Where did the Liberals come from?

A Better treatment of the era is found in Beal’s In Pursuit of Purity. The seeds of Liberalism didn’t really sprout until the 1890s-1910’s

Liberalism’s roots go well back into the enlightenment era philosophers. Some of them made analyses of the Bible and Christianity that sound exactly like the conclusions of the Liberal theologians of much later. I will post a few more pertinent details in the days ahead, but today is Mother’s Day, and I want to focus on family a little more.

[Charlie] Were there pre-existing fatal flaws in turn-of-the-century evangelicalism that opened it up for a crash like this?

Absolutely. It was populated by fatally flawed humans. I think we err to look for some deep, dark secret fault that we must seek to avoid. I think the better lesson is that we are ever confronted with a roaring lion seeking to devour us. Our enemy is adept at exploiting weaknesses. I believe we ought to be less concerned about returning to this or that from of past Christianity and more concerned with simply living the book here and now. That is not to say we cannot learn from the past, but that I think we over idealize the past sometimes and gloss over the differences of today. In essence, we lose the timelessness of the truths of Scripture as we try to recapture a specific period of application.

By the way, I second the promotion of Beal’s book.

I have Beale’s book lying around. I bought it a couple years ago and I’m glad to find out that it has some glowing recommendations. It’s prompted me to read it soon.

As for the apostasy of churches, I would say a gradual decline makes sense. That’s at least what happens to churches over here. They either shoot into the liberal direction or they shoot down the fanatical direction but it’s gradual. I’ve seen both in the making. That’s not to say the church must be unhealthy in order for error to arise. Apostasy and turning away from biblical Christianity occurred early on in the church while it was in its beginnings, Arianism was developing prominence despite the Nicene Creed. All in all, the former is more likely than the later.

The following is my opinion and does not reflect that of any organization I am identified with.

As I see it, the roots of Liberalism lay in the entry of unregenerate men into the ministry and into the training of ministers. This started with the continental Lutherans and Reformed schools. Their influence gained traction in amercia through their books and by American students doing the graduate work overseas. How did the unregenerate get into such positions of influence? It was\is the unintended consequence of the doctrines of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. By accepting a man who went through the various actions of their respective churches at face value without a clear testimony of faith, the doors were thrown open for damnable heresies.

I don’t believe their is one answer and probably none of us do. But major causes can be identified within certain groups.

Secondly, liberalism is somewhat two-dimensional. There are theological liberals that probably are practical liberals and there are practical liberals who are probably not theological liberals.

Here is what I mean. Practical liberals are those who, in practice, reflect liberalism in their theology but if pressed regarding that to which they hold they would probably articulate non-liberal theological views, at least enough to qualify. Rick Warren might be a reasonable example of what I mean.

A theological liberal, of course, is one that by way of his studies and not his practice, has opened the door to what non-liberal theologians would consider immodest apologetics, hermeneutics and so on. And one would expect a certain liberalism in their practice as well but I say not all in that, there may be some exceptions (if there is show me anyway but I will give the benefit of the doubt to the possibility).

So I believe there are two entries, theological and practical.

I do believe, however, that the introduction of theological liberalism is by far the more historical. And I do believe that while we would see different compositions of contributors throughout the varying periods of church history, we would see a consistent rise of certain aspects through out those periods. As to that both historical and more recent contributors come to mind:

1. Intellectualism/rationalism. This is, to me, the best general prescription of one of the major causes of liberalism that rises during all periods of history. While during those varying periods it produces different kinds of departures, they nevertheless all fall under this category.

There is an immense conflict between the insight of man, his intellectual capabilities and his rational disposition and the epistemological rehabilitation the believer must under go with doctrinal reorientation during his life. And this conflict involves both the employment of man’s intellectual capacity and the acquiescence of it with regard to the greater light of Scripture.

Intellectualism/rationalism tempts us to navigate outside the boundaries of Scripture because this is our nature. That is, imagine kayaking (this is a very elementary illustration, a better one might be found by others). When we kayak our navigation is bound by the shores and river flow. We may, within those bounds and shorelines, make discoveries and navigational adjustments to increase our success but once we decide to navigate contrary to such boundaries we become possessed no longer by the river and its benefits, rather by our own reason contrary to the facts.

