Are Theistic Evolutionists generally liberal?

[gluadys]

I would like to point out again the following:

It doesn't matter if a TE is liberal, moderate, or conservative. If anything were to truly matter is whether the TE was orthodox or not, which is not dependent of either of those terms. I have seen very orthodox liberals and very unorthodox conservatives (and the opposite is also true; the idea that most liberals are unorthodox and most conservatives are orthodox is very misleading and, from personal experience, is not true).

I'm not as common here as most of the true experts in science TEs are, but having I'd say read enough of their posts, I would be willing to bet that all of them, liberal, moderate, and conservative, are definitely orthodox.

Yes, a lot depends on just what the adjectives apply to. I would say I am creedally orthodox (Nicene Creed), moderately Reformed (3 of 5 TULIP points?), and quite liberal in my approach to scripture. Although even here the word "liberal" is tricky. I'm more liberationist than liberal. I generally find, both in theology and politics, that modern "liberalism" is a warm-fuzzy without serious intellectual content or commitment. So it is not a positive term for me, and I only use it when the only alternative is "conservative".


Hmm? I wonder. Is it "liberal" to prefer spectra to dichotomies?

 

[Willtor]

Yes, a lot depends on just what the adjectives apply to. I would say I am creedally orthodox (Nicene Creed), moderately Reformed (3 of 5 TULIP points?), and quite liberal in my approach to scripture. Although even here the word "liberal" is tricky. I'm more liberationist than liberal. I generally find, both in theology and politics, that modern "liberalism" is a warm-fuzzy without serious intellectual content or commitment. So it is not a positive term for me, and I only use it when the only alternative is "conservative".


Hmm? I wonder. Is it "liberal" to prefer spectra to dichotomies?

I think it depends on to whom you talk.

My wife is a pastor so self-described conservatives tell me I'm a liberal. But I believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, and I believe that Scripture is infallible in matters of faith and practice, so self-described liberals tell me I'm a conservative. Personally, I think the labels do harm and cause both groups to polarize into silly and indefensible positions in order to oppose one another. But that's just me.

As to whether it's "liberal" to prefer spectra to dichotomies, I think the word you're looking for is "intelligent."

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I can relate! I'm another who's all over the map!

I'm fundamentalist in that I accept all 5 points of the historic "Five Fundamentals".

I'm conservative in that I'm creedally orthodox (Apostles and Nicene).

I'm moderate in my hermeneutics, drawing freely from conservative and liberal scholars and insights.

I'm liberal in that I like a good many liberal and emergent writers, including Hans Küng, Marcus Borg, Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren.

And I'm politically libertarian.

 

[Knee V]

I don't really post here, but I lurk.

Like Izdaari, I'm not "technically" TE, but, siding with the Framework model of Genesis, I see no dogmatic scientific statements in Genesis and will let the physical evidence speak for itself (and I tend to agree that the physical evidence does NOT point to a young earth). Instead of science and scientifice history, I believe that the point of Genesis is to reveal Christ.

Politically, I am Libertarian, but that really doesn't apply here. Theologically I am Orthodox, and by extension, I believe that I am orthodox as well. Christ rose from the dead, therefore who He is and what He did matter tremendously. If we have seen Christ, we have seen the Father.

And if I were proven wrong about the age of the earth, then so be it. That won't change the fact of the Resurrection.

 

[AForestOfStars]

I'm sure some are, but I certainly am not. I'm quite conservative myself.

 

[Zoness]

I'm pretty moderate in my theology, I don't consider TE a particularly liberal belief. The majority of Christians (or at least, all that I have met bar one or two) accept TE because of it's scientific evidence. Politically I am a moderate libertarian, just a side note.

 

[General Mung Beans]

Well I'm a firm theistic evolutionist and I'm quite conservative in my theology.

 

[lucaspa]

My wife is a pastor so self-described conservatives tell me I'm a liberal. But I believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, and I believe that Scripture is infallible in matters of faith and practice, so self-described liberals tell me I'm a conservative.

That's what I've been wondering as I read this thread: what are the characteristics of a "liberal" theology and a "conservative" theology?

 

[theIdi0t]

Hi there. Are Theistic Evolutionists generally liberal in their theology?

No, I think I started off very liberal in my theology, but over the years I've become quite conservative. I prefer the church service of an evangelical congregation with it's passion and music, over a liberal christian church any day.

