What is liberal Christianity? This is intended as an FAQ. The question is asked enough that I’d rather point to this than have to post the same thing over and over.
Introduction
I'm going to make a case the liberal Christianity is the true successor to the Reformation, and is the one movement that really follows Scripture where it leads. This will seem odd to people who hear the claim that liberals don't stand for anything.
I think that's because there are really two kinds of liberal Christianity. The kind I'm talking about is based on 20th and 21st Cent Biblical scholarship and theology. It's the theology behind the "mainline" churches.
But it's true that there's a fairly sloppy Christianity, of people who don't think Scripture says anything in particular, and that aren't very committed to living as Jesus taught. I call this "Taint Necessarily So" Christianity, based on the well-known song from Porgy and Bess. Sociologists recently have called this "lay liberalism," though I don't like that term because there are lay people who are involved in the more rigorous liberalism and clergy involved in this kind.
This document will defend a theologically and ethically rigorous liberal Christianity, not the other kind.
Basic Concepts
Liberal Christianity continues the methods of the Reformation. The Reformation was based on several key things:
On the theological side:
Modern liberal Christians, more even than 19th Cent liberals, tend to be highly influenced by modern Jesus scholarship. After all, if Scripture shows many perspectives, which changed over time, how do we judge? I would argue that we use the prophets and particularly, Jesus. Because we don’t think the Bible is an exact transcript of Jesus’ teachings, that means looking for repeated themes, not taking individual passages as “proof texts.” And most liberals understand Jesus in the light of recent scholarship on 1st Cent Judaism.
One aspect of depending upon Jesus teaching is that we tend to be skeptical about traditional theology. Most liberal theology is Trinitarian, and includes the Incarnation. But generally it uses Biblical language for this, not statements about hypostasis and ousia. This comes both from our preference to stick as close as possible to Biblical language, and from a general Enlightenment suspicion of abstract philosophical approaches.
On ethics, our understanding of Jesus’ teaching is that he emphasizes doing things that matter to others. Those that show up in parables and teaching about judgement are those who refuse his challenge to join him in establishing the Kingdom, and those who abuse others. He speaks a lot of about sinners, those whose orientation is opposed to God, but a lot less about specific sins, particularly violations of purity such as sexual impurity. (Note that repentance, for Jesus, is a change in overall direction. He seldom speaks about repenting for individual sins.) We generally see parts of traditional Christian ethics as being closer to the Pharisees than to Jesus.
Questions about Liberal Christianity
Isn't Liberal Christianity Just Christianity that Gives up the Hard Things?
For some reason liberal Christian has gotten a reputation for being easy, for giving up on demands for difficult things. In fact in many ways it's harder. I'm going to use sexual ethics as an example, because that's where the most visible differences exist.
Traditional sexual ethics was mostly about whether you were married and of the right gender. Liberal sexual ethics is in some ways harder, because they place demands on everyone, even if they're properly married:
In general liberal Christian ethics looks at people's motivations and the quality of their relationships, more than whether they've obeyed all the rules. As Matthew 5 makes clear, this is often a more demanding standard. But it is true that liberal Christianity allows some relationships that conservative Christianity does not.
It may also surprise conservative Christians to know that liberal Christians are not always identical to political liberals. E.g. most liberal Christians consider pornography abusive.
Isn't Liberal Christianity Dying?
It is true that the churches traditionally thought of as liberal are losing members. However if you look more broadly at what liberal Christianity is saying, it’s actually doing quite well. Many moderate evangelical scholars, as well as most Western Catholic scholars, are closer to liberal Biblical scholarship than to conservative Protestant scholarship. Similarly, a lot of theology from those communities is strongly influenced by liberal theology.
In the area of ethics, most American Catholic sexual ethics is closer to liberal Protestant ethics than to traditional Catholic teachings (though that’s not always true of official teachings). Attitudes towards homosexuality show you just how far liberal sexual ethics has affected Western Christianity.
The traditional mainline denominations probably won’t die, but they may well end up relatively small. But by the time that happens, I’m convinced that moderate evangelicals and Catholics will have more than replaced them in carrying forward liberal Christianity.
Isn't liberal Christianity Just a 19th Century Movement?
Is what I describe actually liberal Christianity? Some people want to restrict that term to 19th Cent liberal writers such as Schliermacher. I think that’s a mistake. Schliermacher intended to construct a theology that could withstand Enlightenment critiques. He was following precisely in the Reformation and liberal heritage of using critical scholarship, and being willing to change traditional beliefs where necessary. Today’s liberal theology looks somewhat different from his. But we’re still following the same basic program. I think it’s a mistake to cut modern liberal Christianity away from its earlier forms.
There are several different sets of people who have an interest in saying that liberal Christianity is dead. In part this is conservative Christians. But Karl Barth also engaged in an extended polemic against liberal Christianity. This is because he thought the liberal German churches didn’t have the gumption to resist Hitler. I don’t think that lack of willingness to confront power is characteristic of liberals, and I think Barth himself was part of the broader liberal approach to Christianity. For me personally, the “liberal Christianity is dead” kept me from taking a serious look at the 19th Cent and early 20th Cent. until recently. I have found more continuity than I expected.
Introduction
I'm going to make a case the liberal Christianity is the true successor to the Reformation, and is the one movement that really follows Scripture where it leads. This will seem odd to people who hear the claim that liberals don't stand for anything.
I think that's because there are really two kinds of liberal Christianity. The kind I'm talking about is based on 20th and 21st Cent Biblical scholarship and theology. It's the theology behind the "mainline" churches.
