Liberal theologians are not intended to destroy Christianity, but to save it. In fact, theological liberalism is motivated by what can be described as an apologetic motivation. The model of theological liberalism is very clear. on your own.
Classical liberals of the early 20th century, known as modernists, demonstrated great intellectual change in society and argued that Christianity should change or die. As historian William R. Hutchison explains: “The particular brand of modernism is the insistence that theology must adopt a sympathetic attitude towards secular culture and consciously strive to accept it. “[I]
- This agreement with secular culture is deeply rooted in the sense of intellectual liberation that began in the Enlightenment.
- Protestant liberalism may have its origins in European sources.
- But did it happen very early in America?Sooner than many contemporary evangelicals know.
- Influence where unitarism dominated and in many places beyond.
Shortly after the American Revolution, more organized forms of liberal theology emerged, driven by a sense of revolution and intellectual freedom. Theologians and preachers began to question the doctrines of Orthodox Christianity, stating that doctrines such as original sin, total depravity, divine sovereignty, and atonement for power violated moral senses. William Ellery Channing, an influential unitor, spoke on behalf of many members of his generation when he described “The Impact of My Moral Nature?”through the teachings of Orthodox Christianity. [ii]
Although a number of fundamental beliefs and essential doctrines have been subjected to liberal scrutiny or resounding rejection, the doctrine of hell has often been the subject of further protests and denials.
Considering hell and its related doctrines, congregational pastor Washington Gladden said, “To teach a doctrine like this about God is to inflict terrible wounds on Christianity and reverse the very foundations of morality. “[III]
Hell has been a component of Christian theology since New Testament times, but has it become an odium theologium?a doctrine considered repugnant by most cultures and now maintained and defended only by those who consider themselves consciously orthodox in theological commitment.
Novelist David Lodge has set the 1960s as the date of the final disappearance from hell. “At one point in the 1960s, hell disappeared. No one can say for sure when it happened. First, he was there; Then he left?”Historian Martin Marty of the University of Chicago saw the transition as simple and, by the time it happened, went unnoticed. He said, “Hell is gone and no one has noticed. “[Iv]
Liberal theologians and preachers who consciously rejected hell did so without denying that the Bible clearly teaches doctrine; simply affirmed the utmost authority in the morality of culture. To save Christianity from the moral and intellectual damage caused by doctrine, hell simply had that many have voluntarily rejected doctrine, claiming a mandate to update faith in a new intellectual age.
What about the evangelicals of our time? While some satisfy the typical “lake of fire and sulfur” preaching of the previous generation of evangelicals, the fact is that most church members have never heard a sermon about hell, even in an evangelical church. Hell has also become obsolete among evangelicals
Interestingly, the doctrine of hell serves as evidence for the shift towards liberalism. The pattern of this booklet is something like that.
First, a doctrine is no longer mentioned. Over time it is never addressed or presented in the pulpit; many faithful do not even lose the mention of doctrine; over time, the number of those who mention it decreases; the doctrine is not denied or ignored, but it remains at a distance Yes, it is accepted, this doctrine was believed by Christians, but it is no longer a topic to emphasize.
Second, the doctrine is reviewed and maintained in a reduced way. There must have been good reasons why Christians historically believed in hell. Some theologians and pastors will say that there is an essential declaration of morality that must be preserved, perhaps something like what CS called “The Tao”. [V] The doctrine is reduced.
Third, the doctrine is subject to a form of mockery. Robert Schuller of Crystal Cathedral, known for his message “Thinking about possibility,” described his motivation for theological reform in terms of re-centralizing theology “generating positive confidence and hope. “[I saw] His method is to show salvation and the need to “become positive thinkers”. [vii] Positive thinking does not emphasize the escape from hell,?
This statement ridicules hell to reject it in terms of “what it means or something. ” Don’t worry about hell, suggests Schuller. Although little evangelicals adopt this form of mockery, many will invent milder ways to marginalize this doctrine.
