Problems of Theological Liberalism

Last month I posted an article about the appeal of theological liberalism, based on Chapter Three of my book The Limits of Liberalism, which I am updating and slightly revising this year. This post is about Chapter Four, which sets forth several of my misgivings about theological liberalism.

Preliminary Issues

Before looking at the more serious attitudinal and theological issues, first consider a couple of preliminary matters. The first is the difficulty of finding a position between the extremes.

In ancient Greek mythology, Scylla and Charybdis were the names of two sea monsters situated on opposite sides of the Strait of Messina between Sicily and Italy. The fearful monsters were located close enough to each other that they posed an inescapable threat to sailors who sought to pass between them. 

Avoiding Charybdis meant passing too closely to Scylla and vice versa. Accordingly, contemporary Christians are confronted with the challenge of having to pass between the Scylla of theological liberalism and the Charybdis of fundamentalism.

Many have been so intent on escaping Charybdis that they have sailed straight into the jaws of Scylla. But I repeatedly assert that we must always be careful not to flee one extreme only to fall into the opposite extreme. 

A second preliminary issue pertains to liberalism’s intended audience. Liberal theology is primarily espoused by the highly educated, sophisticated segment of society. However, the societal location of a majority of the people in the world is far from the privileged position of most who develop or affirm liberalism.

Attitudinal Issues

Three of the attitudinal problems of liberalism are found in its tendency toward compromise, arrogance, and uncertainty.

In Chapter Five, I suggest that liberals have sometimes been guilty of “throwing out the baby and keeping the bathwater.” They have tended to keep the generic teachings of Jesus and the Bible about doing good and being nice, while rejecting the traditional emphases on the uniqueness and the significance of Christ and the Bible.

Further, the liberals’ rejection of fundamentalism has often led to a sense of superiority. But whenever we belittle others and criticize their religious views because of our own “superior” position, is that not a form of arrogance?

Then, in fleeing the “monster” of fundamentalism, which often expresses absolute certainty, many are swallowed by the “monster” of liberalism, which tends to eschew certainty and even in some cases to glory in uncertainty.

The certainty of the fundamentalist can, and often does, lead to a form of arrogance on that side of the spectrum, but the lack of certainty—or of strong conviction about core theological beliefs—is a weakness in those who come down on the other side of that spectrum.

Theological Issues

Specific theological issues are dealt with in the subsequent chapters of my book, but this section of Chapter Four begins with a discussion of the problem of the starting point. Which comes first, revelation or reason?

In traditional and neo-orthodox theology, God’s initiative in revealing Godself to humans is the starting point for knowing God. In liberal theology, even if there is a recognition of revelation (which there may not be), it is secondary to human reason and experience.

The proclivity to place too much weight on human reason and too little on God’s revelation is a major problem of theological liberalism.

In addition, there is the problem of liberalism’s excessive optimism and tolerance, which I won’t elaborate further here.

Finally, of prime importance is the matter of truth. Within liberalism there is a strong tendency to slide into a relativism which, to quote Lesslie Newbigin, “is not willing to speak about truth but only about ‘what is true for me.’”

The problem of liberalism is seen more in what it denies than in what it affirms. Moreover, the limits of liberalism are found in that what it says is often true enough, but it falls short by not acknowledging all of the truth.