Thanks Glorfindel, I hadn't come across the Wesleyan Quadrilateral before and it seems a useful tool for comparing different "flavours" of Christianity. Not just different denominations, but different strands within them, like (for example) "Charismatic Catholicism" (tradition & experience?). I felt Sells' analysis was a little simplistic in this regard and this thread demonstrates a wide variety of opinions amongst the believers. Though I must take issue with your latest post, "Are not the following signs of decline?" All I can say is, "We'll all be rooned." Here I was thinking that you were someone who could debate sensibly, sad really.

As Relda points out, Liberalism is a political philosophy. Relda goes on to suggest that "the hunger for substantive truth, more than ever, appears unsatisfied." I'd suggest that if you're looking to Liberalism for the "truth", or "transcendence" or "meaning", then you're looking in the wrong place. Its not an end in itself, its a means of creating a society where you're free to create your own meaning.

Waterboy says "Sells has maintained a steady critique of liberalism ... his views ... tend more to the liberal end of the theological spectrum than the evangelical although ... he would claim to be orthodox rather than liberal." I must take issue here. Sells wants nothing less than the rolling back of the Enlightenment. I find his arguments entertaining, but that's only because there's no likelihood of the Sells Project coming to fruition.

Crabsy says "If we could put our discussion into music and pictures and dance and drama". I certainly feel my world would be poorer without gothic architecture and some of the sacred music I enjoy. Unfortunately, for the average evangelical such things are distractions to be shunned. I guess they just don't know what they're missing. Though presumably they think the same about me.

davidf

I don't regard the past as any sort of golden age. It was in 1651 that Thomas Hobbes (in Leviathan) called life "poor, nasty, brutish and short" !

But the Enlightenment project brought so many expectations. Sure, we've had huge technological and material advances, but the human animal, even in rich western societies, hasn't improved much, and despite a great lift in education levels, surfeit has brought ennui and postmodern attitudes have destroyed perceptions of the need for the type of self-restraint that makes CIVILIZATION.

I was much taken by your comment "There is a great deal of evidence that the followers of Jesus can be brutal, intolerant and murderous, and Christianity has often encouraged them in that exercise of power."

I've made it clear from past postings that in no way do I identify with the many sins of the historical church. I'm very sure Jesus wouldn't own them, and neither will I own them. Similarly I don't expect secularists and humanists in general to own the atrocities perpetrated by Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc.

We are all responsible for our own actions. I've made it clear that I see Christianity as a matter of personal transformation, not pursuit of power, or besottedness with the cultural achievements and such aids to "mythos" - although I do certainly regard worship as requiring a sense of mythos, and I do love the sublime cultural achievements of music, architecture and the like. (So I am particularly unreceptive to Pentecostalism.) Man does not live by bread alone. Where is the soul in materialism?

However, your comment above is a CHALLENGE to Christians, and I accept it.

I agree with the statement by a UK pastor, Steve Chalke, who has said, of the church today, “The task of the church is to be the irrefutable demonstration and proof of the fact that God is love.”

“The task of the church is to be the irrefutable demonstration and proof of the fact that God is love.”

The implicit acknowledgement that they haven't been able to do it yet is interesting, is it not?

in glorfindel's case, i think it's a pretty explicit acknowledgment.

i certainly disagree with aspects of his/her posts, but i have some sympathy too. i don't find western civilization so wonderfully civilized. the posts certainly don't get up my nose like sellick's crap.

and i'm not sure that glorfindel should be getting too much heat, simply because Lord Sellick has laid his turd and then left.

Glorfindel wrote: I've made it clear from past postings that in no way do I identify with the many sins of the historical church. I'm very sure Jesus wouldn't own them, and neither will I own them. Similarly I don't expect secularists and humanists in general to own the atrocities perpetrated by Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc.

Dear Glorfindel,

Some sins of the historical church come from the words of Jesus:

Anglican Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote “Sins of Scripture”. From his website:

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY: "No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6); This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.

Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao were Marxist atheists not secular humanists. The Marxist belief in the original sin of private property and the classless millennium makes Marxism like Christianity rather than humanism in their belief in a historical process leading to an apotheosis. Marxism and Christianity are similar intolerant nonsense.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts. … Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation and as such views on morals can change when new knowledge and information is discovered. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin.

Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao did not affirm the dignity and worth of all people and were not humanists.

A secularist favours the separation of church and state. Religion is not the business of the state. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao etc. persecuted churches and their communicants. That is not secularism.

An interesting paragraph about humanism, David F, but have you made a selective quote?

"Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, ... without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts.[1][2] ... Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation and as such views on morals can change when new knowledge and information is discovered. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

read that last line again:
"Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial.[3]"

Humanism and liberalism need distinguishing. At the risk of appearing to quote selectively, I offer the first para of the wikipedia article (in toto) on liberalism:

"Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.[1]"
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism"

These two viewpoints seem related on a fundamental level. What strikes me is the tension implicit between "the commonality of the human condition" and "parochial" approaches to human cultural and social problems.

Consider spearing, as a sanction in Aboriginal communities, vs long-term imprisonment for similar crimes, committed in a predominantly secular state. Or take the social structure of communities of Exclusive Brethren in northern Tasmania, contrasted to the social structure of urban Uniting Church communities. Plainly, "liberal" and "humanist" values are more evident in the typical judgements of the Supreme Court and the likely behaviour of urban protestants.

Do liberals and humanists (religious or not)take it on faith that their interventions in individual and community affairs are somehow to be preferred over the traditionalist structures and behaviours they label as discriminatory and/or inhumane?