Liberal theology decloaking in hostile territory

by Steve Douglas

July 16th, 2012 | 23 Comments

I don’t often link to the big name bloggers: I assume everyone’s either already reading them or consciously ignoring them. But in this case I can’t help but stand up to lodge an “Amen”–and add a few notes of commentary.

First, please read this excerpt from Rachel Held Evans’ blog. I feel I could have written every thought in it.

Frankly, I find the whole conversation a bit depressing. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want either group to “meet its demise” because I love elements of both! In fact, I think there are a lot of progressive, mainline churches that could benefit from a shot of evangelicalism, and a lot of evangelical churches who could benefit from a shot of progressivism. We have so much to learn from one another, but instead we’re like a pair of toddlers fighting over space in the sandbox.

But if the early church could survive—and in fact, thrive amidst persecution—when it included both Jews and Gentiles, zealots and tax collectors, slaves and owners, men and women, those in support of circumcision and those against it, those staunchly opposed to eating food that had been sacrificed to idols and those who felt it necessary, then I think modern American Christianity can survive when it includes democrats and republicans, biblical literalists and biblical non-literalists, Calvinists and Arminians…so long as we’re not rooting for one another’s demise.

With this in mind, maybe being “in between” isn’t so bad. Maybe being “in between” puts those of us who find ourselves torn between conservative Christianity and liberal Christianity in a position to act as peacemakers and bridge-builders between the two groups. Maybe it enables us to help break down these binaries altogether, as we are living proof that you don’t have to choose one or the other.

I’m not exactly sure what this peacemaking process will look like, but I have a few ideas of how we can get started:

Let’s be ourselves.

This may surprise you, seeing as how I’m a blogger with an outspoken opinion on everything, but when I’m a part of a conservative Christian community, I tend to keep my more progressive views quiet, and when I’m a part of a more liberal Christian community, I tend to keep my more liberal views quiet. I don’t want to cause division. I don’t want to be shamed. I don’t want to make Sunday mornings any more difficult than they already are.

And so I essentially fake it through worship and community activities, accepting whatever “package” that particular church has to offer, then feeling distant and removed as I go through the motions before eventually quitting.

But what if I stopped faking it? What if I brought myself—my gifts, my questions, my opinions—to church? What if, instead of conforming to the mold, I refused to accept it?

[from "Liberal Christianity, Conservative Christianity, and the Caught-In-Between"]

I’ve certainly been thinking along these lines lately. A couple of weeks ago I toyed with the idea of starting something of a campaign among bloggers of my theological ilk, those of us whom Rachel Held Evans might call the Caught-In-Betweeners. This grassroots movement would be about coming out of the theologically liberal closet. If I judge the enthusiastic response to Evan’s latest post aright, it looks like she’s beaten me to the punch!

In my conservative environment, I’ve recently started being convicted that these conservative Christians really need to know that people like me exist. I guarantee that a preposterous number of people in my church have never even considered the possibility that you could trust in Jesus as Lord of all creation and be an evolutionist, despite the fact that I am aware of a couple people in our congregation beside myself who accept evolutionary theory. No wonder they view us as outsiders: they haven’t ever met us inside!

Like Evans, many of us are playing it safe, being in our conservative environments with our in-between-stolid-conservative-and-flaming-liberal faith incognito. Lord knows it’s not easy to “come out”, is it? I have some things at stake, unfortunately: in particular, I have a side job doing something I really enjoy, but it’s run by an outfit that wouldn’t be happy to know my stances on these contentious issues. I have several friends who have suffered some painful emotional persecution when their beliefs were made known. But in most of these cases, it seems they did not freely divulge themselves: they were “outed” by someone else. And that always looks worse, doesn’t it?

I’m not saying that there wouldn’t be negative repercussions from a decision to “stand up and be counted”. But as long as we act in humility, not as evangelists for our pet causes but as honest people who occasionally find the need to gently correct misconceptions about our beliefs when presented as fact within our churches and faith communities, I think we can weather the inevitable storm better. I know it’d be more healthy for me and my poor wife.

If I felt I were part of a bigger movement, one of many friends taking our shades off, hanging up our trenchcoats, and removing our disguises, I think I could handle it. I predict that it would be good for them as well as for us In-Betweeners. It’s one thing to hear that there are weirdos who believe that God created through evolution; it’s another to know and rub shoulders with those people in intimate social settings like being members of the same church. It’s much harder to dismiss them and their strange beliefs when you know them personally.

