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.

The Appeal of Theological Liberalism

The title of my book that I am updating and slightly revising this year is The Limits of Liberalism: A Historical, Theological, and Personal Appraisal of Christian Liberalism. In Chapter Three, I highlight the appeal of theological liberalism before writing in the next chapter—and in the rest of the book—about my many misgivings regarding liberalism. 

The Psychological Appeal

Perhaps the primary psychological appeal of liberalism is found in its attitude of tolerance and broadmindedness.

For most college-educated young adults, this is an attractive characteristic, indeed. Many contemporary people seem to consider religious beliefs to be narrow and divisive, and especially so in fundamentalist expressions of religion, Christianity or otherwise.

By and large, though, liberal Christianity is “politically correct” and can be discussed at dinner parties or other social gatherings without ruffling anyone’s feathers, to use an old rural expression.

The appeal of liberalism is not just to young adults, though. Across the age spectrum, liberalism has a strong psychological appeal for many people who are fed up with the divisiveness, strife, and conflicts perpetuated in the name of religion.

From ancient times until the present, many wars have been waged in the name of some religious commitment. It seems, sadly, that Pascal’s words are true: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.”

Furthermore, in contrast to its condemnation of many “social sins” such as war, discrimination, exploitation, and the like, on an individual level liberal Christianity tends to be non-judgmental and is seldom critical of the personal lifestyles of others.

Yes, for many people there is an attractive psychological appeal in Christian liberalism.

The Political Appeal

It is important to differentiate between theological liberalism and social/political liberalism. Despite some overlapping characteristics, there are also distinct differences and one does not necessarily imply the other.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a close alliance between many aspects of theological liberalism and liberal politics—and most theological liberals have embraced political/social liberalism also, to varying degrees.

Among younger voters in the U.S., for decades now there has been a growing percentage of people who do not claim any religious affiliations. They are often referred to as the Nones.

An October 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 84% of U.S. adults in the “silent generation” (those born from 1928 to 1945) identified as Christians and only 10% were “unaffiliated.” By contrast, only 49% of Millennials (1981~96) self-identified as Christian and 40% were unaffiliated.

Fundamentalism as preserved and expanded by the Religious Right is a major reason for the growth of the Nones, and currently the Democratic Party, which embraces liberal Christianity far more than the Republican Party, is clearly more appealing to that segment of the population.

The Religious Appeal

In addition to the psychological and political appeals, there are also, of course, many religious appeals of Christian liberalism. These are attractive especially to those who are well-educated, sophisticated, and urbane.

Many who were reared in homes where traditional religious beliefs were highly valued have a positive feeling toward religion in general. But their broadened worldview and years of academic study made/make it difficult to hold on to the old theological views that were so much a part of their rearing.

Theological liberalism gave/gives many such persons the opportunity to hold a modern, scientific worldview and to be religious at the same time.

In Chapter Four, which I will highlight next month, we will look at the other side of the matter. Despite the various appeals of theological liberalism elucidated in Chapter Three, there are also some basic problems with Christian liberalism that call for careful attention.

Clobbered by "Truth"

Those of you who have had some theological training will likely recognize the Greek word aletheia. It is the word used many times in the New Testament and translated into English as truth. According to John 14:6, Jesus claims to be the truth (ἡ ἀλήθεια).

Well, last week I was trolled by someone who gave his (surely it wasn’t a her!) name as Alethia 21—and I assume that name means the same as aletheia. That person, about whom I was unable to find any other information, left very negative comments on four different blog articles of mine.

All along I have encouraged people who disagree with my views/ideas to speak up. I have welcomed dialogue—and there has to be some disagreement for there to be any real dialogue. But I have also expected civility, and I have always tried to be civil toward those with whom I have disagreed.

Alethia 21, though, didn’t mince words—and didn’t seem to pay much attention to civility. In the comment he posted on my Feb. 19 blog article, he said, “But now I realized your [sic] a sanctimonious sarcastic liberal. Quite ignorant of what really goes on in life I might add!”

