(Notes for a ‘box’ in my forthcoming blog/book Questions & Responses)

(Note: I ¢â‚¬â„¢m not an expert in Orthodox or Catholic theological spectrums, so will limit this discussion to the Protestant scene).

Non-Catholic/Orthodox  ¢â‚¬ËœChristians ¢â‚¬â„¢ can roughly be put into about ten  theological  categories. They are (from left to right):  ¢â‚¬Ëœradical liberal ¢â‚¬â„¢ (eg. Cupitt),  ¢â‚¬Ëœliberal ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Tillich, Robinson, Kung, Spong),  ¢â‚¬Ëœneo-orthodox ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Barth),  ¢â‚¬Ëœliberal evangelical ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Fosdick),  ¢â‚¬Ëœradical evangelical ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Wallis), progressive/ Lausanne evangelical ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Stott),  ¢â‚¬Ëœconservative evangelical ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Packer),  ¢â‚¬Ëœfundamentalist ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Bob Jones III),  ¢â‚¬Ëœsectarian ¢â‚¬â„¢ (the JW ¢â‚¬â„¢s), and  ¢â‚¬Ëœcultish ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Koresh).

Now it ¢â‚¬â„¢s common to call everyone to the _left_ of one ¢â‚¬â„¢s theological position  ¢â‚¬Ëœliberal ¢â‚¬â„¢. But I ¢â‚¬â„¢m ahead of myself. Let ¢â‚¬â„¢s define our terms.

Political liberalism  (Latin  liberalis,  ¢â‚¬Ëœof a free person ¢â‚¬â„¢) is about liberty, equality, tolerance. Philosophers like John Stuart Mill believed that democracy, individualism, and the rule of law could be reconciled. Today political liberals argue about how a liberal society should accommodate illiberals  ¢â‚¬“ like fundamentalist Moslems, for example. (See e.g., John Rawls,Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1994).

Theological liberalism  is, broadly, the attempt to adapt religious ideas to modern culture and ways of thinking. These  ¢â‚¬ËœModernists ¢â‚¬â„¢ say Christianity has always adapted itself to various cultural situations. (It is possible, by the way, for a person to be politically liberal but theologically conservative, and vice versa).

From this it ¢â‚¬â„¢s a short step to rejecting religious beliefs which are based on authorities other than reason. Liberals say that because the Bible was authored by people limited by their ignorance it can ¢â‚¬â„¢t be our sole authority for faith and conduct.

The  scientific  ignorance of the ancients, for example, caused them to believe in miracles: today we have other explanations for many of these events. (For example a distinguishing feature of most liberals is their doubt about the physical resurrection of Jesus). Higher criticism has questioned many assumptions about the Bible  ¢â‚¬“ like the authorship and dating of many of its books, the  ¢â‚¬Ëœaccuracy ¢â‚¬â„¢ of the biographical details of Jesus ¢â‚¬â„¢ life etc.

Liberals also tend to be somewhat humanistic and optimistic (though two world wars put a dent in that!). They accommodate easily to scientific  ¢â‚¬Ëœadvances ¢â‚¬â„¢ (like Darwinian evolution).

Christian liberalism  varies from place to place and time to time. In the U.S. the Unitarians have been the most liberal major denomination. Currently it ¢â‚¬â„¢s the  United Church of Christ  (whose recent hymnbook de-genders Jesus). Some Southern Baptists prefer to call themselves  ¢â‚¬Ëœprogressives ¢â‚¬â„¢ or moderates ¢â‚¬â„¢.

Theologically, twentieth century liberalism has tended to believe that corrupt society corrupts people (rather than the other way around) so the Church ought to major on saving society rather than saving  ¢â‚¬Ëœsouls ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Rauschenbusch).  ¢â‚¬ËœSin ¢â‚¬â„¢ is a product of apathy and/or ignorance. And the radical liberals believe that the traditional God is dead in this secular age (Paul van Buren, Harvey Cox. Bishop Robinson ¢â‚¬â„¢s  ¢â‚¬ËœHonest to God ¢â‚¬â„¢ edged the New English Bible into second place among religious best-sellers in 1963). Today ¢â‚¬â„¢s  ¢â‚¬ËœChristian atheists ¢â‚¬â„¢, like Don Cupitt, do not deem it necessary to believe in the objective existence of God to account for the phenomena of Christianity.

As the conservative IVP  Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology  points out, liberalism has been a healthy corrective in some areas. Yes, humans are  ¢â‚¬Ëœmade in the image of God ¢â‚¬â„¢. Yes, the church ought to be  ¢â‚¬Ëœan ethical  ¢â‚¬“ and not a solely spiritual  ¢â‚¬“ community ¢â‚¬â„¢ [1995: 553]. And I would add that it ¢â‚¬â„¢s also a corrective to a naive biblical literalism and fundamentalist privatism. Jesus was truly human. We must emphasise again the prophetic notion of social justice. And we ought to take the idea of  ¢â‚¬Ëœnatural (or general) revelation ¢â‚¬â„¢ more seriously.

