Theological Liberalism

( http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9090.htm )

Rowland, as I lost the link (!!!) I gather you talking about your article from June 1999.

******

>'liberal' (Tillich, Robinson, Kung, Spong)

Rough grouping but fair enough.

>Theological liberalism is, broadly, the attempt to adapt religious >ideas

to modern culture and ways of thinking. These 'Modernists' say >Christianity has always adapted itself to various cultural situations.

Hence my dislike for 'liberalism' as defined above. This is not how I read Tillich, Kung or Spong. 'Adaption' is flawed in that it replaces insufficient tradition with insufficient modernity or post-modernity. None of the previous provide an adequate base for Christian practice which, I feel, should be grounded in truth and being.

I would define liberalism as a search for ultimate truth using all the knowledge we now possess in all areas of thought. It is an unrestricted search not bound by the bible, culture or any other item. It is never ending as the source of ultimate truth (God) is infinite and people are finite.

>From this it's a short step to rejecting religious beliefs which are >based

on authorities other than reason.

This would depend upon what 'authority' is defined as. God is the ultimate authority. He doesn't appear to speak from a voice in the clouds to us these days. Human authority as in church tradition or the writings of the bible depend upon the premise that the writers began with which is conditioned by their culture and is altered by personality. Authority is dependant upon internal and external factors and is not necessarily invested without proviso.

>Liberals say that because the Bible was authored by people limited >by

their ignorance it can't be our sole authority for faith and conduct.

Yes, however there is more to it than that. Bible writers also had their own agendas and shaped the writings for their own purposes which were not always that of God. History is written by the victors. Some of the motivation is political. For example - blaming the Jews for the crucifixion rather than the Romans ... especially in material written after 70 CE. A Gallilean Christian / Jewish sect had to be careful!

>(A distinguishing feature of most liberals is their doubt about the

>physical resurrection of Jesus)

Yes. This is based upon the conflicting accounts that cannot be pulled together ... some of which are mutually exclusive. It is also based upon the way in which scripture was written and put together. Primarily, it is also trying to understand meaning from what appears not to be biography or literal history. Meaning is more important than literal content.

>Higher criticism has questioned many assumptions about the Bible - >like

the authorship and dating of many of its books, the 'accuracy' of >the biographical details of Jesus' life etc.

This is a given. I don't see how it can be dismissed. It is one of the bases from which liberalism is built.

>Liberals also tend to be somewhat humanistic and optimistic (though >two

world wars put a dent in that!).

Humanistic: Again the term needs defining. If you mean loving fellow humans, then it is very much about this and finding God within God's creatures. If you mean the 'fundy' term of beginning from the self without God for all answers, then I disagree.

Optimism: Not so sure. I don't see it as a common explicit agenda in the liberals mentioned above though I haven't read much of Robinson.

>They accommodate easily to scientific 'advances' (like Darwinian

>evolution).

Yes. It advances truth and therefore advances Jesus who is the truth.

>Christian liberalism varies from place to place and time to time.

Yes, ever changing!

>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 'souls' >(Rauschenbusch).

I disagree. It is both acting upon each other. It is nature and nurture not one or the other. I think that 'saving souls' has already been accomplished by God through Christ. It is a free gift given through God's grace. How we accept that free gift may be a point of contention.

>'Sin' is a product of apathy and/or ignorance.

Partly. Sin is a function of evil in ALL its forms. The problem of evil is not adequately explained in any area of Christianity (Sorry to disappoint Calvinists!). This remains a topic to be seriously discussed.

>And the radical liberals believe that the traditional God is dead in this

>secular age

God is not dead but the traditional concept of God is dead. I think the difference is important. God has been redfined as our knowledge of God has grown.

>Today's 'Christian atheists', like Don Cupitt, do not deem it >necessary to

believe in the objective existence of God to account for >the phenomena of Christianity.

I agree with him. The phenomena of Christianity (as an institutional religion) is not conditional on God's existence. However, God's existence is pointed to by the phenomena of Christianity. I think Christianity is more than instiututional religion and encompasses being. It is relationship and life.

>And I would add that it's also a corrective to a naive biblical literalism

>and fundamentalist privatism.

This drove me to my present position. It was either this or atheism as I totally reject the literalist position. What the mind cannot assent to, the heart can never worship.

>But there are grave dangers in theological liberalism.

... To whom??? As I have pointed out the institutional church and ministers will be those to lose out, no-one else.

>'We can no longer draw a clear line between what is orthodox and >what is

not.'

True. Life is more complicated than we once thought. The absolutism of the past is faulty and does not produce true answers.See Edwartd De Bono's 'I'm Right, You are Wrong'.

>Liberals are more at home asking questions than providing answers.

>But authentic Christianity is about truth, not just opinions.

I would suggest that questioning is the first step to finding truth. I would also suggest that truth is not just dropped from the sky in a nice neat bundle once and for all time. What we now consider 'truth' will be refined further, challenged and changed. I have no doubt about that. Nothing stays the same except God ... but our knowledge of the infinite God will grow and replace past misconceptions that us finite humans have held about Him / Her.

>Sin is more than alienation from oneself and others: it's rebellion

>against God.

Partly true. It encompasses all. Sin is the activity of evil. Where does evil come from? There is no adequate answer.

>In ethics our aim is not simply to do what is good but what is right.

The two should be the same in a Christian ethical philosophy.

