| Part ofa series on |
| Protestantism |
|---|
 |
 Christianity portal |
Liberal Christianity, also known asliberal theology and historically asChristian modernism (seeCatholic modernism andfundamentalist–modernist controversy),[1] is a movement that interpretsChristian teaching by prioritizing modern knowledge, science and ethics. It emphasizes the importance of reason and experience over doctrinal authority. Liberal Christians view their theology as an alternative to both atheisticrationalism and theologies based on traditional interpretations of external authority, such as theBible orsacred tradition.[2][3][4]
Liberal theology grew out ofthe Enlightenment's rationalism and theRomanticism of the 18th and 19th centuries. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was characterized by an acceptance ofDarwinian evolution, use of modernbiblical criticism, and participation in theSocial Gospel movement.[5] This was also the period when liberal theology was most dominant within theProtestant churches. Liberal theology's influence declined with the rise ofneo-orthodoxy in the 1930s and withliberation theology in the 1960s.[6]Catholic forms of liberal theology emerged in the late 19th century. By the 21st century, liberal Christianity had become anecumenical tradition, including both Protestants and Catholics.[7]
In the context of theology,liberal does not refer topolitical liberalism, and it should also be distinguished fromprogressive Christianity.[1]
Liberal Protestantism developed in the 19th century out of a perceived need to adapt Christianity to a modern intellectual context. With the acceptance ofCharles Darwin's theory ofnatural selection, some traditional Christian beliefs, such as parts of theGenesis creation narrative, became difficult to defend. Unable to ground faith exclusively in an appeal toscripture or the person ofJesus Christ, liberals, according to theologian and intellectual historianAlister McGrath, "sought to anchor that faith in common human experience, and interpret it in ways that made sense within the modern worldview."[8] Beginning in Germany, liberal theology was influenced by several strands of thought, including theEnlightenment's high view of human reason andPietism's emphasis onreligious experience andinterdenominational tolerance.[9]
The sources of religious authority recognized by liberal Protestants differed from conservative Protestants. Traditional Protestants understood theBible to be uniquely authoritative (sola scriptura); all doctrine, teaching and the church itself derive authority from it.[10] A traditional Protestant could therefore affirm that "what Scripture says, God says."[11] Liberal Christians rejected the doctrine ofbiblical inerrancy orinfallibility,[12] which they saw as theidolatry (fetishism) of the Bible.[13] Instead, liberals sought to understand the Bible through modernbiblical criticism, such ashistorical criticism, that began to be used in the late 1700s to ask if biblical accounts were based on older texts or whether theGospels recorded the actual words of Jesus.[9] The use of these methods of biblical interpretation led liberals to conclude that "none of theNew Testament writings can be said to beapostolic in the sense in which it has been traditionally held to be so".[14] This conclusion madesola scriptura an untenable position. In its place, liberals identified thehistorical Jesus as the "realcanon of the Christian church".[15]
German theologianWilliam Wrede wrote that "Like every other real science, New Testament Theology has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology". TheologianHermann Gunkel affirmed that "the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration".[16] Episcopal bishopJohn Shelby Spong declared that the literal interpretation of the Bible isheresy.[17][18]
The two groups also disagreed on the role of experience in confirming truth claims. Traditional Protestants believed scripture andrevelation always confirmed human experience and reason. For liberal Protestants, there were two ultimate sources of religious authority: the Christian experience of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and universal human experience. In other words, only an appeal to common human reason and experience could confirm the truth claims of Christianity.[19]
In general, liberal Christians are not concerned with the presence of biblical errors or contradictions.[12] Liberals abandoned or reinterpreted traditional doctrines in light of recent knowledge. For example, the traditional doctrine oforiginal sin was rejected for being derived fromAugustine of Hippo, whose views on the New Testament were believed to have been distorted by his involvement withManichaeism.Christology was also reinterpreted. Liberals stressedChrist's humanity, and his divinity became "an affirmation of Jesus exemplifying qualities which humanity as a whole could hope to emulate".[8]
