What are Theological Liberalism and Theological Postmodernism?

[Apex]

I hope that no one interprets my post to mean that the only type of errors are liberalism and postmodernism. While I'm convinced that being theologically conservative (basically meaning that one believes the Bible is entirely, no kidding, true, good, authoritative, and applicable) is right, it does not guarantee that one will not make other errors.

So, yes, the Pharisees were conservatives in a sense. That statement is warning to conservatives, but it is not a vindication of liberals. But then, maybe you never intended it to be?

You do realize that Jesus was seen as being liberal, right?

 

[FireDragon76]

What I'm hearing is that you don't understand why we think the way we do about the Bible, so we must be like the snake in the garden, seeking the ruin of souls. That's a foolish, anti-intellectual argument.

 

[Apex]

Theological Liberalism: teaching which undermines trust in the truthfulness and authority of the Bible by compromising with modern beliefs, morals, and/or values which are contrary to God’s Word.

Your definitions are too narrow. This is from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:

In theology [liberalism] has been used with many different shades of meaning. If taken to mean freedom from bigotry and readiness to welcome new ideas or proposals for reform, it is a characteristic which many people will readily profess, but in itself it gives no indication of their beliefs or aspirations. There have been Liberal Catholics, Liberal Protestants, and Liberal Evangelicals; but all that they have had in common is a general tendency to favour freedom and progress. Such a tendency may lead to many different results.

You also leave no room for people like me - who proclaim to be Christian centrists (see my post on what this means here). I hold to many beliefs that would be labeled as theologically conservative and liberal.

 

[MonstersvsMartyrs]

Thank you for writing this.

 

[RadiantGrace]

The spirit of theological liberalism was first seen a long time ago. It appeared not in a dark cave, but in a splendid garden. Its first words were, “Did God really say . . . ?”


Since that tragic day, theological liberalism has been sowing doubt about the content, reliability, truthfulness, goodness, and authority of God’s words. And it has been doing this among God’s people by those claiming to represent Him.

That's not theological liberalism or postmodernism. You are using these terms in nonsensical ways. Postmodernism is a philosophical view that has nothing to do with what you wrote. Modernism holds that there is no truth except what is relational or relative to another. Postmodernism rejects that there is any truth at all, and that one cannot really make truth claims. Postmodernism's closest thing to truth is the predictability of a thing. For example, our language does not convey truth, it only helps us predict the actions of others in society.


Your use of "liberalism" for two centuries of bibical criticism (in which one carefully evaluates all aspect of scriptures) also makes no sense. It seems to be an attempt at attacking a point of view by using a word with a negative connotation that has nothing to do with the word. Liberalism and conservatism generally relate to Americans on political issues, not perspective on scripture. There are many politically conservative Christians who accept the truths found in biblical criticism or from genuinely scholarly approaches to scripture.

What Prompted This Post

I read this question in an OP for another thread on this forum: “What makes a person theologically liberal?” (Feel free to respond either here or there.)


I read over 100 replies. Some were quite helpful, but I still felt more should be said.


While the original question asked about theological liberalism, I am including theological postmodernism also. There is a great deal of overlap between the two. Both have the effect of eroding the authority of God’s Word in the hearts and minds of the people they influence.

Again, two terms that have nothing to do with what you are writing about and for this reason, do damage to whatever argument you are attempting to make here.

Theological Liberalism:

teaching which undermines trust in the truthfulness and authority of the Bible by compromising with beliefs, morals, and/or values which are contrary to God’s Word.

You hold onto a rigid set of beliefs, which are actually quite modern, which contradict the overwhelming evidence brought forth from scholarly research into scripture. None of these findings contradict the truth or authority of the bible. None of them necessitate giving up traditional values and morals.


What you are doing is asserting a viewpoint which has been debunked and then argue against the findings not on what they say or do to the faith, but on vague and empty attacks that accepting the evidence compromises the faith - which it doesn't.


Look at this entire post – you haven’t stated how accepting legitimate scriptural research contradicts the faith. You only say that it does and then tell people to stay away from it. That is what I would expect from someone rejecting reasoned academic findings and calling it nonsensical names.

Theological Postmodernism:

teaching which undermines trust in the truthfulness and authority of the Bible by compromising with postmodern beliefs, morals, and/or values which are contrary to God’s Word.


Both liberalism and postmodernism usually begin not with outright denials of the truth of the Bible, but with sowing doubt about its truthfulness. However, in settings where it is advantageous to their cause, they do go on to explicitly deny many Bible truths and teachings.

