You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Liberal theology is the broad tradition within modern Christianity that seeks to reinterpret traditional doctrines in the light of modern thought — Enlightenment philosophy, the natural sciences, historical-critical biblical scholarship and human experience. It is the direct heir of the developments studied in the previous lesson: where the Enlightenment posed the challenge, liberal theology was the most influential Christian attempt to answer it from within the modern intellectual world rather than by retreating behind it. Beginning with Schleiermacher in the early nineteenth century, the tradition runs through Ritschl and Harnack to the radical reconstructions of the twentieth century — Tillich, Bultmann, Robinson and, at the furthest edge, Cupitt. This lesson sets out the leading figures and their methods, and weighs the central evaluative question the whole movement raises: does liberal theology represent a necessary and honest modernisation of the faith, or a fatal dilution of its distinctive content?
The word "liberal" here is not primarily political. It denotes a family of commitments: a willingness to revise inherited doctrine in the light of new knowledge; a stress on religious experience or ethics over fixed dogma; an acceptance of the results of biblical criticism; and an optimism (at least before 1914) about human reason and moral progress. Liberal theologians characteristically start from below — from human experience, history or moral consciousness — and work upward toward God, rather than starting from a revelation imposed from above. This methodological choice is the seed of both the movement's strengths and the objections later urged against it, above all by Karl Barth.
Key term: Liberal theology — the tradition that reinterprets Christian doctrine to accommodate modern knowledge and experience, typically prioritising religious experience or ethics over fixed dogma, accepting biblical criticism, and beginning theological reflection "from below", in human experience, rather than "from above", in revelation.
The fountainhead of the tradition is Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), examined in the previous lesson, whose relocation of religion in the feeling of absolute dependence gave liberalism its founding method. By defining the essence of religion as a mode of experience rather than a set of propositions, Schleiermacher made it possible to accept the Enlightenment's critical results — Hume on miracles, Kant on the proofs, the historical critics on Scripture — without abandoning faith, because faith was now anchored in something those critiques could not touch. Every later liberal theologian works in the space he opened, even where they modify or reject his particular formulations.
Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889) gave liberal theology a strongly ethical and historical cast. Reacting against both speculative metaphysics and what he saw as the excessive mysticism of feeling, Ritschl argued that Christianity is best understood through the category of the Kingdom of God, conceived as a moral community — the organisation of humanity through action inspired by love. He distinguished judgements of fact from value-judgements (Werturteile), holding that religious affirmations (such as the divinity of Christ) are value-judgements expressing Christ's saving significance "for us", rather than metaphysical statements about his nature in itself. Religion, for Ritschl, concerns the practical question of how human beings, oppressed by guilt and the constraints of nature, attain moral freedom and reconciliation through the community Christ founded. This ethical reading prepared the way both for Harnack's reduction of the gospel to its moral and religious kernel and for the Social Gospel movement.
Adolf von Harnack (1851–1930) was the towering church historian of liberal Protestantism. In his celebrated lectures What is Christianity? (Das Wesen des Christentums, 1900), he sought to strip away the later doctrinal accretions — what he called the "Hellenisation" of the gospel, the importing of Greek metaphysics into the simple message of Jesus — in order to recover the essential kernel. Harnack summarised that kernel under three heads: the coming of the Kingdom of God and its presence in the individual soul; the fatherhood of God and the infinite value of the human soul; and the higher righteousness and the commandment of love. Notice what is absent: the elaborate Christological and Trinitarian dogmas of the councils are treated as later, dispensable wrappings around a fundamentally ethical-religious message. "The Gospel, as Jesus proclaimed it," Harnack wrote, "has to do with the Father only and not with the Son" — that is, Jesus preached the Father, and it was the Church that subsequently made Jesus himself the object of faith.
Key term: The "Hellenisation" of the gospel — Harnack's thesis that the simple ethical-religious message of Jesus was progressively overlaid, in the first Christian centuries, with Greek philosophical categories (substance, nature, person), producing the metaphysical dogmas of the creeds; the task of the historian, for Harnack, is to recover the original kernel beneath this husk.
The "kernel and husk" model has been heavily criticised, and the criticisms are worth rehearsing because they apply to liberal method generally. The first objection is that the supposedly neutral "kernel" Harnack recovered looked suspiciously like the moral ideals of liberal German Protestantism — the same charge of self-portraiture that Schweitzer levelled at the questers. The second, pressed by later scholars, is that the distinction between a pure Hebraic gospel and a corrupting Greek dogma is historically untenable: the New Testament is already engaged with the Greek-speaking world, and the doctrines of the councils can be read not as alien impositions but as the disciplined unfolding of what was implicit in the worship of Christ from the start. On this view there is no doctrine-free kernel to be peeled out; the "husk" is part of the fruit. Whether the creeds are accretion or development is, of course, exactly the question raised in the lesson on the ecumenical councils, and Harnack represents the classic liberal answer to it.
