Talk:Liberal Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Liberal Christianity: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand the article to include some content on the relationship between Liberal Christianity and modern Fundamentalism. It has been said that modern Fundamentalism was a reaction to the logical positivism and rationalism that was being introduced into Christian thought by liberal Christians. I don't know whether I have described this well, or in fact accurately, but I am hopeful that someone will know what I am talking about and perhaps feel inclined to craft a small subsection of the history section or a separate section of the article that deals with this subject.
Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Archive of Talk:Liberal Christianity discussions [1]

Contents

[edit] "Contribution to Biblical Hermeneutics" title

I added some info in ellipses under the above title just to remind the reader that Christian Liberalism involves individualistic interpretations. On my first reading I got the impression that all Liberals believe the same things, and this just isn't true. Feel free to revert and discuss. -- Ted Cain

Is "*an intimate, personal view of God" really a distinctive feature of liberal christianity as opposed to other forms? First, many forms of conservative Christianity also emphasizes an intimate, personal view of God (e.g., evangelicals, pietists, pentecostals, and traditional monks). Second, some forms of liberal christianity would not have such a personal view of God, but tend towards a pantheistic view. I recommend this line be removed as not providing a good distinctive to the definition of liberal Christianity. DrJ1m


Recently an anonymous editor has added some viewpoints that are critical of Liberal Christianity, which is good for balancing out the article. A question I have about the recent changes is should the external links be divided into 'pro' and 'con' and labelled as such or simply left as they are? --Randolph 00:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Pro & Con is the way to go...fair, NPOV, and all that. KHM03 11:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forum subsection?

I've been contemplating whether it would be worth adding a list of online forums that identify themselves as liberal christian communities. Any thoughts? --Randolph 00:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes I would support that, if only because it would be useful for those wanting to explore the topic further. Plus I'm always on the look out for like-minded liberals! --Ted Cain

I would probably be best it we could remove the list of beliefs since they are misleading and reinforce a misunderstanding of liberal theology.--Riferimento 12:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reincarnation

Does Liberal Christianity allow persons to believe in Reincarnation? Not necessarily as part of the LC dogma. For example, the Jewish religion allow people to believe in Reincarnation but they don't advocate it either and there is no stress on it since there is less focus on the afterlife.--Jondel 00:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are likely some liberal Christians who allow for reincarnation, but resurrection is so central to Christianity that I think most would be reluctant to affirm reincarnation too vigorously. KHM03 00:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree with KHM03 on this point. I have had discussions with liberal Christians on internet forums on the subject of reincarnation and the description of 'reluctant to affirm' would be a good summary of the reactions to the idea. --Randolph 01:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent anonymous edits by 67.140.174.200

I'm a little perplexed at the addition of 'somewhat ambiguous' to the introduction by the above editor. I'm not really sure what the editor is trying to say and I'm of the opinion that its not a necessary addition to that subsection. Furthermore, the list of 'Con' weblinks is now getting a little out of hand. I think it could do with some pruning, especially where links lead to the same website but different articles. --Randolph 18:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Positive Construction?

I'd like to see this article express liberal views of the Bible in positive terms. Liberal Christians do not construct their beliefs in conscious opposition to conservatives and fundamentalists, so why present this as the foil to other beliefs? With respect to Biblical laws, for example, a liberal may argue that no one is a true literalist. The Bible contains long lists of capital crimes no longer punished as such and long lists of laws proscribing animal sacrifice. Liberal Christians attempt to apply a consistent standard, i.e. to measure evil by the harm that it does. Hence liberal churches may welcome gay members (who harm no one) and reserve their anger for crimes with real victims such as murder, rape, and child abuse. Durova 17:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

A balance between positive construction and neutral point of view is a hard one to achieve. Your welcome to contribute and add your own ideas to the mix. --Randolph 03:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Reincarnation

Process theology is noteworthy among Christian theologies, in that it allows for reincarnation as a possibility beneath the umbrella of Christianity.MerricMaker 15:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biased redirect?

I've noticed that Liberal theology redirects here. Do no other religious systems have liberal movements? Durova 03:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a disambiguation page is in order? KHM03 06:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Or even a new article. There are certainly WP articles on Liberal Judaism and Liberal movements within Islam. --Angr (t·c) 13:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I would think disambiguation would be the best way to go about rectifying the problem. Liberal theology was a separate article at one stage, but after the creation of the Liberal Christianity article it was deemed appropriate to merge the two articles, as the orginal Liberal theology article was a subset of Liberal Christianity. With that in mind I would prefer to see a move towards disambiguation. --Randolph 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I started a Liberal Theology (disambiguation) page, and changed Liberal theology to redirect to that page, since there is currently no artice about liberal theology in general. --Rayt5 01:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm renaming the disambig page Liberal theology to be in keeping with Wikipedia's naming conventions. Angr (talk • contribs) 05:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivity

Although I do recognize that there is a great deal of effort that has been put into it, I must say that the article does seem to have been written with a latent attitude of reprobation towards "Liberal Christians". This may just be because I may identify as a Christian with Liberal views (although "Liberal Christian" as described here does notreally fit me), so I want to hear what others have to say, to get some perspective. Themalau 06:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you point to specific instances which you feel are inappropriate? It's certainly changed a lot since I first contributed to it. :) --Randolph 03:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Until today, there has been no criticism of conservative Christianity in the article on conservative Christianity. It is almost as if this article, on liberal Christianity, was written from the rather one-sided and punitive viewpoint of someone with a conservative Christian agenda to discredit liberal Christianity, or the article has been sabotaged by someone with a conservative Christian agenda to discredit liberal Christianity.