(Well, I may be somewhat ignorant of what really goes on in life, but at least I know the difference between your and you’re! And you should read some of the harsh things he said!)

At the beginning of another comment—and true to his Internet name—Alethia 21 declared, “The issue is always TRUTH! We can say the truth but we can do so in a Christian manner!” Then, just before referring to “Lucifer Obama,” he wrote, “If truth insults then so be it!”

(Actually, these latter comments were later removed by Alethia 21.)

Several times I have seen conservative Christians insisting that it is more important to be biblically correct than to be politically correct—although I have not been able to see why it has to be one or the other.

The insistence on being biblically correct is almost always tied in with a literalistic reading of the Bible considered to be inerrant. Among other things, but at or near the top of the list of what it means to be biblically correct, is the gay/lesbian issue.

Much of Alethia 21’s emphasis on truth, and much of his anger toward me, was directly related, it seems, to his vociferous opposition to gay/lesbian rights. What looks to us “liberals” as political incorrectness (as well as ignorance and bigotry), seems to people like Alethia 21 to be adherence to the truth of God’s word.

That kind of polarity in society, and among people who claim to be Christians, seems to be insurmountable in this present time. How can people be so greatly divided about the truth? And why do some professing Christians think it is all right to clobber others with the truth (as they see it)?

Perhaps the over-confident and overbearing use of truth fueled development of the post-modern view that denies there is any “absolute truth.” Everything becomes relativized: you have your truth, I have mine.

Back in 1995 a helpful book dealing with the challenge of post-modernism to Christianity was published under the title Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be. That title expresses the present reality.

Certainly, the post-modern view of truth is much kinder than old views such as that the one held by Alethia 21. But is it the truth? Probably not.

But, admirably, this view at least rejects the legitimacy of clobbering people with “truth.”

The Role of Government

Some people whose opinions I value greatly took exception to my posting about what’s wrong with liberalism. They raised good questions and made some legitimate criticisms in their comments. There were also some debatable statements made. For example, one person saw a problem with my “reinforcing of a simplistic dichotomy” between conservatives and liberals and presenting the two sides as caricatures.

StudentNewsDaily.com is a non-profit current events website for high school students. Most who read this blog have been out of high school for a long time, but let me share how that website describes a major difference between liberals and conservatives. To me this seems to be a fair and helpful description of opposing positions, one which is simple but not simplistic as well as one which depicts real differences and not just caricatures.

According to their analysis, conservatives “believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense.” They also believe that “the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.”

On the other hand, liberals “believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all,” and that it is “the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights.” They also believe that “the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.”

In the political sphere, people have to come down on one side of this divide or the other. It is not really possible to be in the middle—unless that is a rather broad position encompassing various viewpoints, which it can and probably should be.

The conservative position was clearly articulated by President Reagan in his 1981 inaugural address. He declared that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” It seems that Reagan’s statement is now widely supported by the majority of the current members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Yet, the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, as I have previously emphasized, speaks of that document being drafted in order to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, [and] promote the general Welfare.” (The latter phrase refers to the “well-being” of people, not just what is popularly called welfare today.) If, or when, people are in need, discriminated against, exploited, etc., how could government action to correct those ills be a problem—except for those causing such problems?

So while I do believe liberals and conservatives need each other and need to work together for a broad and radiant center, I have to come down on the side that seems to be most concerned for the general welfare of the most people. And while liberals must be careful not to think they can or will be able to solve all social problems, shouldn’t one major role of the government be “to alleviate social ills” to the greatest extent possible?

We Need Each Other

Recently I have written both about what’s wrong with conservatism and what’s wrong with liberalism. There were no doubt conservatives who disagreed with my posting about conservatism and liberals who disagreed with my posting about liberalism. And there may well have been some who disagreed with both.

It is certainly all right to disagree with ideas that you think are wrong. At the same time, there needs to be careful consideration as to what is being said, and then when there is disagreement, that needs to be expressed in a respectful manner. I am grateful that those who post comments on this blog do it respectfully.

Now I am writing to emphasize that we need each other. I am not talking about the way that is portrayed in a song with that title by Sanctus Real, the Christian rock band. Their song was quite popular in some circles in 2008, and the lyrics are actually quite good.

