NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading some of the writings about Liberal Theology, but I just wanted to know some things about it that can best be explained by someone who believes it. I know the responses may be few, and if you don't believe it (or don't believe in God, the Bible, Allah, or whatever else with which you can come up), at least keep it to what you know of the topic.

What are some of its views, and how do they differ from typical, more traditional Evangelicalism?

What are the Scriptural arguments to back these points up?

Who were some of the thinkers that came up with each of these?

What is the Liberal Theologian's usual objection to traditional Evangelicalism?


Any help is appreciated. Again, as this is a specific post inquiring about a specific belief system, I would appreciate it not becoming a religious free-for-all.

Do you mean liberation theology, or am I getting confuzzled with you?

Eh, as I understand it, it is called Liberal Theology (or just Liberalism, but not in a political sense, but a theological sense). Maybe I was misinformed? In addition, I believe there is Neo-Liberalism, Conservative Liberalism (sounds funny, huh?), and Liberal Evangelicalism. Those are either modified Liberalism systems or systems with Liberal tendencies.

I think a historical name that is often associated with it is Ernst Kasemann.

It has not been around all that long. '50s or '60s, I think, though don't quote me on that.

Any more help?

What are some of its views, and how do they differ from typical, more traditional Evangelicalism?
Liberal christians are much more diverse and free-thinking than thier conservative counterparts. They lean more towards the opinion that there are many paths that lead to god and a strict following of the bible is not neccisarily the only way. In addition, they focus on more of the aspects of christ's teachings, including giving to the needy, being understanding of the misunderstood, not judging others, etc..

What are the Scriptural arguments to back these points up?
Basically nearly everything that Jesus said in the bible. In a much broader sense, less emphasis is placed on the bible than the more conservative denominations, with some people even suggesting that the bible is not divinely written, merely divinely inspired and written entirely by humans, thus fallable. They believe that God should be someone that you experience on a very personal level, not spoonfed by the church.

Who were some of the thinkers that came up with each of these?
Haven't done much research, sorry to say...Can't help on this issue.

What is the Liberal Theologian's usual objection to traditional Evangelicalism?
The usual objection is that evangelicals are way too stubborn and set in thier ways, being so obsessed with thier own view of God that they let thier own intolerances influence how they view God. They believe that you shouldn't consider yourself a christian if you don't follow christ's words, nearly all of which were of love and tolerance, kindness and charity.

Take note, my answers could be wrong, or at least off-center. I am trying to explain from my own personal liberal christian beliefs and liberal christianity encompasses a LOT of beliefs and denominations.

Goddistan']Eh, as I understand it, it is called Liberal Theology (or just Liberalism, but not in a political sense, but a theological sense). Maybe I was misinformed? In addition, I believe there is Neo-Liberalism, Conservative Liberalism (sounds funny, huh?), and Liberal Evangelicalism. Those are either modified Liberalism systems or systems with Liberal tendencies.

I think a historical name that is often associated with it is Ernst Kasemann.

It has not been around all that long. '50s or '60s, I think, though don't quote me on that.

Any more help?

There is no such thing as "Liberal Theology" anymore than "Evangelical Theology".... The only two general types of theology are General and Systematic.

What are some of its views, and how do they differ from typical, more traditional Evangelicalism?
Liberal christians are much more diverse and free-thinking than thier conservative counterparts. They lean more towards the opinion that there are many paths that lead to god and a strict following of the bible is not neccisarily the only way. In addition, they focus on more of the aspects of christ's teachings, including giving to the needy, being understanding of the misunderstood, not judging others, etc..

What are the Scriptural arguments to back these points up?
Basically nearly everything that Jesus said in the bible. In a much broader sense, less emphasis is placed on the bible than the more conservative denominations, with some people even suggesting that the bible is not divinely written, merely divinely inspired and written entirely by humans, thus fallable. They believe that God should be someone that you experience on a very personal level, not spoonfed by the church.

Who were some of the thinkers that came up with each of these?
Haven't done much research, sorry to say...Can't help on this issue.

What is the Liberal Theologian's usual objection to traditional Evangelicalism?
The usual objection is that evangelicals are way too stubborn and set in thier ways, being so obsessed with thier own view of God that they let thier own intolerances influence how they view God. They believe that you shouldn't consider yourself a christian if you don't follow christ's words, nearly all of which were of love and tolerance, kindness and charity.

Take note, my answers could be wrong, or at least off-center. I am trying to explain from my own personal liberal christian beliefs and liberal christianity encompasses a LOT of beliefs and denominations.