So again, I’m toying with the idea of advocating a campaign, or probably better, a resolution to decloak.

Not sure how thrilled the Romulans will be about the Enterprise “boldly” showing up like this.

Abandoning the most conservative brands of Christianity doesn’t entail either abandoning the faith or, at best, adopting a wishy-washy spirituality. Our hard-won faith and theological perspectives are worth more than that: if we believe our understanding of the faith is true and worth holding onto, then it deserves attention and devotion; it deserves to be understood by our fellow believers; at least it deserves to have its existence acknowledged.

I know what many of you are thinking. “Why rock the boat?

I want to address one of the better reasons for remaining quiet and not disturbing things. Many of us do so out of a conviction that we don’t need to challenge people’s faith when they’re not ready for it. I hear a couple of my friends saying things like, “Far be it from me to upset them and send them on the sort of precarious journey I’ve been on. They’re happy in their faith, not hurting anyone.”

But they are hurting someone.

  • They’re hurting their children by leaving them unprepared for incontestable scientific evidence against their creationism.
  • They’re hurting society by polarizing political, social, and religious positions on dramatically sectarian lines, painting Evangelicalism and the GOP platform as coterminous, etc.
  • They’re hurting the viability of faith in Christ in a world that won’t simply accept their claim that the inerrant Bible dropped in our laps from heaven above.
  • And they’re hurting us, by persecuting us and making us so frustrated with them that we are reluctant to even fight to have fellowship with them, when we should and could be learning things from them.

To return to the first bullet point above, the biggest reason they need to know this is the biggest reason they fear us: their children. These kids going off to college have been prepared for assaults on their faith by their families and their faith communities, but research shows that whatever they’re doing is just not enough. And as we are now seeing highlighted in the news story prompting Evans’ post, it’s not just conservative forms of Christianity that are losing the battle. Kids who are taught to accept the whole package or throw it all out, who are never told that they must examine the contents and accept what’s good, are leaving the church in droves.

No matter how kind and loving they’re being, no matter how much sin they’re resisting, no matter what lives of holiness they are striving to live, there are factors endemic to mainstream Evangelical theology that disqualify it from being sufficient salt and light in this world. Indeed, in some of the most important ways Christianity is supposed to be ministering to our world, Evangelicals are far behind unbelievers.

For instance, look at the most common Evangelical response to homosexuals or to those in need: first we blame the individual, try to get them to repent from their lifestyles that leave them where they are, demanding that they jump through difficult hoops while offering the hope of communion with God as a carrot. Christians have to be able to minister to and accept those groups, no matter what we think their sin is, be it the sexual deviancy that is allegedly responsible for homosexuality or the laziness and selfishness that supposedly causes people to become parasites on society, rob the upstanding producers through taxation, and vote Democratic. Christians have to dine with those groups as Jesus did with the “tax collectors and sinners” of his day. We have to engage them, love them, and let God deal with the personal holiness of each individual as He sees fit.

Letting conservative Christians be without challenging their assumptions will eventually have the effect of leaving Evangelical faith with a pretty short shelf life. Isolating ourselves and simply letting them soldier on will render them irrelevant. Among those unbelievers who believe conservative Christians when they say, “It’s conservative or nothing,” our non-conservative theology is flushed down the same toilet as conservative theology. Remaining cloaked is a no-win situation.

By all means, be tactful. Know your audience. I’d caution against intentionally rocking the boat at all: that’s not what this is about. But let me make a couple of suggestions about what adopting this decloaking resolution might look like.

When someone in Sunday School waxes eloquent about the evils of godless evolution, swallow your fear and tactfully suggest that however evil godless evolution might be, evolution isn’t necessarily godless. When your Bible study assumes the legitimacy of capital punishment or the divine justice of U.S. foreign policy, be the voice that encourages them to be consistent in their convictions about the sanctity of life.

But whatever you do, remain engaged. Don’t lie, and don’t stay silent. Don’t withdraw to a safe distance. Try to learn what you can from them; share life with them. Don’t zealously divulge all of your heretical beliefs and them expect them to come around to them. Live out your beliefs with fear and trembling, including the belief we liberals think should stand out the most: love one another. Maybe even these conservative Christians will fulfill Jesus’ words and eventually be convinced that we are Jesus’ disciples by our love.

