Opinion of liberal Protestantism

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I've noticed we tend not to be too popular.

[GaussLaw]

Um, it is very, very popular on this forum.

[DC Al Fine]

Generally negative with a few bright spots. Of the congregations I've seen, some were tolerable but focused on social justice at the expense of the Gospel. Others were so heretical I'm not even sure why they bothered calling themselves Christians.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Negative. If what constitutes liberal Protestantism is treated as solely relating to theological propositions then I guess I could be considered a liberal Protestant (although I'd be honestly more comfortable being considered a politically left-wing Catholic in a state of impaired communion with Rome, which is saying something because I'm not comfortable being considered that either), but I really cannot distance myself enough from the internal culture and collective psychology of liberal Protestantism as a movement.

[TNF]

Inherently contradictory.

[DC Al Fine]

Negative. If what constitutes liberal Protestantism is treated as solely relating to theological propositions then I guess I could be considered a liberal Protestant (although I'd be honestly more comfortable being considered a politically left-wing Catholic in a state of impaired communion with Rome, which is saying something because I'm not comfortable being considered that either), but I really cannot distance myself enough from the internal culture and collective psychology of liberal Protestantism as a movement.

Could you elaborate?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Negative. If what constitutes liberal Protestantism is treated as solely relating to theological propositions then I guess I could be considered a liberal Protestant (although I'd be honestly more comfortable being considered a politically left-wing Catholic in a state of impaired communion with Rome, which is saying something because I'm not comfortable being considered that either), but I really cannot distance myself enough from the internal culture and collective psychology of liberal Protestantism as a movement.

Could you elaborate?

The culture within most liberal Protestant churches--the kind that go out of their way to be liberal and pride themselves on their liberalism, rather than just ones that happen to be liberal or in liberal denominations, which is what I'm trying to distinguish by saying 'as a movement'--tends to be...glib, image-focused, somewhat superficial, on top of any theological problems. I don't know if you've read Sawx's 'Party of Macklemore' post in this thread, but attending certain of these churches (the ELCA and UCC in particular can get bad about this, although I hasten to add that there are absolutely wonderful ELCA and UCC parishes as well) that's the same general vibe one gets. They're also one of the few environments in which I think the charge that liberals are as intolerant of conservatives as (certain types of) conservatives are of LGBTQ people, minorities, women, et cetera is, unfortunately, more or less true.

This isn't to denigrate the genuinely important work done for explicitly or implicitly left-leaning anti-poverty, anti-inequality, anti-discrimination causes that a lot of 'liberal churches' do. But a lot of 'conservative churches' do that kind of work as well.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Negative. If what constitutes liberal Protestantism is treated as solely relating to theological propositions then I guess I could be considered a liberal Protestant (although I'd be honestly more comfortable being considered a politically left-wing Catholic in a state of impaired communion with Rome, which is saying something because I'm not comfortable being considered that either), but I really cannot distance myself enough from the internal culture and collective psychology of liberal Protestantism as a movement.

Could you elaborate?

The culture within most liberal Protestant churches--the kind that go out of their way to be liberal and pride themselves on their liberalism, rather than just ones that happen to be liberal or in liberal denominations, which is what I'm trying to distinguish by saying 'as a movement'--tends to be...glib, image-focused, somewhat superficial, on top of any theological problems. I don't know if you've read Sawx's 'Party of Macklemore' post in this thread, but attending certain of these churches (the ELCA and UCC in particular can get bad about this, although I hasten to add that there are absolutely wonderful ELCA and UCC parishes as well) that's the same general vibe one gets. They're also one of the few environments in which I think the charge that liberals are as intolerant of conservatives as (certain types of) conservatives are of LGBTQ people, minorities, women, et cetera is, unfortunately, more or less true.

This isn't to denigrate the genuinely important work done for explicitly or implicitly left-leaning anti-poverty, anti-inequality, anti-discrimination causes that a lot of 'liberal churches' do. But a lot of 'conservative churches' do that kind of work as well.

I know what you mean.  There is a reason I drive an extra fifteen minutes each way to go to my chosen UU congregation as opposed to the nearest.  Now I haven't seen the ELCA churches here be like what you've described, but then I suspect that probably most of them would be considered on the conservative side of the ELCA.  If it weren't for the fact that I have reservations with Trinitarianism, I easily could see myself joining an ELCA church.  Not too many UCC churches here.  There used to be three, but one folded and one went New Agey independent.  The remaining one might be attractive to me, but it's a bit out of the way.  It wasn't aggressively politically liberal, and if anything was trying to avoid being confrontational and go for being a more inclusive church and reach out to moderates. (It was formerly a Metropolitan Community Church.)

[H. Ross Peron]

Too much of it is the theological equivalent of Moderate Heroism.