But it's true that there's a fairly sloppy Christianity, of people who don't think Scripture says anything in particular, and that aren't very committed to living as Jesus taught. I call this "Taint Necessarily So" Christianity, based on the well-known song from Porgy and Bess. Sociologists recently have called this "lay liberalism," though I don't like that term because there are lay people who are involved in the more rigorous liberalism and clergy involved in this kind.
This document will defend a theologically and ethically rigorous liberal Christianity, not the other kind.
Basic Concepts
Liberal Christianity continues the methods of the Reformation. The Reformation was based on several key things:
- New critical scholarship. For example, as scholars moved behind the Latin text to the Greek, they realized that some current ideas were based on faulty translation.
- A willingness to reconsider traditional beliefs and change there where there was grounds to do so. This was rooted in a crisis of authority in the late medieval Church, that made the current Church less worthy of respect, and also new political situations that caused rulers in some areas to be willing to defend people such as Luther.
- Acceptance of critical scholarship applied to Scripture
- Willingness to change theology when it doesn’t appear well supported by Scripture.
- Acceptance that there are multiple voices in Scripture, which may not say the same thing.
- An understanding that the Scriptural authors often didn’t see things the same way we would.
- An understanding that Scripture is not, in most cases, eyewitness testimony, and that the early OT history is probably best thought of as legend.
On the theological side:
Modern liberal Christians, more even than 19th Cent liberals, tend to be highly influenced by modern Jesus scholarship. After all, if Scripture shows many perspectives, which changed over time, how do we judge? I would argue that we use the prophets and particularly, Jesus. Because we don’t think the Bible is an exact transcript of Jesus’ teachings, that means looking for repeated themes, not taking individual passages as “proof texts.” And most liberals understand Jesus in the light of recent scholarship on 1st Cent Judaism.
One aspect of depending upon Jesus teaching is that we tend to be skeptical about traditional theology. Most liberal theology is Trinitarian, and includes the Incarnation. But generally it uses Biblical language for this, not statements about hypostasis and ousia. This comes both from our preference to stick as close as possible to Biblical language, and from a general Enlightenment suspicion of abstract philosophical approaches.
On ethics, our understanding of Jesus’ teaching is that he emphasizes doing things that matter to others. Those that show up in parables and teaching about judgement are those who refuse his challenge to join him in establishing the Kingdom, and those who abuse others. He speaks a lot of about sinners, those whose orientation is opposed to God, but a lot less about specific sins, particularly violations of purity such as sexual impurity. (Note that repentance, for Jesus, is a change in overall direction. He seldom speaks about repenting for individual sins.) We generally see parts of traditional Christian ethics as being closer to the Pharisees than to Jesus.
Questions about Liberal Christianity
Isn't Liberal Christianity Just Christianity that Gives up the Hard Things?
For some reason liberal Christian has gotten a reputation for being easy, for giving up on demands for difficult things. In fact in many ways it's harder. I'm going to use sexual ethics as an example, because that's where the most visible differences exist.
Traditional sexual ethics was mostly about whether you were married and of the right gender. Liberal sexual ethics is in some ways harder, because they place demands on everyone, even if they're properly married:
- Effective protection against abuse of women and children, both sexual and physical.
- Concern about situation where people will feel pressured to respond, e.g. protection against sexual relationships between teachers and students (even adults), doctors and patients, boss and employee.
In general liberal Christian ethics looks at people's motivations and the quality of their relationships, more than whether they've obeyed all the rules. As Matthew 5 makes clear, this is often a more demanding standard. But it is true that liberal Christianity allows some relationships that conservative Christianity does not.
It may also surprise conservative Christians to know that liberal Christians are not always identical to political liberals. E.g. most liberal Christians consider pornography abusive.
Isn't Liberal Christianity Dying?
It is true that the churches traditionally thought of as liberal are losing members. However if you look more broadly at what liberal Christianity is saying, it’s actually doing quite well. Many moderate evangelical scholars, as well as most Western Catholic scholars, are closer to liberal Biblical scholarship than to conservative Protestant scholarship. Similarly, a lot of theology from those communities is strongly influenced by liberal theology.
In the area of ethics, most American Catholic sexual ethics is closer to liberal Protestant ethics than to traditional Catholic teachings (though that’s not always true of official teachings). Attitudes towards homosexuality show you just how far liberal sexual ethics has affected Western Christianity.
The traditional mainline denominations probably won’t die, but they may well end up relatively small. But by the time that happens, I’m convinced that moderate evangelicals and Catholics will have more than replaced them in carrying forward liberal Christianity.
Isn't liberal Christianity Just a 19th Century Movement?
Is what I describe actually liberal Christianity? Some people want to restrict that term to 19th Cent liberal writers such as Schliermacher. I think that’s a mistake. Schliermacher intended to construct a theology that could withstand Enlightenment critiques. He was following precisely in the Reformation and liberal heritage of using critical scholarship, and being willing to change traditional beliefs where necessary. Today’s liberal theology looks somewhat different from his. But we’re still following the same basic program. I think it’s a mistake to cut modern liberal Christianity away from its earlier forms.
There are several different sets of people who have an interest in saying that liberal Christianity is dead. In part this is conservative Christians. But Karl Barth also engaged in an extended polemic against liberal Christianity. This is because he thought the liberal German churches didn’t have the gumption to resist Hitler. I don’t think that lack of willingness to confront power is characteristic of liberals, and I think Barth himself was part of the broader liberal approach to Christianity. For me personally, the “liberal Christianity is dead” kept me from taking a serious look at the 19th Cent and early 20th Cent. until recently. I have found more continuity than I expected.