(Preceding unsigned comment posted by User:Sillibeel)

Having followed this article for some time now, I can say that it is more the latter situation, although I think 'sabotage' would be a word I would not choose to use. I think from a liberal point of view, liberalism is more open to accepting criticism by its very nature, than conservatism is. This is why, at least from my personal point of view, I have never really be overly concerned with having a Criticism section. I think it's only fair that all sides of the story be told, warts and all. I think my major concern would be that the criticism section does not grow out of proportion to the rest of the article. If it did so, I would be suggesting that it be moved to an article of it's own. Perhaps the editors of the Liberal Christianity article could be said to be setting a good example for their counterparts and they should perhaps follow suit and allow some content in their article which allows similar criticisms to be noted in those articles. To tell you the truth though, I have hardly read any of the articles on Conservative Christianity with any intent to compare the content, so I really don't know how they go about organising their articles. :) --Randolph 12:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Essays and Reviews

I've added a See also link to Essays and Reviews which is of historical interest, but thought the seven theologian authors too minor to add to the list of "Liberal Christian Theologians and Authors". ..dave souza 10:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Good call, although any Archbishop of Canterbury is, in my view, pretty prominent. KHM03 11:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to add them from the list in the Essays article. It came to my attention as a aside to Darwin's publication of The Origin of Species, and while they were important at the time the controversy seems long forgotten.....dave souza 19:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Liberal Christianity--Nazism?

Most of the criticisms in this section are fair points, such as the movement's foundation in Enlightenment thinking. I don't understand, however, how Liberal Christianity--which the article describes as having "an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community" and "a willingness to consider and adopt viewpoints which have their roots outside of Christianity (e.g., other faith/philosophical traditions)"-- could have facilitated the rise of Nazism.

Personally I'd only even consider adding this if we were quoting this Karl Barth chap directly, rather than just reporting his view; and of course, backing it up with a watertight source. M A Mason 17:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Reading through Karl Barth I think it is a good idea to mention him here, but it's also a pretty bad misrepresentation of his views to say he blamed Nazism on liberal Christianity and leave it at that. --Angr (tɔk) 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I notice that the section in question was removed, and then replaced by another editor with the claim of being 'suppressed' in the edit summary. I feel a controversy approaching on this issue. :) IJust for the record the section was removed by User:Wayward and replaced by User:Wetman. I think it would be appropriate if we consider the revert to be a seperate issue to this discussion on the appropriateness of that section as it is written. --Randolph 01:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As a complete outsider, after following the link to Barth's biography I found that the section in contention had been very misleading, so I've clarified it with points from the Barth article. ...dave souza 11:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to note my admiration of this particular editorial process (the Barth stuff). Discussion before the edit? Wow, if we're not careful people might think we're scholars.MerricMaker 17:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science and Christianity?

With reference to this: "a willingness to combine theology with modern scientific theories"

I'm not sure whether that should be listed as "Liberal". Personally, I get annoyed when people go on about "Science vs. Religion".

Yes, I think that some of what science tells us might not be absoutely true, but in general i think that science helps us to understand our awesome God to a greater degree. It doesn't disprove God, cos this isn't possible!

I think a greater and deeper understanding of God cannot be labelled "Liberal". interested to hear other people's views.

Paulfp 20:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that a greater and deeper understanding of God isn't an exclusively liberal concept, but this isn't what science is, depending on your interpretation of science. Science doesn't disprove God, but it does arguably disprove much of the Bible, I'm thinking Genesis in particular. Modern science talks about the Big Bang and evolution for example, and it's liberal Christians that would argue that God is the driving force behined such things - I for one certainly would. But more conservative Christians would argue that the Bible is completely fact thoughout, Biblical inerrency and literalism, and as such they wouldn't combine modern science with theology, rather they would deny modern science. I think this is what the statement is getting at. M A Mason 20:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Paulfp has a point. Not all conservatives are into intelligent design or young earth creationism. The Catholic Church is open to theistic evolution, for instance, but I don't think we'd call the current or previous Pope liberal. Evangelicals such as Ra McLaughlin and Hugh Ross also argue that the Bible is inerrant, but they treat the Genesis creation narratives as a piece of poetic literature rather than a precise description or advance other theories to integrate it with scientific findings. --Flex 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Beware of reading historical terms as modern political labels: "liberal" didn't always mean lefty Democrat, and remember that Thatcher was a radical Conservative enthusiast for Liberal Economics (also known as Reaganomics) of the kind favoured by the 19th century Whigs and their successors, the Liberals. ....dave souza, talk 00:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course. This article is talking about the movement called "liberalism" within theology, not politics. --Flex 13:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks guys for your comments :-) I for one believe in the BigBang, and although I think the evolution theory as it stands has quite a LOT of room for improvement, I don't discount the idea completely. I believe that God was definitely the driving force behind each of these two things, in whatever form they did actually take (which is unlikely to be exactly what we understand them as today). With the Big Bang, I have no quibbles with believing that alongside the (fact) that God created everything. In Genesis God says "Let there be light"... and - BANG! - there was light. Agreed, there are some Christians that don't agree that the "let there be light", and the sudden appearance of light can be at all linked to the bigbang. Personally, I don't see any logic in that at all.... bigbang+let-there-be-light = perfect sense to me! Maybe I should look up "Liberal" in my dictionary and make sure I fully comprehend its meaning, because currently, despite my readines to accept that God created the BigBang and that God may well have (but I'm not arrogant enough to say either way) used evolution to create us all, I still don't count myself as liberal one bit! I strive to be neither liberal or conservative; I try to live my life in the way Jesus instructed, with him at the centre. Therefore rather than taking viewpoints on various things, I just like to be guided by him. Right, I've rambled enough now so I'll shut up! :-) Paulfp 20:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the line:

