Wikipedia

Liberal Christianity

(Redirected from Liberal Christian)
For the religious political movement, see Christian left.
"Christian Modernism" redirects here. Not to be confused with Catholic modernism or Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy.

Liberal Christianity, also known as liberal theology and historically as Christian Modernism (see Catholic modernism and Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy),[1] is a movement that interprets Christian 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 atheistic rationalism and theologies based on traditional interpretations of external authority, such as the Bible or sacred tradition.[2][3][4]

Liberal theology grew out of the Enlightenment's rationalism and the Romanticism of the 18th and 19th centuries. By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was characterized by an acceptance of Darwinian evolution, use of modern biblical criticism, and participation in the Social Gospel movement.[5] This was also the period when liberal theology was most dominant within the Protestant churches. Liberal theology's influence declined with the rise of neo-orthodoxy in the 1930s and with liberation theology in the 1960s.[6] Catholic forms of liberal theology emerged in the late 19th century. By the 21st century, liberal Christianity had become an ecumenical tradition, including both Protestants and Catholics.[7]

In the context of theology, liberal does not refer to political liberalism, and it should also be distinguished from progressive Christianity.[1]

Liberal Protestantism

edit

Liberal Protestantism developed in the 19th century out of a perceived need to adapt Christianity to a modern intellectual context. With the acceptance of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, some traditional Christian beliefs, such as parts of the Genesis creation narrative, became difficult to defend. Unable to ground faith exclusively in an appeal to scripture or the person of Jesus Christ, liberals, according to theologian and intellectual historian Alister 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 the Enlightenment's high view of human reason and Pietism's emphasis on religious experience and interdenominational tolerance.[9]

The sources of religious authority recognized by liberal Protestants differed from conservative Protestants. Traditional Protestants understood the Bible 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 of biblical inerrancy or infallibility,[12] which they saw as the idolatry (fetishism) of the Bible.[13] Instead, liberals sought to understand the Bible through modern biblical criticism, such as historical criticism, that began to be used in the late 1700s to ask if biblical accounts were based on older texts or whether the Gospels recorded the actual words of Jesus.[9] The use of these methods of biblical interpretation led liberals to conclude that "none of the New Testament writings can be said to be apostolic in the sense in which it has been traditionally held to be so".[14] This conclusion made sola scriptura an untenable position. In its place, liberals identified the historical Jesus as the "real canon of the Christian church".[15]

German theologian William 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". Theologian Hermann Gunkel affirmed that "the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration".[16] Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong declared that the literal interpretation of the Bible is heresy.[17][18]

The two groups also disagreed on the role of experience in confirming truth claims. Traditional Protestants believed scripture and revelation 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 of original sin was rejected for being derived from Augustine of Hippo, whose views on the New Testament were believed to have been distorted by his involvement with Manichaeism. Christology was also reinterpreted. Liberals stressed Christ'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 from cultic traditions and traces of traditionally pagan types of belief in the supernatural.[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 mere superstition or essential to accepting the divinity 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 as metaphorical 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 the polemicism 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 the kingdom of God in the world.[9]

Development

edit

The roots of liberal Christianity go back to the 16th century when Christians such as Erasmus and the Deists 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 theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) is often considered the father of liberal Protestantism.[9] In response to Romanticism's disillusionment with Enlightenment rationalism, 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 of relativism.[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 the virgin birth of Jesus and the Trinity.[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 of Immanuel 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 include Wilhelm Herrmann, Julius Kaftan and Adolf von Harnack.[26]

Liberal Catholicism

edit

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 the Catholic Church known as Catholic 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 include Alfred Loisy and George Tyrrell.[30] Modernism was condemned as heretical 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 the bishops and other theologians at the Second Vatican Council: the liberal attitude, reflective of the mid-century Nouvelle 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 and Americanism slowed the development of a liberal Catholic tradition in the United States. Since the Second Vatican Council, however, liberal theology has experienced a resurgence. Liberal Catholic theologians include David Tracy and Francis Schussler Fiorenza.[28]

Liberal Quakerism

edit

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 minister Elias Hicks, who put a strong focus on listening to one's inward 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 denied Satan as an external being and did not talk about an eternal Hell.[34]

Hicksite-Quakerism, often called the Liberal branch, is today found most prominently in the Friends General Conference, but it also found in the centrist Friends 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 (see Gurneyite–Conservative split) were seen as holding to human reason, Liberal Quakers took a more spiritual and open approach. Liberal Quakers variably hold to Christian universalism, religious pluralism, progressive Christianity and other ideas not commonly held in conservative Christian circles.[36]

Influence in the United States

edit

Liberal Christianity was most influential with Mainline 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 Christian Social Gospel, whose most influential spokesman was the American Baptist Walter 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 were individualism, capitalism, nationalism and militarism.[37]

Other subsequent theological movements within the U.S. Protestant mainline included political liberation theology, philosophical forms of postmodern Christianity, and such diverse theological influences as Christian existentialism (originating with Søren Kierkegaard[38] and including other theologians and scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann[39] and Paul Tillich[40]) and even conservative movements such as neo-evangelicalism, neo-orthodoxy, and paleo-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 biblical exegesis and theology, exemplified by figures such as Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, John Shelby Spong,[42] Karen Armstrong and Scotty McLennan.