So what do you think? Are you in?

Google+ Comments

July 16th, 2012

Tags: , , , , ,

  • StevenGarmon

    I’ve actually been thinking about this a lot lately. I agree, it’s time to “decloak”. I’m with you!

  • http://www.rethinkingao.com Mike Beidler

    Amen, Steve! I’ve been “coming out” more lately in my own congregation. I’m affectionately known in our adult Bible study as the “local heretic,” yet people listen when I speak. I help lead worship, and it astounds some people that (1) a person with my theological eccentricities can still worship and lead others in the same, and (2) the pastoral staff would allow someone of my theologically “liberal” bent to participate in the life of a solidly theologically conservative congregation.

    It’s time for us to be (cautiously) open and transparent at the same time we show our congregations that we are just as much a Christ-follower than anyone else in the church.

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve Douglas

      Mike, you probably know you’re the model of this type of interaction in my eyes. I’m just now catching up. ;-)

  • Drew Smith

    Well said Steve. Im with you

  • Pingback: More on the future of Christian denominations. | Near Emmaus

  • Andrew Thule

    Speaking as a non-American, the political dichotomy of American politics is particularly obvious when it comes to faith.

    If you ‘come out’ it should not be to oppose the ‘conservatives’ because they are ‘conservative (or ‘liberals’ because they are ‘liberals’) rather you should come out to speak against those notions that ‘unbiblical’. There really is only one true dichotomy when it comes to faith and that is God honouring and God dis-honouring.

    Conveying a stereotype I find that American ‘liberals’ tend to resonant with those Gospel elements concerned with ‘thy neighbour’, and church building. (But so do some ‘conservatives’). Likewise, ‘conservatives’ tend to resonant with those Gospel elements concerned with the nature and property of God, and having that reflected in humanity. (But so do some ‘liberals’).

    In this both groups sometimes get it wrong – liberals sometimes tend to obfuscate the Gospel with humanism and conservatives sometimes tend to obfuscate their theology with the Gospel. So in both cases the debate should not be about ‘liberalism’ or ‘conservatism’ but about the biblical foundation upon which all of their concerns are built.

    A high regard for the authority of the bible is not only the common feature of both sides of the divide, but a good litmus test for determining who are indeed sheep and who are wolves. Dialogue between ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ is best served by centring discussion on the bible, not on the label; by addressing those notions the other-side harbours that are not Christian.

    Certainly, the love ‘liberals’ have for their neighbours is welcomed in Christianity, as long as it is Christian. Likewise, the love ‘conservatives’ have for the righteousness of God, and for the desire to see man upright is also worthy of all Christians.

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve Douglas

      Welcome, Andrew.

      If you ‘come out’ it should not be to oppose the ‘conservatives’ because they are ‘conservative (or ‘liberals’ because they are ‘liberals’) rather you should come out to speak against those notions that ‘unbiblical’. There really is only one true dichotomy when it comes to faith and that is God honouring and God dis-honouring.

      I truly hope I didn’t convey anything contradicting this. I think it may be time to heat things up a bit through conversation so that we can come together in the melting pot, but I caution against being intentionally provocative, as the sort of “us vs. them” encounter you mention. As you suggest, the bold line of demarcation down a relatively few points of disagreement is artificial. We must meet on common ground, which is mutual respect for the Bible and honor for God. This is why I’m calling for loving engagement from within shored up places of commonality rather than a group-based face off.

  • Alvon

    I’m new to this blog and have really enjoyed it so far, first time commenting. I’ll take issue with a couple of things. First, Andrew’s comments: how can the common ground between “conservatives” and “liberals” be a high regard for the authority of the Bible when that is in fact a salient feature of the former group but not the latter? Indeed, you say it should be a litmus test for false teachers (paraphrasing)…this is part of the problem! A liberal hears that and thinks, “He’s saying that I’m not a real Christian if I don’t share his view of the Bible.” Not a recipe for collegial dialogue.

    And the post itself: jumping off the previous point, the difference between conservative and liberal responses to homosexuality are rooted in how we understand the Bible differently, literalist vs. historically-culturally savvy. Negotiations break down when you get to the nub of the problem. Similarly, worldview affects political stances. Liberals see economic injustice and inequality of opportunity, and thus support social programs. They also don’t believe poor people are poor because they’re lazy. Conservative don’t share some of these ideas and thus have different political notions.

