Neither will you.

As Christian mystics have understood for two millennia, the nature of God is an ever-unfolding mystery that we are invited to participate in, not an equation to solve.

All of us see “as through a glass, darkly,” limited to dirty, imperfect subjectivity. I think about the purpose of theology, and the nature of (T)ruth and wonder, as frail, fragile beings: “how much is expected of us?”

Likely, the answer is different for each person. What does God expect of me, my beliefs and my praxis? – Me, an educated [well, semi-educated], white, upper-middle-class dude who has been blessed with very little personal trial, hardship or sorrow (apart from the standard, easily-medicated suburbanite-depression)…

Does God expect more or less from a refugee in Darfur? Does God expect a “Lost Boy” to waste his time with such theological posturing – or does God merely whisper love and hope into that young man’s life, by every means available, and reward any goodness or compassion that might flower amidst the horror and wreckage of war?

Our story is the lens through which we see and understand everything else. How can we not be impacted by the cracked and dirty glass held in front of our eyes?

Does God expect us to see clearly?
Does God magically (or divinely) reveal True (“correct”) theology?
Or does God recognize the texture of the glass through which we see, and make allowance (grace) for our blurred vision?

In grade school, I prayed to Aslan because he was easier to conjure in my mind…

As for salvation, I have not rejected Jesus’ words in John: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (14:6) But I like C.S. Lewis’ inference from Mere Christianity: “the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.” (p. 65) I could go on, concerning salvation in a pluralistic world and how other religions may fit in, but will be brief, only saying I believe God is far more gracious than any folks I happen to know, and probably likes a lot of Buddhist lifestyles more than my own materialistic, consumerist, bourgeoisie Christian living. I don’t believe easy lines can be drawn regarding “who is in, and who is out.”  Manifestations of Christian Universalism are as old as Christianity itself.

3. Stereotypical Liberal Assumption: The Bible is not “Inerrant,” or (more extremely) the Bible is flawed and without value.The Bible is precious to me – New Testament and Old. And there are lots of things in the Bible that piss me off.

Bishop John Shelby Spong is a classic example of Christian liberalism, where frustrating verses are simply thrown out. And I emphasize simply as the problem with this approach. I find the “solution” of picking and choosing incredibly simplistic, and not very thoughtful. Spong lists “immoral Biblical text” in his book, Sins of Scripture. My concern about this sort of judgmental or editorial activity is that it relies on the moral compass of the particular writer/scholar/editor/human who is making the cuts. It suggests: “I understand better than the writer(s) of this passage, what God actually wanted or intended… my morality is superior to this morality.” To me, it feels arrogant and elitist. Even ethnocentric – a modern, Western white man judging ancient, tribal Jews.  On the other hand, I am guilty of this practice in day-to-day living.  I choose what seems right to me.  We all do – conservative and liberal fundamentalists alike.  It is humility, “fear and trembling,” that should keep us cautious and thoughtful about the choices we’re making.  We cannot speak for God.  I come to some of the same practical conclusions that Spong does in writing, but I am not ready to throw out what I don’t like.  I think we can hold onto it, recognizing historical, cultural and socio-political contexts.  Faithful people have always attempted to discern the will and nature of God, and faithful people will always get it wrong.  Holy Bible or not, our interpretations and assumptions are deeply imperfect and unavoidably tinged with our humanity.

So rather than discard what is human, I prefer to pray like this:

And therein lies my deepest frustration: trying to force GOD into a box. Suggesting that our theological needs or expectations must take precedence over the universe God created and blessed us with. Denying reality for the sake of an overly-controlling dream.

4. Stereotypical Liberal Assumption: Jesus was not born of a virgin.This belief is a non-negotiable for many, perhaps even most Christians today. But that was not always the case. It is easy to take for granted the universal acknowledgement of the virgin conception by the early church, based on the story’s prevalence in modern church teaching. However, objectively supported by scripture alone, it’s somewhat surprising that the writers of Matthew and Luke were so unquestionably convinced of Jesus’ virgin conception, given that there is no other reference to it in all of the New Testament. Mark and John seem uninterested in this point in their gospel accounts, and Paul did not find it necessary in developing or supporting his own apologetics.

