I'm non-religious and I can't understand for the life of me why anyone on the liberal side of the spectrum would insist on calling themselves a christian. It's like drinking fanta and insisting it's orange juice.
I'm an athiest but I grew up in very religious households so I feel like I can try and explain this one People tend to look at religion for a guide. A way of thinking, a list of morals, a sense of community, etc. It's nice for those people to grow through those ideologies and to believe in a god and have something to work for in their lives. The reason why they may lean more to the liberal side of the spectrum may just be because believe in everything the church has to say, including the negative, may just be uncomfortable for them if they have family or people they care about who may be negatively affected by those beliefs. They could also just not know every detail that comes with being Christian and would instead of seeking salvation for themselves, use Christianity and the community behind it to create a better, more accepting world for their family, even if it may border on what is widely known in more dedicated Christian ideologies as heresy
The problem is, some people just want to be religious without feeling restricted i.e. they want to have their cake and eat it. I wouldn't take this as far as to say that any Christian who goes against their faith in minor ways isn't a real Christian (masturbation, looking at horoscope readings, greedily overeating) because there are very few people who cannot sin at all and some sins are clearly much worse than others (murder, theft, torture), but if someone's going to the point of declaring that a particular act isn't a sin at all then to me, that reflects a lack of integrity on their part. Those kinds of people need to properly reflect on why they feel bad about some aspect of their own faith, then abandon it if they can't resolve their cognitive dissonance. However, I accept that might not be possible in very conservative environments where people would be treated as outcasts or even persecuted if they did that.
@@j1233191 The biggest one for me, is all of the interpretations on gender identity and especially sexuality... they just feel so wrong. How can a loving God judge his creations for loving each other, regardless of their gender identity or orientation? I definitely don't believe God would ever condone any destructive or non-consensual, nor overtly lustful activity (the very reasons for the destruction of S&G). I just have a really hard time believing that they would condone consensual love. I want to ask the really conservative people how they think God would interpret an A-sexual, same sex couple? Because technically that wouldn't be violating any scripture I can think of, since there is zero sexual interaction going on there. So is that still going against God's rules?
@@thebarbaryghostsf You kind of seem like one of the stage 3 progressives that RZ talked about - I'll go through your points one by one. 1) There are different kinds of things that we English speakers call "love", love is a very vague term in our language. It could refer to familial love, friendly love, compassionate love (i.e. loving God and your neighbour as yourself) and erotic passion (performing sexual acts on someone or something.) Would it make sense to say that a rapist or a stalker fuelled with erotic passion "loves" their target? No, and it most certainly wouldn't make sense to say that a paedophile or a zoophile "loves" children or animals either. The typical prostitute user doesn't really "love" the one whose services they're using, and I think we can agree on all those things. Compassionate love is vastly more important than any other kind of love in God's eyes, Jesus did imply that people must prefer him to even their own parents or siblings. 2) The Sodomites weren't simply overly lustful - they did engage in a variety of sins as listed by a variety of Biblical writers, but it was mentioned by Jude in the New Testament that they "practiced unnatural vice". Considering that lying with a man as with a woman is spoken of as being an abomination in the Pentateuch and the early Christians were originally a Jewish sect, it's obvious what this is a reference to. Read Romans 1:26-27 for a more explicit description of homosexuality as being unnatural. 3) The idea of anything being OK if it's consensual is moral minimalism. It's a secular, intention-based utilitarian idea that goes directly against the deontological, act-based ethics of Christianity that seek to promote moral maximalism - Jesus himself said "Be perfect, just as your Heavenly Father is perfect". Using prostitutes and having casual sex can also be consensual, but I doubt you'd agree so passionately with those specific things, all because they're not emotionally charged issues or seen as things to be positively affirmed (except in the ultra-liberal Netherlands, but that's another story...) in the way that LGBT matters are. 4) If a same sex couple doesn't actually engage in sex, why are they even in a relationship to begin with? What's the point of forming that kind of bond with someone if you're not going to consummate it? "Asexual" and "same sex couple" are mutually contradictory, if they're not engaging in erotic activities including kissing, then they'd be better off staying single and relating to each other as just friends. St Paul himself said that husbands and wives must only abstain from sex for limited amounts of time in case the devil exploits their lack of self-control and he also said that if anyone burns with lust, they should marry. So it's clear from this that you can't cleanly separate sex from romantic relationships in general. In conclusion, I'd say that you need to consider whether you would give in and say that prostitution or casual sex or other kinds of sexual sins aren't sins or at least aren't that bad if the people engaging in them had become increasingly influential, prominent and accepted in the same way that people who have sex with the same sex did. If you say "no", then you're being a hypocrite and not giving all people who engage in consensual sex the same treatment. If you say "yes", then like RZ pointed out, you're just becoming increasingly distant from essential Christian doctrine like progressives in general.
I think I'm literally at 0. I'm catholic and I remember going to a Bible study and the reverend taught the class. He would talk about the deeper meaning of the Bible and the significance of repeating numbers. And I vaguely remember him saying that God creating the world in 6 days could be literal, or something different. I wish I had my notes still, but I remember him to encourage us to have an open mind about the meaning of every passage we read.
That’s surprising to hear because practically every Christian I’ve met, regardless of where they are on the scale, will strongly defend their point of view and always call the other objectively wrong I say this as a Christian, Christians never encourage you to have your own point of view.
@@torpid5092 I think it kinda helps that my mom grew up Lutheran before converting to Catholic and my grandfather a die hard Catholic didn't mind. So I kinda got a mix of Christian teaching. And the reverend of my church was just a very kind and respectful man. Again with the whole number thing as I did find some of my notes. He claimed we don't know how they measured time. So these people who lived to be 200 years old may have very well been that old or it just means something different. That's just one example. But yeah I do just kinda vibe in the middle
@@torpid5092idk what kinda Christians you met but my pastor is always asking for different opinions so that we can compare and search for the right answer. But my pastor came to the same thing, we were discussing the possible meanings because of the verse that says 1 day to God is like 1000 years to us and 1000 years is like 1 day. We know he made it for sure, it says it right there. But we also gotta consider the fact that God isn't bound by time and he made our time possible. Then again, I'm pretty young and the church is small so we get more time to really discuss. Might be different in other places.
"that God creating the world in 6 days could be literal, or something different." I take that view too, but I think evolution is a farce since the math is bad. I've not seen much of this view, but basically I have suspicions young earth is correct, but think the Bible doesn't demand it and "the science" can't study it.