    I don’t think you don’t know any of this, Steve, cause I’ve read your stuff and you’re far from dumb. I just thought the post sort of glossed over some things and presented a rosy picture. But I guess a call for more harmony should start from that perspective! Cheers.

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve Douglas

      Hi Alvon–

      You said,

      Liberals see economic injustice and inequality of opportunity, and thus support social programs. They also don’t believe poor people are poor because they’re lazy. Conservative don’t share some of these ideas and thus have different political notions.

      I have to admit to real confusion here. Could you explain where you think I went wrong here?

      You then said,

      I just thought the post sort of glossed over some things and presented a rosy picture.

      Rose picture of whom? (I promise I’m not trying to be obtuse–I’m just not getting your points. Maybe I am dumb after all…)

      • Alvon

        OK attempt two. You said:

        Christians have to be able to minister to and accept those groups, no
        matter what we think their sin is, be it the sexual deviancy that is
        allegedly responsible for homosexuality or the laziness and selfishness
        that supposedly causes people to become parasites on society, rob the
        upstanding producers through taxation, and vote Democratic. Christians
        have to dine with those groups as Jesus did with the “tax collectors and
        sinners” of his day. We have to engage them, love them, and let God
        deal with the personal holiness of each individual as He sees fit.

        No. CONSERVATIVE Christians have a problem ministering or engaging with those groups, or loving them. Other Chrisitans don’t, and a large part of the difference is liberals don’t think being gay is a sin or being poor means you’re lazy.

        And a large part of why is how these groups view the Bible differently. And, as you noted, political and social narratives have been totally baptized, so that conservative Christians can’t fathom a person of faith not voting Republican. If you want to see change, you have to attack both of these problems. And it won’t work.

        You seem to think it will. Thus the charge of presenting a rosy picture of the chances of conservative-liberal harmony.

        • Alvon

          ugh, sorry about the format.

  • Jeff

    Steve, I guess I don’t see you actually agreeing with Held’s call for a “peacemaking” process; your post essentially calls for a guerilla campaign to (politely) persuade conservatives to stop being conservative, because, in your view, conservativism is driving Christianity into the ditch. I’m hesitant to speak in generalities, but I will simply say that I have seen a pervasive sentiment expressed by liberal believers that conservativism is destructive, and that its adherents are intellectually or morally defective (or both). What exactly is the middle ground you envision between exalted liberalism and benighted conservatism? Personally, I think a better starting point for a campaign of conciliation waged by “middle grounders” would be a more sincere commitment to a more generous evaluation of the intellectual and moral capacity of conservatives, or at a minimum, a refusal to settle for cheap and easy generalizations.

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve Douglas

      Jeff,

      I see how that impression might have been given, due to my last minute addendum starting with, “I know what some of you are thinking.” If you only read the previous part, do you see me being more congenial to conservatives? I added that last section because I’ve had several conversations lately (some of them with myself) about whether it’s worth it to even bother decloaking. Why not just let them be? Is there any value in letting conservatives go along their merry way, holding incorrect notions but a heart that tries to serve God? Why upset the apple cart? Perhaps I should have saved that addendum for a different post, if that’s the impression I gave.

      But I also talked about the need for more liberal Christians to try to learn things from the conservatives, and to share life with them in love. I don’t know how that’s not in the spirit of RHE’s post.

      You seem to be under the impression that the “peacemaking” process cannot entail liberal believers speaking up out of conviction that their beliefs are right and worth challenging the other side for; I really hope that no conservative Christian would deny that they find liberal Christian theology to be “destructive, and that its adherents are intellectually or morally defective (or both)”. And that’s ok (and no doubt true in many cases)! In fact, it’s only those issues about which we believe the other side is dangerously “benighted” that I think are worth “decloaking” to discuss!
      As I hope I have made clear, the point is to try to live in peace as Christ would have us do, and do this not by hiding our differences, but airing the necessary ones in a healthy and appropriate way. It’s about healthy and especially honest engagement, both in our agreements and in our disagreements, rather than withdrawal from engagement. If you looked long at this blog, I think you’d find that I am always trying to find ways to conciliate the most conservative Christians and the more reactionary liberal ones. So please, give this post a re-read with this in mind, and I hope you’ll read it differently.

      Thanks, Jeff.

