Are Theistic Evolutionists generally liberal?

[crawfish]

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.

Augustine
Origen
John Calvin

All nasty liberals.

 

[Willtor]

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.

[citation needed]



Seriously, though, no. I mean, yes, God's creation in Genesis 1 has always been understood to be both foundational and absolute, but I think you're preaching to the choir, here. We're all convinced of God as Creator. We just think that His creation is sensible and understandable.

 

[shernren]

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.

Can someone who can't even tell a Dutch Jew from a German-American be trusted to tell the difference between liberal and conservative theology?

 

[theFijian]

Can someone who can't even tell a Dutch Jew from a German-American be trusted to tell the difference between liberal and conservative theology?

That would be 'no'. I am cheered that Mark's definition of 'liberal' would put me alongside someone like B.B. Warfield

 

[Voice in the Desert]

I normally don't quote Wikipedia as it's often crap (particularly on topics like this) but I thought that this was a decent definition.

The theology of liberal Christianity was prominent in the biblical criticism of the 19th and 20th centuries. The style of scriptural hermeneutics within liberal theology is often characterized as non-propositional. This means that the Bible is not considered a collection of factual statements but instead documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within a historic/cultural context. Thus, liberal Christian theologians do not claim to discover truth propositions but rather create religious models and concepts that reflect the class, gender, social, and political contexts from which they emerge. Liberal Christianity looks upon the Bible as a collection of narratives that explain, epitomize, or symbolize the essence and significance of Christian understanding.

Liberal theology does not necessarily require one to be liberal or have a progressive political agenda, so I don't think it's necessary for those who disagree with that to be threatened. But I think that's a pretty fair characterization of the TE's on this board, as well as the proposition of Theistic Evolution in general so I think that it does fit directly under the umbrella of "liberal theology".

 

[Willtor]

I normally don't quote Wikipedia as it's often crap (particularly on topics like this) but I thought that this was a decent definition.


Liberal theology does not necessarily require one to be liberal or have a progressive political agenda, so I don't think it's necessary for those who disagree with that to be threatened. But I think that's a pretty fair characterization of the TE's on this board, as well as the proposition of Theistic Evolution in general so I think that it does fit directly under the umbrella of "liberal theology".

I don't take that excerpt in that way. I don't think the portion that you've cited is prescriptive. I.e., it's worded sufficiently generally that I could almost fit myself into it, but that isn't how I understand faith or the Bible.

The rest of the article says things like, "Liberal Christianity does not claim to be a belief structure, and as such is not dependent upon any Church dogma or creedal statements. Unlike conservative varieties of Christianity, it has no unified set of propositional beliefs." This clearly does not apply to any TE who has posted in this thread, yet. I couldn't even come close to defending such a thing.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

I didn't post the rest of the wikipedia article for a reason.

I thought that particular excerpt was a good definition of liberal theology, should I find a definition of higher criticism as well?

 

[Willtor]

I didn't post the rest of the wikipedia article for a reason.

I thought that particular excerpt was a good definition of liberal theology, should I find a definition of higher criticism as well?

If you think it would help.

Do you have a lot of experience with liberal theology? I don't (I've read a bit of Marcus Borg, not much else), but my wife does and what she's described is very different from what has been posted, here, by TEs. It's much more in line with the excerpt I posted.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

I'm talking about what I believe is the official definition of liberal theology. It's not a vague or self defined term but actually defines a specific set of assumptions and methods to interpreting the Bible and Christianity.

 

[Willtor]

I'm talking about what I believe is the official definition of liberal theology. It's not a vague or self defined term but actually defines a specific set of assumptions and methods to interpreting the Bible and Christianity.

Who is the official definer? I don't see why I need to be categorized with Bishop Spong, for example. Our hermeneutical differences are not different by a matter of degree, but of type.

