- Apr 30, 2013
- 33,426
- 20,719
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- United Ch. of Christ
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'm maybe...moderately liberal, theologically. I generally accept modern science, and I accept higher criticism as one valid way to study the Bible. I think Schleiermacher made some excellent points, though I like Rudolf Otto's analysis better. Rauschenbusch changed the way I look at Christian ethics. On the other hand, I don't go as far in rejecting the supernatural as some liberal Christians do. I'm mostly good with the Nicene Creed.
That's liberal enough that I'm pretty comfortable in WWMC, but I can certainly think of theologians who are more liberal than I am.
I will say, though, that at an earlier point in my life, liberal Christianity saved me from atheism. When I could no longer be an Evangelical (by the American definition), liberal Christian theology was the safety net that caught my fall, that showed me a way to be Christian and still have intellectual integrity. I will forever owe a debt there.
The notion that liberal theology rejects the supernatural out of hand gets passed around alot as currency, but you dig below the surface and it's more complicated than that. Even some of the most liberal theologians or church historians, such as Adolf von Harnack, admits than many of the stories of Jesus' healing were based on events that actually happened.
What liberal theology was really about was challenging was some of the naive assumptions of the inherited orthodoxy of the 17th century..
Upvote
0