      • Alvon

        See, this is what I’m talking about. Jeff hit the nail on head. The problem is exactly that conservatives are uneducated and ethically stunted. I say this as a recovering fundamentalist. On the issues Steve mentioned (evolution/origins, politics/social issues, inerrancy), conservatives are taught apologetics rather than critical thinking and openness. And hatred fills their ranks. If you want to see changes, education is the best option. That’s why the Texas legislature wants to ban critical thinking as an educational goal.

        • Jeff

          Um, Alvon, I was speaking tongue-in-cheek. You are peddling exactly the cheap generalizations that I decry. Some conservatives are uneducated/ignorant, and some are very well informed. Some liberals are uneducated, and some are very well informed. As long as you persist in cookie-cutter caricature views of the other side, it’s hard to see how any serious effort at “peacemaking” of the sort Evans advocates is possible. Given your negative evaluation of conservatives, it’s also hard to see why exactly you’d think it’s desirable.

          • Alvon

            The only problem for me is that these aren’t “cookie-cutter caricatures” or generalizations. I’ve lived it and I know. I’m comfortable painting with a broad brush because conservativism can only survive for as long as people aren’t exposed to facts. For instance, inerrancy is a total farce that depends on people being ignorant of what the Bible actually says. Same goes for the fundamentalist view of origins/Genesis.

            As I’ve already said, I don’t think peacemaking is possible. I gave up years ago. The only way forward is to get conservatives to acknowledge the data that is staring them in the face. Sadly, and as Steve said in his post, conservativism is such a house of cards that many folks lose their faith when sacred cows get tipped over.

          • Jeff

            Peddling assertions is not terribly much more intellectually robust than peddling generalizations, but I guess there’s only so much rigor one can expect from a comment to a blog post. I suppose if you are trying to support your argument that calls for peace-making will fail, by being yourself unwilling to engage conservatives respectfully, then I guess your point stands?

      • Jeff

        “If you only read the previous part, do you see me being more congenial to conservatives?”

        No, because you can’t excise the latter part – it’s a reflection of how you really think. So the congeniality in the congenial part comes across as merely a mask to hide your contempt for conservatives, which is palpable in your post and in your blog.

        “You seem to be under the impression that the “peacemaking” process cannot entail liberal believers speaking up out of conviction that their beliefs are right and worth challenging the other side for”

        I will be blunt – I think “peacemaking” is an absurd euphemism for “let me tell you how wrong your ridiculous beliefs are.” There’s plenty of that sort of “peace-making” already, thank you very much. (And to be fair, it does happen in the other direction). Genuine peacemaking has to start from mutual respect. A sincere effort aimed at peacemaking should probably not be built around airing of theological grievances; it would be better accomplished by building off of shared goals and foundations, such as joint service projects.

        I’m all for genuine intellectual engagement; but, I’m sorry to say, that just doesn’t sound like what you’re actually talking about. You aren’t asking “how can we best create a respectful climate in which theological differences can be examined?”, you’re asking “how can we cure conservatives of their conservatism without antagonizing them?”.

        “I really hope that no conservative Christian would deny that they find liberal Christian theology to be “destructive, and that its adherents are intellectually or morally defective (or both)”.”

        I deny both. I think (painting with a broad brush for brevity) that “liberal theology” is wrong but I don’t think its existence is the primary reason that the church is in decline. Similarly, I think liberal believers are incorrect in some of their beliefs, but I don’t believe they hold to those beliefs because they are idiots or villains.

        • http://undeception.com/ Steve Douglas

          Jeff, while I’m always ready to admit when my writing is at fault (the inclusion of the second half within this post, while utterly defensible on its own, might be ill-advised), I can’t help but think you’ve come at this expecting to see something that you loathe.

          What about this do you find a “mask” for “let me tell you how wrong your ridiculous beliefs are”?: “But as long as we act in humility, not as evangelists for our pet causes but as honest people who occasionally find the need to gently correct misconceptions about our beliefs when presented as fact within our churches and faith communities, I think we can weather the inevitable storm better.”

          And this from even the second part: “And they’re hurting us, by persecuting us and making us so frustrated with them that we are reluctant to even fight to have fellowship with them, when we should and could be learning things from them.

