I had a good friend tell me a story a few months ago about a painful experience she had while serving in her church. She was a leader in the children’s ministry. This particular Sunday, one of the teachers was planning on having the kids sing one of the older songs that highlights the Atonement, and of course, the blood of Christ. (By now, I’ve forgotten which particular song it was, but something like, There is a Fountain). My friend expressed her concern about singing this song, especially with a group of children who, along with their parents, were new to church, and who would have almost no foundation upon which to understand lyrics regarding the cleansing properties of the Savior’s blood. (Not to mention age-appropriateness….You can almost hear the barrage of questions after the song, “Teacher, is there really a fountain filled with blood?!”) I digress….
Anyway, the trap was sprung, and my poor friend had the impossible task of proving, on the spot, that she was not, in fact, a liberal.
You see, this teacher had been reading a book by a very well-meaning evangelical who was explaining how the liberal movement made inroads into major American Denominations, how these inroads are alive and well, and how these erosions typically occur. This sweet, well-meaning, children’s teacher suspects her leader of being one, and when she finds resistance to singing the song, her worst fears are confirmed.
And so my friend, after telling me this story, asks with pain, “Am I a liberal?”
It’s a good question. What is a liberal anyway? Growing up, it was a codeword for them. For all the people that don’t believe like us. Who don’t read the Bible, who don’t preach the Bible, who don’t believe the Bible. They’re also Democrats. We heard, on an annual basis, how our church split off from the Brethren Denomination when the denomination told our church that we should no longer be singing about “the blood.” We said, “Yes we will.” And so they locked our building. We had to buy the property twice. Because of “liberals.”
This language was reinforced at my private Christian college. We heard, in chapel, about how the “liberals” don’t believe the Bible--and immediately thereafter learned in our civics class that they also like raising taxes. Nasty folks. All the while, confusingly, we were being told that we were receiving an excellent liberal arts education.
The word is difficult to define. The Random House Dictionary lists about fifteen different definitions. We use it all the time when referring to politics, theology, education, giving, etc. I’d like to take a stab at defining the word strictly in its theological sense. The Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms says it’s:
A movement in nineteenth and twentieth century Protestant circles that builds from the assumption that Christianity is reconcilable with the positive human aspirations, including the quest for autonomy. Liberalism desires to adapt religion to modern thought and culture. Consequently, it views divine love as realized primarily, if not totally, in love for one’s neighbor and the kingdom of God as a present reality found especially within an ethically transformed society (72).
With the rise of science and the optimism it produced preceding the devastating world wars of the twentieth century, the miraculous accounts recorded in the Scriptures became a bit difficult. Since we know now that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the sun around the earth, we also know that the miraculous accounts in the Bible must be explainable as primitive peoples trying to describe things they did not fully understand. However, the Bible is still useful as a source of ethics and inspiration. “Salvation” is education, spiritual enlightenment, and compassionate love for one’s neighbor. “Resurrection” is not so much dead flesh and blood coming back to life as it is the rebirth of a high ideal. So, Theological Liberalism is really a salvage job––an attempt to recast the Bible and the Christian Religion in terms palatable to an enlightened culture, essentially redefining the miraculous in order to keep the beautiful ethic.
Are you a Liberal?
Dr. Daniel B. Wallace reserves the term for those who go so far as to deny the physical resurrection of Christ. That’s a decent test. Most people who deny the Resurrection, yet maintain that they are Christians, will most likely share a set of assumptions that mirrors the tradition of Theological Liberalism. He argues, and I agree, that it is unwise to use the fundamentalists’ various litmus tests used for sniffing out “liberals”––typically theological fine points such as the timing of the Rapture in relation to the Tribulation, which English Bible is most inspired, or whether or not we should sing There is a fountain to concrete-thinking, unchurched pre-schoolers at church (okay, Dr. Wallace never mentioned that last example, but you could see where this was going).
Save the “l-word” for those who claim it. And let’s keep the conversation going with those who disagree on finer points by refusing to demonize them. I responded to my friend’s question by asking her, “Do you believe that Jesus was dead, buried, and actually came back to life––I mean that his body truly came back to life?” She said, “Of course!”
“Then you’re not a Liberal.”
UPDATED: Kelly brought up an excellent point in the comments that deserves mention on this main page. Things may get confusing if someone is describing themselves as a liberal politically. I in no way mean to imply that we should assume that this person is automatically also a liberal theologically. Those are two different animals entirely (similarly, my "liberal" arts education at a conservative Christian college says nothing about the school's politics or its theology). This post is about asking better questions about people's religious beliefs before categorizing them with a bad label.
