Thread: The path to liberalism

Following the recent news about the Church of Scotland, I have been thinking about Liberalism and how it could affect so much the mainline churches. After more than a century of church history troubled by harsh debates and hurtful splits, we should have enough data to trace a doctrinal path from confessional orthodoxy down to liberalism. For instance: rejection of biblical inerrancy > abandonment of Calvinism > will worship > ?

I am not trying to open a dispute about EP vs hymns or the like, but I am interested in identifying - if possible - the doctrinal milestones that lead to Liberalism.

I think you have it right with it all starting with the denial of Biblical Inerrency and Authority. Then it is all downhill from there.

I dont know who wrote this , but it seems appropriate.
"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated , need but to be seen.
Yet seen too often, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

I think you have it right with it all starting with the denial of Biblical Inerrency and Authority. Then it is all downhill from there.

Yep. I was just posting on the CRC thread and can say that things started going south there (from what I saw) when women in office was instituted as a new policy. Questions on biblical inerrancy with regards to WIO were answered with "it's not a salvation issue".

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

I think you have it right with it all starting with the denial of Biblical Inerrency and Authority. Then it is all downhill from there.

There are several denominations that allow women ministers that did not go down that road, or it took a long time. The Methodist Church was strong for years and allowed them. The Evangelical Methodist Church is conservative. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church still holds to inerrancy.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

... "it's not a salvation issue".

That phrase always leads to trouble.

Once you deny Biblical Inerrency you really have no logical right to deny just about anything.

Originally Posted by ExGentibus

Following the recent news about the Church of Scotland, I have been thinking about Liberalism and how it could affect so much the mainline churches. After more than a century of church history troubled by harsh debates and hurtful splits, we should have enough data to trace a doctrinal path from confessional orthodoxy down to liberalism. For instance: rejection of biblical inerrancy > abandonment of Calvinism > will worship > ?

I am not trying to open a dispute about EP vs hymns or the like, but I am interested in identifying - if possible - the doctrinal milestones that lead to Liberalism.

Modern skepticism. Go back to the so-called "Enlightenment" (18th century).

An OPC minister once told me that he believes that German Pietism led to Liberalism in Europe. I also remember reading somewhere that Immanuel Kant was a pietist or was involved in that tradition.

Inferring from Scripture, it might be said that the leaders (church officers) go first:

1st) Church leaders do not hold to the time-tested summaries of doctrine (e.g. Confession), and disregard the vows they took to uphold them

This tends to undermine the unity of the church and the notion that people are covenanted together to serve God in this world.

2nd) Church leaders do not hold to a belief in Scripture generally as the authority for life and practice

This is an "openess" to the deceit of the world, the flesh and the devil and a notion one cannot really know for certainty what the Bible really means (the "world" "academia" loves that notion; God detests it)

3rd) Members then, observing this tone fall in the same pattern

People tend to worship, follow other people too much, let them do the work, so when the pattern of disbelief emerges among leaders, it makes it easier for laymen to justify in their own minds and emotions their (wicked) disbelief, disobedience

4th) Gradually, members fall away from the vital teaching of their children, which loses the witness for the next generation.

Church becomes something that is not vital to any aspect of life. It may be social but there are other avenues for that. It may drift toward man-centered ends in politics or entertaining members. The children pick this up... and are not interested.

This goes on in every generation.

Yet, God is faithful, He will have a people in every generation. Good and evil will develop side-by-side and it will often not be clear to us, from our limited perspectives, that God is indeed in control.

And He is working all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose. (cf Romans 8:28) And He is working all thing toward the end of His Glory!

Our job, by God's grace, is to be faithful in every aspect of the life God gives us, and by faith, believe God will see fit to use it to advance His Kingdom and change things for His better by it.

Originally Posted by william.m.

I dont know who wrote this , but it seems appropriate.
"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated , need but to be seen.
Yet seen too often, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace” Alexander Pope quotes (English Poet, 1688-1744)

The Story of Liberalism.

Once upon a time there was a man named Schleiermacher ....

Originally Posted by Whitefield

The Story of Liberalism.

Once upon a time there was a man named Schleiermacher ....

And, don't forget good ol' Julius Wellhausen. . .

Originally Posted by reformedminister

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

I think you have it right with it all starting with the denial of Biblical Inerrency and Authority. Then it is all downhill from there.

There are several denominations that allow women ministers that did not go down that road, or it took a long time. The Methodist Church was strong for years and allowed them. The Evangelical Methodist Church is conservative. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church still holds to inerrancy.

They may very well, but not authority, then, since female elders are CLEARLY forbidden in Scripture.

Female elders are a symptom of what I believe is the prior, root cause, that is, a modernistic approach to Scripture - even in the Methodist church, which I think gave up on Scripture's full authority before beginning to allow female elders.

Originally Posted by reformedminister

There are several denominations that allow women ministers that did not go down that road, or it took a long time. The Methodist Church was strong for years and allowed them. The Evangelical Methodist Church is conservative. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church still holds to inerrancy.

