Why I Am Not a “Liberal
Christian”
PART 1
by Roger Olson
February 7, 2013
Anyone who comes here regularly
or has read any of my books knows I’m no fundamentalist. In fact, I struggle to
get along with fundamentalists and pray for God’s grace to do
it. I’m not proud of that fact, but I admit it. I’ve been burned by
fundamentalism and seen the damage it does to individuals, churches and
society.
Recently a friend asked me to
look at some web sites of Christians who proclaim themselves
“progressive”—sometimes using the label “un-fundamentalist.”
Labels alone don’t really tell me very much about a group. I look
beneath and behind the labels for ideas—convictions, presuppositions,
commitments, attitudes.
Many people who call themselves “moderate to progressive”
theologically are really just asserting their non-fundamentalism. Like me, they
have rejected extreme biblical literalism, hostility to science and philosophy,
separatism and legalism, extreme dogmatism. Yet, there are
others who use labels like “moderate to progressive” who are out-and-out
liberals theologically.
What makes the difference? When
and how does one cross from non-fundamentalist evangelical, broadly
conservative, into out-and-out theological liberalism? Ah, there’s no litmus
test. Discernment of that is complicated and must be done cautiously.
A while ago I argued that
“evangelical” is defined partly, at least, by prototypes—individuals and
documents and events of the past (and perhaps the present) that stand out as
epitomes of the “ideal type.” With evangelicals, at least since
World War 2, there’s a fairly easy prototype to go by—Billy
Graham. Not that all evangelicals are thrilled with everything about
him, but he represents, in a general way, that “type” of Christian faith and
life we call “evangelical.”
So it is with
“liberal.” It’s a type of Christian faith and life defined at
least in part by prototypes. Who are its prototypes? Friedrich
Schleiermacher and Marcus Borg—to name
historical-theological “bookends.” Sure, they don’t agree on everything,
but they both, in their own ways, represent an approach to Christian faith that
is fairly called “liberal.”
Historical theologian Claude
Welch, author of a magisterial two volume history of nineteenth century
theology, boiled it (viz., “liberal Christianity”) down to a phrase:
“maximal acknowledgment of the claims of
modernity” in theology. Gary Dorrien, professor of theology at
Union Theological Seminary and author of a magisterial three volume history of
liberal theology in America, defines liberal religion as rejection of any authority outside the
self. However, when I read his three volume history of liberal
theology in America I discern that all these theologians have one thing in
common—recognition of the authority of
“modern thought” alongside or above Scripture and
tradition.
Liberal theologian Delwin Brown
describes the essence of liberal Christianity as granting authority to “the best of contemporary
thought” in his dialogue/debate with Clark Pinnock entitled
Theological Crossfire. Ironically, fundamentalists and many
“conservative evangelicals” accused Pinnock of being “liberal” theologically.
But in that book Pinnock comes across as almost a fundamentalist—compared with
Brown (a former evangelical). They agree that the “bottom line” difference
between evangelicals and liberals is authority.
I find myself in broad
agreement with some liberal Christians on some
issues—especially over against fundamentalism. On the other hand, I agree with
some fundamentalists more than with liberals on some
other issues.
What do I look for in trying to
discern whether a person or group is really theologically
liberal?
First, I look at their overall view of
reality. Do they think the universe is open to God’s special activity in
what might be called, however infelicitously, “miracles?” Do they believe in
supernatural acts of God including especially the bodily resurrection of
Jesus including the empty tomb? If not, I tend to think they are liberal
theologically.
Second, I look at their approach to
“doing theology.” How do they approach knowing God? Do they begin with and
recognize the authority of special revelation? Or do they begin with and
give norming authority to human experience, culture, science, philosophy, “the
best of contemporary thought?” That is, do they “do” theology “from above” or
“from below?” Insofar as they do theology “from below” I tend to think they are
liberal theologically.
Third, I look at their Christology. Do
they think Jesus was different from other “great souls” among us in
kind or only in degree? Is their Christology truly
incarnational, affirming the preexistence of the Word who become
human as Jesus Christ, or is it functional only, affirming only that
Jesus Christ represented God, was God’s “deputy and advocate” among men
and women? Insofar as their Chistology is functional and not ontologically
incarnational, trinitarian, I tend to think they are theologically
liberal.
