Is there any theological belief which is mandatory for a liberal Christian?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I see a wide spectrum of beliefs amongst liberal Christians, from those who affirm miracles and those who deny miracles. Given that liberal Christians seem more tolerant of people who depart from historic Christian understanding, are there any mandatory theological beliefs?

 

[Jonaitis]

I'm curious to know, too.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I see a wide spectrum of beliefs amongst liberal Christians, from those who affirm miracles and those who deny miracles. Given that liberal Christians seem more tolerant of people who depart from historic Christian understanding, are there any mandatory theological beliefs?

Liberal and conservative are both relative descriptors. Neither exist in the Kingdom of God. So let's figure out what it is to be a true Christian instead.
Blessings.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Liberal and conservative are both relative descriptors. Neither exist in the Kingdom of God. So let's figure out what it is to be a true Christian instead.
Blessings.

This is Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal, so maybe we see what people who accept the 'liberal' descriptor have to say first?

 

[PloverWing]

"Liberal Christianity" is a school of thought, or rather a cluster of schools of thought. By its nature, it isn't the kind of thing where you have to sign a specific list of affirmations to be accepted; it's not an official organization where they kick you out if you don't affirm every statement in a particular creed.

In the cluster of "liberal" schools of thought would be Schleiermacher; and Rauschenbusch and a general concern for social justice as an expression of the gospel; and the scholars who do textual criticism and higher criticism; and the theologians who work to bring together the Christian faith with mainstream science, history, and archaeology. (I've probably forgotten some portions of the liberal tradition here.)

It's not as though you have to agree with everything that Schleiermacher, Rauschenbusch, etc., said to be a liberal. I don't know if anyone agrees with all of it; ideas develop and change over time. But if someone said "I'm a liberal, but I think higher criticism is a mistake, and I think the earth is 6000 years old, and we shouldn't ordain women, and the poor aren't the church's business" -- I would suggest that they had chosen the wrong label for themselves.

Does that help?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

"Liberal Christianity" is a school of thought, or rather a cluster of schools of thought. By its nature, it isn't the kind of thing where you have to sign a specific list of affirmations to be accepted; it's not an official organization where they kick you out if you don't affirm every statement in a particular creed.

In the cluster of "liberal" schools of thought would be Schleiermacher; and Rauschenbusch and a general concern for social justice as an expression of the gospel; and the scholars who do textual criticism and higher criticism; and the theologians who work to bring together the Christian faith with mainstream science, history, and archaeology. (I've probably forgotten some portions of the liberal tradition here.)

It's not as though you have to agree with everything that Schleiermacher, Rauschenbusch, etc., said to be a liberal. I don't know if anyone agrees with all of it; ideas develop and change over time. But if someone said "I'm a liberal, but I think higher criticism is a mistake, and I think the earth is 6000 years old, and we shouldn't ordain women, and the poor aren't the church's business" -- I would suggest that they had chosen the wrong label for themselves.

Does that help?

So would it be right to say liberal Christianity is theologically diverse and not committed to any particular theological position? This sort of helps, if we understand liberal Christianity to be about social justice, the morality of the gospel, but beyond that it would seem theology could go in any direction. You could be as progressive as Spong and deny the resurrection or you could believe in resurrection and just be committed to social justice. Both would seem to constitute liberal Christianity.

 

[Paidiske]

I think it's helpful to make a distinction between two axes of liberalism; theological liberalism and social progressivism. People might be quite theologically conservative or middle-of-the-road (eg. believing in the virgin birth, a literal resurrection, a high view of Scripture, etc) while being reasonably socially progressive (permissive about sexuality, inclusive of women, and so on). Or they might be quite socially conservative while holding an anything-goes take on theology.

 

[PloverWing]

I think it's helpful to make a distinction between two axes of liberalism; theological liberalism and social progressivism. People might be quite theologically conservative or middle-of-the-road (eg. believing in the virgin birth, a literal resurrection, a high view of Scripture, etc) while being reasonably socially progressive (permissive about sexuality, inclusive of women, and so on). Or they might be quite socially conservative while holding an anything-goes take on theology.

Yes, this exactly.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

This is Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal, so maybe we see what people who accept the 'liberal' descriptor have to say first?

Relativism drives liberalism. It is ever changing. The need for change comes about for one reason , the truth has been corrupted and has crept into the church.

 

[PloverWing]

Relativism drives liberalism. It is ever changing. The need for change comes about for one reason , the truth has been corrupted and has crept into the church.

There are other reasons that change can be good. Two that come to mind are:

1) We discover some new information that we didn't have before. There's an archaeological dig, or a scientific discovery, and now we know something our grandparents didn't know.

