Liberal Theology: The Nebulous Doctrines and Denials That Define It

In our previous article, The Historical and Fallacious Impetus of Liberal Theology, we considered how progressive theology arose largely in reaction to the cultural and scientific advances of the Enlightenment. We noted that the theological shift in 19th-century Germany was radically different from the impetus of the early church. The early Christian movement was propelled by the conviction of Jesus’ bodily resurrection—a truth for which most of the apostles, and many after them, were willing to die. By contrast, liberal theology, emerging nearly seventeen centuries later, inherently downplayed or outright denied the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.

Fearing that Christianity would collapse under the weight of cultural criticism and scientific progress, even well-meaning theologians offered, in place of the gospel, a metaphorical and subjective shell—tailored for the “modern” mind. The theological motivations the early historic church and the modern liberal church remain profoundly different.

But What Does Liberal Theology Actually Teach?

This is a difficult question to answer. Unlike Catholicism or various Protestant traditions, liberal theology lacks a universally accepted catechism. While Unitarian minister Charles Fletcher Dole (1845–1927) attempted to summarize it in A Catechism of Liberal Faith (1895), liberal theology by nature resists dogmatic formulation. It favors personal experience and subjective interpretation over creedal consistency. That fact alone should be telling.

Liberal theology is inherently fluid, decentralized, and often resistant to fixed doctrine. While some denominations adhere to specific liberal beliefs, the broader liberal theological ethos has quietly infiltrated nearly all branches of Protestantism—though less so within Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

As a “progressive” theology, it must by definition accommodate human evolution and cultural experience, emphasizing freedom of thought and personal interpretation. Unsurprisingly, even theologians within the liberal camp often disagree on core doctrines. Still, a general consensus can be drawn from leading liberal thinkers regarding three areas: the Bible, Jesus, and religious pluralism.

The Bible as a Human Document

Liberal theology rejects the inerrancy of Scripture. While some adherents believe the Bible may have been divinely inspired in some sense, many claim it has been corrupted or reconstructed over time. In general, liberal theology views Scripture not as divine revelation, but as a human record of spiritual experience—not inherently superior to other religious texts.

Even Karl Barth, though a critic of liberal theology, maintained a progressive view of the Bible. He taught that Scripture is not the Word of God itself but can become the Word of God as God reveals Himself through it. Rudolf Bultmann, a leading liberal theologian, captured the general view well. He advocated interpreting the Bible solely through historical analysis, rejecting its supernatural elements as outdated mythology:

“Can Christian preaching expect modern man to accept the mythical view of the world as true? To do so would be both senseless and impossible... It is simply the cosmology of a pre-scientific age.”
— New Testament and Mythology (1941)

Jesus as a Moral Teacher

While Jesus is still admired in liberal theology—after all, he “puts the Christ in Christianity”—he is usually stripped of His divinity as understood by historic Christianity. Paul Tillich (1886–1965), an influential liberal theologian and philosopher, emphasized Jesus’ existential impact rather than divine nature:

“Jesus as the Christ is not God, but the manifestation of God. He is not God becoming man or man becoming God, but the manifestation of the divine in the human.”
— Systematic Theology, Vol. II

In contrast to the Nicene Creed, Jesus in liberal theology is not considered divine in an essential or metaphysical sense, but rather metaphorically divine:

“The statement that ‘Jesus is the Christ’ is a symbolic expression. It points to a reality which cannot be expressed literally or historically.”
— Systematic Theology, Vol. II

To be fair, not all liberal theologians outright deny Jesus' divinity—but many reinterpret it. In liberal churches today, it’s common to find those who believe Jesus was a moral teacher, a prophet of justice, a symbol of God’s presence, or simply the best of humanity. Yet this “new wisdom” of a reimagined Jesus for a scientific age is the very notion C.S. Lewis warned against:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.”
— Mere Christianity

Inclusivism and Religious Pluralism

If the Bible is merely a human book and Jesus merely a moral teacher, then nothing uniquely Christian remains. Liberal theology, by and large, embraces religious pluralism, seeing Jesus and the Bible as just one path among many.

The popular metaphor of the Blind Men and the Elephant—in which each person touches part of an elephant and assumes it's the whole—has become a widely accepted symbol in liberal circles. It illustrates the belief that all religions are grasping for the same divine reality.

Consequently, verses like John 14:6, in which Jesus sharply declares, “No one comes to the Father except through me,” are not just dulled but removed from liberal theological frameworks. This isn’t new. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the father of liberal theology, wrote:

“To every man, religion is the form of his inner life… Christianity is but one mode of expressing this inner sense.”
— On Religion (1799)

Likewise, Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930) asserted:

“The essence of Christianity lies" not in the person and work of Jesus, but in "the inner life.”
— History of Dogma

From Schleiermacher to Bultmann, from Tillich to Knitter, many liberal theologians have affirmed that salvation or spiritual enlightenment can be found outside of Christ.

Conclusion: What Does Liberal Theology Actually Teach?

By its very nature, Liberal Theology is nebulous—intentionally vague, heavily philosophical, and subjectively defined. This makes it difficult to outline what it teaches, but remarkably easy to see what it denies:

The Bible as the inerrant Word of God

Jesus as the only begotten Son of God

Salvation through Him alone

In the end, perhaps the better question isn't what Liberal Theology teaches—but what it denies.

But what do you think?

Micah Coate, President and Host of Salvation and Stuff