Theologians and authors

edit

Anglican and Protestant

edit

Roman Catholic

edit

Other

edit

See also

edit

References

edit

Citations

edit
  1. ^ a b Gurrentz, Benjamin T. "Christian Modernism". The Arda. Association of Religion Data Archives. Archived from the original on July 31, 2019.
  2. ^ Dorrien (2001, pp. xiii, xxiii): "Liberal Christian theology is a tradition that derives from the late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century Protestant attempt to reconceptualize the meaning of traditional Christian teaching in the light of modern knowledge and modern ethical values. It is not revolutionary but reformist in spirit and substance. Fundamentally it is the idea of a genuine Christianity not based on external authority. Liberal theology seeks to reinterpret the symbols of traditional Christianity in a way that creates a progressive religious alternative to atheistic rationalism and to theologies based on external authority."
  3. ^ "Theological Liberalism": "Theological liberalism, a form of religious thought that establishes religious inquiry on the basis of a norm other than the authority of tradition. It was an important influence in Protestantism from about the mid-17th century through the 1920s."
  4. ^ McGrath (2013, p. 196): "Liberalism's program required a significant degree of flexibility in relation to traditional Christian theology. Its leading writers argued that reconstruction of belief was essential if Christianity were to remain a serious intellectual option in the modern world. For this reason, they demanded a degree of freedom in relation to the doctrinal inheritance of Christianity on the one hand, and traditional methods of biblical interpretation on the other. Where traditional ways of interpreting Scripture, or traditional beliefs, seemed to be compromised by developments in human knowledge, it was imperative that they should be discarded or reinterpreted to bring them into line with what was now known about the world."
  5. ^ Dorrien 2001, p. xviii.
  6. ^ Dorrien 2001, p. xv.
  7. ^ Dorrien 2001, p. xx.
  8. ^ a b c McGrath 2013, p. 196.
  9. ^ a b c d Campbell 1996, p. 128.
  10. ^ Ogden 1976, pp. 405–406.
  11. ^ Ogden 1976, p. 408.
  12. ^ a b Chryssides, George D. (2010). Christianity Today: An Introduction. Religion Today. Bloomsbury Academic. p. 21. ISBN 978-1-84706-542-1. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
  13. ^ Dorrien, Garry J. (2000). The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology Without Weapons. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-664-22151-5. Retrieved 30 August 2020.
  14. ^ Ogden 1976, pp. 408–409.
  15. ^ Ogden 1976, p. 409.
  16. ^ Lyons, William John (1 July 2002). Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative. A&C Black. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-567-40343-8. 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).
  17. ^ Chellew-Hodge, Candace (24 February 2016). "Why It Is Heresy to Read the Bible Literally: An Interview with John Shelby Spong". Religion Dispatches. Retrieved 19 June 2021.
  18. ^ Spong, John Shelby (16 February 2016). "Stating the Problem, Setting the Stage". Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel. HarperOne. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-06-236233-9. 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.
  19. ^ Ogden 1976, pp. 409–411.
  20. ^ Mack 1993, p. 29.
  21. ^ a b Woodhead 2002, pp. 186, 193.
  22. ^ The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion 1805–1900, edited by Gary J. Dorrien (Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), passim, search miracles.
  23. ^ Brandom 2000, p. 76.
  24. ^ Dorrien 2003, pp. 233, 413, 436.
  25. ^ Tamilio 2002.
  26. ^ a b c "Modernism: Christian Modernism".
  27. ^ a b Frei 2018.
  28. ^ a b Dorrien 2002, p. 203.
  29. ^ a b Campbell 1996, p. 74.
  30. ^ McGrath 2013, p. 198.
  31. ^ O'Riordan, S, The Third Session, The Furrow, Volume 15, No. 10 (October 1964), p. 624-625, accessed on 12 October 2024
  32. ^ "Schism and Reform: Circa 1800-1900". www.pym.org. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  33. ^ Janney, Samuel M. (2008). History of the Religious Society of Friends, from its Rise to the year 1828. Quaker Heron Press.
  34. ^ Thomas D. Hamm (1988). The Transformation of American Quakerism: Orthodox Friends, 1800–1907. Indiana University Press. page 16. ISBN 9780253360045
  35. ^ "JSTOR - The Search for Seventeenth Century Authority during the Hicksite Reformation". JSTOR 41947530.
  36. ^ "Quaker Religious Thought - Volume 131, Article 4 - Christian AND Universalist? Charting Liberal Quaker Theological Developments".
  37. ^ Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel, 1917.
  38. ^ "Concluding Unscientific Postscript", authored pseudonymously as Johannes Climacus, 1846.
  39. ^ History of Synoptic Tradition
  40. ^ The Courage to Be.
  41. ^ Kelley, Dean M. (1972) Why Conservative Churches are Growing
  42. ^ Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism
  43. ^ Alister McGrath. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 5th rev. ed. Wiley, 2011. Look in the index for "Schleiermacher" or "absolute dependence" and see them nearly always juxtaposed.
  44. ^ Congdon, David W. (2015). The Mission of Demythologizing: Rudolf Bultmann's Dialectical Theology. Fortress Press. p. 108. ISBN 978-1-4514-8792-3. [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.
  45. ^ Peace Action web page accessed at http://www.peace-action.org/history

Sources

edit
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Liberal_Christianity&oldid=1262110582"