[Mindybeth6]

First of all I hope this does not go off topic because if it does I will request it be closed right away. I do NOT want people fighting about this question. I just truly want to hear people's honest and open opinions on this.

Last night I was watching a segment on Palin and her church life. They talked in the interview about the church members speaking in tongues and in healing through the Holy Spirit. There was also MORE said that I do NOT want to bring up and other's may know what I am referring to.

So my question. Does this type of a church environment constitute radical christianity to you? If not, then please tell me what you feel is radical and if it does can you tell me why?

I am truly VERY curious and want to hear opinions.

Remember...play nice or I will have this shut down.

[MomtoLilly]

Jesus was a radical and, hence, countercultural and, as Christians, we are to be
radical and countercultural as well! We are never to be satisfied with a status quo
that allows assorted social ills such as poverty, corruption in institutions,
discrimination of any kind, or the creation of out-groups that are then demonized
and discriminated against “in the name of God,” to go unchallenged.

[ej-momtobe]

radical christianity begins with as "my way is the only way to be saved." It leads to justification of all sorts of other things, in the name of 'saving' others. I guess that statement is not limited to christianity either.

Actually, I don't really understand the whole talking in tongues things so I can't comment on how radical it is.

[kretzklan]

I don't feel that the practice of tongues and healing (and other spirit driven gifts) is radical. Depending on how you read the bible - it's all based on biblical principals. Some folks involved in church life like that can become radicals if they judge others for not following those spiritual gifts. I was raised in a penacostal environment and while I have chosen not to continue in that environment - I feel that I learned a lot. I do consider myself a spiritual person and believe deeply in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit -and for me that includes believing in both good and evil at work on our earth...however, I am not religious. You could spend A TON of time with me in person and probably never know where my beliefs lie unless you asked specifically. So, the acts themselves aren't radical - it's the people that make can become so. JMO.

[CEB]

I agree with EJ - the form of radical in religion that I find seriously problemmatic is when an organized church/temple/other group preaches intolerance, blame or hatred of others, usually (but not always) behind the cloak of a belief that their spritual route is the only one that can lead to "being saved" so all who do not follow their path are less worthy. I do not have a problem with a "radical" churches that may be outside or have practices that differ from the mainstream church etc as long as they do so in a tolerant and accepting manner. I did not see the Palin special and do not have enough information to comment on her church and its beliefs (the hearsay does not sound good but I need to be better informed). I can say that I do vehemently disagree with many of the preachings of Rev Wright because they arise from a sense of blame and hate - but I also accept Obama's condemnation of them.

[jules17]

I am pretty sure that Palin has admitted to attending a Pentacostal church for 20 years. I am also pretty sure that she stopped attending that church in 2002. She was baptised Roman Catholic as an infant/child.

I believe that people can choose to believe whatever they want. I only have issues when, as CEB and EJ stated, they become judgmental and not accepting of me as I am of them.

I also believe I would be a hypocrite if I paid more attention to Palin's religion than Obama and Rev. Wright, etc.

[JoshGuat]

In Corinthians in the the bible talks about the gift of tongues in specific. There are scholars on both sides that believe that tongues have ceased/not ceased. Jesus was a radical in his day, also Luther etc. I would think that this type of believe is not harming the general public so I do not see an alarm in it. I do not believe that this is a horrible belief, but I do not practice it either, nor have any interest in practicing tongues.

[Saya]

I'm afraid I didn't see what you saw, so I can't really comment. But the basic stuff you're describing above sounds like Pentecostalism, doesn't it? Which I may not believe in, but don't think of as "radical." Is there anything else you can tell us to give some context?

[Mindybeth6]

Originally Posted by Saya

I'm afraid I didn't see what you saw, so I can't really comment. But the basic stuff you're describing above sounds like Pentecostalism, doesn't it? Which I may not believe in, but don't think of as "radical." Is there anything else you can tell us to give some context?