Here me out, leave the Catholic Church, I know people who have went through it and it sound like almost a cult, try and build a relationship with Jesus, not just be part of a religion
I disagree with the notion that those on the liberal side are likely to become more liberal. Rather, I would tie it to how firmly one is getting their beliefs from scripture. For example, those who believe women should be leading churches because things "should be fair", or because "we're in the 21st century, come on already", might be likely to continue to slide. However, those who think that Paul's passages on women in ministry are largely localized for a specific context and that a more general Biblical context seems to elevate women into a position that allows for church leadership are still basing their views on scripture and are unlikely to stray away from scripture, because in their view they never had strayed in the first place. Great video as always though.
Yes. This is a good way of putting it. There are numerous other ideas that would fall into this video's first three levels of "progressive" Christianity that can also be very much based on a Biblical foundation. I think Redeemed Zoomer, being a bit more on the conservative side, may not be as aware of how that can be the case for some things.
generally agree. I grew up in a church with a woman pastor, and we have always been a literal Bible believing creationist church. we found positions in scripture to match these positions from the get-go, not as an excuse to make things more fair.
Women should not be pastors, priests, or leading churches. Timothy 2:12 is clear. Picking and choosing what we bring forward into modern times subverts that the Bible is the infallible Word of God. When we try manipulating it with mental gymnastics, we enter into disobedience and, yes, even heresy. The Bible claims to be infallible in 2 Peter 1:19, “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable.” Peter continues with a description of how Scripture came to be: “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). Also, we see infallibility implied in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is God-breathed” and has the effect of producing servants of God who are “thoroughly equipped for every good work.” The fact that God “breathed” Scripture insures that the Bible is infallible, for God cannot breathe out error. The fact that the Bible equips God’s servants “thoroughly” for service shows that it guides us into truth, not error.
@psychiatricallyinclined I believe that you are mistaken, and reading things in the way that you do is potentially dangerous in terms of the actions it may lead one to take. First of all, what do you think about the Pharisees? They knew the law extremely well, and tended to take it quite literally. Yet, Jesus proved that they were interpreting things in the wrong way or with the wrong spirit on numerous occasions. Jesus Himself contradicted literal interpretations from the Torah, for example when He allowed his disciples to eat without first cleaning their hands. There is also reason to believe that Paul is speaking to a specific historical and geographical context when he says that women should not lead. Paul is quite egalitarian for his time, even saying that there is no difference between slave and master, male and female, etc. in the eyes of God, and telling husband and wife that they are each other's property sexually, as opposed to the man ruling the woman. It is true that it can be dangerous to interpret scripture to fit your own view, but the Bible's infallibility does not prohibit context. In fact, removing context simply to take it as it is creates many contradictions and leads to many misinterpretations. Some of the people whose opinions I trust the least are people who constantly insist that scripture is "clear" on issues that have caused great controversy within the church. There is usually a reason for that controversy. Sometimes conservatives have it right, and sometimes liberals do, and sometimes they are both wrong. But if it's not widely accepted, dismissing it as "clear," and claiming that the other side is just "leaning on their own understanding," suggests a lack of true consideration of the point. Which I suppose is understandable, since in your perspective, there is no reason to try to interpret anything. But I would suggest that you strongly reconsider that perspective. I wonder how many people have been needlessly driven away from the church because of it? I suspect quite a lot.
@Ex_christianAm As Karl Barth explained, since you are not saved, you just read the Human aspect of the Bible, but the Hole Spirit did not revealed the Divine aspect.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 there is no Devine aspect. That’s why you need faith, faith in make believe, because none of it is real. Otherwise, if it is real and there is a god, he’s a dick!
Nice video, but i think this scale only really works for Protestantism, since for Catholicism for example, evolutionism is very commonly accepted but denomination exclusivism is a dogma (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) which kind of breaks the scale.
@@Gaius453 I would disagree. Suppose you do agree with 95% of Catholic dogma but question or are unsure about the other 5%? What then would you refer to yourself as? Not Orthodox. Not Protestant. Something else? Idk. Those are my thoughts, would love to hear yours.
I liked the line at the end "Where would Jesus be?" A good question that lots of Christians (including myself) need to ask more often. Edit: Hey mom! I'm famous!
How? He wanted to save everyone, treated everyone fair, and even spoke against that. Like in the parable with the Good Samaritan, or how God said to the Israelites in Leviticus they treat any foreign person well, regardless of ethnicity, because they were foreigners n Egypt. He makes a point so many times that everyone is equal because we all sin, he never mistreated someone because he was perfect. He loved all of everyone because he created them. If Jesus can't because though he was fully man, he was still fully God, and it is impossible for God to sin because it goes against his very being.
This is difficult to agree with because of things like women’s suffrage and civil rights in the church. Things have changed and the majority of conservatives now agree that those things are good, but back years ago, many conservative Christians didn’t. Progressivism has moved its way through conservatives too
Being “conservative” is too dependent on the culture, modern Christianity is practiced much differently than that of the Christianity following Jesus. Maybe the book never changed but your interpretation of the book was given to you by a cultural context that is radically different to that of other eras of history. For instance the acceptance of racism in the mainstream American church to the strong convictions opposing racism in modern day America in the mainstream church. Bottom line being culturally conservative doesn’t mean you defend the bible more closely, just a particular cultural perspective and context of the bible. This is evidenced by proliferation of denominations all claiming to be “biblical”.
Well many "progressive" interpretations are not actually changes to the Bible but are in response to a more accurate reading of the Bible in historical context or in some cases correcting mistranslations. A lot of the most inflammatory words in the Bible: "fornication", "abomination", "sodomy" are mistranslations, that do not accurately reflect the original meaning of the text.
I'm not sure how well this spectrum works for certain branches of Christianity. For instance, in Catholicism you will come across some extremely theologically conservative people who in many ways are way more conservative than Protestant fundamentalists and yet they do not support YEC.
@@leusher9024 Young-earth Creation. Basically, the Earth is roughly six thousand years old, dinosaurs lived alongside humans, etc. It's based on the assumption that that the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis were intended as history rather than allegory or epic.
Most Church Fathers took Genesis as literally and were not YEC. There is alternative ideas as to how the days were 6 literal days and the eslapsing of time between Genesis events @@gunsgalore7571
The problem when we group things in binary groupings is that we focus too much on the macro of things instead of the subsets. For example, someone may believe in many progressive ideologies but may have very strict anti-abortion views in all circumstances, and vice-versa.
Wow, you're trying to take like .001% of a group and say "they aren't all like that." What a completely useless way to look at the world. I'm sorry, if 12 people in a group of a million are anti-abortion, the group isn't anti-abortion and it's fair to say that the group is fine with abortion.
I think the problem is that all ideology is fundamentally anti Christian because they are not based on scripture and the presuppositions that they make in some cases reject the idea or neglect the existence of God such as liberalism, socialism and fascism all these ideologies reject God to varing extents and so are false at their foundation hence any ideals made through them although some may align with Christian ideals are false and corrupted.
