What Is Theological Liberalism?

The blog posting I made on January 25 was titled “Still Seeing the Limits of Liberalism.” It was based on the Preface of my book The Limits of Liberalism, which I am updating and slightly revising this year. This posting is based on the book’s first chapter, “What is Liberalism?”  

A Movement Attempting Adaption

The first subdivision of Chapter One is “A Sincere Movement to Adapt Christianity to the Modern Worldview.” Regardless of what negative views one might have about liberalism—and some of you have views much more negative than mine—it must be recognized that liberal theologians and pastors were well-intentioned.

To a large extent, liberals in the 19th and 20th centuries actively sought ways to affirm both a modern, scientific worldview and the Christian faith. They attempted to reinterpret Christianity in order to keep many intelligent, educated people of the contemporary world from rejecting the faith.

Early in the 20th century, one of the leaders of modernism, as it was generally termed then, was the eminent preacher Harry Emerson Fosdick, whose 1924 book The Modern Use of the Bible was highly influential.

In his autobiography, For the Living of These Days (1956), Fosdick (1878~1969) asserted that the central aim of liberal theology was to make it possible for people “to be both an intelligent modern and a serious Christian.” That is what he admirably sought to do in his numerous books and in his preaching.

In a 1968 book that I have highly evaluated through the decades, William E. Hordern wrote,

Although the fundamentalists saw the liberals as subversives of the faith, liberals saw themselves as the saviors of the essence of Christianity. For the liberal, it was the fundamentalist who was destroying Christianity by forcing it into the molds of the past and making it impossible for any intelligent man to hold it (Layman’s Guide to Protestant Theology, p. 73).

A Threatening “Militant” Movement

Partly to parallel this chapter with the first chapter of my Fed Up with Fundamentalism, I refer here to “militant” liberals, although because of the nature of liberalism none were as militant as some of the fundamentalists.

Nevertheless, there were liberals who sought not just to adapt Christianity to the modern world but to change decisively the content of the historic Christian faith. Two examples of this more radical form of liberalism are Unitarianism and Transcendentalism.

Even though disavowal of the Trinity is one tenet of Unitarianism, that is by no means its main emphasis. The Unitarianism that developed in the 19^th century is now a part of the Unitarian Universalist Association, which “affirms and promotes seven Principles grounded in the humanistic teachings of the world's religions.” 

I have no problem with an organization being based on the humanistic teachings of the world’s religions. But I do object to the claim that it is a valid expression of (liberal) Christianity.

The current Unitarians are perhaps farther removed from historic Christianity than those of the past, but the Unitarian tendency from the beginning to radically change Christianity from traditional doctrines is why I have referred to them as “militant,” even though they largely acted in a benign manner.

The Transcendentalists, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson and Theodore Parker, were men of high moral quality. But their beliefs moved farther away from traditional Christianity than even the Unitarians and became a full-fledged humanism.

The Road Ahead

Most of what I treat in the rest of The Limits of Liberalism is related to those who sought, and those who are now seeking, to adapt Christianity. Next month I plan to post an article based on Chapter Two, which focuses on the development of liberalism in the last part of the 20^th century and the first decade of this century.

What to Give Up for Lent?

Just two days from now is Ash Wednesday and the beginning of Lent. This will be an important period for some of you, but others may know, or care, little about the observance of Lent as practiced by many Christians. Regardless, let's think a bit about Lent.

What is Lent?

As I wrote seven years ago (see here), like most of you who grew up as Baptists or other “low church” Protestants, I heard almost nothing about Lent as a boy and for a long time had no interest in observing Lent. Nevertheless, for many years now I have made some conscious effort to observe Lent and will again do so this year.

The purpose of Lent is the preparation of the Christian believer for the celebration of Easter. Linked to Jesus’ fasting in the desert for 40 days at the beginning of his public ministry, Lent begins on Ash Wednesday and lasts for 40 days, excluding Sundays.