 

[shernren]

Many TEs on this thread and elsewhere in the past have explicitly identified themselves as holding to various Creeds of the church, such as the Nicene or Apostles' Creed. That would be in direct opposition to the "non-propositional" nature of liberal theology. Again I would echo Willtor's recommendation that you familiarize yourself with liberal theology, or at least a little of it, before trusting definitions from Wikipedia. Liberal theology takes a very philosophical, foundationalist slant on things, and is considerably different from what TEs do here.

 

[gluadys]

I didn't post the rest of the wikipedia article for a reason.

I thought that particular excerpt was a good definition of liberal theology, should I find a definition of higher criticism as well?

Higher criticism (now called historico-cultural or contextual interpretation) is a more likely unifier of liberal theology than doctrinal statements.

I am reasonably familiar with liberal Christianity having been raised in what usually passes for a liberal denomination (United Church of Canada) But in that context at my baptism and confirmation, I was expected to affirm traditional doctrinal statements such as those of the Apostles' and Nicene Creed as well as others in the Basis of Union.

OTOH there was also a good deal of latitude in how "literally" we took these statements.

I also still think it is fair to say that there is really no such thing as a "liberal" denomination in the sense there are conservative ones. My experience in several denominations is that all of them include a sizeable conservative membership and some congregations are more conservative than liberal. Certainly the teaching I received (and later provided as a teacher) in Sunday School was pretty much the same as what you would find in most conservative evangelical churches.

The main difference is more on the moral/social agendas, not in doctrinal position.

But to get back to higher criticism. This emerged in the German seminaries in the 19th century as the traditional views of who wrote the bible and when came to be viewed more skeptically. As the linguistic analyses which had been developed for other ancient literature (such as the writings of Plato) were applied to scripture, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch was challenged and virtually all liberal theological schools now teach some form of the documentary thesis. Isaiah is considered to have three main authors writing in different generations. And there has been intense scrutiny of the gospels and the Pauline corpus as to their origins as well.

I guess what might confuse many non-liberals is that liberals are generally accepting of this scholarship even when they are doctrinally conservative. So it is more likely that you can identify a liberal Christian by his/her position on deutero-Isaiah than by his/her position on the virgin birth.

One example: the deacon at the Anglican church where I currently worship is fairly conservative theologically. She certainly has no use for Bishop Spong at all. But in the weekly notes on the lectionary readings she prepares, she follows the scholarship of "higher criticism" in her dating of the text and attribution of authorship.

 

[Darkness27]

Gluadys,

As you said you are familiar with liberal Christianity, can you explain to me what exactly makes a person liberal? Also, is it purely doctrinal, or a combination of doctrine, this 'higher criticism' and moral/social issues?

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys,

As you said you are familiar with liberal Christianity, can you explain to me what exactly makes a person liberal? Also, is it purely doctrinal, or a combination of doctrine, this 'higher criticism' and moral/social issues?

As I said above, I don't think there is much in the way of doctrine that characterizes liberals as a group. They do tend to reject recently-developed doctrine such as biblical inerrancy, but there is no real consistency on traditional doctrines like the virgin birth. Probably what characterizes liberals in that regard is the level of tolerance for diversity of belief. The differences that exist are never a source of internal controversy.

Another characteristic that strikes me is that there tends to be more emphasis on Jesus than on scripture. Even out on the fringe where people deny his divinity, there is an understanding that Jesus is the focal point of Christian faith, a model and exemplar. But this is not to say the scriptures are unimportant to liberals. The phrase I grew up with is that we take the scriptures "seriously but not literally".

A more characteristic difference is the tendency to emphasize social and structural sin as opposed to the conservative focus on personal morality. (Of course in the best of both liberal and conservative churches, both get attention.) But typically a liberal will be more concerned about the injustice of poverty than about abortion. Indeed, abortion would also be approached more through social than through moral categories. Justice is a strong focus in many liberal churches, and I have seen a great deal of increase in the understanding that justice and charity must both have a place in Christian ministry: that the charity-only model proposed in some churches is simply inadequate as a sufficient Christian witness.