Liberal Christians sought to elevate Jesus'humane teachings as a standard for a world civilization freed fromcultic traditions and traces oftraditionally pagan types of belief in thesupernatural.[20] As a result, liberal Christians placed less emphasis on miraculous events associated with the life of Jesus than on his teachings.[21] The debate over whether a belief in miracles was meresuperstition or essential to accepting thedivinity of Christ constituted a crisis within the 19th-century church, for which theological compromises were sought.[22][pages needed] Some liberals prefer to read Jesus' miracles asmetaphorical narratives for understanding the power of God.[23][better source needed] Not all theologians with liberal inclinations reject the possibility of miracles, but many reject thepolemicism that denial or affirmation entails.[24]
Nineteenth-century liberalism had an optimism about the future in which humanity would continue to achieve greater progress.[8] This optimistic view of history was sometimes interpreted as building thekingdom of God in the world.[9]
The roots of liberal Christianity go back to the 16th century when Christians such asErasmus and theDeists attempted to remove what they believed were the superstitious elements from Christianity and "leave only its essential teachings (rational love of God and humanity)".[21]
Reformed theologianFriedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) is often considered the father of liberal Protestantism.[9] In response toRomanticism's disillusionment with Enlightenmentrationalism, Schleiermacher argued that God could only be experienced through feeling, not reason. In Schleiermacher's theology, religion is a feeling of absolute dependence on God. Humanity is conscious of its own sin and its need of redemption, which can only be accomplished by Jesus Christ. For Schleiermacher, faith is experienced within a faith community, never in isolation. This meant that theology always reflects a particular religious context, which has opened Schleirmacher to charges ofrelativism.[25]
Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889) disagreed with Schleiermacher's emphasis on feeling. He thought that religious belief should be based on history, specifically the historical events of the New Testament.[26] When studied as history without regard to miraculous events, Ritschl believed the New Testament affirmed Jesus' divine mission. He rejected doctrines such as thevirgin birth of Jesus and theTrinity.[27] The Christian life for Ritschl was devoted to ethical activity and development, so he understood doctrines to be value judgments rather than assertions of facts.[26] Influenced by the philosophy ofImmanuel Kant, Ritschl viewed "religion as the triumph of the spirit (or moral agent) over humanity's natural origins and environment."[27] Ritschl's ideas would be taken up by others, and Ritschlianism would remain an important theological school within German Protestantism until World War I. Prominent followers of Ritschl includeWilhelm Herrmann,Julius Kaftan andAdolf von Harnack.[26]
Catholic forms of theological liberalism have existed since the 19th century in England, France and Italy.[28] In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a liberal theological movement developed within theCatholic Church known asCatholic modernism.[29] Like liberal Protestantism, Catholic modernism was an attempt to bring Catholicism in line with the Enlightenment. Modernist theologians approved of radical biblical criticism and were willing to question traditional Christian doctrines, especially Christology. They also emphasized the ethical aspects of Christianity over its theological ones. Important modernist writers includeAlfred Loisy andGeorge Tyrrell.[30] Modernism was condemned asheretical by the leadership of the Catholic Church.[29]
Sean O'Riordan refers to a liberal attitude as one of four schools of thought adopted among thebishops and other theologians at theSecond Vatican Council: the liberal attitude, reflective of the mid-centuryNouvelle théologie movement, was "modern-minded, enterprising, [and] ready for new ventures of faith", opting for "newness" in many aspects of the pastoral life of the Church "from top to bottom".[31]
Papal condemnation of modernism andAmericanism slowed the development of aliberal Catholic tradition in the United States. Since the Second Vatican Council, however, liberal theology has experienced a resurgence. Liberal Catholic theologians includeDavid Tracy andFrancis Schussler Fiorenza.[28]
