Like in the field of politics, the term "liberal" in the fields of religion and theology can be very deceptive and misleading. It might be intended to describe one thing, and yet convey another. When we hear the term "liberal" we tend to think of broadmindedness, open-mindedness, generosity, tolerance, and other like concepts. Sometimes we associate the term "liberal" with notions such as "do your own thing," "everything goes," "I'm okay, you're okay," "whatever floats your boat," "whatever turns you on," and other similar terms.
In American politics, the term "liberal" is used to describe those who do not adhere fully to the conservative political mindset. In many cases, it is mistakenly used to describe those who have a political leaning towards socialism. In such cases, the term "liberal" is often equated (again, mistakenly) with "left-leaning" politics.
In the field of religion and theology, the term "liberal" is often used to categorize and dismiss those whose approach to the field is not the typical closed-minded approach. In other cases, it can even be used as a sarcastic term.
For the purposes of this essay, I will use the term "liberal" to mean being open to a wide variety of theological perspectives. It does not necessarily mean subscribing to everything that "liberals" believe or practice, but rather, to at the very least, make an attempt to know and understand why people who are called "liberal" believe the way they do.
I once had dinner with a colleague in ministry who said to me that he could be "conservative" about some things and "liberal" about other things. While I understood what he meant, I can't help but wonder if trying to combine the two categories is a situation alike to trying to "go forwards in reverse." In the field of political and social issues, I've heard some people say that they are "fiscally conservative", and "socially liberal." Whether that combination can be successfully accomplished, or whether never the twain shall meet, depends on the approaches that one takes.
In his book, "A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology," William Hordern reminds us that a problem with definition, is that liberalism by its very nature is such, that there will be within it, a great many diverse positions. In the same way that there is variety within conservative and fundamentalist theologies, there is also diversity within "liberal" theology. In other words, not all liberals think exactly alike on theological issues. Subsequently, it is wrong to speak about liberalism as if it were one monolithic school of thought. We cannot stereotype liberalism, because it is a variegated perspective.
William Hordern points out that for the majority of the defenders of liberalism in the early part of the twentieth century, Liberal Theology was an attempt to reconstruct orthodoxy by utilizing different methodologies and a different set of tools. In other words, Liberal Theology attempted to recover "the faith that was once delivered to the saints." Liberals believe that it was the fundamentalists who were, in fact, destroying the Christianity by forcing it into the molds of the past, making it impossible for any intelligent person to hold it. Hordern points out that the typical attitude of liberals that it was not a question of new theology or old theology, but rather a question of new theology or no theology. (Hordern, p.73). The method of Liberal Theology was to attempt to modernize Christian theology. That is why liberalism is sometimes referred to as "modernism."
The world, liberals argue, has changed radically since the early creeds of the Christian faith were formulated, and subsequently, this makes the creeds sound archaic and unreal to modern humanity. We have to rethink Christianity in thought terms which the modern world can comprehend. For example, argued one liberal theologian, an abiding experience of Christianity has been its conviction that God will triumph over evil. This has been traditionally pictured in the category of Christ's Second Coming on the clouds to destroy evil and set up the good. We can no longer, say the liberals, retain this outworn category, but we can still believe the truth which this ancient thought form was trying to express (Hordern, p.74).
The conservatives and the fundamentalists will then pose the question "But what does the Bible say?"
The liberals will then answer that one has to resort to the historical-critical (authorship, date, audience, reason for writing, writing styles, redaction, sources of information, etc). in order to determine "what the Bible means by what it says." Anything short of the historical-critical approach to the Bible will leave us in a state of backwardness and obscurantism. Liberals believe that to simply quote Scripture without taking into consideration the cultural and social background of the biblical writers will result in a biblical theology which is neither faithful to the Gospel message, nor relevant for living today.
Liberalism refuses to accept religious belief exclusively on the basis of authority alone. It insists that all beliefs must pass the bar of reason and experience. The human mind is capable of thinking God's thoughts after God. Human intuition and reason are the best clues that we have to the nature of God. The mind must be open to all truth, regardless of where it comes from. The true liberal must have an open mind. No questions are closed (Hordern, 75).
