What Differentiates a Liberal Church from an Orthodox Church

My discussion about First Presbyterian Church has attracted some interest.  I think it might be useful to discover what attributes differentiate liberal churches from those that espouse a more historic biblical/orthodox approach.

What does the word "orthodox" mean?  While it may seem a bit scary, it is quite simple for purposes of this discussion:

1. Sound in opinion or doctrine, especially in religious doctrine; hence, holding the Christian faith; believing the doctrines taught in the Scriptures; -- opposed to heretical and heterodox; as, an orthodox Christian.

2. According or congruous with the doctrines of Scripture, the creed of a church, the decree of a council, or the like; as, an orthodox opinion, book, etc.

3. Adhering to generally approved doctrine or practices; conventional. Opposed to unorthodox.

To understand what might be considered orthodox, one must consider what the essentials of the Christian faith are.  I searched for this on the web, and the description I liked best is found here, but there may be better examples out there.  To be considered orthodox, a denomination probably needs to adhere to the essentials of the historic faith.  The non-essentials-- of which there are many-- matter less.

I consider three main branches of Christianity to be "orthodox"-- Roman Catholicism; the various Eastern Orthodox churches; and those Protestant churches that embrace historic biblical Christianity in accordance with the essentials of the faith.  One good description of biblical Christianity is found here.

Are all the churches I group together as "orthodox" necessarily conservative from a political standpoint?  Not always.  The Catholic Church has in the past been liberal from an economic standpoint.  The Eastern Orthodox have participated in the National Council of Churches which advocates on "social justice" and certain other liberal concerns.  There are probably other examples.

But note also that there are often differences in style between liberal and orthodox churches.  While there can be considerable variation, one notes almost a different feel or tone or sensibility.  I won't spend a lot of time discussing matters related to style.

I think there is one other big difference, however.  Orthodox churches, as a general rule, have oft tried to resist acquiescing with certain sociocultural changes that have been foisted upon us over the last 50 years or so.  Many of these changes have had much to do with sexuality, reproduction, the family, gender roles-- and also an extreme interpretation of separationism that has been thrust upon us.  Liberal churches have been much more likely to accede to these cultural changes-- or even embrace them.

Many of the liberal denominations can be found among the membership of the National Council of Churches.

A couple of months ago, I had posted extensively about the Manhattan Declaration.  This is a statement signed by over 400,000 individuals concerned about matters such as human life, marriage and religious liberty.

One of the interesting things about the Manhattan Declaration is the list of signatories who happen to be religious leaders.   On the list you will see many Roman Catholic bishops; leaders of conservative Anglican denominations; representatives of the National Association of Evangelicals; Southern Baptists; Eastern Orthodox leaders; conservative Presbyterian clerics; Wesleyans; leaders of certain high profile ministries and megachurches; and even a representative of the Salvation Army.  It is an impressive, lengthy list.  There are also professors and seminary leaders. 

I submit that it would be considerably less likely for the leaders of liberal churches or denominations to sign on to the Manhattan Declaration.  It certainly could happen, but it would be more uncommon.  Those that have signed on to the Manhattan Declaration are more likely to fall within the tradition of historic biblical/orthodox Christianity.

Liberal churches often tend to be more urban-- closer to the center of cities or to universities.  They often do an excellent job with certain charitable ministries; and are often better positioned geographically to implement them.  Orthodox churches, however, often tend to be located in suburban or rural areas; and sometimes have not emphasized the "helping" ministries as much as the liberal churches have.

There are some important differences and variations among Christian church traditions from the standpoint of belief, style and practice.  I think it is important to know which are adhering to the most important beliefs of Christianity, and which are selling out to the culture.  

Comments

[Mike J Baron]

Man has come up with all kinds of descriptions for churches but according to the God of the Bible there is only one church and it crosses denominational lines. It consists of all those who have received His Son Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

If the Bible (The word of God) is wrong, then Christianity is mere folly. But if the Bible is correct - and I believe it is - new and eternal life is awarded ONLY to those who believe and follow Jesus Christ who has forgiven their sins and died in their place. All unforgiven sinners will be separated and suffer the torment of hell for all of eternity.

Have you received Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior? To learn how visit: http://www.fishthe.net/steps/steps1.htm

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Now, in this blogosphere, Mike is a brave man;)

[Stormy]

Is there a separation of church and blog, Dr. Mary?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Not taking the bait, Stormy. The answer to your question is no. But I've stayed out of the last couple of threads here for a reason.

And like I said, in this blogosphere, Mike professing his Christian faith so boldly and absolutely and (most-of-all) politically-incorrectly is the mark of a very brave man.

[Bubba]

Interestingly enough, the Usual Prevaricators on this subject have chosen not to comment.

Why is that?

[Joe Guarino]

Thank you, Mike-- great comment.