What is Liberal Theology today?

[redleghunter]

I think most posting here would know of the Liberal Theology from 19th century Continental Europe which started in the Tubingen school and manifested from there. Such questioned the infallibility of canonical Holy Scriptures (JEDP theory), questioned the Deity of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Birth.

There’s more, but what is Liberal Theology in the 21st century? Can someone define it? Is there a systematic theology explaining it?

For example, for the Reformed they have been various systematic theology tomes in the past which for example the Ligonier site lists. Also many are familiar with Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology tome in this century which continues in the Reformed theology. There are examples of Arminian leaning Evangelicals producing tomes on systematic theology and even Charles Finney produced a systematic theology during the Revivalist movement in the late 19th century embraced by many today.

What does a Liberal systematic theology look like for the 21st century? What are the distinctives? What are the commentaries? Who are the leading theologians?

I am not looking for political manifestos but I’m sure some theologies might draw from social, political and cultural changes. That should be discussed of course. Meaning how certain changes and movements changed the systematic approach to theology.

 

[HTacianas]

I think most posting here would know of the Liberal Theology from 19th century Continental Europe which started in the Tubingen school and manifested from there. Such questioned the infallibility of canonical Holy Scriptures (JEDP theory), questioned the Deity of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Birth.

There’s more, but what is Liberal Theology in the 21st century? Can someone define it? Is there a systematic theology explaining it?

For example, for the Reformed they have been various systematic theology tomes in the past which for example the Ligonier site lists. Also many are familiar with Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology tome in this century which continues in the Reformed theology. There are examples of Arminian leaning Evangelicals producing tomes on systematic theology and even Charles Finney produced a systematic theology during the Revivalist movement in the late 19th century embraced by many today.

What does a Liberal systematic theology look like for the 21st century? What are the distinctives? What are the commentaries? Who are the leading theologians?

I am not looking for political manifestos but I’m sure some theologies might draw from social, political and cultural changes. That should be discussed of course. Meaning how certain changes and movements changed the systematic approach to theology.

If I understand your question, the closest you're likely to find is the idealogy of the Episcopal Church. You can visit their website to see if that answers your question.

Episcopal Church

 

[FireDragon76]

We actually don't have alot of classical liberal theologians in our denomination, and never did really. I think we skipped over much of 19th century liberalism, our major struggle in the 19th and early 20th centuries was over how Pietist we wanted to be vs holding on to a Lutheran identity. At any rate, the debates around modernism did not really lead to any heated exchanges until the late 60's, when they became a kind of proxy for wider cultural issues in the hands of Robert Preus and other social conservatives in the LCMS, who wanted to punish pastors who were more ammenable to Lutherans coming out of the ethnic ghettos and into mainstream culture.

Barthian or Bonhoeffer's Neo-Orthodoxy is very common, and represents my pastor's own perspective.

Gerhard Forde is widely influential as a modern Lutheran theologian, and well worth reading. I also believe he would be comprehensible to someone from a Reformed background, as well. He was not exactly a 19th century liberal, "Radical Lutheran" is a better description, but potentially his theology has "liberal" implications. David Wagschall, a Canadian Lutheran blogger and Byzantine historian (who was formerly a professor at St. Vladimir's Seminary), exemplifies this perspective.

 

[“Paisios”]

We actually don't have alot of classical liberal theologians in our denomination, and never did really. I think we skipped over much of 19th century liberalism, our major struggle in the 19th and early 20th centuries was over how Pietist we wanted to be vs holding on to a Lutheran identity. At any rate, the debates around modernism did not really lead to any heated exchanges until the late 60's, when they became a kind of proxy for wider cultural issues in the hands of Robert Preus and other social conservatives in the LCMS, who wanted to punish pastors who were more ammenable to Lutherans coming out of the ethnic ghettos and into mainstream culture.

Barthian or Bonhoeffer's Neo-Orthodoxy is very common, and represents my pastor's own perspective.

Gerhard Forde is widely influential as a modern Lutheran theologian, and well worth reading. I also believe he would be comprehensible to someone from a Reformed background, as well. He was not exactly a 19th century liberal, "Radical Lutheran" is a better description, but potentially his theology has "liberal" implications. David Wagschall, a Canadian Lutheran blogger and Byzantine historian (who was formerly a professor at St. Vladimir's Seminary), exemplifies this perspective.