Fourth, I look at their view of
Scripture. Do they believe the Bible is “inspired insofar as it is
inspiring,” a wisdom-filled source of religious illumination and record of our
“spiritual ancestors’” experiences of God? Or do they believe the Bible is
supernaturally inspired such that in some sense God is its author—not
necessarily meaning God dictated it or even verbally inspired it? Another way of
putting that “test” is similar to the Christological one above: Is the Bible
different only in degree from other great books of spiritual wisdom or in kind
from them? Insofar as they view the Bible as different only in degree, I tend to
think they are liberal theologically.
Fifth, I look at their view of
salvation. Do they believe salvation is forgiveness and reconciliation with
God as well as being made whole and holy by God’s grace alone or do they believe
salvation is only a realization of human potential—individual or
social—by spiritual enlightenment and moral endeavor? Insofar as they think the
latter, I tend to think they are theologically liberal.
Sixth, I look at their view of the
future. Do they believe in a real return of Jesus Christ, however conceived,
to bring about a new world of righteousness? Or do they believe the “return of
Christ” is a myth that expresses an existential experience and/or social
transformation only? Insofar as they believe it is only a symbol, myth or
metaphor, I tend to think they are liberal theologically.
The problem is that discerning
whether someone is theologically liberal is not a black-and-white process. It’s
not an “either-or.” Many people and groups
are some kind of mixture, hybrid of conservative and liberal.
But, in my book, anyway, a true liberal is one who for the most part
leans toward the views I have labeled “liberal” above.
So what’s wrong with being
liberal theologically in that way? I find it thin, ephemeral, light, profoundly
unsatisfying. It seems to me barely different from being secular humanist. Sure,
theological liberals (in the sense I have defined that type above) can be
profoundly “spiritual,” but I don’t think they are profoundly Christian.
Their commitment is greater to modern culture, the Zeitgeist of the
Enlightenment, than to Christian sources. Their “Christianity” is
barely recognizable if recognizable at all—compared with anything that was
called “Christian” before the Enlightenment. Ultimately, I
believe, theological liberalism robs Christianity of its
distinctiveness, the “scandal of particularity,” its prophetic edge and makes it
easy, respectable and dull.
I have come to the conclusion over the years that most
people who are theologically liberal grew up fundamentalist and are simply in
deep reaction to it—throwing the baby out with the bathwater of an overly
legalistic and literalistic Christianity.
I have no problem with Christians who struggle with
traditional belief; my problem is with those who “reinterpret it” so radically
that it isn’t recognizable anymore. They say, for example, that
they believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but when pressed to explain
it, what they really believe is that the disciples came to a realization of the
continuing relevance of the message of Jesus or Jesus’ ongoing “spiritual
presence” among them and us. They don’t mean that the tomb was empty and that
Jesus’ dead body was transformed to a new mode of eschatological life.
If I ever wake up and find that
I think like a true theological liberal, I hope I will be honest enough to stop
calling myself “Christian.”
Now, having said that, harsh as
it sounds, believe me when I say I am not judging liberals’ salvation. Their
salvation is up to God, not me or any other human being. Can a person be truly
liberal theologically, as I have defined it above, and be saved? I honestly
don’t know. I hope so. But it would be in spite of their beliefs, not because of
them.
What is a Liberal
anyway?
PART 2
by Scott
McKnight
Feb 11, 2013 @
0:05
Roger [Olson] lists
paradigmatic theological liberals as Schleiermacher and Marcus Borg, I’d add
Harvey Cox as another example.
One observation: over the years
I’ve seen lots of evangelicals “drift” into liberalism. Quite often they refuse
to admit they are liberals. What happens is that they absorb evangelicalism’s
denunciation of liberals as non-Christians while simultaneously both embracing
liberalism and thinking (and knowing) they have not left the Christian faith.
Evangelicals have successfully made “liberal” a pejorative term. So today
many liberals call themselves “progressives.” Is there any
difference?
What is a
Progressive?