  • a willingness to combine theology with modern scientific theories

to

  • a willingness to re-evaluate theology in the light of modern scientific theories

My reason for doing this is that science and theology are two distinct fields of knowledge with two distinct methods of working. They should not simply be combined. It is proponents of Intelligent Design who are trying to combine science with theology (with dismal results). (Peter Ells 24 August 2006)

[edit] complaint from OTRS

There is a factual error in the article on Liberal Christianity. If one scrolls down to "Catholic" theologians, the name of Hans Kung is listed. In 1979 ecclesiastical authority at the highest level removed his right to use the word "Catholic" when he called himself a theologian. He remains a theologian and a professional academic all these years, and he has continued teaching in Germany. He also remains a priest in good standing in the Church, and his faculties to practice the ministry were never lifted. Absolutely never has he been "excommunicated" as the article falsely states. He had a private meeting in the summer of 2005 with Pope Benedict XVI. It was reported that they discussed theology, but his status as a "Catholic" theologian remains unchanged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David.Monniaux (talk • contribs) 07:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Someone with an axe to grind inserted the wrong and misleading information, which has been removed. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. However, since Kung still embraces the Catholic faith, and he is still a theologian (emeritus) of the University of Tubingen, even though he no longer teaches for the church, I think most people would still call him a Catholic theologian in the general sense, so his categorization remains appropriate with the exception noted. By the way, what does OTRS stand for? --Blainster 00:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homosexual description

The use of the term homosexual is a proper scientific description of sexual orientation, and is to be preferred where the emphasis is descriptive of the trait rather than the social milleu in which it may occur. It is not the preferred term of address in interpersonal communication, which may be what is bothering another editor. I can agree that a person should not be described as a "homosexual", as if that were the primary identification of the individual, but instead as a "homosexual person", where the trait is merely used as an adjective. Unfortunately the term "gay" is ambiguous in current usage, quite apart from its former meaning of cheerful. That word is used variously to refer to either male homosexual men, or all homosexual persons, with no general consensus (check a recent dictionary). These should be sufficient reasons to prefer the adjective "homosexual", especially in an article where it is not a central theme. --Blainster 23:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you on this, but do not wish to enter into an edit war. I find it intriguing, to say the least, that you do not claim this opinion as your own, but state it as a presumably objective fact: not "I believe the use of... and I think it is to be preferred where...", but "The use of the term homosexual is a proper... and is to be preferred where..." I can agree with you that homosexual is a proper scientific description of sexual orientation; however, the context of this article is not a scientific discussion of sexual orientation and behavior. I think people would think it strange to insist that this article discuss the "ordination of females" rather than the "ordination of women", and I think the same logic applies here. None of the caucuses and advocacy groups for LGBT inclusion in "liberal Christianity" (the UCC Coalition for LGBT Concerns, More Light Presbyterians, Lutherans Concerned/North America, the United Methodist Reconciling Ministries Network, etc.) use the term homsexual. I agree that "gay" alone is ambiguous; you will notice that I actually used the term "gay and lesbian". I will concede that this too is imperfect, as it leaves out bisexual persons (as does homosexual, though), and also has some resitance among some people of color due to racial and class identity differences (some of whom prefer "same gender loving"). So I will not claim that "gay and lesbian persons" is perfect, perhaps "LGBT persons" is better, but I am still convinced that either "is to be preferred" to "homosexual persons" in this context.Emerymat 01:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to seek some kind of consensus over this. I am willing to use "and LGBT people" (persons -> people changed by a third editor) because LGBT seems less casual, though initialisms have their own drawbacks. The linked article expands the range of sexual orientations and (if consulted) helps to remove the ambiguities introduced by using colloquial speech. Admittedly the language is in transition here, which I think is the basis of our semantic problem. It is similar to the societal move from Negro to Black to African-American, which has had its share of discomfort as well. --Blainster 17:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individualism

I'm inclined to think that individualism is not as part-and-parcel of liberal Christianity as the article states/implies. Many of us who consider ourselves mainline/liberal believe strongly that theology and faith must come out of the gathered community and not simply one's individual whims. Also, many of us, while being theologically and biblically open in the ways described, believe that the witness of the Church tradition and the history of Christian thought is critically important. Emerymat 19:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I thought the statement as it read before you changed -- and maybe even still after you changed it -- sounded more like a conservative Christian stereotype of liberal Christianity than like the truth. User:Angr 07:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic section

Historically, the heirarchy of the Catholic Church took a punitive stance toward modernism. Pope Pius X in his encyclicals Lamentabilii and Pascendi, as well as the Oath against Modernism which he mandated all catholic teachers, professors and clergy to take, condemned modernism in the most severe terms.