Would Paul Tillich qualify as a modern liberal theologian in Lutheranism (20th century rather than 21st)? My father, who took classes from him at Harvard Divinity School, spoke highly of him, and seemed to imply he was one of last century’s leading theologians (and very liberal)?

 

[FireDragon76]

Would Paul Tillich qualify as a modern liberal theologian in Lutheranism (20th century rather than 21st)? My father, who took classes from him at Harvard Divinity School, spoke highly of him, and seemed to imply he was one of last century’s leading theologians (and very liberal)?

He was influential in the early 20th century, but now his influence is less so. I think Tillich has more influence now outside our church than inside it, to be honest.

He is generally classified as a dialectic theologian, similar to Bonhoeffer. He is closer overall to liberalism, though, but he was more an existentialist than a rationalist or romanticist like 19th century liberals.

Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr formed the backbone of mainline Protestant theology in the postwar era. They even appeared on magazines and on TV, and had a great deal of cultural currency.

 

[FireDragon76]

My pastor recommends reading Carl Braaten, he is the most obvious example of a modern systematic or dogmatic theologian in our denomination, he even wrote volumes on the subject. His theology is Neo-Orthodox.

https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Lutheran-Theology-Carl-Braaten/dp/0800638352

 

[royal priest]

Liberal Theology:

 

[PloverWing]

If I understand your question, the closest you're likely to find is the idealogy of the Episcopal Church. You can visit their website to see if that answers your question.

Episcopal Church

Interesting. You're right that we're liberal on social and ethical issues. Our church is on the cutting edge of some liturgical experiments regarding gender and sexuality; less controversially, as a church we're concerned for the poor, the environment, racial reconciliation, caring for migrants and refugees, and similar ethical issues. In that way, we're heirs to the 19th century Social Gospel movement of Rauschenbusch and others, which is one form of liberal theology.

On the other hand, I'm less eager to characterize us as liberal on central theological issues like christology. The Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition are still in our Prayer Book, the Incarnation is still central to our worship and theology, and we still maintain apostolic succession. Because we do not require theological conformity of our members, there is a wide range of beliefs among us, from Evangelical inerrantists to people like Bishop Spong; but one combination I often see is an orthodox belief in the Incarnation paired with a strong calling to social justice.

I don't often see systematic theologies coming out of the Episcopal Church. I think we tend to borrow the systematic theologies written by our Lutheran and Reformed friends.

 

[redleghunter]

We actually don't have alot of classical liberal theologians in our denomination, and never did really. I think we skipped over much of 19th century liberalism, our major struggle in the 19th and early 20th centuries was over how Pietist we wanted to be vs holding on to a Lutheran identity. At any rate, the debates around modernism did not really lead to any heated exchanges until the late 60's, when they became a kind of proxy for wider cultural issues in the hands of Robert Preus and other social conservatives in the LCMS, who wanted to punish pastors who were more ammenable to Lutherans coming out of the ethnic ghettos and into mainstream culture.

Barthian or Bonhoeffer's Neo-Orthodoxy is very common, and represents my pastor's own perspective.

Gerhard Forde is widely influential as a modern Lutheran theologian, and well worth reading. I also believe he would be comprehensible to someone from a Reformed background, as well. He was not exactly a 19th century liberal, "Radical Lutheran" is a better description, but potentially his theology has "liberal" implications. David Wagschall, a Canadian Lutheran blogger and Byzantine historian (who was formerly a professor at St. Vladimir's Seminary), exemplifies this perspective.

So it was the late 60s and the counterculture which sparked some of the more heated debates within your church?

 

[redleghunter]

He was influential in the early 20th century, but now his influence is less so. I think Tillich has more influence now outside our church than inside it, to be honest.

He is generally classified as a dialectic theologian, similar to Bonhoeffer. He is closer overall to liberalism, though, but he was more an existentialist than a rationalist or romanticist like 19th century liberals.

Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr formed the backbone of mainline Protestant theology in the postwar era. They even appeared on magazines and on TV, and had a great deal of cultural currency.

