Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 10
February 5, 1959
NUMBER 39, PAGE 4-5a

What Is Liberalism

Editorial

As the present controversies in the church have intensified, and brethren have grappled with the distressing and often baffling problems of trying to work out peaceable and scriptural answers to many serious local situations, the words "liberal" and "modernist" have become more and more common. They have been increasingly used to apply to the brethren who are promoting the orphan home institutions, the church-sponsored recreational activities, church supported hospitals and schools, and who look with tolerant and approving eyes upon mixed bathing, social dancing and the social drink, NOT because these brethren are in the full-blown sense theological and philosophical liberals and modernists, but because they are "liberals" and "modernists" in relation to the simple faith and attitudes of the vast majority of our readers and fellow-servants in Christ.

Certain college professors will no doubt take exception to this use of the term "liberal", for they are accustomed to thinking of a "liberal" only in the narrow and restricted sense of an exact and identifiable group of people, and have failed to understand that to the average man in the street (or in the church pew) these finely-drawn theological definitions are not observed. Dr. J. D. Thomas of Abilene Christian College has written:

"Theological 'Liberalism' is a term that properly applies to one of the major 'camps' of Modernism."

And Dr. Andrew K. Rule of the Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary (former teacher and long time friend of the editor) has written:

"In religious circles, liberalism commonly signifies a more or less coherent body of historico-critical views concerning the Scriptures and of philosophico-theological doctrines concerning the Christian faith."

The "liberal" in that connotation is one who entertains views concerning Christ, concerning the Bible, and concerning the kingdom of God which are naturalistic, not super-naturalistic; he denies the miracles, waters down and emasculates "inspiration" to practical meaninglessness, and is definitely committed to the idea that the kingdom of God is primarily concerned with this present world in which we live, and has little to do with any life that may be on the other side of the grave.

The "liberal" of this description is often a man of sincere conviction and consecration. He throws himself into the "social gospel" projects with a passion — verily wearing his life out in promoting all kinds of social and civic projects, projects for the betterment of mankind in this earthly life. He has little interest in the life to come. He will give his money and his energies tenfold quicker to building an orphan home, a youth camp, or a Christian college than he will to preaching the gospel. The important thing in his thinking has to do with this present life . . . .not with the life to come.

But the word "liberal" also means, as Dr. Thomas correctly states in his book, "We Be BRETHREN", simply "less conservative". In that sense the word "liberal" is rightly and correctly applied to a rather considerable number of brethren who in recent years have become extremists and radicals in their promotion of the "social gospel" projects — even to the point in many congregations of dividing the church, and driving conscientious brethren out of the buildings which their own money and tears and sacrifices have helped to erect.

Because these brethren still believe in the inspiration of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, and accept generally the super-naturalistic view of the faith, they vehemently deny that they are "liberals" or "modernists". And in the historico-theological acceptance of the term they are not. But while rejecting the philosophical and theological bases of liberalism they have accepted (perhaps unwittingly) the practical aims and objectives of liberalism — i.e. the "social gospel" emphasis on this present world rather than on the world to come. They think in terms of this life, promoting the things which will make this present world a more attractive place in which to live — orphan homes, summer camps for youth, church recreational activities, Christian colleges, etc. And insofar as these "liberally minded brethren" (to use Dr. Thomas' expression) are thought of in relation to the simple New Testament folk from which most of them have come, they are indeed "liberal", "modernistic", and "less conservative"! To them the kingdom of God is viewed in terms of "programs", "projects," "campaigns", and is most fully realized in a beautiful church building (with gymnasium, banquet halls, day nurseries, psychiatric offices, etc.), and a huge number of institutions for human betterment which the church supports and promotes.

That this thinking has increased among the Lord's people in the last decade should be apparent to anybody who is at all conversant with modern trends. Read most of the religious journals that are published among us, and see how much of their space is given over to promotion of such projects, and how small the percentage of space given to articles having to do with eternal rather than temporal things. Attend the college lectureships, and note there how much time is given to "promotion", and how little to the things that transcend the realms of time. Visit the average city where the church is "strong" and listen to the brethren talk in terms of pride in their new buildings, their old-folks' homes, their youth encampments — and see how little they have to say about heaven, and forgiveness of sin, and eternal salvation!

The Gospel Guardian has used, and will continue to use, the term "liberalism" to describe this philosophy. We know no other word that describes it more accurately. These brethren are "liberal" in their attitude toward both the word of God and the kingdom of God. However sincere some of them may be (and we know some who are truly consecrated), the prevailing spirit of the movement is one that leads inevitably and inexorably away from the fundamentals and into the morass of human speculations and human wisdom. We have but to remind our readers of men like Ralph Wilburn, James Arthur Warren, Eugene S. Smith, J. P. Sanders, who a few years ago were leaders in the "liberal" trend among the Churches of Christ, but all of whom have now made shipwreck of the faith and gone into denominational affiliations. We have not even the shadow of a doubt that others among us who are now among the leaders in present "liberal" trends will follow in the steps of Wilburn.

In a recent article in another publication, Dr. J. W. Roberts commented on a "new complication" in the traditional definitions of "liberalism" and "conservatism." He wrote:

"In our modern times a new complication has arisen in the form of neo-orthodoxy which does not believe in the reality of the things the liberal rejects but because of the workability of the system which came from these ideas is willing to accept their connotations without believing the facts behind them."

To translate the professional phraseology into every day English, the good doctor is saying that "neo-orthodoxy" does not believe in the virgin birth, the miracles, or the resurrection any more than "liberalism" does; but because of the tremendous spiritual forces which have blessed the world because men did believe in the miraculous aspects of the Christian faith, the neo-orthodox man is willing to accept the "connotations" of such things.

Actually, he does not believe in the miracles, but he is willing to act as if he did believe in them.

Conversely, we would say that the "liberals" among our own brethren are men who heatedly DENY the theological and philosophical claims of historical liberalism, but who wish to adopt and accept in a practical way the fruits of the liberal tree. Their inordinate concern with the "social gospel" is the thing which betrays their true status. And we take it as simply axiomatic that one cannot continue indefinitely to extol the fruits of liberalism without ultimately accepting the tree which bears such fruit. To such men, however sincere and dedicated may be their personal lives, the kingdom of God is viewed in terms of a multitude of "institutions" for human betterment — orphan homes, old-folks' homes, boys' clubs, recreation centers, etc. To these brethren the church for which Christ died is in its ultimate aims not much more than a glorified Y.M.C.A.

Let us make it clear that in our use of the term "liberal" or modernist" we do not believe nor charge that the professors among us and those who have followed their lead actually deny the virgin birth or the reality of the resurrection. But we do mean that they have gone far, far afield from the fundamental convictions and conservative practice of the vast majority of their brethren in Christ, and are using the powerful influences of the agencies and institutions which they control (colleges, journals, and all the benevolent "institutions") to try to mold brotherhood thinking more and more into an acceptance of the "social gospel". We are certainly not inseparably wedded to use of the term "liberal", however, and since it is objectionable to some of the brethren to whom we refer it, we would be happy for any suggestion from them as to some other term properly descriptive of their attitude.

— F. Y. T.