As for "higher criticism" it is important to understand from the outset that the terms "higher" and "lower" used in the 19th century were not about ranking. "Lower" criticism was directed to study OF the text to determine from the archeological remnants of manuscripts as nearly as possible what the scriptural text is. Today this is usually called "textual criticism".

"Higher criticism" was directed to study ABOUT the text i.e. date & place of composition, authorship, to whom it was directed, for what purpose it was written, in what form it was written, what earlier sources it drew from, what subsequent editing it received and why. And more generally, how various separate sources were brought together to become the canon(s) we have today. Today, "higher criticism" has broken into several different fields such as "form criticism" "source criticism" "redaction criticism" etc. Liberals generally consider all of these to be simply academic disciplines addressing several questions about scripture. Conservatives often see them as an attack on the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy.

I see a bit of a parallel to the issue of evolution here. Evolutionary creationists hold that we are both evolved and created beings and see no contradiction in this. Evolution is simply a mode of creation. Non-evolutionary creationists see evolution and creation as mutually exclusive such that they necessarily contradict. In much the same way, liberals accept the conclusions of higher criticism without rejecting the inspiration of scripture, whereas conservatives are unable to see a way to accept both, forcing a choice between modern biblical scholarship and their theology of scripture. Interestingly, the "higher criticism" controversy and the evolution controversy overlapped historically and it is not surprising that those who rejected higher criticism also rejected evolutionary theory and vice versa.

One final observation: when it comes to Christian education, there is very little difference between a conservative and a liberal Sunday school class. This is because the higher criticism-which is probably THE definer of liberalism-is academic. Most people don't encounter it much before college level studies. The typical fare in Sunday school is the content of scripture, not academic discussions about how scripture came to be. For the same reason, there is often little difference between the Sunday sermon in liberal and conservative churches -- except when the topic is one of the flash-points of controversy. But I expect that most of the time, it would be very difficult to tell if a homily on the Good Samaritan or Paul's letter to the Galatians came from a liberal or conservative preacher. We really do have a lot more in common than the issues that divide us.

One instance: Canada was recently host to the annual G8 & G20 meetings (and you may even have seen news reports about some of the events in my home town, Toronto). Preparatory to the G8/G20, the Canadian Council of Churches ("liberal") and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada encouraged congregations to collaborate with other people of faith to hold interfaith dinners for Members of Parliament where the MPs would hear our concerns as people of faith about the needs of the world. There were two such dinners in Toronto. Both included sponsors from conservative denominations (Salvation Army in one case and an Alliance congregation in the other). I expect liberal and conservative Christians will continue to find more and more common ground with each other, and even with people of other faiths as in these dinners.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

Gluadys> I believe we are talking about the same thing. Liberal theology does not mean one must be a liberal politically. And generally I would define it as an embrace of an approach of the bible that employs higher critiscm.

So I still don't see why the TEs here would oppose that. I just think that there is a lot of political charge around the word "liberal".

 

[shernren]

Gluadys> I believe we are talking about the same thing. Liberal theology does not mean one must be a liberal politically. And generally I would define it as an embrace of an approach of the bible that employs higher critiscm.

So I still don't see why the TEs here would oppose that. I just think that there is a lot of political charge around the word "liberal".

For me personally: I grew up in a church whose viewpoints were quite conservative, to the extent that merely possessing seminary education was seen as something (a little) suspect. It was a culture where theologians were often (though not always) seen as people who were basically substituting "God's wisdom" for "human wisdom". Preachers quoted contemporary Christian authors very often but made little reference to any theological scholarship, and when they did it was always to the more conservative viewpoints.

I suspect such attitudes can be fairly universal. One of my first Christian friends in Australia is a wonderful mate from Wagga Wagga who grew up in a fairly liberal denomination (Uniting Church, as I recall). He's a great guy but I remember him turning to me once and saying "Y'know, I think it's dangerous to read too much philosophy or theology. Get back to the Bible, y'know?" At that time I'd already accepted evolution, and his statement chilled my blood!