Postmodernism is the outright denial of any truth. You are not using the term correctly. No one doubts the truth of scripture or God as you claim. What you are against are people rejecting your manmade views about scripture that do more damage to the faith than anything.

Examples and Indications of Theological Liberalism and Postmodernism

A teacher, church, or institution claiming to be Christian, may be theologically liberal or postmodern if you see any of the following.


* They cause doubt about whether the books of the Bible which name their authors were actually written by those historical people. For example, if someone causes doubt about whether Paul wrote 2 Timothy, they have been influenced by theological liberalism.

That’s not liberalism, that’s having basic knowledge. Authorship refers to the source of the material or idea. The authors of ancient texts were not always the same person as the writer. The person writing down the words would give the text the authorship of the person from whom it originated.

It is accepted by most people in biblical academics that parts of the bible were not written word for word by the people the books were attributed to. The idea that the writers and the author has to be the same person is not biblical and not historical. It’s a man made belief.

* They question the truthfulness of any account which is presented as historically real in the Bible. Examples would be Jonah being swallowed by a fish, the virgin birth, and other miraculous stories throughout the Bible.

This is again applying modern ideas to scripture. You are not defending scripture or its truthfulness. You are in fact turning it into something it never was.


Only recently have we accepted the view that the truth of a story is related to its accuracy in details about events. Before this, the truth of a story was related to the meaning is gave and the accuracy of the truth it was trying to reveal. For example, the Gospel gives slightly different accounts of similar events.


People who support your modern man made views about scripture goes to great lengths to attempt to explain these differences. The reality is, the details are slightly different because the message the author is attempting to convey is more important than literal details.

* They question the need to win people to the Christian faith from other religions, such as Islam and Hinduism.

* If someone believes or teaches that any sexual act between two men (or between two women) is not sinful, they are theologically liberal/postmodern.

* Belief in unguided evolution as a correct explanation for the appearance of life and for all the types of life we see today is a strong indicator of theological liberalism.

* All, or nearly all, theological liberals deny the Bible’s teaching that husbands are to lead in a marriage and that only men should serve as Senior Pastors in the church. However, there are some Christians who are truly evangelical and theologically conservative overall who are wrong on this one issue.

* Postmoderns often undermine the Bible’s teaching that the death of Christ on the cross meant that He was acting as a substitutionary atonement on our behalf.

* If you are reading something on one of the above topics and the author’s view seems unclear and confusing, it is very often the case that the author is theologically liberal or postmodern. A lack of clarity is sometimes just poor writing. But a lack of clarity is also a trademark of some postmodern writing. Their writing causes doubt about things that are clear in God’s Word, while intentionally being worded in such a way that allows the author to avoid an accusation of outright heresy. This is especially common when postmodern authors desire to continue to be accepted by, and to be able to have influence among, evangelical Christians.

This is unrelated and quite frankly, desperate. A person who accepts biblical criticism has nothing to do with someone supporting homosexuality. This is nothing more than promoting a false set of ideas by lumping them together when anything and everything you can think of instead of actually addressing the ideas themselves on their merit.

 

[FireDragon76]

The notion that some of the books of the Bible were not written by those whom they were attributed to dates back to the early church. In my own church, none other than Martin Luther understood that many of the Biblical books were not written by the traditional authors.

Before biblical criticism, Christians were forced to fall back on authorities such as councils or Popes, as the bible was incomprehensible and could only be understood allegorically. Most of the opponents of higher criticism of the Bible want us to return to the same days of a religious hierarchy telling us what to believe.

 

[kiwimac]

The spirit of theological liberalism was first seen a long time ago. It appeared not in a dark cave, but in a splendid garden. Its first words were, “Did God really say . . . ?”

Since that tragic day, theological liberalism has been sowing doubt about the content, reliability, truthfulness, goodness, and authority of God’s words. And it has been doing this among God’s people by those claiming to represent Him.

What Prompted This Post

I read this question in an OP for another thread on this forum: “What makes a person theologically liberal?” (Feel free to respond either here or there.)

I read over 100 replies. Some were quite helpful, but I still felt more should be said.

While the original question asked about theological liberalism, I am including theological postmodernism also. There is a great deal of overlap between the two. Both have the effect of eroding the authority of God’s Word in the hearts and minds of the people they influence.