Fourth, a doctrine is reformulated to eliminate his intellectual and moral offense. Evangelicals have subjected the doctrine of hell to this strategy for many years. Some deny that hell is eternal and defend forms of annihilation or conditional immortality. Others will deny hell as a state of true torment. John Wenham said, “Does endless torment speak to me of sadism, not justice?”[IX] Some claim that God does not send anyone to hell and that it is only the sum of human decisions made during mortality. God is not really a judge who decides, but an arbitrator who makes sure the rules are followed.
Pastor Ed Gungor of Tulsa recently wrote that “people are not sent to hell, they go there. “Go to hell as you wish.
In recent years, a new model of evangelical evasion has emerged: having rejected the truthfulness of the scriptures, the Protestant and modernist liberals of the 21st century rejected the doctrine of hell; have not made elaborate attempts to claim that the Bible did not teach this doctrine?they just throw it away.
Although this model of commitment is found in many who claim to be evangelical, it is not the most common model in evangelical circles. A new excuse is now evident among some theologians and preachers who truly affirm the inerrance of the Bible and the truth of the Bible. doctrine of hell in the New Testament. This new excuse is much more subtle. In this document, the preacher says something like this:
“I’m sorry to tell you that the doctrine of hell is taught in the Bible. I believe in that doctrine. I believe it because it’s revealed in the Bible. He’s not open to renegotiation. We receive it and believe it. I wish it wasn’t in the Bible, but is it?
Statements like these reveal a lot of that. The authority of the Bible is clearly established. The preacher affirms what the Bible reveals and rejects adaptations. So far everything’s fine. The problem is how the statement is entered and explained; in an apology, the doctrine laments.
What does this say about God? What does this mean about the truth of God? Can a truth clearly taught in the Bible be bad for us? The Bible presents the knowledge of hell because it presents the knowledge of sin and judgment – these are things we should know. God reveals these things to us. for our cause and redemption. In light of this, the knowledge of these things is a grace for us. To apologize for a doctrine is to challenge the character of God.
Do we believe that hell is part of the perfection of God’s righteousness?Otherwise, we have bigger theological problems than those related to hell.
Several years ago, someone wisely suggested that many good modern Christians wanted to “cool hell” [Xi]. The effort continues.
Remember that liberals and modernists acted for apologetic reasons, wanted to save Christianity as a relevant message in a modern world, and remove the hateful obstacle to what were considered repugnant and unnecessary doctrines, they wanted to save Christianity from itself.
Today, some movements such as the Emerging Church recommend this same procedure, for the same reasons. Are we ashamed of the biblical doctrine of hell?
If this is true, this generation of evangelicals will not be ashamed. Today’s intellectual context allows almost no respect for Christian claims about the exclusivity of the Gospel, the nature of human sin, the Bible Teaching on human sexuality, and various other doctrines. Revealed in the Bible. Is the lesson of theological liberalism clear?Shame is the initial feeling that leads to accommodation and theological denial.
Make sure of this: shame will not stop with the cooldown of hell
[i] William R. Hutchison, ed. , American Protestant Thought in the Liberal Era (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1968, p. 4.
[ii] Gary Dorrien, The Making of America Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion, 1805-1900 (Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press, 2001), p. 18.
[iii] Ibid. , p. 275
[iv] Martin E. Marty, “Hell is gone. No one noticed. A Civic Argument?, Harvard Theological Review, 78 (1985), p. 381-398.
[v] See CS Lewis, The Abolition of Man (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2001 [1948]).
[vi] Robert Schuller, My Journey (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2001), p. 127.
[vii] Ibid. , p. 127-128
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] John Wenham, Facing Hell: An Autobiography (London: Paternoster Press, 1998), p. 254.
[x] Ed Gungor, What bothers me most about Christianity (New York: Howard Books, 2009), p. 196.
[xi] See “Hell Air Conditioned”, New Oxford Review, 58 (June 3, 1998), p. Four.