4 месяца назад
Simply because humans tend to make everything way oversimplyfied in order to decide guickly. Thinking objectively is hard
@@Mugiwara_Luffy_SamaAll people are sinners and fall short of God's standard. I think what you're trying to ask is if being transgender is a sin which yes it is because it distorts the creation of God, a man can not become a woman and a woman can not become a man, God created you unique and special and it should be cherished over a feeling. A few scriptural references are Genesis 1:27, Genesis 5:2, and Matthew 19:4. Another thing I'd add is God can not make errors and believing in trans ideology spits in God's face by telling Him that He made you wrong and He has fault which is untrue, as if He did have fault He could not be God. A few scriptural references Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 18:30, Matthew 5:48, Romans 12:2.
Great video, but I feel grouping these 'levels' on a 2D scale might be a little reductive? For example, bringing up 'scripture denial'...Surely Christians on both sides of this scale and across denominations are capable of using bad hermeneutics to affirm their beliefs. It isn't simply "denial" because they interpret scripture on one issue or another in a way that someone else perceives is incorrect.
I think that to make a video where he can explain this spectrum and make it digestible by a wide audience, one has to take some liberties in not being so wholly encompassing of all situations. Beyond that, I think what he was going for is that traits in each prior step are sort of prequisite to the next, as opposed to being solely exclusive to that point on the graph.
I am assuming if you get to the scripture denial part of the scale that he means you are someone who outright denies something specifically stated in the Bible, not interpreting it differently. That would be when it says do not commit adultery and a scripture denier would say that it’s fine.
I was on the progressive road for a few years until i realised that i had changed & twisted scripture so much that the God i was praying to was the completely wrong one. I decided that if i am going to be a Christian, I want to do it right, starting with accepting God, wholly and completely as He has revealed to us, and not just what i want. Same with the Bible Ive had an absolute blast since!!! The real true God of the Bible shows UP when you let Him!!!!!
So is your God the one who slaughtered the first born of Egypt or the one who ordered his people to enact laws that required women who were raped to be sold to their rapist? Oh! Maybe the version of God who sent literal bears to kill the children who joked about the prophet Elisha's bald head? That version is fun. Real comic book villain that one.
There's no place for Christianity, Islam, or other fairy tale religions in the 21st century, they hold back scientific and social progress and need to be called out for what they are - wishful thinking and delusions.
I vary from a 0.5 on liberal scale to a 0.5 on the conservative scale. I respect conservative beliefs, although I stop really agreeing at stage 3 conservatism because at that point it’s just denying science and more of a cult than an actual religion. For liberalism, I think stage 2 is the max I can tolerate. Anything beyond stage 3 is not true Christianity.
Amen! I haven't wore two different fabrics simultaneously in years! Plus, it saved me from a lot of guilt the other day when I was beating my slave, but I found out it's totally fine because he survived a few days. Leviticus and Exodus have opened my eyes.
Now I'm atheist and come from a LGBTQ household. I just found your channel and tbh I've already gained so much respect for you as you're incredibly informative and thoughtful.
What does it mean to be from a LGBT household ? Are you adopted from a gay couple ? Or has your father later in life became gay or trans ? Or does your mother identify as your father and your father identity as your mother ?
This was really well explained! I think I sort of place as a 1.5 degree Conservative, though this was really good at explaining everything in a non-biased way
To be a progressive christian is to be the lukewarm church that Jesus warned about, to be an extreme conservative christian is to serve another master over Christ. All in all are all sinners and Christ died so that we may be set free, if anything were supposed to unite to save America not fall into the bickering that makes adults look immature compared to children. Also dang its been a minute since Ive seen this channel. Absolutely based and informative video
@@Uncle_Ruckus_ Not necessarily, Everyone thinks that they're interpretation is most in line with the will of God. And yet people disagree. Your following word for word might be someone else's cultural bias. I don't think that anyone is sinning merely by following their best understanding. But I do think that everyone is obligated to a certain amount of due diligence when it comes to being critical about their own beliefs and about being patient with those who disagree.
@@Grokford you know those red sentences? Those don't change no matter how many times it's been translated. The Bible changing it's meanings is a lie atheists and anti Christians say a lot. It's now being reinterpreted because we are living in the final days in revelation. Everywhere will be deception to lead you astray from God, even in the churches.
Curious as to whether women in ministry is the best example for your degrees of conservatism. I know many churches that will hold to degree 2 and 3 but have no issue with women in ministry leadership or pastoral roles.
we believe women should be in the hospitality/small group ministry, but not pastoral, simpply because of the nature of women (emotional). we are not narrow-minded like many would think, simply logical
@@thedomainofsealteamaqua Also it is HIGHLY SUSPECT🤨 (ulterior motive) that there is a NEW way for the church going forward (after THOUSANDS of frick@&en years) with Women in leadership.
I think this is an oversimplification. After all, I think most people would agree that non-Nicene groups such as Oneness Pentecostals, LDS, and JWs certainly aren’t theologically liberal or progressive. Heretical in their rejection of the Trinity, to be sure, but on all the other matters, they fall into either the moderate or conservative camps. There’s also the issue of mainline vs evangelical churches. While mainline congregations are generally theologically liberal and evangelical churches are generally theologically conservative, there are evangelical theologians like Rob Bell whose understanding of salvation falls firmly into the universalist camp.
Why would Pentecostals be a non-Nicene group? I can't speak for all pentecostal churches, but most of us do belive in every point of in the Nicene creed
As an LDS person, I'm not quite sure what you mean when you mention us rejecting the Trinity. We believe in God, Jesus, and the Spirit as three separate beings. Is that uncommon in other faiths?
Wonderfully said! I recently heard Paul VanderKlay refer to himself as a “Mere Christianity” kind of person (alluding to the book by CS Lewis). This is my view as well. I was chrismated into the Eastern Orthodox Church last year, following a series of clear-and at times miraculous-signs. My Lord wants me there, and at my specific place of worship. He has brought me such joy in these things. But I was already a Christian before that, and the Holy Spirit was a major, felt presence in my life as a Baptist. My parents are beautiful Christians, as are other loved ones in Protestant or Catholic denominations. There is a “line” somewhere, of course, but God sees our hearts and is always calling to each of us. In that process, we are all going to misinterpret or simply not hear about a lot of true things. We see through a glass darkly. God works all things to the good of those who love him and activates those who love Him wherever we are. One day, we will no longer look through a glass but directly in His beautiful face. There will be no need for denominations because we will live with the unveiled Truth. Until then, I think we should give each other grace. We can be wrong about a lot of things while loving and serving God. Part of living is his gentle correction, which sometimes comes through another human with a different perspective.
