Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
Related: About this forumProgressive and Liberal Christianity
February 10, 2013
By James F. McGrath
Several posts have come to my attention in recent days, related to the subject of liberal/progressive Christianity.
Roger Olson has a post on why he doesnt self-identify as a liberal Christian. He offers interesting discussion of the terminology and his own understanding, which is worth clicking through to read. Towards the end he sums up as follows:
So whats wrong with being liberal theologically in that way? I find it thin, ephemeral, light, profoundly unsatisfying. It seems to me barely different from being secular humanist. Sure, theological liberals (in the sense I have defined that type above) can be profoundly spiritual, but I dont think they are profoundly Christian. Their commitment is greater to modern culture, the Zeitgeist of the Enlightenment, than to Christian sources. Their Christianity is barely recognizable if recognizable at allcompared with anything that was called Christian before the Enlightenment. Ultimately, I believe, theological liberalism robs Christianity of its distinctiveness, the scandal of particularity, its prophetic edge and makes it easy, respectable and dull.
I have to strongly disagree. The reason why liberal Christians are committed to the insights of science and other approaches to knowledge associated with the Enlightenment is because they are almost universally agreed to represent improvements on what went before, allowing us a better understanding of the world we live in. And there is no reason to think that, when pre-Enlightenment Christians adopt a stance different from that of the Enlightenment, it is because they had considered that approach and evaluated a different one as preferable. No, they differ from Enlightenment thinking simply and precisely because they lived before it. We cant know what the Biblical authors (for instance) would have said about the Enlightenment. But I think I can safely say this: What made the Biblical authors have a prophetic edge in their own time is not merely the fact that they reflected more their own context than our own. If it were, then presumably liberal Christians, by reflecting our own time, would be automatically the most prophetic simply because of the ways in which we reflect our own time and context. Olson, by making pre-Enlightenment vs. post-Enlightenment worldviews the crux of Christianity, treats context as substance. It is a rejection of this view that an ancient culture and its assumptions can be adopted by people today, and that that culture must be accepted along with the Gospel that was the heart of Bultmanns work on demythologization.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2013/02/progressive-and-liberal-christianity.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 969 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Progressive and Liberal Christianity (Original Post)
rug
Feb 2013
OP
Taverner
(55,476 posts)1. Liberal Christianity is an approach where Science is Revelator nt
rug
(82,333 posts)2. It welcomes scientific knowledge but doesn't call it a Revelator.
okasha
(11,573 posts)3. Liberal Christianity is an approach
that stresses the social gospel. It more or less takes science for granted.