But there are grave dangers in theological liberalism. The New Zealand Presbyterian Professor Lloyd Geering confessed back in the 1960s that  ¢â‚¬Ëœmany of the things I have said and believe are at variance with the Westminster Confession. ¢â‚¬â„¢  ¢â‚¬ËœWe can no longer draw a clear line between what is orthodox and what is not. ¢â‚¬â„¢ Today Bishop Spong is similarly contemptuous of the term  ¢â‚¬Ëœorthodox ¢â‚¬â„¢.

Liberals are more at home asking questions than providing answers. But authentic Christianity is about truth, not just opinions. Sin is more than alienation from oneself and others: it ¢â‚¬â„¢s rebellion against God. In ethics our aim is not simply to do what is good but what is right. And although I would encourage scholars to study the Bible  ¢â‚¬Ëœcritically ¢â‚¬â„¢ we must never forget that (a) our stance is primarily to be  ¢â‚¬Ëœunder ¢â‚¬â„¢ rather than  ¢â‚¬Ëœover ¢â‚¬â„¢ the Word-in-Scripture, and (b) we do not have a mandate to destroy the faith of the less theologically-literate.

Liberal preachers have tended to use Biblical texts as ornaments  ¢â‚¬“ attached to already arrived-at conclusions and convictions; a  ¢â‚¬Ëœresource ¢â‚¬â„¢ rather than a  ¢â‚¬Ëœsource ¢â‚¬â„¢. As an atheist put it:  ¢â‚¬ËœYou hear what the psychologist says, what the historian says, what the  New York Times  editorial writer says, and then the sermon concludes with,  ¢â‚¬Å“And perhaps Jesus said it best ¢â‚¬ ¦ ¢â‚¬  ¢â‚¬Ëœ [Martin Copenhaver, ‘The Making of a Postliberal’,  Christian Century, Oct. 14, 1998, 937].

Liberals have little idea what Jesus and Paul meant by humanity ¢â‚¬â„¢s lostness. Evangelism and conversion are alien to their thinking: they tend not to get excited about Billy Graham. But people need good news rather than simply good advice. And liberals can ¢â‚¬â„¢t seem to understand why Elijah would mock the  priests  of Baal, Isaiah deride Bel, Paul argue with the pagans of Lystra, or what  ¢â‚¬Ëœit is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Hebrews 10:31) might mean.

The story of salvation is not simply an extension of human wisdom or an expression of common sense.

This all came home to me when I met a 50-ish man who ¢â‚¬â„¢d been to a mainline Protestant church all his life, but had always been uneasy talking about his faith. Then he got  ¢â‚¬Ëœconverted ¢â‚¬â„¢, and attended an evangelical church. They sent him with some others on an evangelistic tour to Indonesia. There he had to give his  ¢â‚¬Ëœtestimony ¢â‚¬â„¢.  ¢â‚¬ËœIt changed my life. Now Jesus is a reality to me rather than an ancient nice man. I now want to share my faith. The Bible is alive for me. God speaks to me every day ¢â‚¬ ¦ ¢â‚¬â„¢

Today liberalism has lost its appeal to laypeople  ¢â‚¬“ I don ¢â‚¬â„¢t know any liberal preacher today who gets the crowds Fosdick used to draw  ¢â‚¬“ but it ¢â‚¬â„¢s still alive in mainline seminaries (note, eg. the work of the Jesus Seminar). Folks today want the preacher to be certain about core Christian beliefs and values. Liberalism is just too sophisticated, too nice, essentially a  university  brand of Christianity. It is humanism in religious garb.

 ¢â‚¬ËœChrist has set us free, ¢â‚¬â„¢ writes Paul to the Galatians (5:1).  ¢â‚¬ËœStand firm therefore ¢â‚¬ ¦ ¢â‚¬â„¢ Followers of Jesus are called to be  ¢â‚¬Ëœboth liberal and conservative at the same time, ¢â‚¬â„¢   the Reformed Churches radio preacher Dr. Peter Eldersveld used to say.  ¢â‚¬ËœWe are instructed to conserve our liberty ¢â‚¬ ¦ You might say that the whole Protestant Reformation was truly liberal, in the true meaning of that term. But in order to be liberal it had to be truly conservative  ¢â‚¬“ that is, it [called us] back to the historic [Christian] faith. In fact its  ¢â‚¬Å“liberalism ¢â‚¬  [was in] its commitment to the gospel of liberty in  Christ. ¢â‚¬â„¢ [‘Liberal and Conservative’,  Back to God Hour, date unknown].

The last word is from an excellent article in the British  Expository Times:  ¢â‚¬ËœThe tragedy of liberal theology [is that] it has become all too skilled at telling us what is _not_ the case, what it is that we can no longer believe; but it shows little sign of being able to replace these negatives with convincing and intelligible positives.  ¢â‚¬Å“Conservative ¢â‚¬  Christianity, at its best, combines a faithfulness to the founding traditions of the Christian faith, a proper graciousness, humility and teachability, an awareness of and an engagement with the intellectual and scientific issues of the day, and a confident message which people ¢â‚¬ ¦ can understand and rejoice in. In a word, while it may yet be far from perfect, it is the closest approximation on the market to the phenomenon of which we read in the New Testament  ¢â‚¬“ a phenomenon which changed the world. ¢â‚¬â„¢ [Colin Sedgwick, ‘Where Liberal Theology Falls Short’,  Expository Times, October 1992, p.3].

Rowland Croucher

Revised 20th August 2014