Traditionally, Lent has been a time of token fasting in order to remember Jesus’ fasting in the desert and his suffering for the sins of humanity on the Cross.

When sincerely practiced, Lent can be a meaningful time for the practitioner.

Why Give Up Something for Lent?

The U.S. Roman Catholic Church’s “rules for fasting and abstinence [of certain foods]” state that everyone 14 years of age and older “must abstain from meat (and items made with meat)” on Ash Wednesday and all the Fridays of Lent.

Those who are not Catholics—or who are already vegetarians/vegans—often choose something else to abstain from during Lent as a reminder of Jesus and his sufferings.

For many years from the time I first started observing Lent, I gave up eating sweets as a reminder of Jesus each time I didn’t eat a dessert—but also because it was a way to lose weight, which I needed to do for many years. I have always had a “sweet tooth,” so not eating sweets actually was “giving up” something I much enjoyed.

Since Sundays are exempt from Lenten practices, whatever is given up can be enjoyed on Sundays, which are days of rejoicing, not fasting. Unfortunately, in some years I ate too many sweets on the Sundays during the Lenten season.

What to Give Up for Lent?

My 2/10/13 blog article was about giving up eating meat for Lent—and, in fact, I did quit eating meat during Lent that year—and have not eaten beef or pork since. But even though I am happy to no longer be eating red meat there is no compelling ethical reason for not doing so. (There are some legitimate related ethical concerns, however, but that is a subject for a later discussion.)

In recent years I have been somewhat bothered by what some people suggest might be given up for Lent. For example, earlier this month Country Living magazine suggested 20 things that might be given up for Lent—and #1 was gossip. Negativity, being late, and speeding were also on the list.

More disappointing is how Pope Francis has made questionable suggestions along this line. A Feb. 2015 Time magazine article is titled “Pope Francis’ Guide to Lent: What You Should Give Up This Year.” His main suggestion was that people give up indifference toward others.

I certainly agree that all of us should give up indifference toward others—as well as gossip, negativity, etc. But why just for Lent? Why imply that those attitudes/actions would be all right once Lent is over, or on Sundays during Lent?

There are some/many things that most of us need to give up, period—and during Lent would be an excellent time for doing that. There are other things that can be given up for Lent and then taken up again. I hope many of us can find meaningful ways to do both, for the benefit of ourselves and of others.

Affirming Secularization, Opposing Secularism

One of the most influential theological books published in 1965 was Harvey Cox’s The Secular City. Through the years I have thought much about that immensely popular book, which sold over one million copies.

Secularization vs. Secularism 

Cox’s first chapter is “Biblical Sources of Secularization” and the first subsection is “Secularization vs. Secularism”—and that distinction is one that I have considered highly important from the time I first read it while still in graduate school.

According to Cox, secularization is the historical process by which one dominant religion no longer has control over a particular society or culture. But secularization is much different from secularism. 

So, what is secularism? Secularism, Cox contends, is “an ideology, a new closed worldview.... It menaces the openness and freedom secularization has produced.” Among other things, it especially menaces religious faith (and this is my contention, not explicitly expressed by Cox).

Cox wrote in the introduction to the 1983 edition of his book that the “sharp difference” between secularization and secularism was central to the entire argument of his book.

Why Affirm Secularization?

“Secularization,” according to Cox, “represents an authentic consequence of biblical faith.” Thus, “Rather than oppose it, the task of Christians should be to support and nourish it” (2013 ed., p. 22).

For those of us who place a high priority on religious freedom—and Cox (b. 1929) is an ordained Baptist minister, and true Baptists have always been advocates of religious freedom—secularization is good partly because as Cox says early in the Introduction of his book,

Pluralism and tolerance are the children of secularization. They represent a society’s unwillingness to enforce any particular world-view on its citizens (p. 3).

Thus, secularization is consistent with the principle of the separation of church and state, which I have often written about. (For example, see here.) As Brian Zahnd points out in his book Postcards from Babylon (2019),

in the American experiment the United States deliberately broke with the Christendom practice of claiming to be a Christian nation with a state church. It was America that pioneered the experiment of secular governance (p. 46).