That is interesting. As far as I understand, there are only two ways to allow women ministers: one involves rejecting the authority of Paul and the inspiration of his canonical writings; the other, slightly more moderate, attempts to understand his prohibition as "cultural" and directed only at the church of Corinth, despite the appeal to Creation and the reference to the practice of "all the churches of the saints." However, the latter seems like an implicit denial of the apostolic authority, because the apostles were universal ministers, not associated with a particular church.

In any case, could we say that the ordination of women is one of those milestones? It seems to me that, while not all churches that approve women ministers can currently be defined as outright "liberal", nonetheless all liberal churches have gone through that step.

I believe that the ordination of women is clear evidence that a church has abandoned a proper understanding of and a submission to the authority of Scripture.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

I believe that the ordination of women is clear evidence that a church has abandoned a proper understanding of and a submission to the authority of Scripture.

And then the "Social Gospel only" issue seems to pop up.

Let's not get pulled into tangents. Denominations that chose to allow women's ordination were already well into theological liberalism. The issue that we need to look at is the cultural issue within groups of Christians--what is it that starts groups of orthodox believers thinking that new doctrines, new ideas must be promoted? A variation is to ask, what led these groups to start to doubt the truth (or viability) of the faith that they held?

These types of questions get us out of the weeds and back to the fundamentals of how sin enters into our interactions with one another in denominations. The rot of false doctrine starts decades before it bears its foul fruit.

I would offer that it starts when we start--as a group--to desire to be loved by the world, to be respected and admired by the culture. That leads us to jettison whatever is out of fashion, whether it be ordination standards, doctrines of Scripture, whatever.

Originally Posted by Classical Presbyterian

Let's not get pulled into tangents. Denominations that chose to allow women's ordination were already well into theological liberalism. The issue that we need to look at is the cultural issue within groups of Christians--what is it that starts groups of orthodox believers thinking that new doctrines, new ideas must be promoted? A variation is to ask, what led these groups to start to doubt the truth (or viability) of the faith that they held?

These types of questions get us out of the weeds and back to the fundamentals of how sin enters into our interactions with one another in denominations. The rot of false doctrine starts decades before it bears its foul fruit.

I would offer that it starts when we start--as a group--to desire to be loved by the world, to be respected and admired by the culture. That leads us to jettison whatever is out of fashion, whether it be ordination standards, doctrines of Scripture, whatever.

unorthodoxy leads to unorthopraxy. The ordination of women in the church is an unorthopraxy that has unorthodoxy at its root.

I am not trying to open a dispute about EP vs hymns or the like, but I am interested in identifying - if possible - the doctrinal milestones that lead to Liberalism.

I would take it one step further and say the denial of creation; which does fall under the Authority of Scripture. The denial of creation removes the Creator creature distinction. If you came from nothing, and are nothing, you're going to nothing... This is gives way to the man-centric worship, self love, and most of all no hope. Which at it's root is liberalism.

From a sociological standpoint the classical liberalism of the West generally (our democratic, 'free' culture) has had a lot to do with theological liberalism, if only because the political culture has afforded people that freedom (there was/is no longer legal repercussions to heresy). And the Reformation ultimately played a huge part in the rise of classical liberalism, for the Roman Catholic Church did not cease to condemn the tenets of classical liberalism (such as freedom of speech) until the 20th century. This is not to say that the Reformers promoted liberalism, but just that liberalism was and is an unforseen, and often unhappy, consequence of their political-theological movement.

For all its faults, the RCC was for a long time keenly aware of the connection between political freedom and theological freedom, and that with freedom comes abuse of freedom. (Rome's embracing the United States as a 'good' country, a positive development in world history, is fairly recent. Prior to the 1950s the general attitude was that America was simply too free politically for its own good, and that as a result it was host to theological chaos... which ain't too far off the mark.)

Could it be as simple as unredeemed Church members rising to positions of power within the Church? If not "unredeemed", they are at the very least doctrinally unqualified to hold the rudder and guide the Church.

I wonder how often delegates to Synod / General Assembly are sent there, not because of their qualifications, but because of a popularity contest and their ability to focus on unity/peace at all costs, more than their focus on sound doctrine.

This all seems to go hand in hand with the dumbing down of the Church and our culture in general.

Although many Arminian churches are non-liberal, Arminianism can very easily be the first logical step towards liberalism. For if man always has free will, then how can we know that the Bible was inspired to be the exact words of God?

You know, I often think of what Schaeffer wrote in his book The Great Evangelical Disaster regarding Machen vs. the liberals. He wrote in terms that are similar to some of what has already been written here. He opined that the Presbyterians lost the battle when they elected Clarence Edward McCartney as moderator - cause for celebration amongst the conservatives, but ultimately it was not enough. The liberals "consolidated their power in the church bureaucracy." (pg. 80). The liberals, gaining control of the Seminary, then had the pulpits, and after a little time, had the people. While not inaccurate reporting of the facts, I am not sure if the analysis goes far enough. It seems to me that these things are not so much the cause, as they are the symptoms.

