|
 Has
there ever been a "liberal" who would admit it? The
term has such a wide variety of meanings and applications that
one can always find some way to avoid its odium, while basking
in what is supposed to be its blessings. Our words weave tangled
webs.
Theologians
make a distinction in 19th Century Liberalism and that of this
century. "Neo-orthodoxy" offered a "new"
look at God and the Bible, which (from the theologian's point of
view) "exploded like a bomb" theories of the 19th
Century. But to those of simple faith in verbally inspired
revelation, neo-orthodoxy is just 20th Century Liberalism.
Until
recently, the above forms of "liberalism" had not
touched brethren of this century. Historically, our only
contamination with such was that of "ultra-liberal"
brethren (from ca. 1875 to 1906) who were rapidly becoming the
Disciples denomination of today (Liberal Christian Church, to
some of you). But today some of those preachers who have already
accepted sponsoring church arrangements, brotherhood
institutionalism, and a social concept of the gospel, are now
dabbling in neo-orthodoxy (The pattern is so like that of the
Christian Church digression, it is a "crying shame" so
many of our brethren are ignorant of church history, and can not
see the "repeat" unfolding before their eyes). When
men begin to argue "no pattern" and "principle
eternal" (something unrevealed by precept, approved example
or necessary inference — deductive reasoning) they have
already opened a serious gap in fundamental concepts of divine
revelation.
|
|
As
a rule, our brethren are not readers of books on theology (this
is not a criticism) and what little they know about
"modernism" or "liberalism" is likely to be
some preacher's unsophisticated analysis of 19th Century
infidelity. So, when some brother advocates a "brotherhood
hospital" it is very probable that he (1) has given little
thought to principles of organization involved; (2) thinks only
of the surface "good" to be done; (3) if you can get
him to discuss the scriptures at all, he mouths the "no
pattern" "individual and church are same" or
"no need for authority" arguments he has heard others
make; and is highly insulted if you call him a
"liberal". He thinks you are charging him with denying
the virgin birth.
If
I were a teacher in a theological seminary, or writing articles
for some modern denominational journal, I suppose I would have
to use "liberal" with current theological connotation.
To such people our "Church of Christ hospital" brother
is still an ultra-conservative legalist. But I do not write for
such readers.
I
want my brethren to have faith in God's revelation on a First
Century basis; to believe in the inerrant, all-sufficient,
divine message as thoroughly furnishing us with all things that
pertain unto life and godliness. I want my brethren to see that
a "no pattern" "no authority" concept —
though seemingly innocent in current matters — is,
historically and in reality, the first step of liberalism. I
wouldn't call him "liberal" before a body of
seminarians. I'd ask him what he was doing there.
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
