One of the problems with labels such as these is that they're too simple - they only run on one scale.

Thing is, someone could be... say... "liberal" on a theological scale, "conservative" on a social justice scale and "mid-point" on a political scale. Someone else could be... "orthodox" on a theological scale, "liberal" on a social justice scale... etc.

Rather than pinpointing ourselves (or others) on a single continuum, perhaps we could consider a way to create a graphic that plotted us on a number of continua. *grin* We could have 10 different scales, with the plot points meeting in the center. Depending on the length of the various lines, we could get a quick representation of where we beleive ourselves to be.

I've blathered long enough.

Richard is right--labels run on this sliding scale kinda thing. And where someone else is at on that scale depends a lot on where you're at on it.

Some people say that I'm liberal. I always just thought I was applying grace and mercy to the hurting. But then I took a spiritual gifts test and bombed the mercy part. Maybe it's my temper. I get very upset when people spout selfish ****, when they forget that it's not all about them.

Anyway, go back to the website that called you liberal and read more for content. Where is that individual on the spectrum? That will probably clear it up for you why he thinks you're liberal.

In the end, labels are just that--labels. They are virtually worthless to anyone other than ourselves and the people who know us intimately.

faith, hope, and love,
Missy

Richard is right--labels run on this sliding scale kinda thing. And where someone else is at on that scale depends a lot on where you're at on it.

Some people say that I'm liberal. I always just thought I was applying grace and mercy to the hurting. But then I took a spiritual gifts test and bombed the mercy part. Maybe it's my temper. I get very upset when people spout selfish ****, when they forget that it's not all about them.

Anyway, go back to the website that called you liberal and read more for content. Where is that individual on the spectrum? That will probably clear it up for you why he thinks you're liberal.

In the end, labels are just that--labels. They are virtually worthless to anyone other than ourselves and the people who know us intimately.

faith, hope, and love,
Missy

I really think most people today don't have a clue what 'liberal' means - either in politics or religion. But, in religion, it has come to mean 'different' or 'something I would get in trouble for saying at my church'.

So, if you write something that is technically 'conservative', but would be heresy at church X, church X is going to label you a liberal.

In that vein, I would take it as a complement that you were called a liberal. It means you're writing things that need to be heard. :)

As a recent convert to "liberalism" (according to some of my commentors) I hear you. I've said it several times now that the application of these labels means we are being viewed on the "wrong"... scale (to use Richard's word).

Depending on the issue I will line up as liberal... or conservative... or somewhere in between... or maybe nowhere, if you try to tape me somewhere onto a "worldy" spectrum. My reaction to this is always frustration. I'm starting to think it tells us more about the person doing the labeling than the one being labeled.

It goes back to (the over-simplification of) screening our faith through our politics vs. screening our politics through our faith. At the risk of sounding incredibly arrogant (which is a risk I take all too often) I think it has something to do with being "in" the world as opposed to "of" it.

I'm trying very hard to be more of the former and less of the latter, so it's always disappointing to be dragged back and placed in a "of it" label. If I ever neatly (and completely) fit someone's idea of a liberal, conservative, socialist, etc. then I think I am too much a citizen of this world, and not enough of the Kingdom.

Labels can be useful to a degree, but they do tend to be relied upon way to much. And, when they are applied to specific individuals, they can be quite maligning. I try to stay away from sterotyping labels when I can. But honestly, some times it's quite difficult to describe someone or something without using labels.

Darren, you've asked an excellent question, but while the other comments are valid in their own ways, I'm not sure they're answering it.

Here's a definition I've heard: liberals challenge the status quo, conservatives maintain it. That's a political definition, but it may have some relevance with respect to Christianity and the Church.

Now, I have no idea on what basis Pete came up with his label for you, but if I had to pick one of the liberal/conservative labels based on what I've read on your blog, it would be "liberal"... using the above definition. I see you as someone who is not content with the way "church is done, and always has been done" because you perceive that it just doesn't work, at least not in the environment in which you live.

Some people will be offended by this perception; some will be threatened. Likewise, some will be encouraged and edified. As iron sharpens iron, we need to listen to the arguments on both sides, in a spirit of love and led by the Holy Spirit, and then place our convictions in action. I believe God will honor those actions, and His kingdom on earth will be enlarged.

In closing, I've also heard another description of "liberal Christianity," and this one isn't as charitable, but it does have some validity. It is applied to those who pick and choose Scripture to create a belief system or a picture of God to correspond with an agenda that isn't otherwise supported by Scripture as a whole. These people will, for example, try to convince us that the God of the New Testament is somehow different than the God of the Old Testament...that the grace brought to us by Jesus Christ somehow overrides or negates the call to holy living. I don't see that characteristic in your words, but we all will do well to remember that our God is Who He Is, not who we want to make Him to be.

Blessings and peace!

I think I'd be considered theologically liberal under both of the definitions that Eric shared. *chuckle*

Since the first use of the word liberal to mean "those who beleive in greater liberty" by Spanish Radicals in the early part of the 1800's the term has been fraught with confusion. A lot of the confusion in terms of Darren's blog being called liberal comes from the fact that liberal in the United States means something different than it does in Australia/NZ/UK. In America you can use it to desrcibe both political/social viewpoints as well as theological viewpoints. In Australia/NZ/UK it refers mainly to theological liberalism (low view of bible/suspicion of supernatural/ valuing a rationalist framework etc).

This is because many leading evangelcials from Australia/NZ/UK would be quite liberal on the social/politcal side eg John Stott, John Smith, etc Whereas in the United States evangelicals who were theologically conservative yet socially liberal (eg Tony Campolo) would be judged by some evangelicals as a liberal because of his social/politcal views. So whereas Darren's site would be viewed by people here in Australia as fairly theologically conservative if not socially and even missionally proggresive. it could be viewed by americans as liberal.

Just an after thought, try as we might to pigeon hole God, He will defy our aspirations to put him into any particular political movement. Was Jesus a republican, a Torrey (just thought I'd throw that in for my friends in the UK..;D), or a Democrat? None of the above thank you very much.

So, I think our own musings politically fall short of God's glory everytime.

Also, there has been much discussion of how labels can be defined. And I appreciate that. But labels in the fashion they are used to be stuck upon individuals for the purpose of neatly classifying them are mostly degrading and harmful.

I only just noticed this going on here :-)

I was actually stuck for a word and just decided to use 'liberal'. Why? Because in Europe, religion is generally perceived as being a rather strict following. Of course, it is in many ways, but it's not meant to be a drag, it's meant to be enlightening, helpful, and a healthy way of living.

European churches tend to be rather 'boring'. Indeed, hardly any youngsters bother going to church in England anymore simply because they're 'preached at' and church is such a boring place to be.

Having been in LA for several weeks this year, I saw that the European way was not the only way, and that there is a more 'liberal' (as I would say) attitude to church. I went to a delightful church full of eager people who just wanted to praise the Lord and thank Him for his love. The pastor was enthusiastic and yet down to earth, and he truly felt he was connecting with his congregation, and that he was helping them.. and he was.

This was an extreme eye-opener for someone who had once Christianity as being too stoic and rigid for the modern world, based on my experience of European denominations and practice!

Therefore, by liberal.. I mean open to new ideas, belief that knowledge of religion should be an enjoyable pursuit, and that living good does not mean 'living boring'. The sooner people realise that religion can brighten and change their lives for the better, rather than make them quit doing all the things they 'enjoy', the better!

Darren: I wouldn't call you either conservative or liberal. I think you just come across as a real guy living with real issues. I think most of us don't really fit into anyone's definition of these two extremes.