What are the more stark differences Bonhoeffer offered from orthodox Lutheran theology?

 

[redleghunter]

My pastor recommends reading Carl Braaten, he is the most obvious example of a modern systematic or dogmatic theologian in our denomination, he even wrote volumes on the subject. His theology is Neo-Orthodox.

Very surprised about this. Braaten took the ELCA to task on their 2009 statement of human sexuality.

I was able to find the ELCA response to his paper but his response has been expunged from ELCA websites. I did find his statement excerpt at Free Republic. Here’s the introduction and it is not Liberal:


“Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust”
and
“Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies,”



A Critique by Carl E. Braaten



Introduction

My critique of the first “Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality” prepared by the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality, written and disseminated in April, 2008, offered this conclusion: “This ‘Draft’ fails to take seriously distinctive Lutheran principles of theology and ethics regarding human sexuality. Either the Task Force is woefully ignorant of the Lutheran confessional tradition regarding theological ethics, or it willfully ignores it to reach some pre-conceived conclusions for ideological reasons.” My criticisms included the following assertions: 1) it confused law and gospel; 2) it reversed the order of creation and redemption; 3) it wrongly represented Lutheran ethics of sex as deriving from Christology and the doctrine of justification; 4) it was antinomian; 5) it did not deal with the Law of God and the Ten Commandments; 6) it did not exegete the biblical passages that deal with sexuality, and in particular homosexuality; 7) it avoided the use of the proper name of the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; 8 ) it drew only upon Lutheran sources, displaying a sectarian attitude that ignores the teachings of the Great Tradition; 9) it disregarded the Lutheran view of homosexual acts as sinful. I ended my critique by saying that the social statement of the Task Force is “not only deeply flawed from a Lutheran theological perspective, it is also so poorly written that I believe there is very little in it to salvage.”



Now we have before us a revised version of the social statement on sexuality proposed by the same Task Force that produced the first draft. My first observation is that it is vastly improved in substance and style. A serious effort has been made, it appears, to take seriously the criticisms that I as well as others made of the document. It uses traditional Lutheran theological concepts and language more intelligibly. Many Lutherans who read this statement will encounter an array of familiar Lutheran symbols, slogans, and shibboleths that will possibly dispose them to accept it.



However, they are mostly an ornamental covering that hides its egregious departure from the biblical, doctrinal, and ethical teachings of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church affirmed by the Lutheran Confessional Writings as well as the Constitution and Confession of Faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Let there be no mistake about this: If the ELCA were to adopt the social statement and approve the recommendation of the Task Force to ordain men and women living with sexual partners of the same gender, that would constitute a radical departure from the overwhelming consensus that has prevailed in historic Christianity through twenty centuries. The social statement proposed by the Task Force fails to make the case that this is a wise and legitimate decision for an orthodox Christian church to make.”

End Quote

Was able to find his first review: WordAlone - A Critique of the 'Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality'

Above excerpt here:

Link: “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust”: A Critique by Carl E. Braaten

 

[redleghunter]

Interesting. You're right that we're liberal on social and ethical issues. Our church is on the cutting edge of some liturgical experiments regarding gender and sexuality; less controversially, as a church we're concerned for the poor, the environment, racial reconciliation, caring for migrants and refugees, and similar ethical issues. In that way, we're heirs to the 19th century Social Gospel movement of Rauschenbusch and others, which is one form of liberal theology.

On the other hand, I'm less eager to characterize us as liberal on central theological issues like christology. The Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition are still in our Prayer Book, the Incarnation is still central to our worship and theology, and we still maintain apostolic succession. Because we do not require theological conformity of our members, there is a wide range of beliefs among us, from Evangelical inerrantists to people like Bishop Spong; but one combination I often see is an orthodox belief in the Incarnation paired with a strong calling to social justice.

I don't often see systematic theologies coming out of the Episcopal Church. I think we tend to borrow the systematic theologies written by our Lutheran and Reformed friends.

You are showing Anglican. Where does Episcopal relate to the greater Anglican Church?

Perhaps @Albion can help me out here.

J.I. Packer at one end and Bishop Spong on the other. Just does not add up. Spong denies the Bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[Albion]

You are showing Anglican. Where does Episcopal relate to the greater Anglican Church?

