Posted on 01/04/2005 12:17:26 PM PST by sionnsar
On May 12, 1879 John Henry Newman delivered what has since become known as the Biglietto Speech. During the course of this speech he speaks of his life-long battle with the Anti-dogmatic Principle, which he termed liberalism.
Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternise together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at all of doctrine in common, or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so personal a peculiarity and so private a possession, we must of necessity ignore it in the intercourse of man with man. If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you? It is as impertinent to think about a man’s religion as about his sources of income or his management of his family. Religion is in no sense the bond of society.
My goodness. This could have been written last week. I am reminded of Robert Bellah’s description of Sheilaism in his book Habits of the Heart:
Sheila Larson is a young nurse who has received a good deal of therapy and describes her faith as “Sheilaism.” This suggests the logical possibility of more than 235 million American religions, one for each of us. “I believe in God,” Sheila says. “I am not a religious fanatic. [Notice at once that in our culture any strong statement of belief seems to imply fanaticism so you have to offset that.] I can’t remember the last time I went to church. My faith has carried me a long way. It’s Sheilaism. Just my own little voice.” Sheila’s faith has some tenets beyond belief in God, though not many. In defining what she calls “my own Sheilaism,” she said: “It’s just try to love yourself and be gentle with yourself. You know, I guess, take care of each other. I think God would want us to take care of each other.” Like many others, Sheila would be willing to endorse few more specific points.
In the notes for his Apologia Pro Vita Sua, Newman identifies eighteen tenets of liberalism. Here are the first ten:
1) No religious tenet is important, unless reason shows it to be so.
2) No one can believe what he does not understand.
3) No theological doctrine is any thing more than an opinion which happens to be held by bodies of men.
4) It is dishonest in a man to make an act of faith in what he has not had brought home to him by actual proof.
5) It is immoral in a man to believe more than he can spontaneously receive as being congenial to his moral and mental nature.
6) No revealed doctrines or precepts may reasonably stand in the way of scientific conclusions.
7) Christianity is necessarily modified by the growth of civilization, and the exigencies of times.
8) There is a system of religion more simply true than Christianity as it has ever been received.
9) There is a right of Private Judgment: that is, there is no existing authority on earth competent to interfere with the liberty of individuals in reasoning and judging for themselves about the Bible and its contents, as they severally please.
10) There are rights of conscience such, that every one may lawfully advance a claim to profess and teach what is false and wrong in matters, religious, social, and moral, provided that to his private conscience it seems absolutely true and right.
Do you agree or disagree with these propositions?
[Click on through if you want to leave comments for the Pontificator. --sionnsar]
Sure, anything is possible but …
Questioning Christian suggests there is no good reason why ECUSA cannot viably house two different religions.
I suppose anything is possible, but why in the world would anyone of integrity and conscience be part of and support such a religious community?
I for one have little interest in religion apart from truth. If the historic claims of the Church are not true, if God has not in fact communicated divine truths to the community of faith, then let Christianity disappear this very instant!
Wow. My particular brand of Christianity isn't the simplest so there are things I understand only imperfectly (election, for instance) or understand only temporarily (charity, unfortunately) or don't really understand at all (the timing of the Second Coming) but I believe them all.
I can believe because I have trust, not proof. I guess I'm not very progressive.
We've entered an interesting age: every heretic a heresiarch.
Your church as well as many churches which have succumbed to the "liberal worldview" are facing schisms over exactly this "Problem of Homosexuality." The Roman Catholics are clear on this point and that's because they rely on a Magisterium of learned scholars who are familiar with what I would call this "God Stuff." They could easily point out what the problem is and the why. If C.S. Lewis were alive today he'd point it out as well, and it's because he as well as the Cardinal Newman and Bellah knew a few things that have somehow alluded some of your bishops, and in fact all of them would have pointed out that would not only become a problem for the churches but one which has a major conseqences for society as a whole.
One of the problems of the modern liberal viewpoint is that the results of it's prescriptions for achieving a more just and equitable society end up violating the "law of unintended consequences." We've only now begun to see it with regards to having bought into the argument that "sexual orientation" is a defining characteristic of a "protected class" of people somewhat analogous to race. That in itself was the first error. Instead of defining homosexual acts as contrary to the "natural law" as defined by Aristotle (hardly a Christian) we "moderns" lost insight as to why it is contrary to "natural law" because "natural law" arguments fell into disfavor around the middle of the 19th century.
The irony of all of this, is that the "Founding Fathers" used the same arguments in the structuring of our political economy. If you're interested in finding out how much the "natural law" has fallen into disfavor, point out that when Jefferson wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" he was using an argument straight out of Aristotle's "Nicomachaen Ethics" and see how many blank stares you get. On top of this, Aristotle references the God of Nature in his argument and any theologian or moral philosopher can point out, that this doesn't necessarily have to be the transcendent deity embraced by monotheism. In fact Aristotle's metaphysics places this God intrinsic in Nature instead of being transcendent. Something that was felt to be a short-coming by both Moses Maimonides and St. Thomas Aquinas but is an actual advantage when it comes to making a "natural law" argument, because it allows you to select any God of you're understanding, even if it's the "God of Science."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.