PART 3
by
Scot McKnight
Feb 18, 2013 @ 5:06
This post is by Bo
Sanders [from Homebrewed Christianity], a self-confessed
progressive who will sketch how he distinguishes progressive from liberal:
Questions: Who are the
progressives? Who are the liberals? Do liberals see themselves as
progressives?
Roger Olson caused some ripples
last week when he posted “Why I am not a Liberal Christian”. Then Scot McKnight went
and took it even farther with “What is a Liberal Anyway” and said: “Evangelicals have
successfully made “liberal” a pejorative term. So today many liberals call
themselves “progressives.”
My contention is that saying
progressives are really just liberals who don’t like the ‘L’ word is like saying
that athletes and baseball players are really just the same thing. While
baseball players are athletes, not all athletes play baseball. It’s an
inexact statement. They aren’t exactly the same thing.
There is as big a difference between liberal and
progressive as there is between evangelical and emergent. There may be some
overlap, but to equate the two is unhelpful.
Here is the most basic
definition I can provide – it comes from John Cobb, the
greatest living American theologian:
- Liberal simply means that one’s experience is a valid location for doing theology.
- Progressives are liberal folks who have learned from Feminist, Liberation and Post-Colonial critiques. *
We all read Roger Olson’s 6 point definition
last week, but when it comes to liberals there is something more categorical
that would be helpful for our current distinction. Liberal is simply a
constellation of positions and answers to questions that were established in the
Enlightenment. Liberal is a settled matter. It has accepted the
basic inherited framework to be the as-is structure and conceded the
basic ground-rules as given.
Progressive on the other hand is to
question, to wrestle, and to push. Progressives don’t necessarily think that all
progress is good and certainly don’t think that history is inevitable.
Liberals are predictable - because the
matter is settled. If one takes the basic considerations handed down from
enlightenment concerns, liberals are just the other side of the coin from
conservatives. Take any issue – miracles, Biblical authorship, other religions,
etc. – you know exactly what you are going to get from both conservatives and
liberals.
They have been doing this dance with each other
for a long time. One takes the high road and the other takes the low. One makes
a move right. The other secures the left. This is why they are both easy to
pigeon hole and caricature.
Maybe an example would be helpful. Let’s take
economics.
Capitalism is the default economic theory of
the Western (liberal) society. While conservative and liberal Christians would
believe different things within a capitalistic framework (tax brackets,
incentives, government programs, and social involvement) what is not in question
is capitalism itself. The system is both beneficial and unquestioned to both
teams. Like Yankees and RedSox fans stress how much they dislike each other and
the opposing team’s tactics, what is never in question is the goodness of
baseball in the first place. That is assumed.
Progressives call the system into
question and call out a different set of concerns. Issues of globalization, free
trade, deregulation and disparity come in.
Liberals want a slightly nicer, kinder, more
equitable, more accessible version of capitalism than conservatives do.
Progressives question the whole enterprise and may go so far as to say that the
ethical teachings of Jesus about how we are to treat other humans are
incompatible with the workings of the capitalist machine.
We could do this with any number of issues.
My only point is that progressives are not liberals shying away from the
‘L’ word because it has been made a pejorative. [Rather they embrace it and run with it -
res]
So even if
you just want to say that progressives are aggressive liberals, that would be
more accurate. Liberals concede the rules of game, they just
want to pick the better of the provided options. Progressives question the as-is
possibilities of the given structures. This causes progressive to engage in
critical examination and to re-evaluate both the road ahead and the road that
delivered us here.
* He said this during a Homebrewed Christianity interview for episode 101.
*res - r.e.
slater
Can An Evangelical Be
Progressive?
PART 4
by R.E.
Slater
February 18,
2013
What if an evangelical were to call themselves
a progressive evangelical? Are we to then infer that that person is a
liberal, or more rather, a progressive liberal?
Or, is the usage of the term
progressive a descriptively different term than its noun-form?
But rather than imply that a progressive
Evangelical is liberal it might imply that that evangelical wishes to move to
the left of the conservative elements within his religious affiliation.... By
embacing social issues; by questioning existing religious structures,
conventions and practices; by mitigating harsher words of judgmental
Christianity for kindlier words of grace and peace; and for any number of other
reasons.
