' does not have convictions of their own. Thus the third connotation of Liberal- that of a spineless person without conviction can be painted. Since, it is not possible to be a Liberal and refuse them the right to believe as they do, but it is possible for them to trump you, it is easier for them to retain their `image'.
5.The most Righteous of them all: By believing and conveying that the Bible is as is, it is easier for them to argue that their beliefs are truest. You liberal and progressive people are just putting your own `spin' on the religion. They are just doing as it states-type logic.
6.American: Perhaps the single most important `spin' is associating Christianity indelibly with American values. It has helped that many national symbols like currency and the Pledge of Allegiance have God mentioned in them- thus if a Buddhist goes up and says "You know I don't feel comfortable about saying One Nation under God as I belong to a Non-theistic religion", he ends up sounding a bit unpatriotic.
7. Quote liberally from all other sources apart from Jesus- Old Testament is good.
Now here are the statistics I said I would give you. In 2006, 48% of Americans believe the Bible is `absolutely' correct in its teachings (compared to 31% in 1991). 55% believe every word in the Bible is literally accurate. 53% consider themselves theologically conservative. 71% believe that God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect creator that rules the world today. 45% believe that Accepting Jesus as a savior is integral to achieving Eternal life and Grace. 42-46% of Americans believe God made man in His image. (26% believe in natural selection). Creationists are also more likely to be "very certain" of their views (63%) as compared to those who believe in Evolution (32%). 2/3rds of Americans want Creationism to be taught along with evolution in schools. 37% want Creationism to replace Evolution outright (60% in traditional evangelists). 60% of Americans are strongly opposed to removing the 10 commandments from public buildings. 84% opposed removing the pledge of allegiance from schools. 2/3rds of Americans give money into charity and 3 out of every 4 dollars go to a Church. 79% percent believe that Jesus was actually born to a Virgin without a human father.
I must admit as I compiled the statistics last week, I was very nervous. These were not small numbers. Then, as I kept digging, I came up with some gold.
54% of people believe that entry in to heaven can be earned by good deeds and actions even by non-Christians. For the 46% of Americans who favored the Marriage Amendment- 44% opposed it. 42% do not ascribe to the notion that Jesus was sinless.74% of Americans reject the notion of "Original sin".44% content that the Q'uran, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are different expressions of the same truth. But I can't tell you how glad I was to see that 54% of Americans believe that "truth can be only learned through a combination of logic, human reasoning and human experience".
Enlightenment!
To me, a literalist and a Liberal Christian differ in a thousand ways, but ultimately the biggest way is one thinks that the Bible is the crux and the other thinks the Bible is a beginning to a richer understanding of Christianity. Which is why in the end, a Liberal ends up being a truer Christian in the real sense of the word than a Literalist. If God wanted you to blindly follow, he would not have given you a brain. Christianity in my opinion is much too vast to be remain purely dogma or text, and if you limit yourself, you limit your belief.
Unfortunately, the more you limit your belief, there is a deceptive clarity that can be very seductive. Personally, I feel the contradictions within the Bible, and the questions it raises in the mind of a compassionate person teaches them more about their religion than a blind adherence to what you think it says.
But as my dad said, ambiguity is a difficult place to be. So what does a Liberal do.
1.Understand that your perspective is intuitively more appealing than a narrow minded one for a large number of people.
2.Don't become a Radical yourself. Too many liberal Christians get upset when they hear people display ignorance about their religion. Don't forget that most of it has been propogated by Radical Christian Brethren. Your responsibility is to foster dialogue and understanding and you cannot do that if you end up defensive.
3.Remind the literalists how unliteral they truly are. Remind them that they themselves interpret the Bible to further their own agenda.
4.Help your faith from falling into the wrong hands. Your biggest audience- teenagers. Nearly half of America's teenagers reject Christianity as they grow. Show them how Christianity is still relevant today for them, for this world and for their own personal perspectives. Fostering a new generation of Liberal Christians is good for Christianity and the country, even the world.
As I am an agnostic, I am already in a ambiguous enough position, but I believe that Liberal Christians have to take the lead. In the hands of a liberal Christian, or a progressive- Christianity is not a liberal (as in not specific) religion, but it is a liberal (as in not bigoted) religion. If they do not make their individual perspectives heard, the myth of liberal Christianity may degenerate to mean both strict and not liberal.
Finally, I apologize for the very long post. There were so many things I wanted to say, and I still feel I haven't said half of them. However, I think I have done a better job stating what I did say better than I did before.
Sources for statistics:
www.religioustolerance.org (multiple)
www.barna.org (multiple)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/... (newsweek poll on Jesus)
EDIT: I understand that a conservative Christian does not neccesarily mean a radical, but a Radical will usually define himself or herself as "conservative".
I also understand that literal vs non literal does not mean all non literalists are liberal. However, my next diary entry deals with non-literalist non liberals and liberals- and it is already 6 pages long. Didnt wish to club that here.