[afleitch]

Negative. If what constitutes liberal Protestantism is treated as solely relating to theological propositions then I guess I could be considered a liberal Protestant (although I'd be honestly more comfortable being considered a politically left-wing Catholic in a state of impaired communion with Rome, which is saying something because I'm not comfortable being considered that either), but I really cannot distance myself enough from the internal culture and collective psychology of liberal Protestantism as a movement.

Could you elaborate?

The culture within most liberal Protestant churches--the kind that go out of their way to be liberal and pride themselves on their liberalism, rather than just ones that happen to be liberal or in liberal denominations, which is what I'm trying to distinguish by saying 'as a movement'--tends to be...glib, image-focused, somewhat superficial, on top of any theological problems. I don't know if you've read Sawx's 'Party of Macklemore' post in this thread, but attending certain of these churches (the ELCA and UCC in particular can get bad about this, although I hasten to add that there are absolutely wonderful ELCA and UCC parishes as well) that's the same general vibe one gets. They're also one of the few environments in which I think the charge that liberals are as intolerant of conservatives as (certain types of) conservatives are of LGBTQ people, minorities, women, et cetera is, unfortunately, more or less true.

This isn't to denigrate the genuinely important work done for explicitly or implicitly left-leaning anti-poverty, anti-inequality, anti-discrimination causes that a lot of 'liberal churches' do. But a lot of 'conservative churches' do that kind of work as well.

Would you not contend that the culture and somewhat importantly, the ‘cultural relics’ masquerading as Serious And Important Points Of Principle And Faith, within churches that go out of their way to be conservative or just downright contrary are also glib and superficial? Is the glacial progress of these churches actually just stubborness masquerading as piety? Because, with a big American hat on here, the fact that issues over gays and women and social justice are issues at all within a religious/theological setting, rather than being reserved as generally secular concerns is not the fault of the liberally inclined churches. They are reactions to the heightened attention conservative churches decided to give to these matters some forty years as an opening shot in a cultural war and then export to the rest of the world.

For all their ideological pap, at least liberal Christians when confronted with a world that is actually out there try to actively engage with it. A significant number of conservative churches do not have a response to modern challenges, to people, to people they know other than categorising them, because they can’t be cross referenced with a verse or a piece of dogma or a tradition as a ‘A Bad Thing’ or trying to hold back secular and liberal religious progress because they don’t want to have to be forced to confront the issue internally.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Negative. If what constitutes liberal Protestantism is treated as solely relating to theological propositions then I guess I could be considered a liberal Protestant (although I'd be honestly more comfortable being considered a politically left-wing Catholic in a state of impaired communion with Rome, which is saying something because I'm not comfortable being considered that either), but I really cannot distance myself enough from the internal culture and collective psychology of liberal Protestantism as a movement.

Could you elaborate?

The culture within most liberal Protestant churches--the kind that go out of their way to be liberal and pride themselves on their liberalism, rather than just ones that happen to be liberal or in liberal denominations, which is what I'm trying to distinguish by saying 'as a movement'--tends to be...glib, image-focused, somewhat superficial, on top of any theological problems. I don't know if you've read Sawx's 'Party of Macklemore' post in this thread, but attending certain of these churches (the ELCA and UCC in particular can get bad about this, although I hasten to add that there are absolutely wonderful ELCA and UCC parishes as well) that's the same general vibe one gets. They're also one of the few environments in which I think the charge that liberals are as intolerant of conservatives as (certain types of) conservatives are of LGBTQ people, minorities, women, et cetera is, unfortunately, more or less true.

This isn't to denigrate the genuinely important work done for explicitly or implicitly left-leaning anti-poverty, anti-inequality, anti-discrimination causes that a lot of 'liberal churches' do. But a lot of 'conservative churches' do that kind of work as well.

Would you not contend that the culture and somewhat importantly, the ‘cultural relics’ masquerading as Serious And Important Points Of Principle And Faith, within churches that go out of their way to be conservative or just downright contrary are also glib and superficial?

Yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the most part, yeah, absolutely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, of course. I find almost all churches that go out of their way to stake out a brave image-obsessed culture warrior position of any kind on these sorts of issues insufferable (and yes, I know that this and a lot of my other views about church politics open me up to accusations of moderate heroism) but if I had to choose I'd definitely rather find myself at some parish on the leftmost wing of the ELCA or UCC than at almost any traditionalist Catholic parish, most Southern Baptist parishes, or God forbid a parish run by ACNA or some other schismatic Episcopalians--the ones who attempt to present themselves as acting in solidarity with suffering people in Africa or whatever to mask the entirely obvious real reasons why they're putting themselves under the oversight of Nigeria or Rwanda are the absolute worst, acting in stomach-churningly bad faith.