In February 2010 I mentioned Cox in my blog article (see here) about Lesslie Newbigin, the outstanding British missionary who spent nearly forty years in India. In 1966 he wrote Honest Religion for Secular Man—and that was the most influential book (for me) that I read in 1967, my first full year in Japan.

As I wrote in that blog posting, Newbigin averred that Indian society changed, largely for the better, through the process of secularization. He gave these examples: “the abolition of untouchability of the dowry system, of temple prostitution, the spread of education and medical service, and so on” (p. 17).

And like Cox, he contended that secularization, which must be clearly distinguished from secularism, has roots in the Judeo-Christian faith.

Why Oppose Secularism?

The distinction between secularization and secularism, such as made by Cox and Newbigin (and me), is not widely recognized now. “Secularism” is the general term used for both—and Andrew Copson’s informative little book Secularism: A Very Short Introduction (2019) describes secularism in words very similar to how Cox explains secularization.

As an ideology, though, secularism is confined to “temporal” or “this-worldly” things, with emphasis on nature, reason, and science. For the most part, there is rejection of transcendence or anything that is not obviously a part of the visible world.

When secularism is truly an ism, it is a worldview that has no room for God, by whatever name God might be understood—or for Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.

While, certainly, I affirm the right of people to be secularists, if that is their free choice, still, I firmly, and sadly, believe that true secularists are missing much of great significance.

Recognizing the difference between secularization in the public square and secularism in one’s personal worldview, I staunchly affirm the former and oppose the latter—as I generally oppose all isms, including Christianism, which I plan to write about next month.

In Honor of Susan B. Anthony, Persistent Agitator

Born 200 years ago, on February 15, 1820, for nearly sixty years before her death at the age of 86, Susan B. Anthony was an active agitator for change. In a letter she wrote in 1883, Anthony (SBA) said, 

SBA: Agitator for Temperance 

Because of her concern for abused women and children, Anthony’s first public activity as an agitator was in the temperance movement, which was the effort to outlaw alcohol. (Many of you saw my related 2/9 blog article about Prohibition.)

In 1848 when she was 28 years old, Susan’s first public speech was given for temperance. In her book Susan B. Anthony (2019), Teri Kanefield wrote about how Anthony “spoke passionately about ‘the day when our brothers and sons shall no longer be allured from the right by corrupting influence’ of alcohol so that ‘our sisters and daughters shall no longer be exposed to the half-inebriated seducer’” (p. 40).

In 1851 Anthony met Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who became her lifelong friend and colleague, and the following year they founded the Women's New York State Temperance Society. (In 1999, Ken Burns produced “Not For Ourselves Alone,” a splendid, 210-minute  documentary about Anthony and Stanton; June and I enjoyed watching it last year on PBS.)

The next year, 1853, after being denied the opportunity to speak at a temperance convention because she was a woman, Anthony realized that no one would take women in politics seriously unless they had the right to vote. Thus, the seeds of her most important work as an agitator for women’s rights were planted.

SBA: Agitator for Abolition

For the next twelve years, however, Anthony worked for the abolition of slavery. In 1849, while still in her 20s, Susan met Frederick Douglass, who was two years older than she, and they were friends and colleagues—and antagonists—in the fight for equality until his death in 1895.

As a Quaker, Anthony believed that all people were of equal worth and should be treated equally. That belief undergirded her work for the rights of women. But in the 1850s and early 1860s, she was focused primarily on eradicating slavery in the U.S.

In 1856 Anthony became an agent for the American Anti-Slavery Society, which William Lloyd Garrison had co-founded in 1833. Drawing a small salary from the Society, Susan began touring the country and making speeches about the evils of slavery.