I think that's mostly right, though I dissagree somewhat. Thats certainly what liberal Christians think. Though a biased response. I'll try my best not to be biased but probably won't be much better. I admit I come from a more conservative background. Though my particular church is a refreshing since in many ways it is traditonal I think the pastors would say that conservative Christians have lost focus. My pastors believe that both extreems are spiritually bankrupt. That said, the rest is my personal opinion:

I think the main difference is that liberal theology takes a less literal interpretation of the Bible. Really extreme ones may even reject almost all of it. I think it's hard to say anything beyond that. They usually reject the things that they do saying that they are intolerant or unaccepting. More traditional evangelicalism tends to be more literal so it's more easy to pinpoint what they believe. Though there is a range here as well. Not all tradtional evangelicals are ultra-fundamentalist (or fundamentalist at all for that mater).

Since liberal theology tends to refer to those who reject parts or interpret the Bible more loosely, as you can imagine, there is a lot of variety in their beliefs so you can't really pinpoint them as believing anything in particular. Though on an individual church/person level they often have clearly defined beliefs.

The criticism traditonalists have of them are that they are so loose that you can't tell what they stand for. That they have chosen what they want to believe and rejected what they don't instead of listening to God.

I don't think what Jesus said supports either theology. Jesus did complain about people being overly legalistic (so the focus on literalism of traditionalists is probably not supported by Jesus's teachings), but Jesus did preach a defined moral code (which the liberal Christians tend to be more loose on).

Liberals say that traditionalist have lost focus. Jesus taught that our focus should be the love of others.

He said the greatest comandment was to love God and the next was to love others. That means love is the Christian focus. So fussing over the things traditionalists fuss over; the correct way to baptize, for example, seems to be a loss of focus.

He also says to worry aboutlv your own sins not the sins of others. He talks about removing the plank from your own eye before removing the speck from others. There is also the famous quote of his "those who are without sin cast the first stone." So traditionalists shouldn't be so focused on homosexuality when there are many other sins, plenty of which they themselves need to deal with.

But I would also say that I think traditionalists are correct in that liberals have gotten too lose in their interpretation. And that this anything goes attitude some have is a bit much. Jesus did tell people to repent. He did take support a strict traditional moral code. He told people to turn away from sin. He was pretty firm on this. He did not accept sin, he rejected it outright, but showed sinnners love and compasion anyway.

Liberal theology is accused of being too accepting. That it sometimes rejects the concept of sin and doesn't do a good job at teaching repetance from sin. Liberal theology is accused of thinking that since Jesus showed mercy and forgiveness towards sinnners that sinning is okay. But Jesus did not get rid of the law.

Mathew 5
7"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


The problem is people on both extreems don't teach the whole Christian message. The Christian message is that God loves us. He wants us to love him and to love other people. Because he loves us he forgives those who have faith in him and offers them salvation. But the faithful are asked to repent from sin. We are not to dwell on the sin of others, but we aren't suppose to be accepting of it either. As Jesus did we are to love and see to the needs of others. Then we are to point them in the right dirrection (that means pointing out their sin and showing them where the right direction is, but not being judgemental about it).

There is an old Christian saying that says love the sinner, not the sin. Liberals tend to have a problem seperating the sin from the sinner and end up loving both. Thinking they must allow things traditionally thought of as sin because it would be unloving otherwise. Conservatives have trouble seperating the sin from the sinner and end up showing contempt for both. Thinking that it's okay to turn a group of people away from God for doing what the Bible says goes against His will, forgetting that they are called to love these people.

Disclaimer: I've been talking about the extreems on both sides. I don't mean to imply that all liberal Christians or all conservative Christians are how I describe. I'm just talking about how they view each other and pointing out I think they have genuine scriptually backed grievences.

Liberal theology is still theology:p

Actually, I think it's probably a move in the right direction, toward a more tolerant and accepting world.

Actually, Letila, there are parts of Liberal Theology with which I agree.

I am quite intrigued with the "centered theology vs. bounded theology" discussion, because I think that Evangelicals that are more conservative have drawn the circle too small. Everyone whose ideas do not coincide with theirs completely are sometimes left outside the circle of redemption.

Here's the best example of which I can think:

Draw a circle on a sheet of paper. As long as it is big enough to do some doodling inside, you're fine.

Now, write the numbers 1- 5 in a line from the center of the circle to the edge with smaller circles between the numbers, like so:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/galejb/BoundedTheology.jpg


Now, the numbers are principles that can be believed or disbelieved. The black dots are people who believe things on certain levels. At the beginning of Christianity, if you had a general belief about the five "principles," then you were in that circle. Later, the Fundamentalists (the specific groups practicing that belief system, not the discipline) narrowed the circle. They said that if you believed #5, you were no longer a Christian, so you ended up with this, with those in the circle not considering those outside it as Christians:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/galejb/b5c68112.jpg

This would continue to narrow, until the circle looked like this:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b379/galejb/dd77fe3f.jpg

I don't like that. While I am not one for saying that man has the right to make his own way to heaven, I think that Christianity tries to exclude far too many people. This is one thing on which Liberalists and I agree.

