The Liberal View of the Bible

The Liberal View of the Bible

Here I continue discussion of my book Against Liberal Theology: Putting the Brakes on Progressive Christianity. The subject here is Chapter 3: Liberal Theology and the Bible. If you have read the chapter, you are welcome to comment (following my stated guidelines below). If you have not read the chapter, you are welcome to ask a question that is clearly on topic.

A problem here is that there is no “orthodox” (small “o”) doctrine of the Bible. However, I argue in the chapter that the liberal theological view of the Bible departs in major ways from what the majority of Christians of all denominations have believed about the Bible.

Just so you know, and I did not say this in the chapter, I agree with my late friends Clark Pinnock and Donald Bloesch about the Bible. (See Pinnock’s excellent book The Scripture Principle and Bloesch’s volume Word and Spirit in his Foundations series.)

Traditionally, Christians of all denominations have believed the Bible is different in kind and not just in degree from other great books of spiritual wisdom. Liberals believe it is different only in degree even if so different in degree as to be different in kind FOR CHRISTIANS. According to them, the Bible is simply “our sacred stories” that “author us” rather than having authority over our Christian belief and faith.

Most liberal theologians of the 20th century, anyway, view the Bible as a collection of sacred, transforming symbols. In the chapter I call this “symbolic realism,” a phrase I borrow from Catholic theologian Michael Novak. Symbolic realism is Paul Tillich’s theory that real symbols, as opposed to signs, have power to transform which makes them revelatory. However, they do not have to be intrinsically connected to real historical events. Tillich even said that IF it should turn out the Jesus never existed, that would not affect Christian faith.

In this chapter I quote quite a few liberal theologians about the Bible. Some search for a “high view” of the Bible but most, if not all, fail to reach that plane.

I do not say that liberal theology is not Christian primarily because of its view of the Bible. However, I think its view of the Bible undermines Christianity, severing Christianity from essential historical events such as the resurrection of Christ and the atoning death of Christ. Admittedly, of course, most, if not all, liberal theologians believe Christ really did exist and die on a Roman cross. Most, however, do not believe he rose from the dead, except in the faith of the disciples, or that he worked miracles.

I recently heard a liberal pastor explain the feeding of the five thousand as not a miracle except that the little boy’s offering of his loaves and fishes overcome the crowd’s selfishness such that they brought out the food they were hiding and not wanting to share. That is a very old explanation of the miracle begun, so far as I can discover, by F. C. Bauer in the mid-19th century.

Liberal theologian Delwin Brown wrote that “To summarize my view, the Bible is not the criterion of truth” and “The Bible does not ‘norm’ us, it does form us.” (63) John Shelby Spong wrote that the Gospels are “treasured biblical tales” and “history…interpreted in rather dramatic and fanciful ways.” He knows this because “the way life is now understood” and”the light of contemporary understandings of the world.” What is that “way” and what is that “contemporary understanding?” It is, I argue, a naturalistic worldview in which nothing happens that cannot be explained by natural laws. Except in the “inner life” of the individual. But, of course, most philosophical naturalists would not even allow that exception.

*Note: If you choose to comment, make sure it is relatively brief (not more than 100 words), strictly on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links.*