After Lincoln’s election as President in 1860, Anthony faced terrible opposition to her work against slavery—even in New York. But she didn’t give up or quit being an agitator. In 1863 Anthony and Stanton formed the Women’s National Loyal League. In the largest petition drive in the nation's history up to that time, the League collected nearly 400,000 signatures on petitions to abolish slavery and presented them to Congress. 

That indefatigable work by Anthony and Stanton significantly assisted the passage in 1865 of the Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery in the U.S.

SBA: Agitator for Suffrage

The next fight was for the right for women, both black and white, to vote. In the early 1860s, white abolitionist men, such as William Lloyd Garrison, and black men, such as Frederick Douglass, were all for black men obtaining the right to vote. But they did not support the vote for women. Anthony and Stanton were outraged.

Anthony managed to register and even to vote in the election of 1872. She was subsequently arrested and convicted—but refused to pay her fine of $100 plus costs. Even though she was a Quaker woman, in 1893 she exclaimed. “Organize, agitate, educate, must be our war cry!”

Anthony spent the last forty years of her long life working for women’s right to vote. Sadly, she never succeeded during her lifetime. But just a month before her death in 1906, she gave her last speech concluding with the rousing phrase, "Failure is impossible!”

Nicknamed the "Anthony Amendment" in honor of Susan, who had worked so long and so persistently, the Nineteenth Amendment granting women the right to vote was finally ratified on August 18, 1920.

Now, 100 years later, there will be far more women than men who will vote (and vote in the right way!) in the presidential election of 2020.

*****

In 2019, the city of Liberty (Mo.), where I live, erected a life-size statue of Susan B. Anthony on the southeast corner of the historic square. Toward the end of their successful football season, she was sporting Chiefs’ apparel, as you see in the picture.

.

Can Inhibition Do What Prohibition Couldn’t?

One hundred years ago on January 17, 1920, the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution went into effect. That amendment established the prohibition of “intoxicating liquors” in the nation—and initiated thirteen years of national turmoil.

The Long Road to Prohibition

The inimitable Ken Burns produced a three-part, six-hour documentary film series in 2011 under the title “Prohibition.” The first part is titled “A Nation of Drunkards,” and it begins with the more than ninety-year history of the road that led to Prohibition.

In 1826, Lyman Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s father, preached six sermons on “intemperance,” as the drinking of alcoholic beverages was called then, and those sermons are still available in many places online (for example, see here).

Beecher (1775~1863) then co-founded the American Temperance Society that same year. That first anti-alcohol organization was followed by the founding of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union in 1874 and the even more influential Anti-Saloon League in 1893.

Joining forces, the latter two nationwide organizations spurred the election in 1916 of the two-thirds majorities necessary in both houses of Congress to propose the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The Prohibition Amendment

In the last half of 1917, the Senate voted 65-20 in favor of the 18^th Amendment, and that was followed by a 282-128 favorable vote in the House. Then it was sent to the states for ratification.

On January 16, 1919, the necessary 36^th state (out of 48) ratified the Amendment, which began,

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

So, the following year on Jan. 17, Prohibition went into effect—and this was the beginning of a period of increasing lawlessness in the country.

The second part of Ken Burns’s documentary is titled, “A Nation of Scofflaws.” Opposition to Prohibition led to rampant and flagrant violations of the law and resulted in a rapid rise of organized crime around the nation, such as typified by Chicago's Al Capone.

After only 13 years, the 18^th Amendment was repealed by the 21^st amendment which was proposed by Congress in February 1933 and was ratified by the requisite number of states that December.

For the most part, legalized Prohibition was a dismal failure.

What about Inhibition?

I am using “inhibition” here as explained in Encyclopedia Britannica: In psychology, inhibition means the “conscious or unconscious constraint or curtailment of a processor or behaviour, especially of impulses or desires. Inhibition serves necessary social functions, abating or preventing certain impulses from being acted on . . . .”

And I am suggesting that since legislation was so ineffective in curbing the consumption of alcoholic beverages, perhaps education leading to inhibition (= conscious constraint) may be what is necessary.