Various Disclaimers

I’m aware that there are a wide range of people who self-identify, or are identified with, theological liberalism and/or postmodernism. They’re not all the same. Some may be true brothers and sisters in Christ.

I’m not talking about politics. Although there is a high correlation between theological liberals and political liberals in the US, they are not identical, and my focus here is on theological liberalism. More specifically, I’m concerned with those who claim to be Christians, but embrace and promote theological liberalism and/or postmodernism.

Being “liberal” on one issue does not mean a person, church, or denomination is liberal overall.

Despite their errors, liberals sometimes do good and sometimes are used for good purposes by God.

While I recognize these “disclaimers”, I do not want to water down the truth about theological liberalism and postmodernism. These are some of the most serious and widespread sources of false teaching within Christianity. They distort God’s truth, and in the process lead many astray.

Short Definitions

Theological Liberalism: teaching which undermines trust in the truthfulness and authority of the Bible by compromising with modern beliefs, morals, and/or values which are contrary to God’s Word.

Theological Postmodernism: teaching which undermines trust in the truthfulness and authority of the Bible by compromising with postmodern beliefs, morals, and/or values which are contrary to God’s Word.

Both liberalism and postmodernism usually begin not with outright denials of the truth of the Bible, but with sowing doubt about its truthfulness. However, in settings where it is advantageous to their cause, they do go on to explicitly deny many Bible truths and teachings.

Examples and Indications of Theological Liberalism and Postmodernism

A teacher, church, or institution claiming to be Christian, may be theologically liberal or postmodern if you see any of the following.

* They cause doubt about whether the books of the Bible which name their authors were actually written by those historical people. For example, if someone causes doubt about whether Paul wrote 2 Timothy, they have been influenced by theological liberalism.
* They question the truthfulness of any account which is presented as historically real in the Bible. Examples would be Jonah being swallowed by a fish, the virgin birth, and other miraculous stories throughout the Bible.
* They question the need to win people to the Christian faith from other religions, such as Islam and Hinduism.
* If someone believes or teaches that any sexual act between two men (or between two women) is not sinful, they are theologically liberal/postmodern.
* Belief in unguided evolution as a correct explanation for the appearance of life and for all the types of life we see today is a strong indicator of theological liberalism.
* All, or nearly all, theological liberals deny the Bible’s teaching that husbands are to lead in a marriage and that only men should serve as Senior Pastors in the church. However, there are some Christians who are truly evangelical and theologically conservative overall who are wrong on this one issue.
* Postmoderns often undermine the Bible’s teaching that the death of Christ on the cross meant that He was acting as a substitutionary atonement on our behalf.
* If you are reading something on one of the above topics and the author’s view seems unclear and confusing, it is very often the case that the author is theologically liberal or postmodern. A lack of clarity is sometimes just poor writing. But a lack of clarity is also a trademark of some postmodern writing. Their writing causes doubt about things that are clear in God’s Word, while intentionally being worded in such a way that allows the author to avoid an accusation of outright heresy. This is especially common when postmodern authors desire to continue to be accepted by, and to be able to have influence among, evangelical Christians.

How to Guard Against and Respond to Theological Liberalism and Postmodernism

The best defense against the doubt, confusion, and errors of theological liberalism and postmodernism is to read, study, believe, and teach all of God’s Word.

If you know someone going down the path of theological liberalism, do all you can to gently, but clearly, win them back to the truth.

Christian teachers, authors, and leaders who promote theological liberalism should be opposed as false teachers.

If you find yourself in a liberal or postmodern church or denomination, unless you are called by God to fight against these errors by staying, get out! Get into a church that believes that all of the Bible is really true.

In applying these principles, be careful not to become divisive over minor issues or doctrines which many truly theologically conservative, evangelical Christians disagree on. Although they may be mistaken, someone is not a false teacher just because they have a different view from you of the age of the earth, or a different understanding of the millennium, or a different way to explain God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. In your zeal for the truth (which is good!) do not neglect to also have a passion for unity among true believers.

A Few Verses to Meditate On

NIV Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

NIV Matthew 7:15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”

NIV Matthew 24:11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.

NIV Acts 20:30-31 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

NIV 2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-- bringing swift destruction on themselves.

NIV 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

NIV 2 Timothy 2:25 Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,

This is slightly modified from a post on my blog.

Nope, people can disagree theologically even holding quite disparate ideas and not have anything to do with Satan. Your inability to see beyond your interpretation of scripture has put you in the position of judging other Christians. something we are really not supposed to be doing.