          There is no mask here. You have vastly misjudged my disposition toward conservatives; I am always working not to lose the empathy I have with them gleaned from growing up as one of them (see this post, for example). And I am more than happy to join with conservatives in service projects and the like: this is wonderful. But it is not engagement that will break down any barriers. It’s, “You stay over there and we’ll stay over here, and we’ll hold our noses long enough to work with you to do something we can agree about.” The part of Evans’ suggestion that I keyed off of was being ourselves and not hiding anymore, and letting them see us more liberal Christians as potentially faithful followers of Christ; but the point is, they’ll never discover that more liberal Christians can be potentially faithful followers of Christ if we keep holding our tongues and pretending we’re not liberal Christians.

          So once again, I think your caricature of my post doesn’t do my position justice and seems to be an inauspicious indicator of how you engage those you disagree with.

          • Jeff

            Or maybe my reaction to your post isn’t a reflection of a defect on my part (although I am a conservative, so there’s that against me!), but merely an indicator that how you think you sound in your mind, and how you actually come across, aren’t necessarily the same thing.
            Or maybe we have a different understanding of what peace-making and mutual respect look like, or what the goal of such an effort would be. To me, peace between liberal and conservatives looks like (a) believers don’t blame accuse believers of being the cause of Christianity’s decline (Evans agrees with me), (b) we understand what other believers believe, and the basis for those beliefs, and respect them as being honestly considered and sincerely held, even when we disagree with them, and (c) we actively seek areas of common ground and try to build off of those as a foundation for mutual proclamation of the gospel. Do you agree with this vision or is your vision different?
            If you say that your real aim is to persuade conservatives that liberals are Christians too, I believe you, but you’d do a better job arguing for this by extolling the virtues that liberals exhibit, rather than lamenting the defects of conservatives.
            And perhaps the disconnect between us is that you’re proposing a solution to a problem that doesn’t, in my mind, actually exist. To wit: I’m not sure that conservatives have a problem with liberal /believers/, so much as a problem with liberal /doctrine/. Speaking only for myself, I have no doubt that many believers I disagree with (like you) are sincere in their beliefs and in their commitment to the cause of Christ. But to a conservative, doctrine matters more than anything else, and erroneous doctrine is erroneous doctrine. So, for example, for you to tell me that some people (like you) believe in universalism vis a vis substitutionalism isn’t news to me, nor does it lead to “peace” between us, because in my mind, /I don’t see why there can’t be peace between us already/; doctrinal differences don’t in and of themselves preclude us from healthy and peaceful interaction. But it’s also a matter of how those differences are approached; if our discussion starts with you stating that substitutionalism is morally repugnant and that anyone who holds it is obviously a fool, then that, to me, erects a pretty significant barrier to “peace”, which the mere act of dialogue doesn’t really erase.
            Because, as adequately argued by me and illustrated in this thread and many other places, (some/many) liberals have a problem with conservative /people/. It’s a given that they detest conservative doctrine, but they also feel there must be an explanation for why someone would espouse such detestable doctrines, and the conclusion is of course that the /people/ who hold them are stupid or evil.
            The point is, to create peace, you have to first create mutual respect. Conservatives are “at war” with liberal /doctrine/, but liberals are “at war” with conservative /people/. How can you (plural) have peace with a group for whom you have so little respect? So to me, the best approach is to build off of areas of agreement, rather than emphasizing areas of disagreement. To be sure, engagement and dialogue about theological differences is healthy and worthwhile, but I don’t see it as a plausible starting point for a peace-building process. It’s necessary but not sufficient to behave politely toward those you disagree with; I think genuinely respectful behavior has to flow from genuine respect, and not merely a commitment to try to act respectfully. In that sense, because the latter half of your post rings as disrespectful of conservatives, your stated commitment to respectful interaction seems (to me) half-hearted.
            I hope this clarifies my thoughts and my reaction to your post.

          • Jeff

            Yikes, that is a train wreck of formating. My apologies (or maybe it’s Disqus’ fault?).

  • http://triangulations.wordpress.com/ Sabio Lantz

    I applaud rocking-the-boat: you can only help Christianity by changing the conservatives. I wish liberal or in-between Muslims would do more of the same too. (just went back to the Eschatology chart and decided to take your advise and alter it — so I put that new project in front of me. I saw your link so visited today. BTW, you may enjoy may posts of late).

    • http://undeception.com/ Steve Douglas

      Sabio — you’re right, your recent posts have been fascinating. And I can just barely remember what I even told you about the eschatology chart…my view on eschatology has probably changed a bit since then! :-D