Why I am not theologically liberal

The semester is over - yippee!!! There is always a sense of accomplishment that accompanies this time of the year. How does one celebrate such an occasion? In my case... with a blog posting of the theological variety. (What a party animal I am.)

Recently I heard a friend of a friend describe themselves as "theologically liberal." They referred to this website as a concise summary of their beliefs. I've read it, and I'd like to respond in this space, even if nobody cares but me and my mom. (If you genuinely feel like reading on, you will probably want to read that page first.) (Is my self-deprecating humor getting old, or is it a nice touch?) I would not describe myself as theologically liberal - I am an Evangelical (though perhaps a moderate liberal within that camp).

First, a few brief caveats. In this space I will be using "liberal" as a theological category, not a political category. Also, it should be said that I am generally quite fond of my liberal Christian friends and family members, and I am in no way trying to say that they are all "unsaved." Finally, just as my thoughts do not reflect the thoughts of all Evangelicals, I'm responding to one person's picture of liberal Christianity. (Really, most of what I say won't make much sense apart from the context of that article, so if you've made it this far and haven't read that page yet, go ahead & do it, then come back to me. I promise it won't take long.) (FYI, Vegas odds on me having no parenthetical comments for the rest of the post are about 10,000:1, which, as Kevin from "The Office" would say, are such great odds that you've gotta take 'em...)

So, let's get started. I can affirm a lot of liberal thought, including:
--the freedom to think.
--the importance of diversity.
--the equality of men and women - in society, marriage, and ministry roles. Contrary to what some would say, this viewpoint is entirely consistent with an Evangelical view of the Bible.
--not necessarily a thoroughly non-literal view of Scripture, but definitely a literary view of Scripture - when the intent of a passage is figurative and theological, I interpret it as such (against, say, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins & the Left Behind series); when the intent of a passage is both theological and historical (for example, Exodus and the gospels), I consider it to be both theologically and historically accurate. For instance, if someone were to write a historically-accurate biography of Martin Luther King, Jr., they might say, "he was a prophetic figure sent by God for the correction of a sinful nation." Does this value judgment mean they cannot present the truth about the man? I don't think so; consider Luke 1:1-4. Also, yes, the Bible is a thoroughly human book in addition to being a divine book; it was not, as Muslims claim of the Qur'an, dictated by God, but was written through the full exercise of human personalities. I believe higher criticism - literary criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, historical criticism, canon criticism - are tools that can be used profitably for understanding the text. (They can also be abused, but that's beside the point here.)
--the importance and coherence of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience (though I would not put them on equal footing - Scripture has a one-up on the rest when adjudication is needed).
--the consistency of evolution with Christian faith. I think it's possible to hold an Evangelical view of the Bible and affirm evolution. As a non-biologist, I consider myself ill-equipped to judge the arguments, but I am open to the input of both ID proponents and proponents of evolution. Contrary to the majority of secular scientists today, I think more open dialogue and debate in this arena would be good for the scientific community.
--the immanence of God (in addition to his transcendence).
--social justice as absolutely essential in the kingdom of God.
--the essential value of Christian community, too - our faith is not just about individualistic quiet times.

However, I must reject many liberal conclusions. Here are some challenges I would raise:
--You can't say, "perhaps more so than evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, liberal Christians see the teachings of Jesus as having a central place," and then, just a few paragraphs later, talk about universal salvation. Jesus teaches more about hell than any other figure in the Bible; you can't take it out of his teaching and still call it the teaching of the "historical Jesus." I'm not saying I particularly like the idea of hell (though I think we like justice very much and are slow to recognize the role hell plays in assuring final justice for the oppressed); I'm saying a follower of Jesus' teaching believes in hell.
--Sure, there are everyday "miracles" in the world, but we shouldn't discount truly miraculous occurrences (not just statistical anomalies) merely because we haven't experienced them ourselves. They're called miracles for a reason - they are abnormal. They also happen to be more common in churches that actively believe they're possible (as in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and many charismatic churches in the West).
--Jesus' bodily resurrection was a historical event. It is the most defensible miracle of human history. There is no alternative theory that stands up to scrutiny.
--We need both social justice and personal transformation; they MUST go hand in hand - you can't have one without the other.
--Liberal Christianity values global diversity, but global Christians do not value liberal theology. As many scholars have said of Liberationist thought in Latin America, "Liberation theology opted for the poor, and the poor opted for Pentecostalism." Liberal Christianity is in many ways elitist, and it robs the gospel of much of its power to help the downtrodden make it through everyday life.
--Homosexual behavior - indeed, any sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage - is one form of diversity the Christian faith cannot be bent to affirm. That doesn't give anyone the license to be a jerk to a practicing homosexual; it just means we can't endorse homosexual expression as another healthy alternative to celibacy and heterosexual marriage.
--To put it crassly, panentheism sucks; a non-transcendent god is useless.
--Liberal Christianity Oprah-fies Jesus. It takes those aspects of Christianity which are non-palatable to the Western conscience and tosses them out the window. That's not an improvement; that's individualism - a pick-and-choose approach to the Bible. Imagine that - the very things liberal theology downplays or rejects (hell, personal transformation, personal responsibility, sexual restraint, even miracles in a way) are the things that are most unpopular about Christianity in our country.

Bottom line, I find both liberal and Fundamentalist faith to be intellectually and existentially unsatisfying.

As our seminary's chancellor and co-founder, Dr. Vernon Grounds, has said:
Here is no unanchored liberalism,
freedom to think without commitment.
Here is no encrusted dogmatism,
commitment without freedom to think.
Here is a vibrant evangelicalism, commitment with freedom to think
within the limits laid down in Scripture.Having done my undergraduate studies in Madison, I think being associated with anything that could carry the label "liberal" has often seemed sexy to me - or, at the very least, I associated "liberal" with "open-minded." Much to my dismay, I have been surprised multiple times here in Denver to investigate an intellectual issue seriously - to open my mind, as it were - only to discover that the more "conservative" option better fits the evidence. How un-sexy. I guess the pursuit of truth is no respecter of one person's perception of what would be more exciting.

Two books to recommend for further reading:
--The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, by Craig Blomberg. What the title says it is. Craig is one of our professors, our boss (we grade papers and exams for his classes), and our friend... and a world-class New Testament scholar. (He also subscribes to Google updates that tell him anytime a new website is published with his name on it, so he'll be reading this eventually. Hi, Craig! Thanks for visiting.)
--Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals, by William Webb. Argues biblically for gender equality along with the enduring censure of homosexual behavior.

I apologize if I have used any technical vocabulary that is unfamiliar to anyone. Please don't be shy to leave a comment asking for clarification about some word or concept you're not sure about; you're probably not the only one with that question.