Catholic modernism was an attempt to update the catholic method of thinking to the 19th and 20th century academic trends of philosophy (primarily Kantian) and science (such as the theory of evolution). Certain catholic thinkers [citation needed] were tired of being labelled as medieval or ancient in their scholastic methods or abstracting from real life a pure intellectualism which was based mainly on the metaphysical method of St. Thomas Aquinas.

The modernists claimed their fusion of catholic doctrines with modern philosophy followed in the footsteps of Aquinas when he introduced Aristotlian metaphysics into theology. However, there is a distinction between the Kantian and Thomist philosophies. Truth is seen as founded on objective realities testified by the five senses (Thomism) or based on subjective judgement by the human intellect of our sense data (Kantism).

St. Thomas employed Aristotelian metaphysics to justify revealed dogma. When a difficulty arose he sought the scriptural truths, not trying to alter them to fit into his philosophy system. Modernism on the other hand, accepted developing understandings of religious truth along with scientific truth and rejected rigorous propositional faith, with some in favor of Maurice Blondel's philosophy of action, and sometimes sought the reduction of the supernatural order to the natural. The late Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. objected that to baptize something to become Catholic, first it has to be baptizable, and modern philosophy is simply unbaptizable.

After the Second Vatican Council, modernism was accepted by the Church hierarchy, including by Pope Benedict XVI. After Vatican II (1962-1965) moderate modernism gained the favour of many in the ecclesial hierarchy and some of its characteristics were introduced into seminary courses starting from the 1950s, when the "New Theology" rose up. To this New Theology most in the ecclesial hierarchy adhered since about 1965, including then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger (currently, Pope Benedict XVI) and theologians like present day Cardinals Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann.

This section was moved here from the article, where it had been misplaced in the subsection of Catholic liberal theologians. It was strongly POV, and I attempted to edit it to be more NPOV, then realized it was focused more on modernism than liberalism, so moved it here. What should be done with it? Keep and move to new section? Move to article on modernism (Roman Catholicism)? Edit POV back in and move to Criticism section? --Blainster 21:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Luther King liberal?

I see that Martin Luther King is listed here as a liberal theologian/atuhor. I'm not sure this is true. I recognise him as an evangelical Christian with liberal/leftist political views. But his theology from what I understand is what as an evangelical I recognise as evangelical. Perhaps it would be good for someone to open up the debate? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.92.99 (talk • contribs) 17:48, August 24, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] evangelical can be liberal

You seem to assume that "liberal" and "evangelical" must be different. I consider myself an evangelical AND a liberal. Hopefully a little like Martin Luther King... a hero of mine!

While we liberal evangelicals are clearly not as common as conservative ones, we arent exactly rare, either. There are a few million of us, I'd guess. But we're not well understood.

We show up in voting patterns. In the last election, about 20% of evangelicals voted liberal. Quite of few of those would be African Americans. Check out this good study from Pew:

Religion and the Presidential Vote

--Calan 10:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Evangelical and liberal must be different if both terms are being taken in the context of theology. If by liberal we mean 'political liberalism' then there is no condtradiction.

I think that this shows how complicated the debate over what 'liberal' and 'evangelical' mean. By your definition I am a liberal evangelical because I am politically a moderate liberal and would vote for the Democrat party if I was an American. I have strong issues with the Republican party, esp the religious right. Yet I reject the term liberal Christian, but am happy with the term Christian liberal. The confusion is over the differences between the contexts of politics and theology.

In my view in theology there are two general schools of thought/ approaches to the Bible.

Evangelical Christianity stresses the authority and inerrancy of the Bible, tends to interpret the Bible literally, accepts the Nicene Creed, believes in salvation by grace through faith, believes in the nessicity of spiritual rebirth, believes that Jesus is the only way to God and rejects universalism. Evangelicals also place great importance in sharing their faith with others in the hope of seeing people become Christians.

Liberal Christianity sees scripture as 'inspired' but not authoritive. Rationalism and ideas from other religious traditions are given a wider degree of acceptance. Universalism is usually a key doctrine and less importance is placed on evangelism.

from these definitions I am definately an evangelical. Liberal theology is something I view as weak and spiritually dangerous. Yet I am definately a liberal progressive when it comes to my political views. In fact I see my political liberalism as a direct consequence of my evangelicalism. For example my anti-racist views come from the biblical condemnation of racism. Liberal/left political beliefs go hand in hand with true evangelicalism. However although some evangelicals are more liberal in their theology than others, and some liberals are more conservative than other liberals; the liberal approach to theology cannot go hand in hand with the evangelical approach.

One can be evangelical and a conservative (politically) or evangelical and a liberal (politically). I have even come across people with liberal theological beliefs who hold conservative political beliefs. the Ku Klux Klan are an example.