That's the environment I grew up in, and in that environment "liberal" did not have a value-neutral meaning of "uses higher criticism"; it was code-word for "not really Christian; wolf in sheep's clothing". That's why for me personally whenever I'm called "liberal" (and that's usually the meaning attached by creationists - see mark kennedy, for example) I straightaway try to distance myself from it by listing all the conservative distinctives that I still hold to.

Until I read this post I'd never thought of simply reclaiming the definition of the word, much as I strive to reclaim the definition of "evolutionist" as I talk to creationists. Maybe I should?

 

[Willtor]

Gluadys> I believe we are talking about the same thing. Liberal theology does not mean one must be a liberal politically. And generally I would define it as an embrace of an approach of the bible that employs higher critiscm.

So I still don't see why the TEs here would oppose that. I just think that there is a lot of political charge around the word "liberal".

Being "academically rigorous" is one thing, but I have to disagree with Gluadys. I don't disagree too hard, mind you, since if people who reflect on the faith want to call themselves liberal, who am I to argue? But the conservatives of the 19th century were like this, too. In my experience, 20th century conservatism did away with all of this, but unless conservatism of our contemporaries is disowning its past, criticism is just as much a part of its roots as it is of the liberals.

 

[gluadys]

Gluadys> I believe we are talking about the same thing. Liberal theology does not mean one must be a liberal politically. And generally I would define it as an embrace of an approach of the bible that employs higher critiscm.

So I still don't see why the TEs here would oppose that. I just think that there is a lot of political charge around the word "liberal".

Absolutely. Especially in the US.

Politically, in Canada "liberal" is very much "middle-of-the-road" and I am both amused and appalled by the American tendency to see it as the left end of the political spectrum. Comes from having only two major parties, I think. Countries with a plurality of parties in their political system can see more nuances. Here for example we have both the quasi-socialist New Democratic Party which is further left than liberalism, but not radically left, the Marijuana Party which is somewhat libertarian (overlapping with conservatives) and the Green Party which has an environmental focus many people think of as leftish, but socially overlaps more with liberals and conservatives. They really can't be pinned down on a simple left-right spectrum.

Any and all of these can be theologically liberal or theologically conservative.

Politically, I would put myself much farther left than liberals; theologically I see myself as on the fuzzy borderline of evangelical and liberal. I do accept modern scholarship on the scriptures and I don't accept biblical inerrancy. But on most other matters I am fairly orthodox in much the same way that say, John Polkinghorne or C.S. Lewis is orthodox.

 

[gluadys]

For me personally: I grew up in a church whose viewpoints were quite conservative, to the extent that merely possessing seminary education was seen as something (a little) suspect. It was a culture where theologians were often (though not always) seen as people who were basically substituting "God's wisdom" for "human wisdom". Preachers quoted contemporary Christian authors very often but made little reference to any theological scholarship, and when they did it was always to the more conservative viewpoints.

I suspect such attitudes can be fairly universal. One of my first Christian friends in Australia is a wonderful mate from Wagga Wagga who grew up in a fairly liberal denomination (Uniting Church, as I recall). He's a great guy but I remember him turning to me once and saying "Y'know, I think it's dangerous to read too much philosophy or theology. Get back to the Bible, y'know?" At that time I'd already accepted evolution, and his statement chilled my blood!

That's another example of what I mean when I say there is not really any such thing as a liberal denomination. There are churches which are conservative in principle and have in place means of excluding those with more liberal views--such as the community you were raised in. In these churches, the conservative view is consciously cultivated and "liberal" churches/theology demonized. It is natural that people in such churches would think the same thing is happening in reverse: mirror-image style, in "liberal" churches.