The fundamentalists will argue that truth is only found in the Bible. The liberal will then respond that truth is found in nature and in other places, and that all truth will harmonize with biblical truth. Liberals believe that truth can even be found in non-Christian faith communities. Fundamentalists will argue that other religions are either of Satanic origins, or at the very least, flawed human attempts to decipher God's truth.
As pointed out above, liberals accept the higher criticism of the Bible, whereas, fundamentalists as a whole, do not. Liberals accept the theory of evolution. While some conservatives embrace the notion of "evolution within the species, i.e. that God created different species with the capacity to reproduce with variety, liberals by and large tend to subscribe to the notion that evolution includes the idea of one species evolving from others.
Because of their approach to Scripture, liberals do not always agree with the historic doctrinal positions of the Church. This does not mean that liberals deny the inspiration of the Bible, but rather, that they have have a different idea as to what the term "inspiration" means. Based on their tendency to read and study the Bible on the basis of a modern-day scientific, approach, many of them do not subscribe to a belief in things such as the Virgin Birth, the miracle stories, and the Resurrection. Many of them use the comparative religions approach, by which they see that many elements in Christian theology may have been "borrowed" from previous belief systems. For the fundamentalist and conservative Christian who argue the truth of these doctrines on the basis of "what the Bible says," the liberal will point out that "what the Bible says" is also reflected in other religious literature. They will point to virgin birth accounts in other religious communities, miracle stories, and god who have died and resurrected. Because many of these accounts are considered "legendary" and "mythological" some liberal Christians who use the comparative religions approach, believe that there is legend and myth within the Bible itself.
Because of their approach to Scripture, liberals, in many cases, have a different view of God. While many conservative and fundamentalist Christians have a view of God "sitting on His throne in Heaven," liberals tend to think in terms of immanence, i.e. that God is in all things, all places, and all creatures. Because of this, they have been wrongly accused by their conservative and fundamentalist sisters and brothers of pantheism, i.e. that God is all and that all is God
Liberalism gave rise to the Social Gospel. The emphasis of the Social Gospel was not so much on individual sin and individual salvation, but rather on the need to redeem the structures of society which were all corrupt and sinful. While conservatives and fundamentalists "zero in" on individual and personal evangelism, liberals emphasize the need to reorder and restructure society. While conservatives and fundamentalists talk about salvation in terms of the "hereafter," "in the sweet bye and bye," "on the other side of Jordan," etc. liberals understand the message of the Gospel to be applied to the "here and now."
In closing, one comment that I would like to make is that I question if the term "liberal" is really an appropriate one for the Christians that I just finished describing? The reason why I pose this question is because many of so-called "liberals" are not open to theological perspectives that are different from theirs. Some of them right from the get-go deny the supernatural element in biblical religion. For many of them, nature and the universe are an enclosed system of functions and operations which leave no room for divine intervention and miracles. They are, in many cases, quick to dismiss their conservative and fundamentalist sisters and brothers as "obscurantists," "narrow-minded," dogmatic, etc. Liberals can demonstrate a narrow-mindedness and dogmatic position of their own, when they are convinced that because they have used the scientific approach to faith, that they have a monopoly on truth. Their notion that unless a belief can be verified through laboratory testing, that it is a crock of "bullshit," reflects a degree of arrogance and presumptuousness on the part of some liberals.
The questions for you the reader, are the following:
1. Do you believe that if a person is a "liberal" and subscribes to "liberal" theology, that this person cannot be considered a true Christian?
2. Because the liberal uses a different approach to the Bible, does that make liberals "non-biblical?"
3. In your opinion, is there room for liberalism in the Christian faith?
4. Are there aspects of Liberal Theology that you can embrace in your spiritual journey and relationship with God?
5. What do you think about Liberal Theology in general?
Please feel free to comment on this posting either by answering the questions or coming up with questions and issues of your own. I look forward to your response.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
No comments:
Post a Comment