Editing Liberal Christianity (section)

==Liberal Protestantism<!--'Liberal Protestantism', 'Liberal Protestant', and 'Liberal Protestants' redirect here-->==
'''Liberal Protestantism'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> developed in the 19th century out of a perceived need to adapt Christianity to a modern intellectual context. With the acceptance of [[Charles Darwin]]'s theory of [[natural selection]], some traditional Christian beliefs, such as parts of the [[Genesis creation narrative]], became difficult to defend. Unable to ground faith exclusively in an appeal to [[scripture]] or the person of [[Jesus Christ]], liberals, according to theologian and intellectual historian [[Alister McGrath]], "sought to anchor that faith in common human experience, and interpret it in ways that made sense within the modern worldview."{{Sfn|McGrath|2013|p=196}} Beginning in Germany, liberal theology was influenced by several strands of thought, including the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]]'s high view of human reason and [[Pietism]]'s emphasis on [[religious experience]] and [[interdenominational]] tolerance.{{Sfn|Campbell|1996|p=128}}

The sources of religious authority recognized by liberal Protestants differed from conservative Protestants. Traditional Protestants understood the [[Bible]] to be uniquely authoritative (''[[sola scriptura]]''); all doctrine, teaching and the church itself derive authority from it.{{Sfn|Ogden|1976|pp=405–406}} A traditional Protestant could therefore affirm that "what Scripture says, God says."{{Sfn|Ogden|1976|p=408}} Liberal Christians rejected the doctrine of [[biblical inerrancy]] or [[biblical infallibility|infallibility]],<ref name="Chryssides 2010 p. 21"/> which they saw as the [[idolatry]] ([[fetishism]]) of the Bible.<ref name="Dorrien 2000 p. 112">{{cite book | last=Dorrien | first=Garry J. | title=The Barthian Revolt in Modern Theology: Theology Without Weapons | publisher=Westminster John Knox Press | year=2000 | isbn=978-0-664-22151-5 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K2l0sc8wekwC&pg=PA112 | access-date=30 August 2020 | page=112}}</ref> Instead, liberals sought to understand the Bible through modern [[biblical criticism]], such as [[historical criticism]], that began to be used in the late 1700s to ask if biblical accounts were based on older texts or whether the [[Gospels]] recorded the actual words of Jesus.{{Sfn|Campbell|1996|p=128}} The use of these methods of biblical interpretation led liberals to conclude that "none of the [[New Testament]] writings can be said to be [[Apostles in the New Testament|apostolic]] in the sense in which it has been traditionally held to be so".{{Sfn|Ogden|1976|pp=408–409}} This conclusion made ''sola scriptura'' an untenable position. In its place, liberals identified the [[historical Jesus]] as the "real [[Biblical canon|canon]] of the Christian church".{{Sfn|Ogden|1976|p=409}}

German theologian [[William Wrede]] wrote that "Like every other real science, New Testament Theology has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology". Theologian [[Hermann Gunkel]] affirmed that "the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration".<ref name="Lyons2002">{{cite book|first=William John|last=Lyons|title=Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bVqvAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA17|date=1 July 2002|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-0-567-40343-8|page=17|quote=On the relationship between the results of his work and the task of Christian theology, Wrede writes that how the 'systematic theologian gets on with its results and deals with them—that is his own affair. Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology' (1973: 69).16 In the 1920s H. Gunkel would summarize the arguments against Biblical Theology in Old Testament study thus: 'The recently experienced phenomenon of biblical theology being replaced by the history of Israelite religion is to be explained from the fact that the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration' (1927–31: 1090–91; as quoted by Childs 1992a: 6).}}</ref> Episcopal bishop [[John Shelby Spong]] declared that the literal interpretation of the Bible is [[heresy]].<ref name="Chellew-Hodge 2016">{{cite web | last=Chellew-Hodge | first=Candace | title=Why It Is Heresy to Read the Bible Literally: An Interview with John Shelby Spong | website=Religion Dispatches | date=24 February 2016 | url=https://religiondispatches.org/why-it-is-heresy-to-read-the-bible-literally-an-interview-with-john-shelby-spong/ | access-date=19 June 2021}}</ref><ref name="Spong2016">{{cite book|first=John Shelby|last=Spong|title=Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wuH1CQAAQBAJ|date=16 February 2016|publisher=HarperOne|isbn=978-0-06-236233-9|page=22|chapter=Stating the Problem, Setting the Stage|quote=To read the gospels properly, I now believe, requires a knowledge of Jewish culture, Jewish symbols, Jewish icons and the tradition of Jewish storytelling. It requires an understanding of what the Jews call 'midrash.' Only those people who were completely unaware of these things could ever have come to think that the gospels were meant to be read literally.}}</ref>

The two groups also disagreed on the role of experience in confirming truth claims. Traditional Protestants believed scripture and [[revelation]] always confirmed human experience and reason. For liberal Protestants, there were two ultimate sources of religious authority: the Christian experience of God as revealed in Jesus Christ and universal human experience. In other words, only an appeal to common human reason and experience could confirm the truth claims of Christianity.{{Sfn|Ogden|1976|pp=409–411}}

