One thing I always liked about the old German and American liberals was the radicalism of their ideas and creativity. He was impressed by his courage as he crossed the lines that clearly marked the holy land of the Church’s historical faith. I never really understood how someone did it. They did not believe that the Bible was the Word of God, who did not believe in the Incarnation, who did not believe in jesus’ physical and literal Resurrection, could still have an interest in studying the Bible. But not only did they deny all this, and more, but they also showed extraordinary creativity in explaining what they believed had actually happened in the Church and in Israel. The good thing is, I knew who I was dealing with from an early age. The lines of demarcation were clear. As John Gresham Machen said that liberalism is not Christianity, but another religion, which was clear in the liberals’ own books.
But today it’s different. Everyone denies that there are still liberals, in a way it’s true. Because theological liberalism, as a movement and methodology, has already been discredited, but neoliberals, their successors, are otherwise, I prefer old liberals. Neoliberals are neither radical nor creative, they are not taking position. They don’t speak clearly and don’t even write clearly. They prefer the path of ambiguity, uncertainty, warmth, twilight. You never know what a neoliberal really believes. Not when he talks or when he writes. One day, a neoliberal came to tell me about the existence of a historical Adam, did it really exist?Throughout the conversation, I didn’t know whether or not he believed Adam really existed, whether he was asking because he had doubts or because he wanted to hear my arguments. Students of neoliberal teachers often leave the class divided: “Does the Master believe in the Bible!?said one. How, ” answers the other, ” he called at all myth!”.
- And the fall of the neoliberals to Pentecostalism?That’s what confuses everything! I believe that Pentecostals would not recognize neoliberals as legitimate children.
- No one even knows if they believe in the personality of the Holy Spirit and if they believe that miracles have occurred (and are happening).
- Former liberals.
- However.
- Have generally stayed in the tradition of their churches.
- Rudolf Bultmann was.
- Until his death.
- A deacon of the Lutheran Church.
Seminars where neither liberalism nor historical Christianity is taught (I did not use “fundamentalism” on purpose), and where there is no definite line, they are neoliberal factories, they emerge discrediting theology, because so many doubts have been sown that they no longer know how to firmly believe in anything, that is why in ministry and in personal life the choices are pragmatism and / or Pentecostalism, and instead of theology, they love poetry.
The old liberals impressed with their firmness, clarity, and courage; many lost their jobs and ministry for taking a clear position, like Strauss, who published his ideas on the historical Jesus; their heirs, the neoliberals, don’t even know what they want. they believe in, because they believe in everything. They are not as liberal as they used to be.