If a person is lax to one aspect of the Bible (e.g. failing to repent when making false accusations) but they see themselves as passionate about another aspect of the Bible (e.g. specific teachings about how the first sin affects us), it seems rather self serving to take it upon yourself to assert that only one of these areas of laxity should be called liberal.1. Of course, we could easily respond that it seems rather "self serving" for Glenn to take it upon himself to assert that one isn't a liberal if he denies hell and inerrancy, not to mention the historicity of Adam. Or that it seems rather "self serving" for Glenn to take it upon himself to assert that one is a liberal if one "is unwilling to respond in a biblical way" or "fail[s] to repent when making false accusations." This should be clear to him.
This should be clear to you.
2. Glenn is attempting to redefine what theological liberalism means and entails. He's attempting to say that one is a liberal if one "is unwilling to respond in a biblical way" or "fail[s] to repent when making false accusations."
Sorry, Glenn, even if it were true that Steve "fail[ed] to repent when making false accusations" (not that I grant it for one second), it wouldn't necessarily make him a theological liberal. It'd make him impenitent.
In fact, it's quite possible for a person to be completely orthodox and sound in his theology but impenitent over a particular sin.
Sure, it's a sin to be impenitent. But it doesn't necessarily indicate one is a theological liberal if one is impenitent.
3. After all, theological labels and definitions don't occur in a vacuum. For one thing, there's a historical context behind terms such as "liberal." For starters Glenn might try reading J. Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism. If he has already read it, he might try better appreciating its content. It'd be even better if he would appropriate it.
4. Anyway, Glenn doesn't get to redefine "liberal" in a way that suits him. How so? Glenn is using his redefined definition of "liberal" as one who "fail[s] to repent when making false accusations" to lend support to his demand that Steve apologize for his apparent slight against Glenn, which apparently occurred when Steve said:
Of course, Glenn isn't really defending Craig. Rather, Glenn is using the Craig incident as a pretext to defend himself. Glenn is a liberal (denies hell, denies inerrancy), so he wants to make evangelicalism a big tent. Defending Craig is just a ploy for making his case that evangelicals should be more tolerant and open-minded with respect to the Glenn Peoples of the world.Glenn has been taking umbrage at this remark ever since.
5. For Steve's part, he actually gave specific and valid reasons for why he labels Glenn a liberal. Steve has pointed out that Glenn is a theological liberal because Glenn denies hell as well as inerrancy. Not to mention the historicity of Adam. Steve isn't pointing out that Glenn is a theological liberal because of the way he conducts or doesn't conduct himself. No, and at the risk of beating a dead horse, Steve gave and has continued to give specific reasons for why he labels Glenn a theological liberal: denial of hell; denial of inerrancy; and denial of the historicity of Adam.
6. Glenn accuses us of being "self serving." But unlike him we actually provide good reasons for why we think he's "self serving." I mean, if redefining a term (liberal now means someone who fails to repent when making false accusations) to suit one's own purposes (Steve Hays needs to repent and apologize to me, Glenn Peoples) isn't "self serving," I don't know what is.
7. BTW, since Glenn thinks his positions on hell and inerrancy are biblical positions, and since those positions have historically been connected with liberalism, why does he mind being labeled a theological liberal? In this sense, isn't "liberal" an accurate description of Glenn's beliefs?
It's true "liberal" has a decidedly negative connotation among conservative Christians. But why does Glenn care what conservative Christians think? It's not as if he thinks highly of them in the first place since he says stuff like this:
[T]he conservative Christian community wants its scholars as long as it can control them.Why would Glenn want to be associated with a community which he alleges controls its scholars? Judging by statements like this, it'd seem Glenn wouldn't want to be affiliated with conservative Christians.
Yet Glenn is rankled when conservative Christians label him a theological liberal.
Hm, why the discrepancy? Why would someone who thinks poorly of conservative Christians, someone who doesn't appear to have any good reason to be affiliated with conservative Christians, care what conservative Christians think about him and label him? It's not as if their opinion of his theology is valuable to Glenn. Or is it?
I can't seem to make heads or tails out of it. Well, unless Steve was absolutely correct in his initial assessment of Glenn:
Of course, Glenn isn’t really defending Craig. Rather, Glenn is using the Craig incident as a pretext to defend himself. Glenn is a liberal (denies hell, denies inerrancy), so he wants to make evangelicalism a big tent. Defending Craig is just a ploy for making his case that evangelicals should be more tolerant and open-minded with respect to the Glenn Peoples of the world.8. Anyway, people can read Steve's original post here, my thoughts here, and Steve's evaluation here.
Many readers of this blog are not American (myself included).
ReplyDeleteWhat is this particular heresy - "liberal"?
Is it something particular to an American's view of the world, or is it universal?