I think what Wikipedia needs is a page for Liberal Christian Theology and a page for Christian socialism/liberalism. MLK would fit onto the latter but not the former. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.130.92.99 (talk • contribs) 16:53, September 6, 2006 (UTC)

MLK is also on the Social Gospel page, which that article describes as a religiously liberal movement. Are you sure he preached Evangelicalism? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I have removed Rowan Williams as he has aligned himself with Anglo-Catholicism, not with Liberal Christianity, though he is less conservative than some Anglo-Catholics. By the way, there are also pages for Liberation theology and Christian socialism, which may be liberal politically, but have very little connection with the liberal theology. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be a fundamental confusion. The article is about religious liberalism and explicitly sets this out in the introduction, as distinct from political liberalism. In a religious sense, 'evangelical' and 'liberal' are distinguishing terms which are defined against each other. Some people prefer to call this 'confessional' and 'liberal'. In a political sense, 'liberal' has no connection with religious liberalism at all. Liberals can be evangelical, religious liberal, atheistic, Jewish, Muslim… any religion or none. The issue is however further clouded by the misappropriation of the old term 'fundamentalist', which once referred to a particular movement within Christian evangelicalism, as an umbrella term for religious-based extremism, generally in an anti-liberal sense. Martin Turner 13:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (Chair, Liberal Democrat Christian Forum, http://www.ldcf.net )

[edit] heaven and hell

The article says "Many nontraditional views on heaven and hell are prevalent among liberal Christians. These range from ideas about separation from God or temporal punishment to the belief that there is no hell. Views on heaven are similarly diverse." Could somone tell me what the "orthodox" or "traditional" reading of hell is that all non-liberal Christians would agree to? I guess my question is whether it involves a literal pitchfork and 3000 degree (fahrenheit) heat versus a land of clouds with brass-halo'ed white people in gowns. Info please. It matters because I want this article to be reflective of a NPOV conception of what liberal Christians think versus an indictment of them by self-avowed conservative Christians. MPS 20:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the orthodox position of heaven and hell is that they exist. There are degrees in terms of literalism with regards to things like 3000 degree heat or whatever, but pretty much universally, the places exist, and you go to one or the other when you die. Heaven being a good place (opinions differ as to how good, or the definition of good) and hell being a bad place (pretty much universally accepted as "very painful"... "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is the relevant phrase from the bible). 204.78.9.231 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply but I think what you said only makes me more confused. When so-called "liberal Christians" speak in terms of separation from God or temporal punishment... aren't they also taking the orthodox view that hell involves pain and gnashing of teeth? I guess what I am saying is that there is no part of the Bible that says "There are torture rooms in hell and a guy with a pitchfork, pencil-thin moustache, and manaiacal laugh gives people tours by opening doors to reveal each person in his own personal torture room." What little the Bible does say about hell is often in terms of sheol which is not generally understood as a particular place for sinners... and Gehenna is often translated as hell because it refers to a smelly garbage heap outside Jerusalem ... but as you read in the Bible Gehenna is a place of abomination and perhaps torment that is not described as particularly hot. ... I am not trying to proof text anything here, but I am trying to point out that the "liberal" view of hell as "a painful soul-state of regret and eternal separation from God" is not (on the face of it) an implausible interpretation... any more than is the view of hell as a "volcano-like subterranean Abu Ghraib 16 miles inside the Earth's core." Dante was a Renaiissance poet and writer, not an authoritative interpreter of scripture. MPS 05:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, what does traditional/orthodox Christianity say about Heaven that liberal Christians tend to contradict? MPS 05:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tenets of liberalism

The section "the tenets of liberal theology" is extremely inaccurate. I hope someone with more historical knowledge than me will correct it. And the comment on Schleiermacher, is that supportable? CSMR 03:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you could elaborate on which parts of it are inaccurate and why. --Randolph 21:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been back here. There was a section called "the tenets of liberal theology". Liberal theology is a mainly 19th century movement considered to include Schleiermacher, Richtl, and Harnack. They are not individualist-subjectivists; they didn't reject institutional power; they didn't deny objectivity; and didn't claim that God is mutable. I changed the heading to "the tenets of liberal Christianity". I don't know whether this is accurate but I don't know that it isn't either and whoever wrote the section in the first place intended to write about "liberal Christianity" whatever that is. CSMR 00:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw these five tenets of liberalism and I was thinking of adding a sixth tenet "Yeah, go ahead believe anything you want, we are a bunch of wishy washy liberals and Jesus is just ish, you know?" Do you think this would be as NPOV as the other tenets? I do. (being snarky to make a point... the point being that the other tenets are not NPOV and may violate WP:NOR MPS 05:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

They also look inaccurate to me. I think the bullet points in the lead section would serve much better cut and pasted into the place of the tenets, but I don't have any books to hand to support me. Anyone care to have a go? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent deletions; History section

Well done, MPS, for cleaning up some questionable unsourced statementsdiff.

I don't think you went far enough with the History section, which seems to be a history of Christian social progressivism; which has only a tangential relationship with Liberal Christianity. Many progressives were (and are) not associated with liberal theology, such as William Wilberforce (evangelical) and Kenneth Leech (sacramentalist / Anglo-Catholic). Further, this is meant to be an encyclopedia for general readers, so lumping all unorthodoxy (such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which I guess was the inference of temperance) into Liberal Christianity is just confusing. Some conservative preachers choose to label all unorthodoxy as liberal. But, Liberal Christianity is a distinct religious movement, arising from academic theology, and the first job of the article should be to help the reader understand the basics of the movement, rather than give them a grab bag of all the things that writers have ever associated with the label.