I would adhere to roughly the same view. Faith in the person of Jesus is central, which is not very propositional. The bible clearly makes propositional truth claims. However, even though Scripture is infallible, we are fallible. The best we can do is be faithful to Jesus in the beliefs we hold. I attend a church that I disagree with on many propositions, but I genuinely believe the people are trying to be faithful to Christ and God's word. Who am I to demand they shift from their faithfully held beliefs?
Well said!!! I am a Global Methodist with a strong respect for Orthodoxy (Wesleyan theology has some interesting crossovers with the East that are not normal for Western churches), and I fully expect to learn in the next life about areas where I'm wrong. I enjoy learning, so this isn't as much of a scary prospect for me as an interesting and exciting one. :-)
@@nerysghemor5781Hey! I'm eastern orthodox and I was considering to read something from Wesley, but I can't find out what's his "magnum opus". Is there any book from him that you would recommend as an introduction to understanding his theology? (I want to read directly from him, not some biography)
@@jonaszswietomierz8017 I would have to look into that to find the titles. What I would suggest as a keyword is what Methodists refer to as entire sanctification. It’s nearly identical to theosis.
The difference between a conservative Christian and a liberal "Christian" is that the conservative one doesn't have to rip entire sections out of his Bible to make his theology work.
@zfloyd1627 does that even exist in the USA? The only Ethnonationalists I ever hear of are those black liberation movement but 1) they are too small in number to have a significant impact and 2) usually Muslims so I doubt they have any use for a Bible of any kind 😄
yea the little side-comment about “if you’re a non-believer and have negative opinions about christianity, then you’re a normal non-believer” was really shady. persecution complex much? or maybe it’s projection
Yeah, Atheism isn't destroying the church. We're doing a fine job of that on our own. Truthfully, if we were doing the will of Jesus and following Him, not just using Him for a mascot, there would be fewer Atheists in general
@@johntaylor6851 i agree %100 percent, so many are turned away from religion by the people supposed to get them into it. i always hear "i went to Catholic school and now i'm not a Christian" and it breaks my heart. (not ragging on Catholics, that's jus the first example i remembered.)
Engaging with the spectrum of Christian beliefs, it's fascinating to see how theological perspectives evolve. From conservative Christians emphasizing biblical inerrancy to progressive Christians challenging traditional views, the landscape is diverse. The discussion often centers around the role of women in ministry, biblical authority, and interpretations of creation. It's crucial to approach these differences with respect, recognizing that beliefs are nuanced and shaped by various factors. Ultimately, the question arises: Where would Jesus stand in this complex theological landscape?
I don't think Jesus has a body count, so I'd assume the answer to "where would he stand" is "against the conquest and violence the church has caused since his passing"
Jesus was very progressive at his time. It's undeniable that he was a social justice warrior himself. That's all I could say. Tbh, I wonder where'd he'd stand too. I feel like he'd hate what most conservative Christians nowadays are doing the same way he'd hate what most liberal Christians are doing. I feel like Jesus was he's own person, like, independent perhaps? He wouldn't necessarily subscribe to one belief or the other. He's like, a middle man.
Agreed...I'm a 0.5 progressive (not going any further left than that) and I actually look forward to finding out in the next life where I am wrong. I realize I don't know or understand everything and I think being open to learning and correction is good. From Scripture it seems that when a person was open to learning and correction when they didn't have it all right, Jesus was very kind in how he educated them, so I think that would be a positive conversation, not a negative one. (Think of the Samaritan woman, who had many things wrong theologically but showed openness to Him. Same with the eunuch who wanted to learn but didn't see the full meaning of the Scriptures on his own. That's how I hope the interaction will be when I get to Heaven. :-) )
@@nerysghemor5781 As a 0.5 - 1.5 conservative: Amen, I agree with you also. We all have fallible minds due to our sin nature so glory be to The Lord for being good to us. God Jesus bless you, fellow brother or sister in Christ! :)
At this point why not forgive everyone lol? If you believe in hell then it is certain that not everyone can be forgiven. And salvation is conditional on the basis of your faith, you must have a Christian faith. You cannot be both Christian and universalist. It matters where on the scale you are.
The law can really be summed up in 2 words anyways so the theology or answer your looking for is already in scripture but getting a modern example isn’t a bad thing but tbh if Christian’s lived like Christ(most of us) the world would be far far better..
Did anyone else listen to this and go 'well Im definitely not a liberal Christian, I must be 1 or 2 of conservative christian' and then he said stage 1 of conservstive Christianity snd you went "I dont even think Im on this spectrum at all" 💀
Good video. There's a church near me that does exactly what you outlined in stage 2. They have interesting stuff on their sign outside, supporting all sorts of worldly issues like the starbucks unions or stuff like "its the bi-ble not the hetero-ble"
As someone who falls slightly to progressivism, I still like the way you explained both sides. I agree with the Stages vs Degree distinction since it kind of helps show how willing/likely each side is going to change their views. Only criticism would be that you spent more time explaining the progressive side and their flaws than the conservative side (I don't mean in terms of bias, I mean you didn't go too far into depth about each degree of conservatism like you did stages of liberalism). All in All a good and relevant video.
That’s just because the degrees are more broad in scope and separated, whereas progressivism is just one slippery slope into damnation. He _can’t_ get more specific for the degrees or he’d risk losing truthful accuracy, whereas progressivism is always the same and so can be specified.
@@disguisedcentennial835 There are actually some of us who fall slightly on the progressive side who...well, didn't progress. By this scale I would fall at 0.5 and I actually do have clear lines not just on the right, but also on the left that I won't cross.
Redeemed Zoomer is just 'S' tier. Great youtuber. Great Niche-tuber. Great Christ-tuber. Love pulling out a RZ video when I'm having religious conversations with people.
5:34 good job bro, you projected the side your don't agree with as the soy wojak, and you made the side you agree with the Chad, good job, you won the imaginary argument, 11/10
Great video! But I think conservative 3 and 4 should be switched. Also, I'd like to humbly request a "History of King David, I guess" You style makes sharing these topics with my kids very accessible.
No way, denominational exclusion is far more extreme than youn-gearth Creationism. Very, VERY few Baptists will say that orthodox-practicing Methodists, Lutherans, and so on are damned. More will say that Catholics or even Orthodox are damned, but that's largely due to a lack of understanding of the Church's approach to things like papist Infusion versus Protestant Imputation, or the role of intercession of the saints. All of them will say that Progressive """""Christians""""" are damned because they loathe the Bible and its teachings, dismissing them as obsolete, bigoted, or even immoral. To say that your denomination is the only right one, or a set of only right ones, is a rejection of Jesus' teachings of one Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church, as well as the Nicene Creed's declaration of the same. Ecumenicalism is the correct approach. Denominations exist because men disagree on open-handed doctrines like the nature of the Lord's Supper, Infusion versus Imputation, the organizational structure of the Holy Orders (Oversees, Deacons, and Elders), while agreeing on absolute Truths (e.g. Jesus is God, Jesus is the only way to Salvation, Jesus' Resurrection and Virgin Birth), and so on. I firmly believe that Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant Christians that actually believe in the Word of God and practice its Truths accordingly are Christian and will see one-another in Heaven.