Yes, she went to a Pentecostal church which did practice the things I mentioned but churches do not have to be Pentecostal to believe and or practice the same thing. I am not really talking about Palin, I know where she stands, I am just wondering what people's definition of being a radical is? What is the line you cross that makes you a radical? Does that make sense? I have really enjoyed hearing everyone's opinions thus far.

[Mindybeth6]

Originally Posted by jules17

I am pretty sure that Palin has admitted to attending a Pentacostal church for 20 years. I am also pretty sure that she stopped attending that church in 2002. She was baptised Roman Catholic as an infant/child.

I believe that people can choose to believe whatever they want. I only have issues when, as CEB and EJ stated, they become judgmental and not accepting of me as I am of them.

I also believe I would be a hypocrite if I paid more attention to Palin's religion than Obama and Rev. Wright, etc.

I personally can't stand it when you see people enter a church and right off the bat people are judging them. It makes me want to get right up and leave, and I have.

[missylaw]

My in-laws considered themselves to be "radical christians" and they spoke in tongues during masses (they are Roman Catholic). I attend several masses with them but never felt relaxed enough to feel I belonged nor did I feel I was welcomed. My husband never spoke in tongues but his mother,father and younger sister did. They stated that they were carasmatic (sp?) in their religion. I am all for "following what you believe in" but they felt and told us that speaking in tongues "makes them closer to God and more religious". This was the start of our issues within the family. I was raised Roman Catholic and still atttend weekly mass and hope that I am following the teachings to the best of my ability. I was told by the "radical group" and yes, this community has groups that they must "check in with" before making any major life changes and get approval. My husband was not given approval to marry me because I was not a member of the close community. We will be married for 20 years this Nov. so obviously we didn't follow the groups suggestion. This is also one of the reasons that we have no relationship with them nor have they wanted any relationship with their 4 grandchildren. It's really sad. so, back on track, I do find speaking in tongues, healing and such to be "radical". I feel everyone has the right to pray, have a relationship with God that is true to them, but I find it crosses the line when someone believes they are superior to others who don't follow the same "radical" beliefs. Ok, did that make any sense at all? Even after all these years I have trouble writing or talking about it. I don't appreciate being told I am beneath someone or "not up to par" as the group and therefore not accepted. I should mention that the Roman Catholic Bishops several years ago dissolved this "parrish" stating they felt it was more cult like than teaching the bible. They then moved themselves to another area of town and started the same church/parrish with the same name just without the Bishops or diocese approval

[SKL]

I think it's one thing to profess a belief, and another thing to act on it or force others to act on it.

The identical belief may be seen as radical in the latter instance, but not radical in the former.

It's yet another thing to merely attend a church. I know my parents didn't agree with many things taught at the church we attended. They felt comfortable there, but I recall conversations where they expressed to us their disagreement with some of the dogma we heard there.

Having relatively intimate involvement with vastly different religions, I hestitate to call a "belief" radical, particularly before being certain how that belief translates into action for each believer.

[Mindybeth6]

Very interesting!!! Thank you everyone for your thoughtful responses!!

[ToulouG]

I have never spoken in tongues or known anyone that has. I don't think of it as really radical, just a practice in a particular church.

I'm not much on "religion" but rather a personal relationship with Christ. I would never tell anyone where they were or weren't going after death (not really my decision), but I am a Christian who believes that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Light. I don't hate anyone of different religions. That is not what my Christ teaches. He teaches to love everyone regardless of beliefs or lifestyles--and that is what I try to do. Do some churches preach intolerance? Of course they do. And I think it is a terrible shame. I do not believe that is what God intends or wants His children to practice.

[susy...patience]

My two cents.
I don't think the term "radical" even fits into a discussion on religion.....

Some beliefs are mainstream in US which aren't accepted elsewhere and vice versa. Reincarnation for instance is part of Buddihist beliefs (doesn't fit mainstream US). I was raised in a church that some people consider out of the US mainstream...

For one, don't find the concept of speaking in tongue out of the mainstream for some Protestants in the US (certainly not all). But the concept exists and is recognized in things like popular movies etc...