The Limits of Liberal Views of the Bible

Over the last four months, I have posted four foundational articles related to my book The Limits of Liberalism (2010), which I am updating and slightly revising this year. This post is based on Chapter Five, the first specific issue discussed with an entire chapter—and the only one dealing with the same issue as my book on fundamentalism.  

Positive Aspects in Liberal Views

Before elucidating some problem areas in liberal views of the Bible, several positions must first be noted as being commendable.

First, the rejection of biblical inerrancy is an important emphasis of liberalism.

In his 2003 book The Heart of Christianity, Marcus Borg strikingly states that in the last half-century “more Christians have left the church because of the Bible than for any other single reason” (p. 43)—and that is largely because of the conservative evangelical emphasis on inerrancy. Thus, the liberals’ rejection of that is praiseworthy.

Also, as I write in Chapter Five, “As opposed to fundamentalism’s approach to the Bible, in the liberal paradigm there is freedom to revise interpretations and to reject previous views which are obviously no longer valid.” That, too, is commendable.

So, there are clearly some positive aspects in liberal views of the Bible. However, . . .

Negative Aspects in Liberal Views

The starting point of liberalism is one of the main problems, for it begins with reason, not God’s revelation as recorded in the Bible.

Traditional “orthodox” (Protestant) theologians thought we should start with the Bible and form our Christian beliefs and base our actions on it. But liberals tend to think that we should start with reason and accept only what we can rationally understand and accept of the Bible.

That problem was highlighted by Martin Luther in his disputation with the scholar Erasmus. Luther reportedly said, “The difference between you and me, Erasmus, is that you sit above Scripture and judge it, while I sit under Scripture and let it judge me!”

Further, one does not have to be a conservative evangelical to see that there are potential problems with the liberals’ “softness” in speaking clearly about the unique inspiration of the Bible or the authority of the Bible, which were strong traditional Christian emphases long before the rise of fundamentalism.

Questions about Liberal Views

In Chapter Five, I discuss five questions. The first two are, “human or divine?” and “factual or metaphorical?” In contrast to most conservatives’ emphasis on the Bible as divine and mostly factual, most liberals tend to see the Bible primarily as a human book and mostly metaphorical.

Both questions are probably answered best with a both/and position rather than an either/or one. The latter is easier to explain, but the truth is much more likely to be found in the both/and explanation.

The final question of the chapter is this: should Christians speak of the “Holy Bible” or of multiple “sacred scriptures”?

There is a proclivity in liberal theology toward the latter, which means relativizing the Bible. Thus, rather than holding to the Christian Bible as unique, as implied by the words “Holy Bible,” the sacred writings of other faith traditions are seen as more or less of equal value or validity.

In contrast to the contentious past in which Christians tended to vilify other religions and to denigrate their scriptures, liberals are prone to accept the scriptures of all major religions as being more or less of equal value.

Certainly, that irenic attitude of the liberals in this regard is preferable to the belligerent attitudes and actions of many Christians of the past. But it is not necessary to go from one extreme to the other.

Asserting one’s belief in and acceptance of the “Holy Bible” does not keep us from affirming the right of the adherents of other religions to believe in and accept the sacredness of their scriptures.

But affirmation of religious freedom does not mean relativism. It is simply a matter of respect for others with different traditions. Or, we might say, it is a matter of loving others as we are commanded to do by the Holy Bible.

*****

“The Bible Is Like a Rorschach Test” was the title of my 9/20/17 blog post, and it has received more than 350 pageviews; if you would like to read it (again), click here.

TTT #29 We Should Always Go Easy on Judging Others—Or Ourselves

The bulk of this article is taken from the next to last chapter of my as yet unpublished book Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (TTT). The final section of that chapter is included here, but I encourage you to click this link and also read the first three sections of the chapter.

The Case for Kindness

Christians have not always been kind to one another. The Catholic inquisitions of the Middle Ages, in which people designated as heretics were hunted down and executed, are infamous. Enmity and strife between Protestants and Catholics existed from the beginning of the Reformation, and Protestants began killing other Protestants as early as 1527.

Although there have not been religious wars in this country, still among Christian denominations and even within national and local churches often there has been harshness, incivility, and unkindness.

All of this is woefully contradictory to a challenging Biblical admonition: “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.”

Instead of being tough-minded and tender-hearted, too many Christians have too often been tender-minded and hard-hearted.

One of my favorite contemporary Christian authors has written a book titled Generous Orthodoxy. That is a good emphasis when it comes to theology; Christian thinkers need to be accepting and magnanimous rather than being mean-spirited and unkind.

