Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven  I did not change the meaning of moderate, meaning the center, they did by moving the middle line to the left, just next to liberal, a place that is not quite there enough to be one but close enough to one, to not have any problem with it. |
I agree that that is what they have done. I have heard it myself. But I see these people as nothing but liberals in moderates' clothing. Hillary is trying to call herself a moderate. Does that make her not a liberal? I think not. In the context of the church, the gauge for liberal/moderate/conservative should center around the source of authority, which is God's word, and not as a comparison against the varying degrees of views of the people which is not a reliable gauge at all! Thus, a liberal is one who is liberal with his interpretation/application/teaching of God's word and the resulting liberties he takes that are not granted by that word, which is the authority source. The degree to which one is liberal with God's word does not make him any less a liberal. The issue with using the popular definitions of these terms is that it puts those who are truly moderate (that is, middle of God's road) in the same category with those who bind where God has not bound. Now, how are these groups distinguished from one another? I for one, do not wish to be labeled similarly, because binding where God has not bound is every bit as wrong as loosing where God has not loosed. Sometimes when faced with the hurricane of liberalism that is sweeping the church, we tend to forget that and see these "binders" as "allies in a common war". Yet both paths lead to destruction.
I think you are right though -- we should just stay away from labels because the popular definition given to those labels changes based upon time and to whom you are speaking. We do see this shift in politics/culture and thus, it is expected to influence the church.