Anyone agree with me that the History section should be deleted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, or at least, it should describe how liberal Christianity arose out of the social and intellectual changes in post-Enlightenment West. (I mean, are soup kitchens really a notable aspect of the history of liberal Christianity?!) Myopic Bookworm 00:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusivism

Someone recently said the use of the term "inclusive" expressed a prejudicial point of view and placed quotations marks around it in the article. Something which itself expresses a prejudicial point of view. I hate to state the obvious, but to say liberal theology is inclusive means that it includes. The use of the word that was changed in the article was in particular reference to God-concepts. Liberal theology allows for virtually any view out there, Deist, Wholly Imminent, Wholly Transcendent, all of them. A conservative might say, "but you don't allow for my view of God as Holy Father." This is not the case, the whole point of being inclusive is to include all views including those which are counter to the majority. To exclude based on the content of unusual views is explicitly un-liberal. This is the case even for more conservative or traditional views. I've removed the quotation marks. MerricMaker 21:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Inclusive is code for "gay-friendly." Not being angry/hateful here, just reporting the facts. Verify with google google MPS 04:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Inclusive is code for inclusive. If you care to localize this to homosexuals you can, but the point is missed if the term is not applied more broadly than to just one subset of humanity. If a church says it is inclusive, that generally means that all are welcome so long as it is understood that this welcome remains open, even to those with whom differences exist. The philosophy and purpose of inclusivism would be defeated were it otherwise. Now if you want to talk about the term as it relates to interreligious dialogue, that's in a whole different realm. But that's not the context for the use of the term here. What Google says it means is secondary to what The Cambridge Dictionary of Theological Terms says it means in this instance. Again, note that this specific usage was about God-concepts, not liturgical or ecclesial matters. MerricMaker 06:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What does the The Cambridge Dictionary of Theological Terms say about inclusive? We need to capture the various senses of the word or it will mean whatever it means to the reader. Surely we ought to account for its various subtle meanings if we are going to use that word. POV disclosure: In the United Church of Christ, inclusive is often a code word. MPS 07:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed edit to opening bullets

Below, in the interest of accuracy, I suggest the following changes:

  • internal diversity of opinion doctrine that may or may not include those of Conservative Christianity Traditonal /or/ Nicene Christianity
more clear, the question is not of opinion but, to be precise, doctrine; defining liberal Christianity as "different from its opposite" is not informative.
  • an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible with a corresponding willingness to question doubt supernatural elements of biblical stories (e.g., the virgin birth)
more clear, "questioning" does not distinguish the group
unclear and unnecessary
  • broader differing views on salvation than those held by conservative Christians that salvation comes through Jesus Christ alone, including universalist beliefs
again, do not define something as "different from its opposite", this is more clear
  • an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community, often applied in recent years to racial minorities, the disabled, women, and LGBT people.
I know of no Christian groups that do not include women or disabled, so this hardly seems distinctive.
  • a willingness to consider and adopt viewpoints which have their roots outside of Christianity (e.g., other faith/philosophical traditions)
  • a willingness to re-evaluate and modify orthodox theology beliefs in the light of modern scientific theories
It seems unclear because it doesn't mention just what tenants of orthodox theology are in need of modification, or even what it is considering to be orthodox theology.

I am sure this site is subject to its share of vandalism and the like, please understand these as good faith edits that really should improve the clarity of the lead section. Lostcaesar 13:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, fine by me, but some conservative Christians don't hold much with the Nicene Creed so I've tried to broaden the wording. I don't think it necessary to spell out "salvation through Jesus Christ alone" as the conventional doctrine (some liberals believe that non-Christians are indeed saved through Christ, though not through their own explicit faith in him). And the position of women is an important feature in many liberal churches: there are many Christian groups whose "inclusion" of women is pretty uninclusive (never speak in church or go too near the sanctuary, never hold a position of authority, etc.). Myopic Bookworm 00:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
MB, thanks for the input. I did not realize the bit about women was talking about ordination. I guess that's what I meant about it not being clear; thanks for adding that bad with its proper explination. Also, thanks for adding the few words after the Creed. Its better now. As for the part about salvation, I sort of thought that was a distinguishing feature of Liberal Christianity, but its not a big deal to remove it so long as the section is clear (which was my goal here). Thx. Lostcaesar 07:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone called User:CME GBM has twice deleted the bullet on inclusivity without comment. The second time it was marked "minor edit", and combined with several small changes, perhaps designed to make reversion more difficult. This seems bad faith. I have restored the section for a second time. Myopic Bookworm 11:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are Liberal Christianity and Progressive Christianity interchangeable?

I am not sure that characterizing Liberal Christian Theology as the opposite of conservative is actually valid.

It is my understanding and stated in the article that one of the tenets of liberal theology is “[i]t claims that a religion is a community of individuals united by common intuition and experiences, and therefore the value of the Church is in providing a supportive framework in which new conceptions of God can be explored, not in issuing decrees, upholding rigid dogma or in exercising power over the religious community”

Here is my first question is it not possible that a person’s intuitive experience with God would lead them to accept the orthodox teachings and conservative beliefs? Is not liberal theology an inclusive theology that would never completely reject orthodox/conservative beliefs?

I was also under the impression that Progressive Christianity and Liberal Theology are not interchangeable terms. In that there are aspects of Progressive Christianity that do reject orthodox/conservative teachings?--GMS508 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your impression is correct. This whole page is just wrong. The "liberal" in liberal Christianity refers to the grand liberal tradition of the Enlightenment. 216.15.43.58 03:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate examples referenced to particular writers/Theologians. What we have now is individuals listing there own beliefs and trying to give them added authority by claiming they are commonly accepted Liberal Christian beliefs. The citations are weak and not from respected journals or writers (some of citations are from blogs where neither the writer nor the sources are listed.) Since there is already so much confusion among evangelicals and fundamentals as to what liberal Christianity is why don’t we just reinforce the belief that Liberal Christianity is nothing more than bunch of Christians who registered to vote as democrats. If you cannot find a source chances are better than average that you are just promoting your own opinion.--Riferimento 23:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Does anyone disagree that Progressive Christianity & Liberal Christianity are not interchangeable?