Rather, I am emphasizing here how conservatives need liberals and liberals need conservatives. That is true whether we are speaking of theology or politics. Some of you may agree in general with this idea, but you may also wish there weren't so many on the other side.

My father used to tell about a man he knew who complained about there being so many Democrats in Worth County where he lived. When someone asked the man, “Don’t you think there ought to be Democrats?” he replied, “Sure, there should some Democrats. There just shouldn’t be so d*** many of them!”

Probably some of you think there shouldn’t be so d*** many liberals or so d*** many conservatives. But we need each other. And we need to listen to each other. We need each other in order to realize that issues are seldom as simple as we too often think.

We all have a tendency to believe that our ideas are completely right and the ideas of those who hold differing views are completely wrong. But it is only fundamentalists, whether on the right or the left, who think they are absolutely right and those who have differing views are absolutely wrong. And it is fundamentalism on both sides that is polarizing (and paralyzing) our country.

Everyone realizes, of course, that a bird or an airplane needs two wings to fly. Can we take that as a hint about how in both theology and politics there needs to be both right-wingers and left-wingers?

It is also true, of course, that for a bird or an airplane most of the weight is in the middle, between the wings. Is that also a hint about how in both theology and politics there needs to be more emphasis on the “radiant center” rather than on one wing or the other?

What's Wrong with Liberalism?

“What’s Wrong with Conservatism?” was the title of my previous blog posting. As promised, here is a look at the other side.

As many of you know, last year I published a book under the title The Limits of Liberalism (LoL). While LoL is primarily about theological liberalism rather than social or political liberalism, which is my main concern in this posting, there are definite overlaps.

In short, in whatever context they are being considered, liberals tend to have too high an opinion of human nature and are thereby are often “guilty” of pride and misplaced optimism. In the political sphere, those attitudes lead, among other things, to an over-emphasis on the role of government to solve the problems in human society.

One of the more important quotes in LoL is found under the title of the eighth chapter, “The Limits of Liberalism’s Understanding of Sin.” Chris Hedges, a former journalist for the New York Times, writes in his book now titled When Atheism Becomes Religion (2009), “We have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God; we have much to fear from those who do not believe in sin” (p. 13).

(Hedges, pictured on the right, is the author of several books, the latest being Death of the Liberal Class, 2010, a hard hitting book which I have not read much of yet, and I have questions about what I have read.)

Liberals talk a lot about social problems, and may even talk about “social sin,” but they tend to think that with enough human effort those societal sins can be overcome. And make no mistake about it: there have been many social ills that have been largely overcome by the work of those who can rightfully be called liberals. Slavery has been abolished as has such evils as child labor and the exploitation of adult workers, as well as the male dominance of women to a large degree. But can government create an ideal society?

As I write in LoL, “Back in the 1960s, one of my revered seminary professors made what I thought were rather snide remarks about President Johnson’s attempts to create a ‘great society’ in the United States” (p. 208). Dr. Rust saw Johnson’s liberal policies as evidence of hubris, which the dictionary defines as “overbearing pride or presumption,” and he may well have been right.

Liberals tend to see education and the creation of a positive social environment as cures for the ills of society. Moreover, according to social and political liberals it is the role of government to provide that education and to create that desired social environment. And, again, make no mistake about it: education and eradicating negative social conditions are very important.

But problems remain. I also remember Dr. Rust emphasizing that if you educate a sinner what you get is an educated sinner who will then be able to sin more ingeniously. And he was probably right. Doesn’t it seem as though the greatest “sins” of our times have been committed by well-educated, well-heeled, and well-placed people of power?

Partly because of their overly optimistic view of human nature, liberals tend to place too much emphasis on legislation and government spending to solve social problems and to bring about desired social change. They often fail to place adequate stress upon personal responsibility.

So perhaps the main thing wrong with liberalism is, indeed, its failure to recognize the problem of sin, which among other things means innate self-centeredness, and which is the major root of personal and public problems which no government program can eradicate.