Statistics reported in 2018 indicated that there was a 67% decrease in smoking from 1965 to 2017. That was partly because of the Surgeon General’s warning on cigarette packages—and a general turning away from use of tobacco by society at large. Tobacco usage greatly decreased because of inhibition, not prohibition.

Why couldn’t, why shouldn’t the same thing happen with alcohol, a drug much more harmful than the nicotine in tobacco—as made clear in the following image of “drug harm” in The Economist last year? 

To some extent, it seems that the movement toward inhibition has already begun. According to an article in The Economist’s “The World in 2020,” there are signs that drinking is going out of style. The author avers that in a generation or two, drinking in rich countries could seem outdated. May it be so!

(I wrote about this same issue four years ago, and I encourage those of you who want to think more about this matter to read/re-read that article titled “The Case against ‘Demon Rum’”.)

Confessions of a Reluctant Chiefs’ Fan

“Super Bowl Idolatry” is the title of a blog article I posted in January 2015, and I stand by what I wrote in that posting that has been viewed more than 1,650 times. But I must confess, I watched the Super Bowl this year for the first time in many, many years. Quite reluctantly, I am a Chiefs' fan. 

Cheers for the Chiefs!

There is hardly anyone of my Thinking Friends in this country, or even in Asia, I assume, who doesn’t know that the Kansas City Chiefs won an exciting come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl LIV on Sunday evening, Feb. 2. 

Since June and I have lived in the Kansas City metropolitan area for 14½ years now, I confess that we got caught up in the hype and even June, who never watches football games, watched the game with me along with our daughter Kathy and her husband Tim. We had a fun Super Bowl party of four.

I also must confess that at halftime, with the score tied and the momentum clearly on the side of the San Francisco 49ers, I predicted that the Chiefs were going to lose. June said I shouldn’t be so pessimistic--and she was right.

Who would have thought that the Chiefs would score more points in the 4th quarter than the 49ers did in the whole game! I had underrated “Mahomes’s magic.” 

One reason why it is easy to be a Chiefs fan now is because of Patrick Mahomes, the young quarterback who has had an amazing beginning to his career as an NFL quarterback.

Mahomes (b. 1995) seems like such a fine, personable young man, it’s hard not to be a fan of a team that has a quarterback like him.

Jeers for the Chiefs

While I have various negative feelings about football in general and professional football in particular, and while I have even more negative feelings about what I have called the idolatry surrounding the Super Bowl, the rest of this article is about the problematic name of the Kansas City team--as well as the name of their Super Bowl opponent.

The Chiefs’ name is a problem because there are Native Americans, and their sympathizers, who think that the name is racist. I realize that there are Native Americans that have no problem with the Chiefs’ name--or with the name of the 49ers or even the Washington Redskins. But some/many do.

Cyberspace brought to my attention several articles highlighting the problem. I read, and recommend, this 1/27 article in The Washington Post, this 1/29 article in The New York Times, and especially this 2/1 NBCnews.com article by Simon Moya-Smith, a Native American.

The two articles I was most influenced by, though, were this 2/1 Vox.com article and this article from a website I hadn’t previously heard of. The former was written by Rhonda LeValdo, an Acoma Pueblo woman who teaches at Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence, Kansas. Her article begins, “The Kansas City Chiefs’ chant isn’t a tribute to people like me. It’s racist.”

The latter article by Zach Johnston in Uproxx.com is titled “Why Both Super Bowl Team Names Should be Replaced.” He forcefully points out the racism ensconced in both names, Chiefs and 49ers. (If you read just one of the linked-to articles, I suggest this one.)

The adult Sunday School class I am currently attending is discussing the Doctrine of Discovery. In our discussion on Super Bowl Sunday, I suggested that perhaps next year we might want to plan for some consciousness-raising about the Chiefs’ name, especially if they are in the Super Bowl again (which is a distinct possibility).

Maybe the time has come for more of us to be at least as concerned with the fair treatment of Native Americans as with watching/enjoying a football game.