And be sure there are many intellectual/rationalistic exercises where we are either on the shore claiming to be rowing away feverishly and surely digging sand at our side with a lot of motion but our progress is imagined though our motion is rapid. And the same when we paddle upstream.

2. Ecclesiastical misfeasance. The local assembly has a distinct duty in inculcating members with sound doctrine. As well, it has an obligation in determining rightful candidates for ordination. When they fail to provide sound doctrine and/or provide ordination to an unqualified candidate, they open the door to liberalism on their part (While it is true that even under such conditions exercise properly a man can reject all the right given him, this is not what is being discussed, rather when a local assembly and particularly the Pastor/Elders, fail to perform their duties).

And there are many causes for this.

A. Denominational institutionalism. That is, a denomination sets up certain programs or “hoops” through which one must jump and if they learn to articulate all of the right answers during their qualifying ages, they can become a deacon, elder or be ordained as Pastor.

While the intent may be good, at times, the process is removed from the personal persuasion of conversion, enlightenment, and desire. While catechisms are good, most often if a young person completes them and then learns to utter the correct answers, their enlightenment and salvation will be declared. It is greatly frowned upon by parents and denominations if a young person enters a catechism program and at the end the instructor informs the parents that their young person simply does not display enlightenment, interest or a reasonable pursuit of spiritual things and to declare their enlightenment and salvation so they may be baptize would be a mistake. That doesn’t happen very often if at all.

And as to theological institutions of higher learning take the LCMS as an example. This is not a liberal body. Theologically they would be considered conservative. Yet within their body there are some surprisingly liberal Pastors that the LCMS accepts. Why? Because in their institutions and ordination process there is no close monitoring, it is an institutional monitoring that again, is set through programs. And if one learns the correct answers there is no choice by those ordaining him and the LCMS accepting it. He meets the criteria. It is very, very rare that a man would complete is M.Div through the Concordia University System and be denied ordination upon a call. His private thoughts may be very far removed or some of his academic articulations very liberal, but if he graduates and then learns the LCMS code that must be uttered in the ordination process, he is ordained. Even with the structure of what one would call a theologically conservative body there is room for a liberal to make his way.

B. Congregational egotism. Congregations, like any group, have a consensus forming process. If a congregation is, as a body, prone to group egotism, that is their group desires trumping what is best for them, they will seek a Pastor that minors on doctrinal instruction and majors on social construct.

And here enters liberalism, either practical or both theological and practical. But even here, if it is just practical, its effects will be theological. Because in an assembly where there is practical liberalism you have an automatic default to a de-emphasis on Scripture which, silently, introduces the death of its importance and potency. There is a supplanting of “be yet transformed” by way of sound doctrine with other programs or ways or thinking which is the basis of liberalism. In other words liberalism is learned in a practical sense and ultimately leads to liberalism theologically.

C. Pastoral neglect. Without describing I will list ways I see this occurring.

*Failure to emphasize exegesis in his studies

*Sycophantic adherence to a school of theology

*Preoccupation with church growth/emphasis on how many attends

*Preoccupation with his image/reputation

*Failure to engage regularly in prayer for the work to which he is called and his sheep

*Supplanting serious study with gimmicks

I suppose a good number could be added. But why does this lead to liberalism? Because it reflects a underemphasis on the preeminence of doctrine and the truly transforming work of God’s Word with all of its sufficiency and urgency and instead communicates that our lives are not about the Word of God (otherwise this would be reflected by the Pastor) rather it is about gimmicks, distractions, games, programs and so on which ultimately are devices created by man for himself.

Again, I don’t believe there is one answer but there are contributors and here I believe are some basic contributors that can be identified in varying forms in any context where liberalism has overcome.

I think the above post amplifies much of my position.

How did it infiltrate the Baptists? Simple, it was the latest and greatest. It was Modern. Take a look at how Modernism flooded into the Northern Baptist schools in Beal.

Yes, I know about confirmation in a Presbyterian church. Been here, done that, which is why i some times sound like an ex-RC about the Presbys. My answer is why shouldn’t an unregenerate man lie. To do otherwise would compromise his standing in the community. The use of the term “covenant children” to me seems to assume the person is regenerate. The authorities are only expecting the correct words to be said.