I find it both sad and laughable at the same time that both Protestants and Catholics are claiming that they are being persecuted when their views are no longer taken for granted by others, or they are not given access to a particular platform to promote their views.
Having recently completed a study of the Book of Revelation in my Sunday school class, the persecution of Christians during the reign of Nero is the first of many instances of real, genuine persecution that comes to mind.
Nero blamed Christians for the fire in Rome, and as a result Christians were killed, often horrifically.
Compare the past half a century and down to today. Christians have been involved in some genuinely horrific acts. Child molestation – and covering it up. Opposing racial integration. Picketing funerals. It makes peddling lies and undermining education seem minor by comparison, but some Christians have done that and continue to do that too, and much else besides.
What's my point? Today one would not have to invent trumped up charges against Christians in order to persuade people to persecute us. There are enough instances of evil perpetrated by those who wear the label, that it would be easy to tar us all with the same brush.
Yet where are the mobs trying to lynch us? Where are the crowds determined to make us into living torches set alight? Despite there being things that at least some Christians have actually done, which could lead to legitimate outrage, there are still no executions of those associated with the organizations involved.
American Christians have no idea what they are talking about when they cry persecution. And as someone married to a Romanian, and thus who experienced something which, if still not like Nero's time, was far more truly persecution than what most Americans have ever experienced, I do not find it merely inaccurate. I find it offensive. It is cheapening the term and thereby minimizing the plight of those who really do face persecution.
American Christians seem to desire persecution. And that is understandable, since the Bible says that those who truly follow Jesus and stand for righteousness will be persecuted.
The appropriate response is not to cry persecution even when not suffering it. That doesn't fool anyone.
The appropriate response is to ask what you could do to actually stand against injustice and for righteousness. Maybe if you stood in the way of big corporations and wealthy power brokers trampling on the powerless, you would find out what persecution means. Maybe if you stood with the oppressed instead of trying to get in bed with the powers that be to share in their worldly power in order to oppress others, you would realize that there are those who do face persecution, bullying, enslavement, and many other horrors in the world – and that you may have at least contributed to the climate that allows that to continue.
Maybe then, you'll have taken up your cross and begun to follow the crucified Messiah.
But what I was most struck by was the assumption that, since you might be wrong, the conservative or traditionalist objector’s stance should be adopted as the default position.
Returning to the topic of gays and lesbians that sparked 
No one should be denying the free speech of either 
I am grateful to have been given the opportunity to participate in 
First, it seems to me far from a given that conservative Christianity by definition will flourish. It is not as though it is only theologically liberal or socially progressive churches that have seen declines. Hence the title of this post, asking whether there is anything that would lead one to believe that conservatism gives churches more staying power. Many of the dwindling and disappearing institutional churches around Europe are profoundly conservative, and in the case of institutions like the Roman Catholic Church, one has to reckon with the reality that large numbers of adherents maintain a cultural and religious connection with that church, but feel free to individually disagree with its teachings. I hope that in the comments here we’ll see some discussion of whether and to what extent being conservative makes a religion’s persistence more likely. From my own liberal perspective, conservative churches have time and time again found themselves on the wrong side of issues, and yet seem to learn nothing from the experience, viewing the issue of women in ministry, for instance, the same way they viewed slavery, even after they have admitted their forebears were wrong about that issue. They seem not to grasp that the reason why they were wrong about that issue is intrinsically connected to their conservative approach to religion and social norms.
Douthat suggests that there can be a future for liberal Christianity, but it has to be one that sees renewed passion for conservative theology. I disagree – although I realize that only time can tell which of us was right. I think that a church which can embrace those who are theologically conservative, but also those who are theologically liberal, and become passionate about creating conversation between those who disagree, and passionate about the quest rather than adopting a particular stance reflecting a particular stage on the journey. We could even call ourselves “Evangelical Liberals.” We have a good news that we are passionate about proclaiming, and it isn’t about doctrines assent to which allegedly provides eternal fire insurance. Our core liberal convictions should lead us to stand on the front lines against injustice, and create meeting places where passion for our spiritual journeys is fostered, rather than a narrow conservative version which seeks to persuade people that they have already arrived if they just assent with all their heart to a creed or to four spiritual laws or to a particular doctrine of the atonement.
But that is not how things stand at all. Those who claim to be “Biblical Christians” are more prone than anyone to conflate their culture’s values (not all of them, to be sure, but many) with “what the Bible says.” And they are prone to miss that there has been liberal Christianity from the very beginning. When Paul set aside Scriptures that excluded Gentiles on the basis of core principles of love and equality, and arguments based on the evidence of God’s Spirit at work in them, he was making and argument very similar to that which inclusive Christians make today. The fact that his argument eventually became Scripture itself should not blind us to the fact that when he made his argument, his words did not have that authority.
So the time has come, I think, for Liberal Christians to get excited, to get active, and to get vocal – not just about the contemporary issues of equality and justice that we feel passionate about, but also vocal about the fact that what we stand for is something that has always been a part of Christianity, even if it has sometimes been forced to the fringes.
On the one hand, many have asked why, if homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, we are given a story about God creating a man and a woman. I think the answer is pretty simple: the narrative logic of the story requires it. If a story was told about a first couple who could not have offspring, say two men or two women, then that first story would also be the last story.
It is well known that some conservative Christians accuse liberal Christians of simply going with their personal preferences, in a manner that can be and has been called “Talladega Nights theology.” (If you don’t get the reference, click through to see the video clip).
But 
There is nowhere in the Bible where marriage is instituted by God as opposed to being legislated as a human institution already in existence, nor where a manual for appropriate and enjoyable sexual intercourse is provided. Don’t tell me that Genesis 2 or the Song of Songs provide this. They do not – and not only because they were not written until too much later. Genesis 2 simply places a man and a woman together, no ceremony, no instruction. Song of Songs is a wonderful love poem, but it reflects erotic love rather than offering guidance about it.
Fred Clark began a recent post on his blog
Some of us may prefer a blog post, like Fred’s, in which we can actually not merely state our view but offer justification for it. But I agree with him that we need to be clear and vocal about out views on this. (As an aside, I “came out” as a Liberal Christian in response to hearing a lesbian colleague share what it was like to marry her partner, in a ceremony not recognized by our state, and not be able to openly share her joy on this momentous occasion with colleagues and students.)
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In