In the 1820s,Quakerism, also known as the Religious Society of Friends, experienced a major schism called the Hicksite–Orthodox split. The Hicksites were led by Quaker ministerElias Hicks, who put a strong focus on listening to one'sinward light instead of a primary appeal to doctrine or creeds.[32] Hicks went as far as to say that strictly holding to the Bible was damaging to believers and to Christianity as a whole.[33] In addition to other distinctives, Hicks deniedSatan as an external being and did not talk about an eternalHell.[34]
Hicksite-Quakerism, often called the Liberal branch, is today found most prominently in theFriends General Conference, but it also found in the centristFriends United Meeting. Rather than holding to any firm statement of faith, Hicksite Quakers are led by the Inward Light as they believe it leads them.[35] While Evangelist Quakers (seeGurneyite–Conservative split) were seen as holding to human reason, Liberal Quakers took a more spiritual and open approach. Liberal Quakers variably hold toChristian universalism,religious pluralism,progressive Christianity and other ideas not commonly held in conservative Christian circles.[36]
 | This sectionrelies excessively onreferences toprimary sources. Please improve this section by addingsecondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "Liberal Christianity" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(March 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Liberal Christianity was most influential withMainline Protestant churches in the early 20th century, when proponents believed the changes it would bring would be the future of the Christian church. Its greatest and most influential manifestation was the ChristianSocial Gospel, whose most influential spokesman was the American BaptistWalter Rauschenbusch. Rauschenbusch identified four institutionalized spiritual evils in American culture (which he identified as traits of "supra-personal entities", organizations capable of having moral agency): these wereindividualism,capitalism,nationalism andmilitarism.[37]
Other subsequent theological movements within the U.S. Protestant mainline included politicalliberation theology, philosophical forms ofpostmodern Christianity, and such diverse theological influences asChristian existentialism (originating withSøren Kierkegaard[38] and including other theologians and scholars such asRudolf Bultmann[39] andPaul Tillich[40]) and even conservative movements such asneo-evangelicalism,neo-orthodoxy, andpaleo-orthodoxy.Dean M. Kelley, a liberal sociologist, was commissioned in the early 1970s to study the problem, and he identified a potential reason for the decline of the liberal churches: what was seen by some as excessive politicization of the Gospel, and especially their apparent tying of the Gospel with Left-Democrat/progressive political causes.[41]
The 1990s and 2000s saw a resurgence of non-doctrinal, theological work on biblicalexegesis and theology, exemplified by figures such asMarcus Borg,John Dominic Crossan,John Shelby Spong,[42]Karen Armstrong andScotty McLennan.
On the relationship between the results of his work and the task of Christian theology, Wrede writes that how the 'systematic theologian gets on with its results and deals with them—that is his own affair. Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology' (1973: 69).16 In the 1920s H. Gunkel would summarize the arguments against Biblical Theology in Old Testament study thus: 'The recently experienced phenomenon of biblical theology being replaced by the history of Israelite religion is to be explained from the fact that the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration' (1927–31: 1090–91; as quoted by Childs 1992a: 6).
To read the gospels properly, I now believe, requires a knowledge of Jewish culture, Jewish symbols, Jewish icons and the tradition of Jewish storytelling. It requires an understanding of what the Jews call 'midrash.' Only those people who were completely unaware of these things could ever have come to think that the gospels were meant to be read literally.
[Per Rudolf Bultmann] his February 1924 lecture on the 'latest theological movement'—represented, he says, by Barth, Gogarten, and Thurneysen—when he explicitly contrasts this new movement with Herrmann and Troeltsch as the representatives of liberal theology. Bultmann then states the thesis of his lecture: 'The object [Gegenstand] of theology is God, and the charge against liberal theology is that it has dealt not with God but with human beings.' We see in this piece the maturation of the claim stated in his Eisenach lecture of 1920, namely, that liberal theology fails to reflect on the specific content of Christian faith. In that earlier writing he contrasts the spiritual content of genuine religion with the liberal emphasis on a particular moralistic form.