The same is true for Christian believers of all kinds—and for adherents of others religions as well—as we seek to live out our faith. We need to be generous and open-minded in our evaluation of others rather than being critical and judgmental.

In a recent translation, 1 Peter 3:8 admonishes, “Be agreeable, be sympathetic, be loving, be compassionate, be humble. That goes for all of you, no exceptions.” These are good words to consider, and hard words to put into practice consistently.

But when we are tempted to say, or even think, critical words about other people, we need to recall this injunction to be sympathetic, loving, and compassionate.

When I was a freshman in college, I bought a little book titled Everyday Religion. I profited from reading that book then as a young man and I found it delightfully helpful when I read through it again a few years ago.

The first chapter is “When We Really Live,” and I have remembered through the years how the author says that we really live when, among other things, we know how to be “a little kinder than necessary every day.”

So when we start to be harsh and judgmental in evaluation of others, or ourselves, let’s remember these words and try, indeed, to be a little kinder than necessary. If we can do that, we will find that everyone will be better off.  

Denouncing Anti-Semitism

Although not a part of the 29^th chapter of TTT, last Saturday’s mass murder of Jews in Pittsburgh prompts me to reflect on how Christians, among others, have often not been kind, to say the least, toward Jewish people.

Although religious differences are real—and important—nothing can justify mistreatment of other people because of their religion or ethnicity.

This article is being posted on the morning before Reformation Day, which commemorates the beginning of the Protestant Reformation led by Martin Luther. Sadly, though, Luther’s judgmental and condemnatory words about the Jewish people have had a lasting negative impact on many Protestant Christians.

Please join me in sending condolences to those who are grieving in Pittsburgh, in denouncing all forms of anti-Semitism, and in pledging to be as kind as possible to all people, regardless of their religion (or lack thereof) or ethnicity.

"Here I Stand"

Tomorrow, 31 October 2017, is the 500th anniversary of what is regarded as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. This noteworthy anniversary has been talked about for months and even years already. But please consider with me the following matters.

The Courage of Martin Luther

Roland Bainton (1894-1984) was a prominent British-born American church historian. His book Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther was published in 1950—and sold more than a million copies. It was so well-written and informative that during my years as a seminary student, it was one of the few books I bought that was not a textbook. 

According to Bainton, in 1517 on the eve of All Saints' Day, the Catholic holy day celebrated on November 1, “in accord with current practice,” Luther posted “on the door of the Castle Church [in Wittenberg, Germany] a printed placard in the Latin language consisting of ninety-five theses for debate” (p. 79).

That rather unpretentious act triggered such a reaction that it is generally regarded as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. Posting those theses (topics) for debate was not an especially courageous act—but standing firm despite his censure by the Roman Catholic Church was.

In June 1520 Pope Leo X issued a papal bull demanding that Luther renounce 41 of his 95 theses. Luther not only refused to do that, he publicly burned that decree of the Pope. As a result, in January 1521 the Pope excommunicated Luther—which was a “big deal” for someone who had been a Catholic priest, as Luther was. 

Three months later, Luther was called to defend his beliefs before Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms (a city in Germany). It was at that trial where he was famously defiant. In response to the demand that he recant, Luther declared,

My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe, God help me. Amen.

Bainton then notes, “The earliest printed version added the words, ‘Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise’” (p. 185).  

For his courageous refusal to recant his writings, the emperor declared him an outlaw and a heretic.

The Compromise of Luther

Luther was saved from possible martyrdom by the intervention of Frederick the Wise, the German prince who was one of the most powerful men in the Holy Roman Empire. The religious-political union of Luther and Frederick was of great benefit for Luther, but not for the great number of “peasants” in the German principalities.

The writings of Luther and new Bible-derived notions of the basic equality of all people precipitated the tragic Peasant’s Revolt of 1524-1525. Luther was not unsympathetic to the plight of the peasants, but in the end he sanctioned the violent suppression of the peasants who had unwisely sought to gain more equality through violence.

By his union with the political rulers and his approval of the slaughter of the revolting peasants—as many as 100,000 were killed!—Luther compromised his courageous stand in asserting that “the just shall live by faith.” 

There was need for a more thoroughgoing radical reformation—one that would not only change the believers’ relationship to the church but also to the state.

The Reformation after Luther

There can be no doubt about the tremendous importance of the Reformation started by Luther 500 years ago. But also of great importance is the “radical reformation” started eight years later by a small group of Christians in Switzerland. 

I am looking forward to the 500th-anniversary celebration of that reformation in 2025. The courageous “here I stand” position for many of those reformers meant martyrdom.