An evangelical may thus wish to move left of a
perceived hardline mentality fraught within their own evangelicalism. And we
might describe an evangelical as one who might be conservative, moderate,
progressive, or even leftist. But still, that description hangs as to what how
an evangelical interacts with his/her own evangelicalism.
So too may a liberal be conservative,
progressive, or leftist, in relationship to their liberalism. To use the
adverbial form of the term "progressive" is meaningless without its
context.
Ironically, this same situation also occurred
within Fundamentalist Christianity birthing its more liberal, or
progressive, twin - that of Evangelicalism. But one would not consider
Evangelicalism as liberal much less than Fundamentalism as being non-Christian.
However, each Christian group has their own distinctives, creeds, religious
formulas, practices, and ministerial themes.
So then, to use the term liberal, or
progressive, must be to use the terms intelligently, or coherently, within
their greater context of literary meaning, and not as simply pejorative
labels.
To be a progressive evangelical then
is unlike being a progressive liberal. They are two different belief
structures (or, world-and-life philosophies). The former holds to some form of
Roger Olson's 6-point outline, the latter to some form of its opposite. They are
unlike each other even though each uses the same label of
progressive.
Furthermore, an Emergent Christian is
one that has moved to the left of Evangelicalism, for the same reasons that an
Evangelical had moved to the left of Fundamentalism. Moreover, an Emergent
Christian may be the same as a progressive Evanglical, but it is hoped that the
term Evangelical is dropped for the more positive description of Emergent (or
Emerging) Christianity.
As example, both Roger Olson and Scott McKnight would describe themselves as postconservative Evangelicals (which means that they are progressive Evangelicals as I understand it). A confounding term to say the least. But, based upon their careers, and school affiliations, wisely used in these days and times of firings and public slanderings. Bo Sanders, on the other hand is an Emergent Christian, as am I.
So then, just what is an Emergent / Emerging Christian? It is the one we have been writing about for these past two years here at Relevancy22. And just what is an Emergent / Emerging Theology? It too is in various stages of development and expression and can likewise be found here at Relevancy22.
As example, both Roger Olson and Scott McKnight would describe themselves as postconservative Evangelicals (which means that they are progressive Evangelicals as I understand it). A confounding term to say the least. But, based upon their careers, and school affiliations, wisely used in these days and times of firings and public slanderings. Bo Sanders, on the other hand is an Emergent Christian, as am I.
So then, just what is an Emergent / Emerging Christian? It is the one we have been writing about for these past two years here at Relevancy22. And just what is an Emergent / Emerging Theology? It too is in various stages of development and expression and can likewise be found here at Relevancy22.
In terms of Christian labeling, an Emergent Christian is one that has left Evangelicalism or, has moved to the right from Mainline Denominationalism's progressive liberalism. However, an Emergent may also be a former traditional Catholic wishing to contemporize their Catholic faith by following the reforms of Vatican II that have become stillborn by its more conservative constituents and theologs. Or, perhaps an Emergent is one that was either liberal, or without any religious affiliation, wishing to re-express their atheism, hedonism, natural theology, and so on, to that of a biblical theology that is both postmodern and contemporary.
But to any Christian wishing to remain
Christian, or biblically theological, Roger's 6-points are good qualifiers for a
Christianity that is always orthodox, regardless of its religious expression
down through the ages. Whether it was that of an early Jewish Christianity, or
that of an Hellenistic extract, or pre-Medieval, Medieval, Reformational,
Enlightened, Modern, or Postmodern.
Regardless, Orthodox Christianity will observe
all 6 points - to which I'm sure we could add a few more.... Throughout all, God
will be God, and a God who has not left us to our own selves. Who actively
pursues us in all endeavors despite sin, this lost world, or our lost souls. Who
wishes to redeem us and bring us into active fellowship with Himself. And His
will, as it expands outwards throughout His creation, as a greater spiritual
Kingdom unstoppable and unrelenting.
- A God who is Creator-Redeemer
- A Special Revelation that is supernatural in origin
- A Christology that is Incarnational and Trinitarian
- Scriptures that are Inspirational and Authoritative
- A lost humanity requiring God's salvation
- A future that looks to Jesus Christ's return
No comments:
Post a Comment