In general, liberal Christians are not concerned with the presence of biblical errors or contradictions.<ref name="Chryssides 2010 p. 21">{{cite book | last=Chryssides | first=George D. | title=Christianity Today: An Introduction | publisher=Bloomsbury Academic | series=Religion Today | year=2010 | isbn=978-1-84706-542-1 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4FSGhhjtU-UC&pg=PA21 | access-date=30 August 2020 | page=21}}</ref> 
Liberals abandoned or reinterpreted traditional doctrines in light of recent knowledge. For example, the traditional doctrine of [[original sin]] was rejected for being derived from [[Augustine of Hippo]], whose views on the New Testament were believed to have been distorted by his involvement with [[Manichaeism]]. [[Christology]] was also reinterpreted. Liberals stressed [[Incarnation (Christianity)|Christ's humanity]], and his divinity became "an affirmation of Jesus exemplifying qualities which humanity as a whole could hope to emulate".{{Sfn|McGrath|2013|p=196}}

Liberal Christians sought to elevate Jesus' [[Humanity (virtue)|humane teachings]] as a standard for a world civilization freed from [[Cult (religious practice)|cultic traditions]] and traces of [[Hellenistic polytheism|traditionally pagan types of belief]] in the [[supernatural]].{{Sfn|Mack|1993|p=29}} As a result, liberal Christians placed less emphasis on miraculous events associated with the life of Jesus than on his teachings.{{Sfn|Woodhead|2002|pp=186, 193}} The debate over whether a belief in miracles was mere [[superstition]] or essential to accepting the [[Christology|divinity of Christ]] constituted a crisis within the 19th-century church, for which theological compromises were sought.<ref>''The Making of American Liberal Theology: Imagining Progressive Religion 1805–1900'', edited by Gary J. Dorrien (Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), ''passim'', search [https://archive.org/details/makingofamerican0000dorr <!-- quote=miracles "liberal christians" jesus OR christ. --> miracles.]</ref>{{pages needed|date=March 2019}} Some liberals prefer to read Jesus' miracles as [[metaphor]]ical narratives for understanding the power of God.{{Sfn|Brandom|2000|p=76}}{{better source needed|reason=This is a very generalized resource for teaching religions in high school. It would be better to have a source more closely tied to the topic.|date=March 2019}} Not all theologians with liberal inclinations reject the possibility of miracles, but many reject the [[polemic]]ism that denial or affirmation entails.{{Sfn|Dorrien|2003|pp=233, 413, 436}}

Nineteenth-century liberalism had an optimism about the future in which humanity would continue to achieve greater progress.{{Sfn|McGrath|2013|p=196}} This optimistic view of history was sometimes interpreted as building the [[Postmillennialism|kingdom of God]] in the world.{{Sfn|Campbell|1996|p=128}}

===Development===
The roots of liberal Christianity go back to the 16th century when Christians such as [[Erasmus]] and the [[Deists]] attempted to remove what they believed were the superstitious elements from Christianity and "leave only its essential teachings (rational love of God and humanity)".{{Sfn|Woodhead|2002|pp=186, 193}}

[[Reformed tradition|Reformed]] theologian [[Friedrich Schleiermacher]] (1768–1834) is often considered the father of liberal Protestantism.{{Sfn|Campbell|1996|p=128}} In response to [[Romanticism]]'s disillusionment with Enlightenment [[rationalism]], Schleiermacher argued that God could only be experienced through feeling, not reason. In Schleiermacher's theology, religion is a feeling of absolute dependence on God. Humanity is conscious of its own sin and its need of redemption, which can only be accomplished by Jesus Christ. For Schleiermacher, faith is experienced within a faith community, never in isolation. This meant that theology always reflects a particular religious context, which has opened Schleirmacher to charges of [[relativism]].{{Sfn|Tamilio|2002}}

[[Albrecht Ritschl]] (1822–1889) disagreed with Schleiermacher's emphasis on feeling. He thought that religious belief should be based on history, specifically the historical events of the New Testament.{{Sfn|"Modernism: Christian Modernism"}} When studied as history without regard to miraculous events, Ritschl believed the New Testament affirmed Jesus' divine mission. He rejected doctrines such as the [[virgin birth of Jesus]] and the [[Trinity]].{{Sfn|Frei|2018}} The Christian life for Ritschl was devoted to ethical activity and development, so he understood doctrines to be value judgments rather than assertions of facts.{{Sfn|"Modernism: Christian Modernism"}} Influenced by the philosophy of [[Immanuel Kant]], Ritschl viewed "religion as the triumph of the spirit (or moral agent) over humanity's natural origins and environment."{{Sfn|Frei|2018}} Ritschl's ideas would be taken up by others, and Ritschlianism would remain an important theological school within German Protestantism until World War I. Prominent followers of Ritschl include [[Wilhelm Herrmann]], [[Julius Kaftan]] and [[Adolf von Harnack]].{{Sfn|"Modernism: Christian Modernism"}}