The ethical emphasis of Ritschl and Harnack found practical expression, especially in North America, in the Social Gospel movement. Its most articulate exponent, the American Baptist Walter Rauschenbusch (1861–1918), argued in works such as Christianity and the Social Crisis (1907) and A Theology for the Social Gospel (1917) that the Kingdom of God is not merely an inward or otherworldly hope but a summons to transform the social order — to confront the injustices of industrial capitalism, poverty and exploitation. Sin, on this view, is not only personal but lodged in unjust social structures; salvation includes the reform of those structures. The Social Gospel embodies liberal theology's optimism about moral progress and its conviction that Christianity is centrally about ethics. It is also, as we shall see, an important forerunner of the later liberation theology, though the two differ in their analysis and their mood.
Liberal theology's confidence that one could recover, behind the dogmatic Christ of the creeds, the simple ethical teacher of Galilee drove the nineteenth-century quest for the historical Jesus. Launched in effect by Reimarus and pursued by a succession of "lives of Jesus", the quest typically produced a Jesus who looked remarkably like a liberal Protestant gentleman — a teacher of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. The whole enterprise was subjected to devastating criticism by Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) in The Quest of the Historical Jesus (Von Reimarus zu Wrede, 1906). Schweitzer argued, first, that each questing scholar had unconsciously fashioned a Jesus in his own image, "looking down the long well of history" and seeing his own reflection at the bottom; and second, that the real Jesus was a far stranger and more alien figure — a thoroughly eschatological prophet who expected the imminent, supernatural breaking-in of the Kingdom of God and went to his death in that conviction. Schweitzer's "consistent eschatology" undermined the liberal Jesus from within and exposed the methodological naïveté of supposing that one could neatly separate the "historical" kernel from the "dogmatic" husk. It is partly in response to this collapse that Bultmann would later shift the entire weight of faith away from the historical Jesus and onto the proclaimed Christ.
Key term: Eschatology — teaching about the "last things" (Greek eschata): death, judgement, the end of the age and the coming of God's Kingdom. Schweitzer's recovery of Jesus as an eschatological prophet, expecting the imminent end, was decisive against the liberal portrait of Jesus as a timeless ethical teacher.
Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), the pre-eminent New Testament scholar of his generation, carried liberal theology into the twentieth century by fusing rigorous biblical criticism with the existentialist philosophy of Martin Heidegger. His starting point, set out in the essay New Testament and Mythology (1941), is that the New Testament presents its message in the framework of a first-century mythological worldview — a three-tiered universe of heaven above, earth between and hell beneath, peopled by angels, demons and supernatural powers, into which a pre-existent divine being descends and from which he ascends again. This worldview, Bultmann insisted, is simply incredible to people who "use electric light and the wireless"; one cannot ask modern men and women to accept it as the price of faith.
His response was the programme of demythologisation (Entmythologisierung). The point is not to delete the myth, which would gut the gospel, but to interpret it — to ask what understanding of human existence it expresses. Myth, for Bultmann, is not bad science but a way of speaking about the transcendent in terms drawn from this world. Interpreted existentially:
What ultimately matters, then, is not the historical Jesus (about whom Bultmann was famously sceptical) but the kerygma, the Church's proclamation that in the Christ-event God has acted for human salvation, a proclamation that demands the response of faith here and now.
Key term: Demythologisation (Entmythologisierung) — Bultmann's programme of interpreting, rather than discarding, the mythological language of the New Testament (the three-storey universe, miracles, resurrection, ascension), reading it existentially as expressing the human encounter with God's saving action and the call to authentic existence.
Bultmann's programme drew fire from several directions at once, which makes him a fruitful case for evaluation. Conservative critics objected that the resurrection cannot be reduced to a change in the disciples' self-understanding without gutting the gospel, since Paul himself stakes everything on its being a real event ("if Christ has not been raised... your faith is futile", 1 Corinthians 15:17); to "demythologise" the empty tomb is, they argued, to deny the very thing the New Testament proclaims. A second objection charges that the procedure is arbitrarily selective: Bultmann demythologises the three-storey universe and the miracles, yet retains the central affirmation that "God acts" in the Christ-event — but that affirmation is, on his own terms, just as "mythological" as the rest, so the knife seems to stop exactly where it suits him. A third line of criticism, voiced even by allies, is that an existentialism borrowed from Heidegger reduces the cosmic scope of salvation to the individual's inner decision, losing the New Testament's hope for the renewal of the whole creation. Interestingly, Karl Barth — though he shared Bultmann's roots in the post-war revolt against liberalism — became one of his sharpest opponents on precisely this point, accusing him of subordinating the objective Word of God to a prior philosophical anthropology, and so of relapsing into the very liberalism (beginning "from below", with the human subject) that neo-orthodoxy had set out to overthrow. The Barth–Bultmann divergence shows that the reaction against liberal theology was itself internally divided over how far the modern critical mind should be allowed to set the terms.
Paul Tillich (1886–1965), a German-American theologian who fled Nazi Germany, attempted one of the boldest correlations of theology with modern philosophy and culture. His three-volume Systematic Theology (1951–63) employs a method of correlation: human existence raises the ultimate questions (about meaning, finitude, guilt, anxiety, death), and the symbols of the Christian message supply the answers.
Tillich's most discussed claim concerns the very concept of God:
Key term: Ground of Being — Tillich's reconceiving of God not as a being who exists alongside other beings but as Being-itself, the infinite, unconditional ground and power of everything that is; a concept designed to escape both anthropomorphism and the God-of-the-gaps.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.