In the current political and theological climate, to be designated a liberal by those of my tribe is to be assigned the mark of the beast. The term liberal itself is deemed to be synonymous with leftist, progressive, and even communist. In fact, there are important distinctions. For the sake of this reflection, I wish to limit my remarks to define theological liberalism.
First, please allow me to reaffirm that my theological and political leanings have been consistently conservative (see here). Even so, I have been often called a liberal. In the early days of my ministry, I was called liberal because I favored the New American Standard Bible over the King James Version. It mattered little to my accusers that the NASB is the product of the best conservative scholarship of the day. I was called liberal because I favored Contemporary Christian Music over Southern Gospel. And, probably the greatest sign of my liberalism was that I was always trying to build bridges between white and black Christians. Today, some people assume that I am liberal because I have academic degrees, serve the church as a seminary professor, and favor the full participation of women in the life and ministry of the church.
I like to refer to myself as one who has a conservative mind and a liberal heart. I am firmly committed to the traditional creeds and doctrines of the Christian faith, including the Church of God Declaration of Faith. I am firmly committed to the ethics of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I have an open heart towards people who disagree with me, theologically or politically. Also, having an open heart means that I carefully and critically listen. Most importantly, having an open heart means that theology takes priority over politics. So, I occasionally diverge from the politics of my tribe. My Christian ethic requires me to open doors to immigrants, it requires me to treat non-Christians with grace and dignity.
With that established let’s return to the original question – what is a liberal? Traditional theological liberalism is relatively easy to define. First, theological liberals deny the divine inspiration and authority of Holy Scriptures. They believe that the biblical narratives are nothing more than historical documents. Furthermore, they tend to use scripture selectively, if at all.
Second, theological liberals tend to deny the historic classic teachings that Jesus Christ is fully human and fully God. They deny the deity of Christ, affirming his humanity. This leads theological liberals to assert that Jesus Christ is but one way, among others, to understand God. To the liberal, Jesus, with Mohammed, Moses, and the Buddha, is nothing more than a wise human.
Third, and related to the second, theological liberals resist supernaturalism. In other words, they deny the existence of miracles. Everything must be understood from the perspective of scientific naturalism. For all practical purposes, theological liberals are practicing deist.
Fourth, and this is a more recent development, theological liberals resist the traditional Christian teaching on human identity as created in the image of God as gendered and sexually distinct, correspondingly equal heterosexual beings. Liberals affirm homosexual marriage and abortion rights.
With this said, I must point out that conservatives can’t walk away with clean hands. The selective use of scripture was used by conservatives in the 19th century to support slavery and the relocation of Native Americans, to resist women’s suffrage, and in the 20th century to support Jim Crow laws and resist civil rights for African-Americans. So, ironically, it’s possible for one to be politically conservative but theologically liberal based upon how the biblical text is appropriated. Also, it’s possible for someone to be theologically conservative and lean politically liberal. These persons are pro-life, pro-heterosexual, traditional Christians who also embrace political policies that are traditionally considered liberal – Civil rights, women’s rights, immigration rights, creation care, and preference for the poor. Political fidelity should never be a test for theological fidelity.
My point here is this, if we’re going to have a serious dialogue then we must understand the terms we are using, and we must resist name-calling. We must listen carefully and critically, with open hearts and open minds, maintaining fidelity to the classic Christian faith. If we must insist on calling someone a liberal, then we should at least be able to correctly define the term.
Watch for next post – What is a Conservative?