Moreover, the prominent differences and conflicts between the Matthean and Lukan genealogies create all sorts of problems that are not resolved in scripture. The complexity of these writers’ seemingly self-imposed predicament is even more puzzling as they each simultaneously attest to the Davidic Kingship of Jesus with little or no explanation as to how both could be true.

“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph…” (Luke 3:23) So it was thought seems to have been good enough for both Matthew and Luke, but what about modern readers? Was Joseph able to adopt Jesus into the Davidic line? Why do both genealogies build through Joseph, as Jesus’ father? Was Mary’s virginity constructed to emphasize Jesus’ divinity? And why are the two genealogies so vastly different?

Click here to read an overview on research concerning the differing genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke and how they may pertain to the question of the Virgin Conception.

For me, I have not rejected belief in the Virgin conception, but I do not believe it to be a non-negotiable for Christian faith.

5. Stereotypical Liberal Assumption: Jesus was not literally (physically) resurrected from the dead.I have less to say about this incredibly important question because I simply haven’t done much research on it.

For me, the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ may be only one of two non-negotiables I have.  The first is that God is love. But these are personal non-negotiables, not prescribed for others.  It doesn’t mean I won’t recognize the Christianity of persons of faith who don’t believe in the resurrection. But it’s one of the few areas for me, personally, that I have not found reason to question. I emphasize personally. Faith demands belief beyond reason or proof, and I believe that faith, on many levels, is a deliberate choice. I have chosen to believe (largely based on my own spiritual experience) that Jesus is the only son of God, and that when he died on the cross, he was physically resurrected three days later.

Marcus Borg (among many others) does not believe in the literal, physical resurrection. In a lecture I attended at Oregon State University, he talked about “shared visions” and “collective manifestations” in which disciples manifested the same ethereal images of Jesus. They even heard the same words. To Borg, the disciples’ intense loyalty to Jesus, and their love for him, coupled with their refusal to accept the finality of his death, allowed them to share the same spirituality awareness of Jesus – who continued to live through them in word, mission and deed.

I don’t buy that explanation. In fact, I tend to think that philosophies that remove the potential for supernatural occurrence are deeply uninteresting and symptomatic of modern reductionism (i.e. I think they’re boring!).

But yes, I do believe in Christ’s death and physical, literal resurrection. And I am deeply humbled and thankful for what it means (only a little of which, I understand).

So! In conclusion: Am I a liberal, a LIBERAL, an asshole, or all of the above?
Only God knows (you might have an opinion, though). Perhaps a bit of each, with an angry little fundamentalist still fussing around in my gut.

Spencer Burke wrote in A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity that his beliefs are malleable. He suggests something is wrong if he believes the same thing tomorrow that he believed today. One might call that “evolution.” And then one might be drummed out of one’s church.

For a long time, I didn’t used to like the religious tag of “liberal” because of the baggage it carried – largely unhelpful. But I’m coming to use it more and more, because I think the distinctives of liberalism are becoming increasingly important for our society to readopt – to stop apologizing for – to stop hiding from. This is certainly shaped by my political and social convictions. But as a liberal Christian, I believe in the power and presence of the Holy Spirit. I believe that real sin exists, and that there is a real spiritual enemy waging war against goodness. I believe that Jesus Christ offers a way for humankind to be saved from the mire, the darkness, the emptiness and unhealthiness of sinful life. But that’s only if we let him. Too many Christians put on a “saved” hat and call it good as they continue to participate in the principalities and powers of this world. I’m still too guilty of this, too often.

One bumper sticker reads, “Christians aren’t perfect, they’re just forgiven.”

I think that’s a tacky, unconscionable way of looking at grace.

I’m sure that attitude led to this bumper sticker: “WWJD? He would probably smack the shit out of you.”

And he’d probably like to. I deserve it.

I know, I know: this was hardly an exhaustive look at the term “liberal,” but I hope it offers a glimpse into the sort of questions many emerging Christians are asking. And how those questions don’t lend themselves to easy, black-and-white answers. If you’re worried that becoming a part of the “Emerging Church Movement” will eventually lead you to becoming a new kind of liberal – well, you might have good reason. It’s what happened to me. And I’m thankful for that, beyond words.