I do not believe that the terms are interchangeable and unless hear differently I am going to edit the article so that it does not infer that the terms are interchangeable.--GMS508 04:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate WP article on Progressive Christianity so it would make sense to clarify the difference between the terms in this article. --Mikebrand 04:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Please edit this thing. It's just baldly wrong. 216.15.43.58 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I edited the page please review and correct if you feel my changes are inaccurate or need clarification.--GMS508 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion the History section is beyond editing and probably needs to be rewritten. Would anyone object to deleting it?--GMS508 03:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No objection here. Hay4 03:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of liberal christian thinkers

I think we need to cite sources for the list of liberal Christian thinkers (and for the entry as a whole). For example, I'm pretty sure Niebuhr did not consider himself to write in the tradition of liberal Christianity. Is there a reputable source out there indicating otherwise? Hay4 17:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Some distinguishing positions

This section may border on original research. I believe that there is some confusion either in my own understanding or by the writer of this section. I believe that the writer is confusing attributes and ideas of particular liberal writers/theologians with Liberal Christianity. Is not Liberal Christianity at heart a method of biblical interpretation of scripture? And because it is basically method of interpretation assigning these attributes([[1]]) seems to me to miss the importance of Liberal Christianity.
While these statements are not necessarily false, they do not describe liberal Christianity. They describe issues where Liberal Christianity has been applied to address problems and how Liberal Christian writers/theologians have addressed problems.--Riferimento 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The editor in question has a poor understanding of the topic yet is dogged in his attempts to keep his opinions on the topic in the entry. Hay4 20:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Liberal Christian Websites and authors are not at all reticent to state beliefs, views, doctrines. I do not understand the resistance to giving common examples of the end result of LC hermeneutics. The hermeneutics each of us uses tend to be strongly influenced by our belief system. As has been said, our minds are not "Tabula Rosa"--empty slate tablet. We are socially, culturally and otherwise conditioned in different ways. No matter how hard we may try, we cannot approach scripture with a mind like an empty slate tablet. If I have such-and-such a paradigm or prior belief, then I will read and interpret a scripture through that "pair of glasses." Some of my paradigms may shift as I receive more information, grow as a person, am exposed to other ways of viewing the world and scripture, etc. But the end result is that liberal Christians TEND to share some beliefs in common, just as do conservative Christians, moderate Christians, and so on. More conservative Christians are not at all hesitant to share their views/distinctive beliefs. Why should this article do otherwise? Please enlighten me. If I am missing a big point as you suggest, then I need to know what it is. Thanks very much. Afaprof01 23:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm hope this helps. Hay4 09:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Just made another try after reviewing the above about Catholic liberalism and many other sites by Protestant liberal Christians. Is it somewhat better? Comments welcome. Thanks for your patience in teaching me. 70.249.70.151 00:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Generally speaking, it's a good idea to know what you're talking about BEFORE you stubbornly edit and re-edit wikipedia entries. 24.115.86.20 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hay4, I just read the newadvent site that you mentioned above, and for me, in all honesty, it did not help to address any of the concerns of Afaprof01. I am not trying to be dense. Would you please propose an alternative response to Afaprof01's (and thus my) questions? Thank you. Jeff in CA 03:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It makes no sense to even think in terms of "liberal Christian beliefs" because it is not a belief system. It is simply a method of biblical hermeneutics. I'm not sure why you want to include a list of beliefs. Having any institutional set of beliefs is anathema to what liberal Christianity stands for. I'm sure you have your own personal take on Christianity and that you want your views vindicated on wikipedia under the authority of some historical movement, but that is not what wikipedia is about. What serious academic sources have you encountered that describes liberal Christianity as anything close to a set of beliefs? Hay4 07:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Afaprof01 states, “I do not understand the resistance to giving common examples of the end result of LC hermeneutics,” as well as “…the end result is that liberal Christians tend to share some beliefs in common.” This is the source of my concern.
I agree with you that liberal Christianity is not a belief system, either institutional or otherwise. I agree that having any institutional set of beliefs is anathema to what liberal Christianity stands for. I do not seek to have my views vindicated on Wikipedia. However, surely there have been serious academic studies on the variety of beliefs at which liberal Christians, using their chosen hermeneutic method, have arrived (and quite apart from the realm of political beliefs). Where in Wikipedia would there be an appropriate place to provide results from such academic studies? Other articles such as progressive Christianity, evangelical left, Christian left, religious left, modernist Christianity, liberal Protestantism, Biblical liberalism, and liberation theology either stress political beliefs or redirect back to this article.


It would seem to me that one source of confusion in the composition of this article is the term “liberal Christianity” itself. It seems as though some contributors (not you) have jumbled the meaning between the Enlightenment era understanding of the term and a more modern interpretation as stated in the Wikipedia entry for Conservative Christianity: “It is often said that Conservative Christianity and Liberal Christianity are polar opposites, though many liberal Christians would not agree. There is general agreement that their biblical hermeneutical methods are quite different.” Jeff in CA 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me for interjecting but part of the problem is that the Conservative Christianity article is terrible and probably needs a total rewrite. Until recently that article was using the terms Fundamentalism and conservative interchangeably.--Riferimento 23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
"However, surely there have been serious academic studies on the variety of beliefs at which liberal Christians, using their chosen hermeneutic method, have arrived" Do you have any links to such studies? Hay4 22:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was Dr. King a Liberal Christian???