It seems to me that an American's view of most political spectrum, especially those containing 'left' and 'right', is hardly universal.
Now if by 'liberal', an American means 'humanistic', a term which is universal, criticizing it as heretical within theological circles would more broadly be accepted.
Does "modernism" (i.e., theological liberalism) not mean the same thing in all English-speaking seminaries? I had no idea that liberalism, as it is being used in this context, is an Americanism. Who knew?
ReplyDeleteTheological Liberalism
Liberal Protestanism
There are degrees of theological liberalism, but here's a euphemistic summary:
ReplyDeleteDiversity
Perhaps the defining characteristic of liberal Christians is that they are comfortable with ambiguity and diversity. They realize that life is a complex spiritual journey, and that each person on that journey is confronted with unexpected revelations and unique experiences. Liberal Christians therefore welcome a variety of approaches to understanding God, and are open to new ways of talking about the divine. Religious questions are seen as complex, and answers only tentative. Certain that “now we see through a glass, darkly” (1 Cor. 13:12), liberals are cautious about making dogmatic statements or claiming to have a monopoly on the truth. They see the search for truth as an ongoing task, rather than one that has already been completed.
A Non-Literal View of Scripture
Conservative Christians are often content to answer religious questions by appealing to the absolute authority of Scripture. Liberal Christians, on the other hand, find such an approach to be flawed. Many see the Bible as a witness to revelation, or generally inspired, rather than completely inspired in all its parts. Just as Jesus was fully human and wholey divine, so one must also see the Bible as a product of both human and divine influences. Indeed, liberal Christians are quick to point out that the falleness and imperfection of its human authors gives the Bible an imperfect quality and authority.
Liberals view Scripture through a critical lens, and are not afraid to challenge traditional assumptions and interpretations. They rely heavily on higher criticism of the Bible, which looks into the origin and composition of the biblical texts, revealing a great deal about the human aspect of Scripture. Modern philosophical, biological, and cosmological theories that are well supported by evidence, and reflect the true nature of the world around us, can also shape the way liberals interpret Scripture. Traditional Christian doctrines, such as the Virgin Birth, the Atonement, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the Resurrection, are sometimes given new interpretations by liberals.
Perhaps more so than evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, liberal Christians see the teachings of Jesus as having a central place. Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience are each given equal footing in determining Christian faith.
Cont.
ReplyDeleteAn Intimate, Personal View of God
Imminent and personal images of God in Scripture are attractive to liberals. For some this takes on the form of a belief in panentheism (Everything-in-God-ism). Liberals also see little distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and therefore do not look for “miracles” to confirm the existence of God. Instead, they feel that faith in God allows one to see the Spirit moving in the everyday stuff of life.
Universal Salvation
The concept of personal salvation is not typically stressed by liberal Christians. Accordingly, traditional images of heaven, hell, and the End Times are not given much weight in their theologies. When salvation is discussed, liberals are more apt to stress its “this worldly” aspects, and appeal to a universalist interpretation of Scripture when confronted with questions of eternal punishment and rewards.
For many liberal Christians, social justice is a central concern, and the transformation of society, rather than that of the individual, is more typically stressed. Equality for racial minorities, women, homosexuals, and the economically disadvantaged is seen as an essential part of the Gospel message. A concern for the environment, and other typically liberal social issues, also find a great deal of support among liberal Christians.
Fellowship & Community
Liberals tend to stress the centrality of community in the Christian experience. They can be found in almost all churches (from Roman Catholic to Southern Baptist), but tend to be in greater numbers in the mainline Protestant denominations: American Baptist Churches, USA; Disciples of Christ; Episcopal Church; Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Presbyterian Church, USA; United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church. The Unitarian Universalist Association and the Metropolitan Community Churches are even more liberally minded.
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13746.htm
Thanks Steve.
ReplyDeleteWhat then, distinguishes this "liberalism" from "humanism" as all of these things are equally evident in a "humanistic" theology.
I don't see the difference between "liberalism" and "humanism", and "humanism" is very easy to refute biblically and has long been an ideology opposed by the bible given that humanism made its appearance at the tower of Babel, and is evident in the Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek and Roman Empires.
It's not clear "liberalism" did.
"Glenn is attempting to redefine what theological liberalism means."
ReplyDeleteQuit making up stories. I never used the term "theological liberalism." I just said that taking a lax stance to submitting to God's authority on moral issues should be called liberal. Obviously it's not doctrinal liberalism. It's ethically liberal, however.
Never mind what Glenn actually said. Don't let the facts get in your way.
Glenn said:
ReplyDeleteQuit making up stories. I never used the term "theological liberalism." I just said that taking a lax stance to submitting to God's authority on moral issues should be called liberal. Obviously it's not doctrinal liberalism. It's ethically liberal, however.
