Against Liberal Theology: Introduction
Here I begin our discussion of my book Against Liberal Theology: Putting the Brakes on Progressive Christianity (Zondervan, 2022). I invite comments and questions from readers of the Introduction, but only questions from non-readers. In some cases I will be able only to say “Read the book.” In about a week I will comment here on Chapter 1 and invite comments and questions.
In the Introduction I say that “liberal theology” is a tradition. I will demonstrate that throughout the book. It is not an “indexical term.” That means it is not properly subjective or merely contextual. People who use it should know what they are talking about and that means being familiar with the liberal theological tradition.
In the Introduction I define “liberal theology” with two theologians—Paul Welch and Delwin Brown (pp. 8-9). Brown says that for the liberal theologian the best of modern thought trumps the Bible and Christian tradition whenever there is a conflict between them. I ask whether it is possible that tying Christianity so closely to a particular historical movement of thought robs it of prophetic power and sacrifices that on the altar of respectability?
I become specific in my definition (or description) of liberal theology by saying that (my research shows) liberal Christians all reduce Jesus Christ to “a mere man who revealed God to people but who was not himself God.” (11) I explain that in the book. I write a whole chapter on liberal Christology. In liberal Christology, Jesus Christ is different from the rest of us in degree, not in kind. Or, some liberal theologians have said, Jesus was so different from us in degree that it constitutes a difference in kind. But wait for that chapter.
The reason liberal theologians share a different Christology that orthodox (non-incarnational versus incarnational) is that they believe modern people cannot wrap their minds around or accept anything supernatural, other-worldly, including a preexistent being such as the Son of God, God the Son, becoming human.
I argue that the story of liberal theology really begins with the Unitarian movement. British and American church leaders saw Unitarianism as a real threat. Many Congregational churches, for example, were defecting to Unitarianism. So, to answer that threat, they adopted some aspects of Unitarianism so that enlightened and elite people of their congregations could stay and not change to join the Unitarians.
There is very little real difference between early Unitarianism and liberal Christianity. Both changed and evolved after their beginnings. They have grown apart in some significant ways. Still, there is really no need to become Unitarian in the Christian sense. (Some Unitarian churches still consider themselves Christian.) Someone who belongs to the UCC (the United Church of Christ), for example, would probably not see much difference between his/her church and the local Christian Unitarian church (if one exists in his/her town).
Finally, I say, in the Introduction, that in this book I am not talking about liberal social or political views. In theory, one could be liberal theologically and conservative socially and politically. That is rarely the case, but it would be possible.
So, what are your thought and/or questions. From those who have not read the Introduction, only questions, please.
*Note: If you choose to comment or ask a question, keep it relatively brief (no more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links.*