Martin Luther King was obviously a Progressive Christianity and politically Liberal, but I do not know of any reason to assume that he was a Liberal Christian? Does anyone know why he should be included in this list? My reason for doubting that Dr. King should be included is the fact that he was an ordained Baptist minister, and most Baptist congregations are theologically conservative. Is it possible that he was included because of the common confusion between the terms Progressive Christianity and Liberal Christianity?--Riferimento 01:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I included MLK Jr. on the list of liberal Christians based on a number of papers he wrote while in seminary. In one essay in particular ([2]) MLK essentially denies the virgin birth, unique divinity and bodily resurrection of Jesus by stating that such doctrines were merely the product of a community attempting to express the ineffable character of Jesus through mythology. Eugeneacurry 18:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This entry is terrible

Why do so many ill-informed, ideological people insist on "contributing" to this entry? WHat we now have is a terrible entry full of wrong and misleading information. I wish there was a way to enforce standards in the case of entries like this. Hay4 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The answer to this is ... fix it. Hook in. I am not advocating a revert war, dispute for the sake of it, or other chilshness, but rather than whinging that the potplants are dying because no one waters them, how about you water them? This is going to bring on several nasty comments ( I can feel it) but keeping the article constantly watched and updated is a great source of strength for Wikipedia. Jacketed 07:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could "just fix it" but whenever I start making changes they get reverted. Hay4 08:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... the old revert war. I took A look at the history. The reverts seem to be pretty blatant. Have you tried making a few small changes? I am seeing the list of usual reverters, (is that a word?)and they might not realise that you are trying an improveent. Specifically what did you want? Jacketed 08:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lead

Someone deleted information from the lead, and I restored it. Specifically, it's this information:

Liberal Christians commonly question deeply held and centuries-old Christian doctrines, such as the inerrancy of the Bible and the Trinity. As a resulte, traditional Christians classify some liberal Christians as not Christian at all. Liberal Christians became dominant in New England c 1800, espousing a unitarian interpretation of Christianity. Dr. William Ellery Channing was the most prominent spokesman for this movement. Harvard Divinity School was unitarian from 1805 until it became nonsectarian in 1861. Liberal Christianity remained popular early in the 20th century, with Harry Emerson Fosdick its most renowned representative. The liberal Christian tradition continues today with the work of Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and John Shelby Spong.

According to WP:LEAD, the lead should go beyind defining the topic to summarizing the article and giving the reader a reason to care. If this information is inaccurate or incomplete, let's fix it, but let's not just leave it out. Jonathan Tweet 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see WP:Revert. Good-faith edits should not be reverted. Jonathan Tweet 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your lead because it states that liberal theology is propositional which contradicts the rest of the article. i.e. “espousing a unitarian interpretation of Christianity.” You infer that liberalism is not a hermeneutic method for interpreting scripture, but is in fact is an evolving belief system. Please provide citations. Because if you can substantiate your assertion that liberalism is propositional the rest of the article needs to be deleted.--Riferimento 21:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for using the talk page. If you delete another editor's work, you should at least explain yourself on the talk page. Now that you have explained yourself, I see the problem. You want to use the article's second definition of liberal Christianity and exclude the first. The lead says that "liberal Christianity" is an umbrella term; you want to define it as a hermeneutic method only. Anyone else want to jump in here? Jonathan Tweet 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If you can provide a citation which list the liberal Christian belief system written by a theologian please do. Please do not provide anything written by individuals whom are only self-published on the web.--Riferimento 22:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone else in on this discussion? Or is this something that R and I need to work out between the two of us? Jonathan Tweet 23:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] This entry is terrible two

This is a horrible article full of un-referenced half-truths and misleading statements. Anyone actually interested in liberal Christianity would be better off reading the Wikipedia liberalism article which is not subject to the same proselytizing fools of all walks i.e. proselytizing agnostic fools, proselytizing conservative fools, and proselytizing progressive fools.--Riferimento 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Request Needs Specificity

Recent editors have asserted that they have the right to place tags on articles without commenting or explaining there rationale for those tags. This is absolutely true, though I would argue that they should remember that other editors have the right to remove those tags it they believe them to be invalid.
When you add a tag without commenting why you believe with some specificity why the article needs a tag two things generally happen: First, the tag remains on the article because additional editing to correct the matter cannot be resolved if other editors do not understand your problem with the article, or the tag is removed by another editor at some future point without any understanding whether the situation was resolved or if the tag was valid in the first place.
I believe that the present tag requesting citations is invalid because no editors have requested citations for any specified assertions. The article is short because it is not really a very complicated subject matter. Most additional information that could be added to this article would either be general information better placed in the liberal article (a well sourced article) or specifying individual liberal theologian beliefs (which in my opinion in fact corrupt the article by leading readers to believe that there is a set of liberal beliefs).
That said I am a firm believer that when citations are requested if they a not be provided the assertion needs to be removed. One of the reasons that this article is so short is that I have been regularly been removing assertions without citations. --N0nr3s (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a Criticism Section

Why is there a nice big criticism section for "Conservative Christianity" and none for Liberal Christianity? Wikipedia bias strikes again. 152.23.202.133 (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Cato