Never mind what Glenn actually said. Don't let the facts get in your way.
1. Let's review in short compass the he-said-she-said "liberal" labeling bit of this debate. This is what's happened so far: Steve labeled Glenn a theological liberal based on Glenn's denail of inerrancy, his denail of hell, and (later) his denial of the historicity of Adam. Glenn has rejected the label that he is a theological liberal; Glenn claims he is an evangelical. Furthermore, Glenn replies that Steve is an "ethical liberal" because (according to Glenn) Steve has lied and refuses to repent.
2. Okay, let's say Glenn is right. Let's say Glenn "never used the term 'theological liberalism'" to describe Steve but he does allege Steve is "ethically liberal." By which it seems Glenn is just saying Steve is lax in his morals. Or rather moral (singular), since Glenn's only basis thus far for this charge of "ethical liberalism" against Steve is his alleged impenitent lie about Glenn. (If Glenn had other incidences in mind, he didn't bring them up.)
That is, Glenn claims Steve is ethically liberal because Glenn thinks Steve has lied about Glenn and refuses to repent. However, if this is the case, Glenn is still redefining terms. Glenn is still redefining "ethically liberal" to mean something it doesn't mean.
After all, is someone "ethically liberal" if he commits a single lie and refuses to repent - as Glenn alleges Steve has done? Does that mean that a usually biblically obedient (to use Glenn's term), upstanding, moral, godly Christian who perhaps slips in a moment of sin and lies and refuses to repent is now labeled an "ethically liberal" Christian? At a minimum, wouldn't a person need at least a more long-term and deeply held pattern in his beliefs, values, and behavior rather than a single slip-up to be labeled "ethically liberal"? Yet that's what Glenn has labeled Steve based on a single incidence.
Also, let's say the "ethically liberal" Christian repents of his lie and apologizes. Has he now gone from being "ethically liberal" to again being "ethically conservative" (or whatever) in Glenn's view?
If committing a single lie and refusing to repent is enough in Glenn's mind for someone to be labeled "ethically liberal," then what would Glenn label someone who is, say, quite happy to tell others he is homosexual and pro-abortion? Ethical superliberalism?
3. Of course, the charge of ethical liberalism against Steve still does nothing to refute Steve's original claim that Glenn is a theological liberal. Steve gave valid reasons for why he calls Glenn a theological liberal. Once again, they are: Glenn's denial of inerrancy, Glenn's denial of hell, and Glenn's denial of the historicity of Adam.
Glenn's reply so far has essentially been: "No, I'm not a theological liberal! You're a liar, Steve! And you know what? You're the liberal here because you lied and refuse to repent!"
But even if it's true ethical liberalism can be defined as lying and refusing to repent (which I don't think is true), it doesn't mean Glenn isn't a theological liberal. It could be true that ethical liberalism can be defined as lying and refusing to repent true, and it could likewise be true that Glenn is a theological liberal too. The one doesn't necessarily exclude the other.
4. BTW, just because Glenn didn't use the literal phrase "theological liberalism" doesn't therefore exculpate him from its abuse. It doesn't let Glenn off the hook. For example, the Bible doesn't use the literal word "Trinity" to describe the concept of God in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But it doesn't mean the Bible doesn't talk about the Trinity.
ReplyDelete5. I don't know why Glenn keeps foisting such a dichotomy between "doctrinal liberalism" and "ethical liberal[ism]," separating beliefs from behavior, or (as Paul put it) deeds from creeds.
6. All that said, inasmuch as Glenn himself parallels evangelicalism and liberalism, conservative Christians and liberal Christians, and so forth, he invites the implication that he is talking about theological liberalism. Or at least that he's equivocating.
For example, Glenn has said stuff like the following:
"[Glenn addresssing Steve:] Can you really take it? As soon a s small amount of pressure has been put on you to act like the evangelical you profess to be, you have forogtten your own standards and tried to censor the concerns out of existence. You have descreditted yourself sir. I am not the liberal here. You are." (Source)
"Being an evangelical is as much about following Christ as about beliving sound doctrine. By wilfully refusing to be obedient to Scripture, you show clearly which of us is the "liberal," if by liberal you mean not holding to the word of God." (Source)
"An evangelical is just as committed to living the word of God as believing it." (Source)
"If a person is lax to one aspect of the Bible (e.g. failing to repent when making false accusations) but they see themselves as passionate about another aspect of the Bible (e.g. specific teachings about how the first sin affects us), it seems rather self serving to take it upon yourself to assert that only one of these areas of laxity should be called liberal." (Source)
7. At any rate, people can read our past posts for the proper context and come to their own conclusions (e.g. start with the posts here, here, and here).