Perhaps @Albion can help me out here.

J.I. Packer at one end and Bishop Spong on the other. Just does not add up. Spong denies the Bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Hi. The Anglican church in the narrow sense is the Church of England. In the larger sense of the word, it is her daughter churches around the world, some of which are in intercommunion with the CofE and others are not. Some are quite liberal, theologically. Others are quite traditional, although as Plover Wing says, an argument can be made that even the most liberal of them (The Episcopal Church, for example) do retain more of the beliefs and practices of the Christian church of history than many other reformed churches that have ditched the liturgy altogether, along with all creeds, the sacramental system, the episcopate, and so on.

 

[redleghunter]

Hi. The Anglican church in the narrow sense is the Church of England. In the larger sense of the word, it is her daughter churches around the world, some of which are in intercommunion with the CofE and others are not. Some are quite liberal, theologically. Others are quite traditional, although as Plover Wing says, an argument can be made that even the most liberal of them (The Episcopal Church, for example) do retain more of the beliefs and practices of the Christian church of history than many other reformed churches that have ditched the liturgy altogether, along with all creeds, the sacramental system, the episcopate, and so on.

Yet Spong ditched the Bodily Resurrection of Christ. Is that not an ancient belief?

 

[Albion]

Well, Spong is Spong and there are many in The Episcopal Church whose theology is hardly any more conventional IMHO. Other denominations have their radicals or malcontents, too. And we know that the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and most other denominations are both internally and formally split these days, too.

That is not to downplay Bishop Spongs teachings, but to say that I think it better to judge the church, any church, on the basis of its overall profile. Therefore, I am not a member of TEC myself but instead belong to another Anglican body.

 

[redleghunter]

Well, Spong is Spong and there are many in The Episcopal Church whose theology is hardly any more conventional IMHO. Other denominations have their radicals or malcontents, too. And we know that the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and most other denominations are both internally and formally split these days, too.

That is not to downplay Bishop Spongs teachings, but to say that I think it better to judge the church, any church, on the basis of its overall profile. Therefore, I am not a member of TEC myself but instead belong to another Anglican body.

Thank you for the clarification and you are correct in stating every denomination has its challenges as well.

 

[redleghunter]

Interesting. You're right that we're liberal on social and ethical issues. Our church is on the cutting edge of some liturgical experiments regarding gender and sexuality; less controversially, as a church we're concerned for the poor, the environment, racial reconciliation, caring for migrants and refugees, and similar ethical issues. In that way, we're heirs to the 19th century Social Gospel movement of Rauschenbusch and others, which is one form of liberal theology.

On the other hand, I'm less eager to characterize us as liberal on central theological issues like christology. The Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Definition are still in our Prayer Book, the Incarnation is still central to our worship and theology, and we still maintain apostolic succession. Because we do not require theological conformity of our members, there is a wide range of beliefs among us, from Evangelical inerrantists to people like Bishop Spong; but one combination I often see is an orthodox belief in the Incarnation paired with a strong calling to social justice.

I don't often see systematic theologies coming out of the Episcopal Church. I think we tend to borrow the systematic theologies written by our Lutheran and Reformed friends.

Would theological conformity include the Nicene Creed? I do believe you recite it each mass?

 

[FireDragon76]

Very surprised about this. Braaten took the ELCA to task on their 2009 statement of human sexuality.

I was able to find the ELCA response to his paper but his response has been expunged from ELCA websites. I did find his statement excerpt at Free Republic. Here’s the introduction and it is not Liberal:


“Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust”
and
“Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies,”



A Critique by Carl E. Braaten



Introduction

My critique of the first “Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality” prepared by the Task Force for ELCA Studies on Sexuality, written and disseminated in April, 2008, offered this conclusion: “This ‘Draft’ fails to take seriously distinctive Lutheran principles of theology and ethics regarding human sexuality. Either the Task Force is woefully ignorant of the Lutheran confessional tradition regarding theological ethics, or it willfully ignores it to reach some pre-conceived conclusions for ideological reasons.” My criticisms included the following assertions: 1) it confused law and gospel; 2) it reversed the order of creation and redemption; 3) it wrongly represented Lutheran ethics of sex as deriving from Christology and the doctrine of justification; 4) it was antinomian; 5) it did not deal with the Law of God and the Ten Commandments; 6) it did not exegete the biblical passages that deal with sexuality, and in particular homosexuality; 7) it avoided the use of the proper name of the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; 8 ) it drew only upon Lutheran sources, displaying a sectarian attitude that ignores the teachings of the Great Tradition; 9) it disregarded the Lutheran view of homosexual acts as sinful. I ended my critique by saying that the social statement of the Task Force is “not only deeply flawed from a Lutheran theological perspective, it is also so poorly written that I believe there is very little in it to salvage.”