It doesn't. Most "liberal" churches I know don't cultivate a consciousness of being liberal. They don't set up means (like mandatory statements of faith) to keep non-liberals out. They don't demonize conservative views and depending on the congregation, conservative views may be more prevalent than liberal views. A friend of mine had this experience. She had been a church lay leader in a suburban congregation of the United Church for over 40 years when she was widowed and decided to move from the suburbs to the rural community where her daughter was. She expected to find a welcome at the local United church. After hearing a few sermons though, she consulted with the local preacher and found they were poles apart in their theology, so much so that he recommended she find a different church!! So, in spite of its liberal reputation, even UCC theological colleges graduate and ordain clergy with strongly conservative views. I expect the Uniting Church of Australia does the same.

That's the environment I grew up in, and in that environment "liberal" did not have a value-neutral meaning of "uses higher criticism"; it was code-word for "not really Christian; wolf in sheep's clothing". That's why for me personally whenever I'm called "liberal" (and that's usually the meaning attached by creationists - see mark kennedy, for example) I straightaway try to distance myself from it by listing all the conservative distinctives that I still hold to.

I think your analysis is quite right. Used as a label "liberal" has the same sort of connotation as "papist" and "communist". It means one is beyond the pale. I expect that is the implication in the thread title. The sub-text seems to be "If TEs are "liberal" then they can't be good Christians and their views on evolution can be disregarded as tainted with liberalism."

Until I read this post I'd never thought of simply reclaiming the definition of the word, much as I strive to reclaim the definition of "evolutionist" as I talk to creationists. Maybe I should?

Maybe, but it wouldn't be easy. One reason I have never had both feet in evangelicalism has been its weakness in ecclesiology and history. You could spend years in evangelical churches and never know anything about any generation of Christians between the first generation and today's generation. (No wonder they read scripture with a modern mindset and expect it to mean what it says to them in that way.) I think one needs the richness of a long, historical view, of the stories behind the formation of creeds and confessions, how each of them has a historical context and responds to issues of the day. I remember in confirmation class, our catechist pointing out to us that in the 2nd century the phrase "born of a virgin" was not controversial because of the word "virgin" but because of the word "born" and how "conceived, born, suffered, crucified, died, buried, descended into hell" were the terms of the Creed that coded a rejection of Gnosticism by affirming as strongly as possible the real humanity of Jesus. Similarly many of the phrases in early Protestant catechisms and confessions have specific reference to the Protestant-Catholic struggle that are easily missed without that historical context.

Simply repeating them as dogma doesn't do justice to the aims of our ancestors in the faith. It is no better than the sheep in Animal Farm repeating "two legs bad, four legs good" because they couldn't comprehend anything more than the slogan. I do think we need to help people be more than sheep. They need, as Paul says, to be capable of eating solid food, not just milk.

At the same time, I also think it is important to keep a pastoral attitude; some people don't have much education, through no fault of their own. Some are not capable of it. And even for those who have both the capacity to think deeply and access to education, intellectualism can be a seedbed of pride. And maybe that is more what your Australian acquaintance was getting at. In the long run many more people will be won to Christ by Christians who are empathetic, compassionate, emotionally and spiritually engaged, who simply care about others in all they do, than by any amount of expertise in theology.

 

[gluadys]

Being "academically rigorous" is one thing, but I have to disagree with Gluadys. I don't disagree too hard, mind you, since if people who reflect on the faith want to call themselves liberal, who am I to argue? But the conservatives of the 19th century were like this, too. In my experience, 20th century conservatism did away with all of this, but unless conservatism of our contemporaries is disowning its past, criticism is just as much a part of its roots as it is of the liberals.

I agree. I would also say that the hard-core of anti-evolutionary creationism IS disowning its own past or at least not conveying it to newer generations.

As I said in my reply to shernren, one of the perpetual weaknesses in conservative Christianity which I noted some time ago, is its failure to teach much of church history. One goes --bang! --from the New Testament, to the present day with no sense of the intervening two millennia. That's somewhat of an exaggeration but it fits some communities.

But historically, evangelicals have a wonderful tradition of scholarship and there are many signs of it being revived today. One can only hope that more young evangelicals will be encouraged to learn more of their own history and also delve into the post-New Testament era of Christian doctrinal development.