>(a) our stance is primarily to be 'under' rather than 'over' the Word

I disagree. Jesus is the Word (John 1:1) not the bible. Our stance is to follow truth above all else. Our stance is not to support the bible if it is found to be in contradiction to truth. God values truth more than the bible. The bible is a man-made construct inspired by God. All truth is God's truth.

>(b) we do not have a mandate to destroy the faith of the less

>theologically-literate.

Nor do we have a mandate to hide the truth from the less theologically literate. Speaking lies and playing 'lets pretend these lies are truth' is evil and sin. Truth will never be injured by investigation. Truth has nothing to hide that will hurt anyone. Truth is good and 'the good' is truth.

Children are told lies about the Easter Bunny. They are told lies about Santa Claus,. They are told lies about God and Jesus. How do you expect anyone to believe what you say when what you have stated is later found out to be error or not quite the whole truth. What are we then to believe? Is everything you say then to be taken with a grain of salt? Can we ever expect that anything you say is truth? The simple but false stories about the bible we were taught as children have to be relearnt as adults.

>Liberal preachers have tended to use Biblical texts as ornaments -

>attached to already arrived-at conclusions and convictions;

If truth is the aim of liberals, as I have stated, your conclusion is wrong. The same may also be said of literalists and their proof texts. They conveniently forget the texts that contradict the opinion they have already formed. They come with Gentile eyes trying to read Jewish thought. We bring who we are to the text. The challenge is to understand the meaning of the writer apart from our prejudices.

>a 'resource' rather than a 'source'.

One of many resources but also the prime resource. The source is the truth found within the meanings.

>Liberals have little idea what Jesus and Paul meant by humanity's

>lostness.

Been there, done that!!! ...as an ex pente/fundy/evangelical. I think they understand what the writer was meaning rather than believing the literal text. I think the 'lostness' (the problem) is over emphasised by Conservatives at the expense of grace (the answer).

>Evangelism and conversion are alien to their thinking:

I think that the terms are redefined. It is not seen as a colonising of others but a mutual meeting of minds that coaxes rather than demands and threatens.

>they tend not to get excited about Billy Graham

I used to!!! I was 'saved' at a Billy Graham Crusade.

>But people need good news rather than simply good advice.

The good news is the gospel of the gracious gift of life available and accessible to all through Christ. I don't believe liberals are only interested in 'good advice'.

>And liberals can't seem to understand why Elijah would mock the >priests of

Baal, Isaiah deride Bel, or Paul argue with the pagans of >Lystra.

I don't think the statement is true.

>The story of salvation is not simply an extension of human wisdom or >an

expression of common sense.

Of course not. That is a misrepresentation of liberal thought.

>Today liberalism has lost its appeal to laypeople

In uncertain times people want certainty and flock to literalists. It is a sociological phenomena not necessarily a choice of truth. People usually start out literalists and then change to liberal thought. The reverse is not usually true. Read Fowler's 'Stages of Faith'.

>it's still alive in mainline seminaries (note, eg. the work of the Jesus

>Seminar).

Yes! ;-)

>Folks today want the preacher to be certain about core Christian >beliefs

and values.

Yes, but is what the crowds want necessarily the truth? See explanation above.

>Liberalism is just too sophisticated, too nice, essentially a >_university_

brand of Christianity.

Does Liberalism have to be labelled as above??? It is like saying all Conservatives are middle class. It isn't true.

>It is humanism in religious garb.

That would depend on the way you use the term 'humanism'. We are told to love our neighbour ... that is humanism. We are also told to love God with our MINDS. Love of God leads to love of humans but the reverse is also true. Liberal thought is primarily about God in relation to humans.

>'Christ has set us free,' writes Paul to the Galatians (5:1). 'Stand firm

>therefore...'

It is interesting that the remainder of the text is not presented. Literalism was a severe bondage to me. It gave me no answers and no freedom in thought. It did not explain God in ways I could understand. It almost destroyed my faith.

>... 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 - that is, it [called us] back to the historic >[Christian] faith. In fact its "liberalism" [was in] its commitment to the

>gospel of liberty in Christ.'

I think Spong (simplifying Michael Goulder and Karen Armstrong, etc) does this more than any other I have read. The Jewish Midrash is a compelling answer that fits well. In contrast, Barbara Thiering's 'Jesus The Man' etc does not improve my understanding of God or the bible or being or life. It does not have that 'ring of truth'.

>'The 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;

Knowing the problem is the first step to finding an answer. Should one continue with lies because the truth is not found? It IS profoundly unsettling. Truth may not be comfortable but it will produce no harm.

>"Conservative" Christianity, at its best, combines a faithfulness to the

>founding traditions of the Christian faith

... but are they true????

> a proper graciousness, humility and teachability, an awareness of >and an

engagement with the intellectual and scientific issues of the >day

I would suggest that liberals have the same fruit of the spirit.

>[Conservative Christianity] it is the closest approximation on the >market

to the phenomenon of which we read in the New Testament

I disagree. I have journeyed from there. It may be an approximation. There are many approximations and I take the truth from them. The truth is we are Gentiles in the 21st century and can never enter into the true Jewish mindset of 2000 years ago.

There are many things I have learnt that are good from Conservative Christianity.

A love for the bible. Learning sections and committing them to memory. Having an overview of the bible story from beginning to end.

A love of church history and traditions. Christians need to know where the church has come from and the difficulties it faced. They need to know the meaning behind traditions and why they were originally started and why they are still valued.

The stability that is part and parcel of Conservative Christianity. Stability helps in unstable times but it may also lull to sleep.

I have been carried away with the time as I contemplate this article. It has been worthwhile to see how people view the Other.

Mark Oz