Just a thought.

Hey! This is actually a neat thread!

Anyway, from what I can tell in Muslim circles, all one needs do to be a "Liberal Muslim" is reject Hadith. Although I don't consider that "Liberal" because Hadith was never supposed to be part of the equation anyway.

Hrmmm ... a Liberal Fundamentalist ... fun!

Actually, Keruvalia, I believe Liberalist Theology stands greatly in opposition of Fundamental Theology. There is, however, Conservative Liberalism. Even if those names have nothing to do with politics, I find that one funny given our current state of political affairs. It's just funny to say.

Goddistan']Actually, Keruvalia, I believe Liberalist Theology stands greatly in opposition of Fundamental Theology. There is, however, Conservative Liberalism. Even if those names have nothing to do with politics, I find that one funny given our current state of political affairs. It's just funny to say.

From what Í gathered, there was a lot of pulling-of-beards behind the curtains at the last pope election behind the mainly South-American liberation theologists and the more to very conservative catholics in Europe and Africa.
The main clashes were about the role of women in church (and life), the way the church treated homosexuals, the oicumene between catholics and protestants and the politcal & economical theories underlying church work.

I would agree with your assessment.

Remember, I am coming from a stance that makes a distinction between Liberal Theology and Liberation Theology.

Anything else, fellas?

I would like to have more specific questions from the author of the thread. But I'll throw out a few ideas.

First, Jesus was a raving liberal. The religious conservatives were the Pharasees and Saducees. If you read the Bible, you will see the modern "Conservative Christians" think and behave in exactly the same way. Jesus said they had killed all of the prophets and they would kill him also. They continue to kill Jesus everyday by their arrogant intolerance. Jesus worried about the downtrodden, the sick, the weak, those at the bottom of society. Jesus didn't worry about the "letter of the law" he thought about the meaning and guidence of the law. Jesus opened his heart to all sorts of people that believed all sorts of things. Remember he saw a Roman soldier as a person of great faith. Paul honored the people of Athens for their great faith in idols. It was the cpnservatives who thought they had a magic formula to "get saved". Jesus gave only two rules: Love God, Love everyone. While the conservatives are trained to SAY they love, as Paul taught, their actions speak of other things. Being intolerant of the beliefs and cultures of others is NOT love. Passing out hate when you could hand out help is NOT love. Example: abortion, the conservatives want every child born, but as soon as the child is born they abandon both it and the mother. This gives a pregnamt woman no hope. It is a lack of hope that causes abortion. On the other hand, while liberals allow for abortion, they work to make sure no one is homeless, no one is hungry, no one is without medicine, no one is without education----liberals try to give hope to everyone, or at least the basics of life. If that mother knew she and her child would have help from the community for the rest of their lives, there would be fewer abortions. Caonservatives cause abortions by their actions--despite their words. Just as the Pharasees made life more difficult for those trying to believe, Jesus and the liberals worked to make life easier for those struggling to believe.

In the area of other religions. Conservatives say "the Name of Jesus is the only way". That is NOT what is taught in the Bible. Conservatives tend to forget that the part of God that became Jesus (Actually Yeshua [Joshua] ben David) was the creator part of God in the beginning. The Bible says if one looks at nature and can see a creator he has seen God (Jesus). No one is exempt from seeing the Creator in nature. So it matters not the Name you give him. Jesus said "In my Father's house are MANY rooms".

Mat 7:20-23 Who is this warning directed to? Not the humble trying to do their best. Not to those of other beliefs, struggling to gain more knowledge of the Creator. It's not for those who's life has been hard and who have made bad choices but are trying to do better. It is to those who KNOW they are saved and all the others are lost.

Liberal Evangelicals, Liberal Catholics, Liberal Muslims, & Liberal Theologians all share a common outlook. Not a common veiw. Just a common way of looking at things.

They tend to be more open to debate and question and decide for themselves. Often adhering to the practices of the religion but basing their beliefs where they find logic leading them.

I like these people.

Hey! This is actually a neat thread!

Anyway, from what I can tell in Muslim circles, all one needs do to be a "Liberal Muslim" is reject Hadith. Although I don't consider that "Liberal" because Hadith was never supposed to be part of the equation anyway.

Hrmmm ... a Liberal Fundamentalist ... fun!

Dude, face up to reality, like it or not, I'm not mandating anything simply because I'm reporting it the way it is.

If you revealed yourself to any group of Muslims, like you’ve revealed yourself in this forum, liberal or conservative group of Muslims, or anything in-between, they'd either stomp you to death immediately or shun you forever like you don't exist anymore and disown you publicly. To even pretend that there is an Islamic group that has gone public with the acceptance of homosexuality (and anything else similar) is ridiculous (for example).

The most liberal of liberal Muslims groups cannot find a way to condone such behavior in the Qur'an as a teaching.