Is my position that of a “classic liberal”? Certainly not in any strict sense – I’m far too Bultmannian, and probably also too aware of the limits of modernity. But to the extent that anyone who rejects the tenets of classic fundamentalism tends to be labelled as a “liberal”, I’m happy to wear the label.
I was asked about this subject over on Triablogue, and here’s what I replied:
I sometimes use the term “fundamentalist” but rarely in its classic sense, since the number of people who represent the classic definition and would self-identify as fundamentalist is small, I suspect.
Here’s a brief answer to each of your questions:
1) I do not affirm inerrancy. I tried for a long time to force the Bible to fit that mold, then decided that perhaps I should let the Bible shape my doctrine of Scripture rather than vice versa. I have no problem talking about it being “inspired”, although I realize that is vague, but one could make a Biblical case for inspiration being a broader phenomenon than the writing of Scripture.
2) Virgin birth? No, because if one cannot harmonize the historical type details in the infancy accounts of Matthew and Luke, why should I take their statements as factual when they make a claim about something fantastic?
3) I don’t see Christ’s death as making satisfaction or as a penal substitution, but there are other ways of thinking about atonement – some closer to the root meaning of that term – that I’d affirm.
4) I’ll defer to my book on the burial of Jesus, which wrestles with that topic in great detail.
5) On the miracles, I’m not sure on what basis I could affirm the nature miracles, such as walking on water. There are far more straightforward explanations for how we got those stories. But I do think that many people experienced various sorts of healing and liberation from “demons” through him and their encounter with him.
Does this make me a “classic liberal”? Quite possibly. But this is how I see the evidence, and my ability or inability to make justifiable claims based on it, at present. I’ve changed my mind in the past, and am open to being persuaded to do so again…
What about you? Do you accept the classic tenets of fundamentalism? Are you a “classic liberal”? What labels do you wear grudgingly, and which do you embrace? I tend to prefer “progressive” Christian. Of course, one thing that I have that not all “classic liberals” do is an Evangelical conversion experience. Since it seems my account of that experience on this blog is buried unhelpfully in the midst of a lengthy dialogue I had with an atheist, I’ll try to devote a post all of its own to it sometime soon.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In