@@Robin-sf3gk Creationism is the belief that the universe, and all in it, including life itself, is the handiwork of God and that He directed, orchestrated, and directly worked to make it at His pleasure and His discretion. That's it. If you believe the universe, let alone life, is an accident, you deny God the credit for the works of His Hands. That denial damns you, because it denies the WHO and the WHY. The HOW is open-handed (I believe evolutionary biology is God's means), but the WHO and WHY are non-negotiable.
As someone who is currently on the path to ministry, I often find myself more conflicted by some of these divisions than I would be if I were simply interested in remaining part of the laity. It's one thing to attend a church in which you disagree with some of their theological positions but it's another to be the pastor in a denomination with which you disagree. I would love to know how to best approach these kinds of issues as a member of the clergy.
Act faithfully with your clergy, while understanding that beliefs and other earthly machinations and categorizations of the intellect are only hindrances to be closer to God.
grew up between 3 and 4 conservative, and am an agnostic now. it was a long and tough journey but im at peace with it now. did any of you have similar or different journeys through the spectrum?
grew up at 3 conservative (young earth creationist, evolution-denier, etc.), now agnostic atheist. i don’t think i really entertained more progressive forms of christianity because, as i’m sure you know, conservative christianity teaches an “all or nothing” way of thinking about the world in general, but especially the faith and the bible. my journey out of christianity began with two simple questions: why do i believe the words in the bible? answer: well it’s the word of god. why do i believe it’s the word of god? because it says so..in the bible. when i realized that reasoning was patently circular, it made me a lot more skeptical of what i was being told.
The YEC thing isn't a marker of conservatism so much as biblical education. Many conservative reformed theologians are not YEC, despite being champions of inerrancy. Inerrancy is about trust; YEC is about interpretation. Never confuse interpretation with trust. It could be said that certain interpretations are more traditional, such as compatibilism (moderate Calvinism), eternal conscious torment or barring women from leading positions of ministry, which have been held by a majority of bible-believing Christian scholars throughout the majority of the last 2000 years. But YEC is not one of those positions. The early church writers were split on it, and from there the church saw much allegorization, and from there much of Christendom was not YEC until the movement really started taking over layman evangelicalism in America in about the 20th century. It's one of various views held on Genesis throughout church history and should not be a test of orthodoxy. EDIT: Also, inerrancy has been around for much longer than a reaction to liberal Christianity. It was there in the first five centuries. The idea that it's a more recent belief is a myth. Really enjoyable video though. 😊
It’s weird, when I gave my life to Jesus, I kinda started off as a stage one progressive Christian, and then some how by some miracle, went the completely opposite direction 💯😂💯💯💯
Same here. I think many younger Christians start off this way due to how politics have become so religious. The left is very good at proselytizing by manipulating human empathy.
@@redeemedzoomer6053hey man, great videos. Fellow Zoomer here. If you have trouble reading the word of God, check out podcasts. The one I use is called the Bible in a year. (Yes I know you’re a Presbyterian and you’re Catholic, I think you and I are in the same boat). It’s an extremely easy way to swallow the entire (Catholic) Bible in one year. If you drive for more than 2.5 hours/week, you can probably listen to the entire Bible in 1 year. I’m on my 4th lap now. Great stuff man. Keep it up.
No, i think its because, let's say, im at one for progressive, and yet i believe in some stuff in 1 conservative, it will still make me 1 progressive because of the fact that conservative requires that i dont belive in progressive stuff
Ever since I returned to Christianity I've been trying to be as middle grounded as possible when it comes to these type of issues. I think regardless of who you are, as long as your belief in Christ is genuine, you are a Christian, full stop.
I understand your point it lacks one thing. If you want believe in the Genuine Christ you are a Christian. That's why we have the Bible to learn about Him. I say this because I've known and met people that say they believe in Jesus Christ and are sincere when they say it but they believe in a different Jesus ie saying that He isn't God. He is God. People can be sincere and sincerely wrong at the same time. I'm glad you returned to Christianity please dig deep into God's word. Jesus is Truth. Eager for your progress in the gospel
@@crazyand2099 ”Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’“ Matthew 7:22-23 NASB1995
It's hard to know where I am on this spectrum because I'm a little bit of many things on each side. My system shares a lot of different views from a universalist Christian who doesn't fit your video description and a strict conservative who shares some liberal beliefs about the world, and there were some things missing here as well imo but overall thanks for the presentation, I hope it helps others. The most important thing imo is the end point you made about Jesus, and that people know they don't have to fall into a specific category.
@@juansolo3227 look it up and you'll see descriptions of it, there are good examples. Also what? I'm a bit confused of what you're saying but it was a month ago so I'm not sure I have the right to answer anyway lol
@@LoveInUnreality that’s super fair. 😂I’m gonna be honest, I am coming back a month later to your response too and I don’t remember much either lol. I may have wanted to know whether or not you were a universalist yourself and where your beliefs aligned with the universalist I guess. You mentioned you had views that aligned with a universalist and a strict conservative and so I was most likely intrigued by that I guess. You also said it doesn’t matter what categories a person falls in, that probably ticked something off in my head at the time cause you brought that up in the same paragraph as universalism.
@@juansolo3227 ohh well I was also talking about my system as in, multiple people living in one head, some are conservatives some aren't at all. I think I worded it in a way it didn't make as much sense. Honestly I'm not very good at talking about stuff like this as I'm not super knowledgeable on the terms and don't really care tbh. I just try to fit into what I think best describes me moment by moment lol Thanks for replying anyway tho
@@LoveInUnreality fair enough, talking is hard. I get that, I’m dyslexic and also don’t sleep so I don’t sound the most eloquent when I speak to my friends at times. I do feel odded out by your phrasing and feel compelled to ask. I’m not quite sure what you mean by, “multiple people in one head.” What do you mean by that?
Really love the end "where would Jesus be" because that is correct! When we are lost, look to the cross, not the world. Think of the Lord and not our own thoughts nor understanding. Appreciate this truly ♡
I think conservative degrees 1 and 2 should be switched. There are plenty of people who ardently defend inerrancy, but they've been bitten by the egalitarian bug. Other than that, pretty solid explanation, I think.
I mean any set of diverse positions on a general topic put in a form of a bimodal spectrum is gonna be simplified the heck out of so there's so much things that could be moved around and still kinda make sense, right?
