For the sake of clarity, and understanding, why don't we just all stand up and say

[Sal316]

118. I am a Christian and liberal.

There are only two points I consider to be the non-negotiables of the Christian faith: Incarnation and resurrection. Everything else I consider to be 'disputable matters' (Rom 14).

I am, for the most part, am unorthodoxically orthodox….or maybe I’m heterodox. One thing is for sure, I’m a paradox.

I grew up Roman Catholic, making it all the way through Confirmation, then wandered into agnosticism, Taoism, atheism, non-denominational evangelicalism, and now…. I’m not entirely sure.

For the most part, I identify with the Emergent movement….yet, I don’t. The more I read, the more I realize I’m sort of a theological America… a total melting pot.

I hold to a high Christology, believing Christ was both fully human and fully divine and to hold to one over the other diminishes Christ.

I believe in a literal resurrection because without it, Easter is just another holiday.

I honestly don’t know where I stand on atonement theory. I lean towards Christus Victor, as I find the more militaristic views to be out of touch with scripture.

I hold more to a prima scriptura view than sola scriptura, although I can see bits of both in myself. I love some of the high church traditions, rites, and rituals, and also feel completely at home in a house church.

I love the flexibility in ‘disputable matters’ that the Emergent movement has, yet worry that that same flexibility can work its way into the ‘non-negotiables’ of Christianity making it nothing more than a rehashing of 18th&19th Century liberal Protestantism.

I love the old Methodist hymns. I’m not really impressed with modern Christian music, although it played a big part in an influential period of my faith development.

My eschatology can be described as partial preterist amillenialism.

My views on Hell are in flux. Once I believed in the “Hell is a literal, place of eternal punishment”, which then swung to a Hell on Earth sort of view, and now is what can only be described as a “Hell is real, eternal, but punishment is not eternal” based on the purification characteristics of fire mentioned often in scripture.

I’m not a universalist, but hold inclusivist views, ala Billy Graham, influenced by Paul in Romans 2:14-15.

I see a lot of value in the Reformers and Reformed Theology, but also see great shortcomings.

I don’t see America as the “New Israel” and, in fact, think anyone who believes that the exile is over (Jer 29), is monumentally wrong.

I think equating the US with being a “Christian nation” is ridiculous. With the way we treat the lesser both among us and world-wide, we’re more like Israel before the exile.

I believe the Creation story is both literal and metaphorical. Yes, God is the Creator of all things but, no, I don’t believe in a literal Eden. I believe the story of Adam and Eve was God telling us how to live in harmony with Him AND His Creation, and the fall came when mankind first thought they could do it better.

I believe the over-arching message of scripture is one of justice for the poor, the oppressed, the voiceless.
I believe people have used religion to oppress people.

I believe Paul's letters are wrongfully maligned. They are half of a conversation and without understanding the context they're written in, and who they're written to, they're easy to misinterpret.

I don't believe science and religion conflict, just as King didn't

“Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.”

I don't believe one needs to believe in order to live a moral life.

I believe Christian is a good noun, but a lousy adjective.