The Historical and Fallacious Impetus of Liberal Theology

One quote attributed to Plato is that, “The beginning is the most important part of the work.” While this is true in various ways, I want to specifically highlight that knowing the origin of an idea allows one to better understand and assess its truth. My contention—which I’ll lay out in the next few articles—is not only that Liberal, Modern, or Progressive Theology is unorthodox, but that the historical impetus that launched the “modernistic” understanding of the faith was flawed from the very beginning. As Carl Trueman concluded in his foreword to the new edition of Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism,

“…liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible… Liberalism, on the other hand, is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.”

Not only was Liberal Theology epistemologically defective—employing reason above faith—it also reversed Anselm’s (1033–1109) long-held belief (fides quaerens intellectum, “faith seeking understanding”) as the approach to knowledge. It manipulated the historical Christian message to adapt to a rapidly changing world. We must note that Liberal theology, as a “Christian” belief system, was essentially nonexistent until the late 18th century. That makes it a theological innovation, not a development, and an aberration in the Church’s 1,700-year history.

So how and why did Liberal Theology arise?

In the wake of the Enlightenment (late 16th and 17th centuries), the Western world was rethinking everything. Advances in technology, medicine, and science had their effect on society at large—in philosophy, ethics, politics, and yes, even theology.

Simply put: if Darwin’s claim of a shared ancestor was to be believed, then the Genesis account of creation could not be literally or historically true. Likewise, if materialism—the idea that all reality consists only of physical elements we can test and measure—is correct, then invisible creatures like angels and demons cannot exist. Furthermore, if the universe is governed solely by natural processes through laws like gravity, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics, then miracles are not just improbable—they are impossible. And if philosophers like Voltaire, Kant, and Hume framed religion as an old husk to be discarded, then only the daft would keep it.

As prominent liberal theologian Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) famously posited:

“It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.”
—New Testament and Mythology (1941)

In total, while the Bible retained some historical and proverbial interest, it was largely dismissed as authoritative truth by a generation that considered itself more modern and advanced than its ancestors. If a worldview eliminates divine creation, spiritual beings, miracles, and, most importantly, the resurrection, then that worldview—whatever it may be called—has no need for a faith in God. Religion may be tolerated as a crutch for the weak or stubborn, but Christianity was no longer seen as reasonable, logical, or scientifically viable.

While this may seem like a simplistic evaluation, it is by no means dramatic. These were the serious theological challenges facing the Church in Europe post-Enlightenment. At the time, the theological hub of Europe was Germany—the birthplace of Protestantism. Martin Luther’s legacy encouraged biblical criticism and personal faith. With world-leading universities like Halle, Tübingen, Heidelberg, and Berlin offering scholastic theology that questioned tradition and authority, Germany would become the birthplace of Liberal Theology. Thus, you will often read or hear of Germany in connection with the rise of Liberal Theology.

To answer these earnest—but secular—provocations, leading theologians sought to adapt the faith to fit the changing landscape of the time. No longer were people to alter their beliefs and lives in order to be transformed by the Gospel. Now, the gospel was being altered and conformed to be palatable to the world.

This is evident in the work of Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), often referred to as the Father of Liberal Christianity. He notably redefined Christianity—not as a set of doctrinal affirmations, which it had been since the genesis of the Church (and remains so today)—but as a feeling of absolute dependence on God. This and other redefinitions of doctrine by similar theologians radically shifted the source of truth from objective, divine revelation to subjective, personal sentiment. Schleiermacher believed Christianity was not static but must be understood and expressed in ways that resonated with the ever-evolving human experience. Thus, core doctrines of sin, propitiation, and human nature were reverse-engineered, tailored, and offered to a pubescent people caught between modernism and traditionalism—not quite “mature” enough to abandon the faith completely, yet not “naive” enough to believe it on its own terms.

The ironic notion of trying to be Christian without believing in divine revelation is summarized well in The Making of American Liberal Theology (2001). Historian Gary Dorrien concluded:

“Liberal theology is the idea that Christian theology can be genuinely Christian without being based on external authority. It must be based on reason and inner experience.”

Likewise, Karl Barth (1886–1968)—though not untouched by Progressive theology—critiqued this approach sharply, describing it as:

“…a giant attempt to make the gospel palatable to modern man. It tried to speak of God by speaking of man in a loud voice.”
(Church Dogmatics, Vol. I/1)

Although many more quotes could be offered—from both critics and architects of Liberal Christianity—the point should be clear: from its outset, Liberal Theology was presented not merely as an alternative view of Christianity, but as an alternative form of Christianity. It was this form that led Machen to write in his seminal work, Christianity and Liberalism (1923):

“What is to-day called ‘Christianity’ is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a distinct category.”

In Conclusion

My hope in these papers is not merely to reflect on Christian history with insight and rhetorical flourish, but to change the minds of friends who believe in Theological Liberalism as a religious worldview or who hold to some of its doctrines, knowingly or unknowingly. These articles are written in that spirit.

I am afraid the old idiom may prove literally true:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And tragically, those progressing down the path paved by Liberal Theology’s historical and fallacious impetus may find it leads not to Christ—but away from Him.

But what do you think?

Micah Coate, President and Host of Salvation and Stuff