Now we have before us a revised version of the social statement on sexuality proposed by the same Task Force that produced the first draft. My first observation is that it is vastly improved in substance and style. A serious effort has been made, it appears, to take seriously the criticisms that I as well as others made of the document. It uses traditional Lutheran theological concepts and language more intelligibly. Many Lutherans who read this statement will encounter an array of familiar Lutheran symbols, slogans, and shibboleths that will possibly dispose them to accept it.



However, they are mostly an ornamental covering that hides its egregious departure from the biblical, doctrinal, and ethical teachings of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church affirmed by the Lutheran Confessional Writings as well as the Constitution and Confession of Faith of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Let there be no mistake about this: If the ELCA were to adopt the social statement and approve the recommendation of the Task Force to ordain men and women living with sexual partners of the same gender, that would constitute a radical departure from the overwhelming consensus that has prevailed in historic Christianity through twenty centuries. The social statement proposed by the Task Force fails to make the case that this is a wise and legitimate decision for an orthodox Christian church to make.”

End Quote

Was able to find his first review: WordAlone - A Critique of the 'Draft Social Statement on Human Sexuality'

Above excerpt here:

Link: “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust”: A Critique by Carl E. Braaten

We don't have to approve of everything Braaten did, to appreciate his work as a systematic theologian. This is one area that both me and my pastor consider a mistake on his part and an error in judgment.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, Spong is Spong and there are many in The Episcopal Church whose theology is hardly any more conventional IMHO. Other denominations have their radicals or malcontents, too. And we know that the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, and most other denominations are both internally and formally split these days, too.

The splits in mainline churches haven't been very large. Perhaps it was larger in the Episcopal church, but the number of congregations that left after our 2009 vote to approve our statement on sexuality was relatively small. Something similar happened in the PC-USA. That's because our statements don't so much as approve of homosexuality as recognize a reality that has been happening for decades and has grown out of practical application of pastoral concerns. For the average person in the pews, very little actually changed for them. Even without synodical approval, congregations in the ELCA were ordaining gay and lesbian pastors through extraordinary means. Calling of pastors in the ELCA is through the congregation, so this really was not inconsistent with our identity, and only irregular in a legal sense.

Lutherans in America were divided long before homosexuality became an issue. LCMS Lutherans have very different origins. Our church, the ELCA, as a denomination, was really formed by Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, who was a German pietist similar to Wesley, whereas the LCMS's origins were among those of very different confessional stances, people who were much more dogmatically rigid and unyielding, and who had to flee Germany as a result. We have never had altar and pulpit fellowship with Missouri, as a result, due to irreconcilable differences. And though they are a minority, there are laity and pastors in Missouri that would be very similar to the typical ELCA pastor in their attitude towards gay people. Ethics has never been our primary focus and it isn't something that defines Lutheranism.

 

[FireDragon76]

Liberal Theology:

Not funny, and not respectful. While many of us did vote for Barak Obama and we share alot in common with him religiously (after all, he belongs to a mainline church, the UCC), being a theological liberal or in a mainline church has less to do with ones politics. Our denomination (ELCA) is evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. Our churches are sacred places that strive to be above partisanship and welcome everyone, regardless of their political affiliation.

FWIW, a well known Fox News commentator, Tucker Carlson, is an Episcopalian, and enthusiastically so. Being Episcopalian or Lutheran does not mean agreeing necessarily with how the church down the road does things, or agreeing even with bishops opinions. Most Episcopalians or Lutherans are content to live quiet lives (1 Timothy 2:2), focusing on the "long game", rather than politicizing religion.