2) We do some extended moral reflection and realize that our understanding was incomplete before. There have been a number of times in history where Christians realized that group X had been oppressing or exploiting group Y (for various X and Y). Up until that point, people took for granted that Xs should be in control and Ys had a lower status, because that's just the way it was. Then we start paying attention to how Ys are being hurt, and we repent and start trying to do things differently. It's not that the truth changed, but that we didn't fully appreciate that Jesus' teachings also applied to the relationship between Xs and Ys.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

There are other reasons that change can be good. Two that come to mind are:

1) We discover some new information that we didn't have before. There's an archaeological dig, or a scientific discovery, and now we know something our grandparents didn't know.

2) We do some extended moral reflection and realize that our understanding was incomplete before. There have been a number of times in history where Christians realized that group X had been oppressing or exploiting group Y (for various X and Y). Up until that point, people took for granted that Xs should be in control and Ys had a lower status, because that's just the way it was. Then we start paying attention to how Ys are being hurt, and we repent and start trying to do things differently. It's not that the truth changed, but that we didn't fully appreciate that Jesus' teachings also applied to the relationship between Xs and Ys.

I agree completely. Anytime truth is corrupted change must take place.

 

[Lukaris]

It is interesting that some former strict Calvinist groups now basically dilute repentance of sin to embracing it. Formerly, hell was an almost automatic fate whereas if a person said if they thought an otherwise righteous living Zoarastrian person ( within the boundaries of Psalm 15 etc. )could go to heaven such an opinion would be scowled upon as probably worse than heresy.

Now, oh Jesus just loves the sinner’s sin as much as the sinner and
a person who believes that repentance is a serious matter as St. John the Baptist warns in (Matthew 3:7) & the Lord tells us to repent of in Matthew 4:17 is often considered mean and unforgiving.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Relativism drives liberalism. It is ever changing. The need for change comes about for one reason , the truth has been corrupted and has crept into the church.

OK. I agree. But nonetheless this is where people who identify as liberal have their safe haven to speak about being liberal in whatever ways they want to without our being able to condemn them. In the same way, I don't get to go into the Baptist forum and complain about Baptist ministers and sexual abuse. We who aren't liberal have the whole rest of CF to complain about such things.

 

[PloverWing]

I'm not a Calvinist, strict or otherwise, so someone else can address whatever the Calvinists are supposedly getting up to. But I will address this:

Now, oh Jesus just loves the sinner’s sin as much as the sinner and
a person who believes that repentance is a serious matter as St. John the Baptist warns in (Matthew 3:7) & the Lord tells us to repent of in Matthew 4:17 is often considered mean and unforgiving.

To the contrary, the social justice axis of liberalism is very much interested in repentance from sin. (So much so that we sometimes slip into the sin of self-righteousness, sigh.) There are a number of calls to repentance being issued by social-justice-type liberals here in the US right now.

 

[hedrick]

I would argue that someone is a Christian because they accept Christ as a lord and savior. I don’t have a list of mandatory beliefs. The mainline denominations do have confessions though, so as denominations there are things we teach, even though some members might be skeptical. The Trinity and incarnation are on that list.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Liberal and conservative are both relative descriptors. Neither exist in the Kingdom of God. So let's figure out what it is to be a true Christian instead.

The definition of a true Christian is someone who believes in the Trinity and loves Jesus for who and what he did. No other religion accepts that fact. Not even Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are willing to believe in it. People who think they are Christian, but really are not, deny the Trinity and do not believe Jesus is our Savior from all sin.

 

[XianGoth1334]

I would answer by saying that liberal Christians must have a basic acceptance of Christ. Sure, there can be a lot of room for what one may call flexibility within doctrine... or even a willingness to think critically, question and 'deconstruct'. However, "Christian" must mean one who follows Christ. So there has to be a basic acceptance of the gospel message. In this sense, many self-identified liberals can be Christian (if they are trusting Jesus to save them). Attempts to liberalize Christianity itself are limited by historical parameters. One cannot just take post-modernism and project it back onto Christian terminology.

So... at minimum, a liberal Christian believes Jesus to be the Christ and has accepted the gospel. I would say a liberal Christian accepts the logical possibility that Jesus is the Christ _and_ that a lot of the ideas of the Church (including the early Church) are the opinions of people who were themselves doing the best they could to understand what we may ultimately not be able to comprehend. Thus, there could be a logical basis to challenge creedal concepts (not that I myself am doing this).

Jesus turns no one away... even if they are 'wrong' in belief or lifestyle... of course, this radical inclusive grace must be coupled with one turning towards Jesus.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I see a wide spectrum of beliefs amongst liberal Christians, from those who affirm miracles and those who deny miracles. Given that liberal Christians seem more tolerant of people who depart from historic Christian understanding, are there any mandatory theological beliefs?

the most consistent observable rule is to not use the bible to prove things. The basis of theology centres on how people are treated.