@PvlmVIsHere I totally agree. I could nit pick a few other things but I understand that it is a very generalized video. But in my experience, I think there are more people who affirm inerrancy and female pastors than people who reject inerrancy and female pastors. If you reject inerrancy, then you dont really have any reason to reject female pastors imo. Of course, there is plenty of overlap, but generally I think this is true. But since zoomer comes from the mainline, I can understand why he set it this way because female pastors are far more common than the more conservative denominations.
@@Labrador_Productions1 Rejecting inerrancy means that you allow the Bible to be wrong about things that don't really matter to the main purposes of the Bible. Teaching about how to run a church is unlikely to fall into that category - arguments for allowing female pastors while still following the Bible generally claim that those instructions were given to a particular church in a particular context, and while the underlying principle still applies to us today, obedience to that principle looks very different for us than it did for them. Whether the argument succeeds is a different matter, but it doesn't have much to do with the truth or falsity of biblical inerrancy.
now imagine how many times throughout the history this exact situation happened, where changes were made according to what became socially accepted though that would require perspective thinking and that's too much to ask for when the only thing important are affirmations
thats why i take even videos like this with a grain of salt. I dont fully recognize myself as a Christian so im no master of what goes on in christianity but its videos like this that do it for me. He clearly holds a lot of ill feelings towards more progressive churches despite trying to appear unbiased. Not saying he cant have those feelings but when your entire religion depends on loving your neighbor and then you have people like this everywhere that clearly dont love their neighbor, its hard to take seriously. Its why i left the church, no respect amongst any of them
@@Samookelybrother let me tell you. Jesus thought us to love everyone but he didn’t thought us to love sin. The people going towards the progressive side of Christianity are living in sin and encouraging sin. Like it is clearly stated that being homosexual is a sin. So for a church to tell it is Allright is just simply telling lies so we as Christian’s need to stop this and teaching people how God wants us to life. Idk the verse by head but you remember Jesus seeing people selling stuff in the synagogue and He goes in and makes everyone leave? He didn’t hate those people He just showed you that sin won’t be accepted. May God bless you my friend and turn you back to Him. If you have any questions to me feel free to ask me and I will gladly try to help you my friend
@@florianvriezen1656 i acknowledge that the bible calls it a sin, but having been raised in a very devout culture (whole family raised in dutch reformed) the only thing i didnt agree with was the treatment of these people that i saw around me. My gripe has always just been hypocrites, which i know are impossible to fully get rid of since we all have a tendency to be hypocritical ourselves. I just saw an extreme lack of accountability for other peoples mistreatment in cases where people were close to each other. Im a firm believer in keeping yourself and others around you accountable in a way that’s honest and not meant to harm, even if that means a good deal of self reflection. I agree that christian guilt is taking it too far though, getting stuck up on the past and doing too much self sacrifice isnt productive at all. (edit and i appreciate the offer thank you, I will consider)
@@florianvriezen1656 "The people going towards the progressive side of Christianity are living in sin and encouraging sin." Well they would often say the exact same thing as you, so would you agree that the actual difference is in what different Christians call sin? To my eyes, no one is endorsing sin, it's just that people have very different ideas of what is and isn't sin in the first place. " Like it is clearly stated that being homosexual is a sin." For example, this is a very clear statement, it is also a mistranslation. Homosexuality is a modern example, it does not appear in the original language of the Bible nor in any other ancient document. One could argue about what is or is not included in the meaning of the original text, but to give the impression of exactness in translation where the source text has a different connotation is an inaccurate or misleading translation. How misleading is another question. "So for a church to tell it is Allright is just simply telling lies" I would say that this statement lacks empathy. It's not a lie, people genuinely believe that homosexuality is not a sin. I don't know exactly how we could guarantee a healthy dialogie with other people, but I have to imagine that assuming that they are lying about their own beliefs is not a good start. "so we as Christian’s need to stop this and teaching people how God wants us to life." They would say the same about you.
@@florianvriezen1656 Not loving sin doesn't mean being smug, snide and uncharitable to your opponents who engage in such. Which is what this whole video is about.
I'm basically degree one specifically because in isolation I think there's room to debate but in practice it comes with a heap of strings attached. Unfortunately, it's easy to not ask that last question and insert one's personal biases as doctrine.
Switch degree one and two around, and I think you have it. For example, it is more likely that one will accept female pastors who affirm inerrancy, but not accept someone who denies inerrancy. However, it also depends on whether or not the ranking is completely linear.
priest. obviously. that's a really dumb comment, in almost every language you default to the masculine if you don't know the specific gendered word or if you don't know the subjects gender. you're so caught up in your own fairy tales of "owning" liberals that you forgot to consider that almost no one cares
I cant tell if the dislike ratio is from conservatives comparing themselves to other conservatives, progressives comparing themselves to other progressives, or conservatives and progressives comparing to each other.
As an ethnonationalist, that aspect of myself does not really influence my religious beliefs. I dont see how it is part of Degree 5 when ethnonationalism isn't religious for most of us. It's like saying "and here at degree 4 we have the MAGA conservatives..."
Its more complicated. It was common back in the day before people actually knew the science between evolution and geology, but since than no official Catholic statements said that only young Earch creation is acceptable, some stating explicitly that evolution is acceptable. Idk about Orthodox situation since Orthodox Church is way more decentralized so I believe there is no "official" stance on that matter.
YEC has been the position of the Church since its inception, only changing around the time of the enlightenment. People like augustine denied the literal view of genesis 1, but because he believed the universe was younger, not older
I am a Catholic and I have settled on intelligent design. Most people in the intelligent design world are either old earth creationists or theological evolutionists, which honestly overlap greatly. This is basically me after reading incessantly on the issue.
Hey! These videos are really interesting! At 5:20 you mentioned 'original manuscripts' of the Bible. What do Christians mean by that? I read that the earliest fragment of the bible is P52 from around the year 150 and there aren't really 'originals' as such, just 'earliest' ones which we discover as surviving fragments. Like is there an 'original' 'Writings of Paul' which he personally penned? or a complete "Gospel of Luke" which Luke wrote? Thanks!
He's saying the original texts, which while the original literal pages they were written on have decayed away, comparison of the many translations can be used to discover what the original text said, such as was done at the Council of Nicaea. To demonstrate as an example: If someone wrote a sentence about dogs at the park, and then after many people had copied it, with changes being introduced, if you looked at all of those imperfect copies, you could figure out what the original text of the sentence was. Take the following examples: "I went to the park and saw 8 dogs playing in a pond." "I went to the beach and saw 12 dogs playing in the water." "We went to the park and saw 12 dogs playing in a pond" "I went to the park and saw 12 dogs playing with a ball." "I went to the park and saw 12 cats playing near a pond." What's the original sentence? "I went to the park and saw 12 dogs playing in a pond"
He probably meant any manuscript that isn’t a Bible. But only a fragment of a book or a book of the Bible. Because yes there is no original manuscript. Which is how God protected his words, because if there was a preserved original text we could modify this and corrupt his words. But without an original, only thousand of copies across the word, you can compare them with their variations and find out what was the original.