 

[lastofall]

[for me anyway] it is not complicated, neither is there any need to use secular type words, rather it is a matter of believing or unbelieving, for in the end of all discussions unbelief is the one certain sin that shall not be forgiven. As for those that go about trying to climb up some other way other than the Truth according to God, they shall be exposed in the end. Faith comes only and exclusively by hearing the Word of God; and hearing is not mere listening, rather it is submitting to and relying upon God's Word, which by the way includes denying our own will, and repenting and owning our sin: any thing short of these is superficial, and not in Christ.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Nope, people can disagree theologically even holding quite disparate ideas and not have anything to do with Satan. Your inability to see beyond your interpretation of scripture has put you in the position of judging other Christians. something we are really not supposed to be doing.

Nothing in my post says that everyone who disagrees theologically is closely related to Satan. However, SOME types of theological disagreement are rooted in the Devil's lies. There IS such a thing as things taught by demons:

NIV 1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

As far as judging goes there are right and wrong ways to judge. I explain this in a post on my blog here:

Do Not Judge (except when you should)

 

[Mark Corbett]

You do realize that Jesus was seen as being liberal, right?

Jesus radically opposed hypocrisy and overthrew many wrong views. But that is not the essence of theological liberalism today.

Jesus believed every detail of the Scriptures. He consistently spoke and taught in ways which treated the Bible (the portion they had at that time) as entirely true, trustworthy, and authoritative.

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

When Jesus spoke of events and people from the OT He consistently treated them as entirely real and true. He spoke of Jonah being swallowed by the whale (Matthew 12:40) and Noah surviving the flood (Matthew 24:37-38). Jesus was NOT a theological liberal.

 

[Mark Corbett]

By the authority of the Bible, someone might turn to the page showing Leviticus 20:10 recommending putting to death both people involved in the act of adultery. If you turn to a different page you might find Jesus pardoning an adulteress and telling her to go and sin no more; John 8:11.

This really is not that difficult to understand. There is no reason to allow issues like this one to undermine the Bible's authority in our lives. There are several well known principles which help explain the type of issue mentioned in the quote from your comment:

1. At least parts of the Old Testament Law given to Israel are not directly applicable today. This does not mean they are not important and are not indirectly applicable. For example, the Bible consistently teaches that adultery is a terrible sin. The code in Leviticus helps us understand this and reveals just how serious a sin adultery is.

2. There is a difference between what God commands human government to do and individuals. The command to stone people for adultery was not something which an individual was suppose to carry out. Even in the New Testament, there is a clear role for government to carry out punishment in order to restrain evil:

NIV Romans 13:4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

 

[claninja]

We would likely disagree on exactly what Christ's commands were.

Did He ask His Church to open soup kitchens? Did He ask them to provide help to those breaking immigration laws?

Soup kitchens and break immigration laws? You are right, Jesus didn't tell us to do those things, but he did tell us to love our neighbor as ourselves, so when some is hungry we feed the
, when someone is homeless, we house them.

Galatians 5:14 for all the law in one word is fulfilled -- in this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself;'

 

[Tsquared]

This is a great thread and I think many good points have been brought up. I am not as knowledgeable about Theological Liberalism, but I was a T.A. (Teacher's Assistant) in university and I helped to teach and mark papers concerning Postmodernism. I feel like this is a problem in the world today; it would scare you how many people are trying to refute science and say that multiple "truths" can exist, where they inevitably cannot (e.g., the earth is round and the earth is flat). We are in the day and age where everyone wants to be right and it is offensive to tell someone that they are wrong. This has spilled over into the religious world, where people take some scriptures that appear to be clear-cut and question them by saying there are alternate truths. Hopefully this "post-truth" era is only a phase; or maybe we are living in the time that 2 Timothy 4:3 speaks of "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"?

 

[Mark Corbett]

The notion that some of the books of the Bible were not written by those whom they were attributed to dates back to the early church.

That just shows that the lies of theological liberalism are nothing new. Of course the OP points out that they go all the way back to the snake in the garden.

Before biblical criticism, Christians were forced to fall back on authorities such as councils or Popes, as the bible was incomprehensible and could only be understood allegorically.

It was the combination of the printing press and the translation of the Bible into more of the languages of the common people which set people free from over dependence on "official authorities".

William Tyndale is reported to have told a priest who was critical of his work to translate the Scriptures:

" If God spare my life, before very long I shall cause a plough boy to know the scriptures better than you do!"

