Why I’m Not A “Liberal” Theologian
Now and again lately I get comments asking why I don’t “confess” that I’m a “liberal” theologian…as if I were hiding something awful that everyone should know.
I’ve never hid much, (often to my regret), but I’m not a “liberal” theologian.
I can understand the confusion…many conflate liberal theology with liberal politics because they conflate everything with politics.
In theological circles , a liberal theologian is usually a person who is involved in historical and archaeological criticism of the Bible…looking at it as they would any other set of ancient documents. They usually deny any of the supernatural aspects of Scripture such as the miracles, healings, and events like the resurrection. They aren’t interested much in faith, but in critical assessments of the documents.
While it is popular to demonize those in this field, I think they do the church a service as they make us wrestle with the difficult data that they present us.
They can demonstrate the difficulties in understanding such areas as authorship, dating, and historicity…and challenge us to reconstruct our traditions in the light of their discoveries.
Too many of us avoid interacting with those findings because they remove absolute certainty from many aspects of the faith.
I’m big on evidence and data…and there isn’t much of either to support the historicity of things like the worldwide flood, the Exodus, and innumerable other parts of the Christian tradition.
This does not trouble me.
The arguments about who wrote what and when are considerable…and challenge much in the tradition.
This does not trouble me either.
I’m not a liberal theologian…I believe in the events of the New Testament as recorded and most certainly in the Incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I fully affirm the early creeds and confessions of the church.
I may be a “progressive” theologian…as if that is somehow more acceptable.
I am open to the findings of historical critical scholars…my faith is in a Person, not a book.
Where good research and evidence are presented, we should be informed by such.
I am open to hearing different ways of understanding doctrine and different interpretations of traditional understandings.
I am unafraid of mystery.
I am afraid of ignorance.
There is much that I’m uncertain about now…but I’m certain about Jesus and that makes gives me the freedom to think and explore everything else because I’m kept by the Trinity.
My faith has never been deeper or more vibrant and theology has become a joy again.
Sometimes…losing certainties means gaining possibilities…
Make your own application…
Roger Olson has a helpful book on this topic: Against Liberal Theology

Michael
This is well said. To be honest, the old categories no longer fit because we have lost the meaning of the words. In the old days, I would’ve said that I am conservative in theology and liberal concerning social justice. Currently, however, I am a conservative when it comes to social justice meaning that I believe in the rule of law, rights of the citizenry and due process. Likewise, I am seen as liberal when it comes to scripture in that I do not hold to inerrancy. You see the problem. We really need to come up with different terminology or, at the very least, allow people to explain their position apart from the terms… I am afraid however the days of patient listening are behind us…
I hold to inerrancy, and yet I think we need to develop better categories between inerrant and liberal. I came to faith in a very fundamentalist background, and I found that wanting the more I read theology (all kinds) and pondered some of the things that fundamentalists couldn’t let go of. I also found more acceptance of those who don’t hold to six days of creation (I still do), but do see God as Creator. I guess I decided not to spend the rest of my spiritual life in a bunker. I don’t apologize for being more conservative in my theology, yet I can be accepting of others who may have a different interpretation.
Duane,
Thank you.
We have indeed lost the meanings of too many words.
Patient listening and careful reading are both relics of a better time.
One of the many things you’ve demonstrated to me is that theology is a conversation…hopefully a conversation between friends where there in not winning or losing, but learning. I have learned much that way…
Linn,
You and I are far apart on many theological matters…but I always sense the presence of Jesus in your words and life.
The theological differences dissolve in that light…we have the same Father.
I figured out a long time ago that God’s “tent” is much bigger than I ever thought it was…when I encounter people who agree on the historical creeds, the rest does not seem as important to maintain unity. Being a missionary really humbled me, too. I met many other colleagues from different groups with whom I had fellowship, although we didn’t agree on everything-but they were the peripherals, not the essentials.
If we agree on the creeds and know the One they point to…we have unity.
The rest is fun to think about…
I hold to the tenets of ‘The Apostles Creed’ as non-negotiable parameters up-front and on the table.
The rest of the stuff?
I pick and choose according to the dictates of my conscience
For example, I reject the doctrine of PSA (penal substitutionary atonement).