I think it might be a mistake to mix a spectrum of opinions with a spectrum of tolerance. You can have a very narrow tolerance that doesn't copy the traditional views. But it's a complicated topic and for a short video, great job!
He thinks people on the right want Christianity to be exclusive. That’s absurd. I mean I don’t talk to people on the right more than my leftist friends. But I’m on the right and I know what Christianity is and what’s it’s not and it’s not exclusive.
I would count myself in the first degree of christian conservatism even though I am far right on the political spectrum. This would show how religion would differ from politics.
@@maxzation I’m not capitalist, I’m authoritarian far right, capitalism is libertarian. I don’t wanna express my economic views but I’m definitely not socialist nor capitalist
I am a “progressive” Christian. It’s not because I feel any guilt over historical Christianity or a need to deconstruct inherited wisdom, or doubt the scripture. It’s because I find it impossible to recognize the message of the Gospel in most American Protestant Churches. It seems like a lot of evangelicals in particular are more interested in social cohesion and order than actually following Christ.
I agree. I'm a lapsed Catholic (who wants to get back in the church and practice more) and I classify myself as progressive, although I respect the traditions and conventions of the church.
Respectfully, may I ask what the Gospel is? The definition seems to depend on the person using it. Just trying to understand the word/concept, and what is unrecognizable about it.
Anywhere near that is out of bounds. Either you believe the core tenants of Christianity and take it seriously or don’t believe it at all. Granted some take the expression of that way too strictly to where it’s legalism and not actually Christianity (far conservative side), but if you don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God who died and rose again for humanity, that you can know him personally, and that he is the only way to God, then you’re not a Christian. It’s either that or nothing.
The thing with inerrancy I think is language. The Reformation partly occurred partly out of translations of the bible. Using repentance as an example, the Latin i.e. Catholic translation had the phrase "pay penance" while the earlier Greek translation had the phrase "repent" meaning two totally different things and ideas.
Nice video but I don't understand some of your thoughts, if the days of creation isn't a representation of something greater, than how could something like the dinosaurs existed in which they obviously did but did not exist during humans? I need answers... Pls
This was a pretty good video, and your explanations were pretty fair for both extremes. I've been beginning to read Tim Keller's book "The Prodigal God" that talks about the Parable of the Prodigal Son, and this video sort of reminds me both about the younger and elder brother, and how both reflect two far extremes (one is outright rebellion, and other is cold self-righteousness/religiosity). We should make sure that we do our best to obey the Lord because of what Jesus did for us, but not become self-righteous or condescending to others.
What is also interesting is that these two extremes also appear in the two main groups Jesus had theological debates with during his ministry: the Sadduces were theologically liberal in that they ignored all scripture besides the Thora and even denied the afterlife. The Pharisees on the other hand were the self-righteous legalists. There is this awesome episode recounted in Mark 12, Matthew 22 and Luke 20 were our Lord refutes both of the factions nonsense back to back.
Can Universalism be considered “Progressive” if held or at least respected by certain members of the early church? Early Universalists 1. Diodre of Tarsus 2. Theophilus of Antioch 3. Iraneaus of Lyons 4. Gregory of Nyssa 5. Athanasius 6. Origen It could be a cool topic to explore, I could see you having a lot of fun with it!
Bro I'm an ethnonationalist, that doesn't mean I dislike other Christian people groups. That only means that you honor your ancestors and respect what they went through, and don't want to see it all thrown in the garbage. Europe is white and Christian.
@@CatholicSoldierX Oh because I assumed you may one of those people who want to be proud of their race and heritage (white people I mean) but they still enjoy non-white music like hip-hop (don't consider it music) and can't stand actual European music
@@AlekseyMaksimovichPeshkov I never met someone like that, that sounds more like a racist liberal to be honest. Most of hip-hop is indeed very tasteless.
@@CatholicSoldierX My uncle claimed he confronted and beat up a bunch of so called white supremacists who were listening to rap music. He said according to them their justification for that was because they thought black people were meant to entertain white people. That does kind of sound like the white Southern slave owners actually
this is a very generalized view of things, and i feel that this topic is far more grey than a spectrum. my own grandparents do not support LGBTQ and a lot of progressive views but the church they attend has a female pastor. I myself am not straight but my church doesn’t preach about social justice, so i think this is much more complex
I grew up in a family with Catholic elders (great-grandparents and grandmother). I was a Christian for like 3 months when I was 6 years old because the Catholic school I attended made us go through catechesis and religious classes. Since none of what I was taught was actively enforced by my family nor my peers, my own analysis made me realize how little sense it made and stopped believing, without understanding that religion is a social construct, of course. Still, I was still emotionally attached to the idea of Jesus and God. Like, I wanted Jesus and I to be best friends and I still prayed to God every night asking for everyone in the world to be well. I'd say things like "If you exist, which I hope you do, please allow everyone to be happy", this all despite, at a rational level, understanding that God didn't exist. It just gave me emotional comfort and warmth. As time passed, I eventually talked to the people in my life about it and became agnostic but atheistic regarding anthropocentric religions (which I am still, but even the agnostic part is fading off). It's weird because even though that was the case, I still appreciated prayer sessions and the little sermons we were part of every cold morning before class began at school more than my actually Christian peers. It's funny in the context of this video because essentially all the verses they recited were about social justice, especially being selfless. I'm not entirely sure if religion itself is good or bad for society as a whole and its individuals, but I'm leaning towards "it shouldn't exist because staunch belief in something that is essentially myth is inherently irrational and tends to damage critical thinking", but I'm not sure. So yeah, despite me not believing a single thing about the Biblical canon, I still feel some sort of attachment to Catholicism. I am attached to Catholic customs, iconography, places of worship, etc. They make me feel warm and comfortable and at peace. They make me feel at home. I love to just casually enter churches and stay there for a while. They're beautiful. I'm not Catholic, but I still feel attachment to it and its cultural manifestations. It's odd because I'd love to be a Catholic, but I just don't believe in religion at all. Is there a specific term for this? What can I do about it? :o
I could go on about the rationality of Christianity, and how it is perfectly compatible with our understanding of the universe, but I would just recomend prayer.
Funnily enough, a direct translation from Hebrew does seem to actually support evolution being used to create man. Metatron has a good video on Adam and Eve, where Adam is referred to as The Adam, as if Adam was one of a pre-existing species.