Most of the opponents of higher criticism of the Bible want us to return to the same days of a religious hierarchy telling us what to believe.

Maybe there are some circles where this is true. But I have interacted with MANY evangelical Christians who oppose the type of higher criticism which undermines the authority of the Bible. Not a single one of them have ever wanted us to "return to the same days of a religious hierarchy telling us what to believe".

We believe the Bible is true. We believe the average Christian can read and understand the most important parts of it. Yes, there is a role for teachers, but that is far different from a "religious hierarchy".

 

[Mark Corbett]

Hopefully this "post-truth" era is only a phase; or maybe we are living in the time that 2 Timothy 4:3 speaks of "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"?

I think we are indeed living in such a time.

 

[RadiantGrace]

The notion that some of the books of the Bible were not written by those whom they were attributed to dates back to the early church. In my own church, none other than Martin Luther understood that many of the Biblical books were not written by the traditional authors.

Before biblical criticism, Christians were forced to fall back on authorities such as councils or Popes, as the bible was incomprehensible and could only be understood allegorically. Most of the opponents of higher criticism of the Bible want us to return to the same days of a religious hierarchy telling us what to believe.

Biblical criticism has nothing to do with Martin Luther or the Reformation. It is about finding tangible truths by studying scripture with a minimal theological lens. It is done by studying various aspects of scripture: the narrative, the history, the authors, and so on. This can be done with anyone from any theological point of view.

The study, expansion, or reform of theology, as it pertains to Martin Luther and the Reformation, or any segment of Christianity is a separate issue. In other words, biblical criticism is simply studying the components of a flavor of ice cream and determining how it is made. Whereas Martin Luther and the work of theologians is about arguing which version of ice cream is the best or most authentic.

 

[Marvin Knox]

What are Theological Liberalism and Theological Postmodernism?

The old bromide says, "Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry".

A liberal is one who refuses to allow the opinions he or she is feeling to be reigned in by an appeal to a recognized basic truth. They just keep drifting along. Having their opinions shaped by the society around them.

It probably started with an undermining of the recognized basic truth which they used to believe in. It likely started rather slowly without them realizing where things were headed in the long run.

But after a number of years they believe a different way then they did before and, because they no longer believe in the basic truth they once believed in, there is virtually no way to turn them back.

To me - what we call post modernism is when liberal thought has become so common place that any appeals to the old truths are just brushed aside regardless of any good logical way they are presented by conservatives.

There comes a point when no appeal to the historical results of liberalism is even considered even if it is well documented. Post modern society just doesn't make the connection with the past - even though conservatives see the connection rather clearly.

Conservatives were scoffed at in the beginning when they warned where things would end up if liberalism flourished.

But in the post modern era conservatives are no longer merely scoffed at - they are seen as the enemy of progress and are often treated as such.

These things hold true in the area of theology just as they do in sex, politics, and most every other part of society.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Biblical criticism . . . is about finding tangible truths by studying scripture with a minimal theological lens. It is done by studying various aspects of scripture: the narrative, the history, the authors, and so on. This can be done with anyone from any theological point of view.

Of course it is a good goal to strive to study the Bible objectively. But I do not believe that those most identified with higher criticism have done so! They came to the text heavily burdened with a theology deeply influenced by modernism. Their results show this bias everywhere.

One of the most enlightening writings on the topic of so called "Higher Criticism" is a famous piece by CS Lewis. This is true, although I do not agree with everything Lewis writes. Although he was blessed with a great gift and a type of genius, there are hints of liberal influence in his writing. Still, his criticism of the higher critics is brilliant. Here is a quote to whet your appetite:

"These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can’t see an elephant ten yards way in broad daylight."

You may read the rest of his excellent talk here (unfortunately there are typos on this site):

http://normangeisler.com/fernseeds-elephants/

 

[Mark Corbett]

Liberalism and conservatism generally relate to Americans on political issues, not perspective on scripture.

I pointed out in the OP that there is a difference between political and theological liberalism. However, to claim that liberalism does not relate to a perspective in scripture is simply wrong. The word has been being used this way for a long time. In 1923, J Gresham Machen wrote his well known book, "Christianity and Liberalism".

My use of the terms "conservative" and "liberal" to describe different views of scripture held by Christians is very widespread.

 

[Mark Corbett]

Look at this entire post – you haven’t stated how accepting legitimate scriptural research contradicts the faith.

I never said we should not accept legitimate scriptural research.