 

[Zoness]

I tend towards liturgy over the above posters choice but that's splitting hairs. Theistic Evolutionists come in all sorts of value sets.

 

[gtmyers]

Not this one.

Not this one either.

 

[gtmyers]

I can relate! I'm another who's all over the map!

I'm fundamentalist in that I accept all 5 points of the historic "Five Fundamentals".

I'm conservative in that I'm creedally orthodox (Apostles and Nicene).

I'm moderate in my hermeneutics, drawing freely from conservative and liberal scholars and insights.

I'm liberal in that I like a good many liberal and emergent writers, including Hans Küng, Marcus Borg, Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren.

And I'm politically libertarian.

What are the 5 points of the historic fundamentals???

 

[gluadys]

What are the 5 points of the historic fundamentals???

Wikipedia lists these:

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":[5]

* Inerrancy of the Scriptures
* The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
* The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
* The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
* The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming), e.g. healing,[6] deliverance,[7] and second coming[8]

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi there. Are Theistic Evolutionists generally liberal in their theology?

Its liberal theology but they are calling it something else now, theistic evolution seems to work for some.

 

[Willtor]

Its liberal theology but they are calling it something else now, theistic evolution seems to work for some.

Granted, it's liberal inasmuch as you disagree with it. But it isn't liberal in the sense that "liberal" breaks with tradition or undermines the authority of the Bible.

 

[lucaspa]

Its liberal theology

Define "liberal theology". I agree with Willtor: "it isn't liberal in the sense that "liberal" breaks with tradition or undermines the authority of the Bible."

Theistic evolution is based upon the oldest traditions in Christianity. What is often called "conservative" is actually the new theology that dates back only to the 1880s.

but they are calling it something else now

What do you think it is being called?

theistic evolution seems to work for some.

For quite a few. It is the doctrinal position of the majority of Christians and Jews:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp

 

[Darkness27]

What makes someone liberal in their theology? Any examples?

 

[Willtor]

Define "liberal theology". I agree with Willtor: "it isn't liberal in the sense that "liberal" breaks with tradition or undermines the authority of the Bible."

Theistic evolution is based upon the oldest traditions in Christianity. What is often called "conservative" is actually the new theology that dates back only to the 1880s.



What do you think it is being called?



For quite a few. It is the doctrinal position of the majority of Christians and Jews:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4650_statements_from_religious_orga_3_13_2001.asp

I'll go a step further and point out that the line between those who variously accepted and rejected evolution in the 19th century were not divided on liberal and conservative lines. They were mostly drawn along lines of natural theology for which there were notable conservative and liberal names in both camps.

 

[mark kennedy]

Liberal theology is sometimes referred to as modernism. The skepticism of the Scriptures particularly the supernatural aspects were either dismissed or ignored. Liberal theology is really nothing more then a secular philosophy put in theological terminology, German theologians like Spinoza and Tillich come to mind.

Theistic evolution is really another instance of taking a secular philosophy (Darwinism) and putting it in quasi-christian clothes. The fact is that Darwinism is really just one long argument against special creation, TE is simply Darwinism for the non-atheist.

It is no where more evident that TEs have abandoned the traditional Christian understanding of Genesis then when they discuss Romans 5 and I Cor. 15. By the same criteria they would have us understand Adam to be figurative the resurrection or even Christ himself could be symbolic. This has never been the way Christians understood Adam or Paul and this modernist interpretation is unknown to Christian theism prior to the advent of Darwinism.

These divisive and contentious arguments against the clear, consistent and traditional meaning of Genesis and the New Testament are liberal theology. Like everything else in liberal theology when they don't like the connotation of a term they redefine it, often without telling anyone. So they can be conservative and believe in God and the Bible but the meaning of their words become increasingly ambiguous while their animosity toward the despised 'literalist' gets increasingly personal.

You guys are not conservative and TE is certainly not in keeping with traditional Christian theism, hermeneutics or soteriology. As far as I can tell all you really do is confront and contradict creationism when God's creation in Genesis 1 has always been understood to be both foundational and absolute. But I suppose if you can twist the meaning of the words of Moses and Paul the semantics of terms like conservative and fundamentalist is child's play.

 

[Dark_Lite]

It's kind of funny that you say that, because Genesis has never had a fully clear understanding. There is debate about the literalness of Genesis going all the way back to the Early Church Fathers.