@@mysteriousstranger5873 Exactly. It's called Divine-Guided Evolution. Whatever primate/pre-human creature existed, God gave it the type of rational soul that led to our innate morality and advanced rational consciousness we have today. Considered like "Patient Zero" of humans is what you'd evolutionary refer to Adam and Eve. Biblically supported incest for the last resort of the survival of the species if there were no more humans. Completely in line with how natural evolution is.
I went through this phase for a while and now I want to become a Catholic. It is a sign that is calling to convert. Stay on that track even if it requires years which it did for me.
I wanted to touch on your last question and maybe spark a conversation I haven't seen yet in the comments: I feel like I have some reason to believe that, going by the ways you have described everything, that Jesus would be somewhere in between 2nd and 3rd stage conservative. My best argument for that is simply because I just read through the entire Bible my first time, and based on the gospels and scripture of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it kind of doesn't really fit into anything else by my best guess. But, I also put myself into that category, so maybe it's also an open ended question where answers depends on one's own fit into this spectrum?
It is interesting, and it really is difficult huh, cause every denomination, whilst they agree* with the Nicene Creed, have their own varying interpretations of Christ, big or small. For example, Catholics belief that Jesus literally turned his body and blood into bread and wine (that process is called transubstantiation), and Protestants belief it’s a metaphor. Depending on which interpretation you accept, Jesus will be thought of by each side as more Liberal or Conservative.
I think something very important to remember as well, the earliest churches, the ones who the epistles were wrote to, had doctrinal errors that Paul, Peter, James and Timothy had to correct; but they still considered them beloved brothers. This isn’t an excuse for those churches to keep living in those errors, but for us to be gracious toward them
There are plenty of self-described Christian sects/denominations that depart greatly from the Nicene Creed in their beliefs and would by no means be described as progressive in their doctrines (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons).
Indeed, we Jehovah's Witnesses are far more dedicated to a strict, literal understanding of the Bible than the Catholic church or most protestants, and according to at least one survey are THE MOST anti abortion denomination, however, we do not accept the Trinity, because its not in the Bible but rather a later accretion, and are Annihilationist, since that seems to be what the Bible teaches, Ecclesiastes 9:4-6, Psalm 6:5 and so on. However, if you start from the point of believing the Bible DOES teach the Trinity, you need to really doubt the Bible to doubt the Trinity. The Unitarians had that problem, though there are still Bible believing Unitarians, just not in the UU.
I'd like to add that ethnonationalism is more complex than just racism. The tribes of Israel were not allowed to marry members of other Israelite tribes, so some Christians believe that it's important for a nation to maintain ethnic identity because it reflects God's design in the same way heterosexuality does.
So exactly what do you mean "affirming" for stage 3 like if we say "god loves everyone including LGBTQ+ people" or more like "lets talk about gay issues instead of acting reading scripture" im just curious generally.
"Affirming" is telling them they're fine as they are, and they don't have to change from their sinful lifestyles. On the "progressive" side of the line, 3-5 are firmly in the territory of heresy, and not scriptural orthodoxy.
That bit about how progressives are identified by stages instead of degrees, because they tend to continue moving left over time (whether quickly or gradually) is just the most precise-and maybe most significant-of descriptions. The fact that it is a tendency, and the fact that the slide is leftward and eventually right out of the faith is predictive and diagnostic for those in our churches who lean progressive. They almost always leave the faith in time. It's tragic... "they went out from us because they were not of us." It seems very much like there IS a line in the progressive spectrum where those who adhere to that stage are not Christians to start with.
Im probably a 2nd degree conservative Christian. As a biochemist I understand that evolution is real, and intelligent design seems reasonable to me. I also understand there is a lot of historical evidence that Christ exists and rose from the dead, and I put my faith in Him. I also realise that today we are fighting a spiritual war. Funny think is I used to be a cynnical atheist 4-5 years ago.
I think that evolution as a concept is real but not radical evolution like we used to be apes. I dont even believe darwin believed that at the end of his life.
I really have a hard time placing the female leaders as the dividing line. There are plenty of conservative denominations and organizations (like to stage 3 and 4) that allow women ministers and preachers, while I’ve even come into contact with some slightly more liberal people who believe only men can be preachers.
@@yeetmaster8132 please explain the difference? I’m willing to bet you also have gone to a church at some point that has a female youth pastor. I do believe a church is at its best when a male is in the senior pastor position but I’ve also known many females that have been strong in positions of leadership(worship leaders, youth, kids, prayer, and so on) and deserved the titles that go with that. So I don’t know how someone can interpret the scripture to say women and preach but not have a title that’s associated heavily with that. And really this was less about my personal views and about denominations and organizations that are very conservative but allow female pastors and preachers.
I haven’t been to a church with a female pastor ever, youth or lead. The difference between ministers and preachers but not pastors is that pastors are the head of the church as well as the main person that speaks. Pastors have to be ordained to be the pastor. There can be female preachers and ministers if a church cannot find anyone else to speak on Sundays for whatever reason, but they cannot ordain female pastors. In the case of youth pastor it is the same. There can be females who lead the youth group if needed but they cannot be ordained as youth pastors
@@yeetmaster8132 see I extremely disagree with you but I’m not here to have a debate I’m just pointing out that many great Christian organizations that are also conservative ordain females as pastors. I also find your logic lack luster. You believe it’s a forbidden for women to teach and lead but don’t care when a woman does it if there’s no man that wants too. If you genuinely believe that’s a command from God then there should be no exceptions not just bend it whenever is convenient
My church has a female youth PASTOR, and she has that title. In fact, there’s only been two or three men who have EVER even wanted to be youth pastor. It’s always women in my church. That being said, the leadership team (but not the church as a whole) is open to female pastors being ordained and whatnot. Our youth pastors are not “ordained” in the traditional sense at my church, (we have lots of ministries with ministers and pastors, but the only “ordained” ministers are the heads (ie. Senior Pastor, Associate Pastor). It’s a non-denominational, leaning Baptist and AoG for context.
Buddhist here, I grew up in a christian household. One of the things that seems so impossible to understand is that interpretations are indefinite and unique, several biblical scholars use their own perspectives and prejudice to interpret lines. If you interpret the scripture flat as it is, it is scientifically incorrect. People are going to constantly fight over what religion means and push people further away from god. For example my fathers own ignorance to his sin and resentment towards my questioning nature only made it easier to leave the church. Using the fear of hell to indoctrinate, over letting the light of god shine through your spirit to attract others is exactly what led me to a belief that is more grounded in understanding your flaws and learning HOW to resist temptations of human nature. Ive since learned separating the faith from the followers and have been reading the bible to be open to its message.