What I find interesting is how the Presbyterian Church in Canada had a major division around the same time as these events, and the (smaller) remaining half of that denomination was left to the fate of becoming more liberal (if it was not so already) over time, so that today women ministers preach to congregations where the gospel will never be heard. In fact, though my father hardly ever missed a Lord's day at his local Presbyterian church during the 50's through to the early 60's, when he was introduced to the gospel by my mother, he would not believe it at first. He could not understand how it was that he had gone to church for years, yet had never heard the message of the gospel before.

But to return to the cause, I believe it goes deeper; it has to do with Christ judging his church:

“To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: ‘The words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.

‘I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false. I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary. But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.'" Revelation 2:1-5

Of course my thoughts are not complete even after several years of pondering, but I do believe this is the start of it all.

I think Toby comes very close to the root cause. Of course we can see that unorthodoxy leads to practices that show that the authority of the Bible has been overturned. But what's the impetus behind that?

I think there are probably several factors at play, but you can boil it down to a desire for approval from the world - whether that comes into play as measuring success by popularity and exposure, or as a desire for intellectual respectability. Thinking of that latter one, throughout history it is those who are willing to be counted fools for Christ's sake who will stand firm and actually proclaim the whole counsel of God. Those who cave to the pressures of ungodly intellectuals may begin by appreciating the work of such and such an unbeliever, move to taking certain things for granted, then to trying to fit the Bible into the new framework, and on to developing novel interpretations or hermeneutical theories so that he doesn't seem like an idiot to his colleagues, coming to tittering about his stauncher brethren, and finally to abandonment of the faith. Of course, people in seminaries who are training pastors may be exposed to the temptation to compromise in the name of intellectual respectability more than the farmer or accountant in the pew. But in that way the poison get spread. It's probably all pretty subtle: we begin to take for granted that our predecessors must have been wrong on this or that point, though we continue to hold them in high esteem generally; certain historic positions become unmentionable except as an insider joke; and through the tyranny of petty coercion, the paradigm shifts. Perhaps not in one generation (which is why you can find a lot of value in some older writers who would have been considered somewhat liberal in their own day), but it does happen.

This may be an exaggeration, but I would lay the blame for most of the sophisticated errors on that unattainable idol of following Christ while being intellectually respectable to unbelieving intelligentsia.

Originally Posted by Chippy

An OPC minister once told me that he believes that German Pietism led to Liberalism in Europe.

I ran out of thankyous, but I am glad you posted this. Which OP minister?

Originally Posted by Chippy

An OPC minister once told me that he believes that German Pietism led to Liberalism in Europe. I also remember reading somewhere that Immanuel Kant was a pietist or was involved in that tradition.

I agree. And as someone once said, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Originally Posted by Josiah

Originally Posted by Chippy

An OPC minister once told me that he believes that German Pietism led to Liberalism in Europe.

I ran out of thankyous, but I am glad you posted this. Which OP minister?

James T. Dennison, Jr., dean of NWTS. He said it as a warning to me, not to put too much emphasis on piety. I do think he is right.

I know of some evangelicals who emphasize piety at the expense of right doctrine. And, that was what German Pietism was all about and yet, I see people doing the same thing. Like Spener, they talk about a "heart religion" instead of a "head religion," as if doctrine and piety contradict each other. Just listen to emergent people talk; They talk about being able to reach those at the fringes of society and yet they do so at the expense of doctrine.

Originally Posted by Confessor

Although many Arminian churches are non-liberal, Arminianism can very easily be the first logical step towards liberalism. For if man always has free will, then how can we know that the Bible was inspired to be the exact words of God?

Interesting point/argument, Ben. That particular point never occured to me before.

This is an interesting topic! I remember reading a book that discussed the very issue at hand....

The author actually looked throughout church history and found one common element across the board that led to liberalism creeping into churches. He said that when worship itself begins to be compromised and changed....it often leads to liberalism in other areas of the church. He talked about how when we begin to customize worship to fit our needs and desires rather than allowing Scripture to prescribe worship for us, then we begin to import other teachings that are inherently unbiblical. He said it was a sure sign that a denomination or individual church is beginning to fall away, when they begin to abandon necessary elements of worship. I found it quite interesting....but I cannot for the life of me remember the book.....

Originally Posted by Chippy

Originally Posted by Josiah

Originally Posted by Chippy

An OPC minister once told me that he believes that German Pietism led to Liberalism in Europe.

I ran out of thankyous, but I am glad you posted this. Which OP minister?

James T. Dennison, Jr., dean of NWTS. He said it as a warning to me, not to put too much emphasis on piety. I do think he is right.

I know of some evangelicals who emphasize piety at the expense of right doctrine. And, that was what German Pietism was all about and yet, I see people doing the same thing. Like Spener, they talk about a "heart religion" instead of a "head religion," as if doctrine and piety contradict each other. Just listen to emergent people talk; They talk about being able to reach those at the fringes of society and yet they do so at the expense of doctrine.

I had a feeling it was one of the Dennisons

I remember Charlie Dennison, in a lecutre for Family Bible Conference in Northern CA cited examples from OPC history mentioning the kind of trouble that Pietism (peniel/newlife movement) had caused the OPC.