Three Considerations for the Liberal Church

Posted Jul 23 2012 by Morgan Guyton with 30 Comments

    In response to the recent Episcopalian convention, Ross Douthat set off a firestorm with his column expressing “concern” that the liberal church is dying due to its theological incoherence. I’m not sure whether the “liberal” label or the stereotypes are fair, but I am deeply pained by the struggles of the mainline church in which I have spent most of my adult life as an evangelical in exile. As a hopefully more constructive version of what Douthat wrote, I wanted to offer the following three considerations based on my personal memories of the years I spent in struggling, social-justice-oriented mainline congregations.

    1) Deliverance compels more than open-mindedness

    I have benefited greatly from the relationships I had with older Christians who gave me permission to ask questions, said things aloud that I had thought were taboo even to think, and even let me cuss in front of them. It’s been a huge part of my development to have pastors who were real with me and didn’t judge me for my doubts and questions. I always try to be that pastor to other people.

    However, open-mindedness alone doesn’t compel discipleship. I had a very great relationship with a psychotherapist for half a decade. But he didn’t make me a disciple. He comforted me with the unconditional positive regard that he showed me, but he didn’t set me on fire and give me a hunger for God. Here’s what I wonder: are mainline congregations declining because their pastors are good at the unconditional positive regard part but they lack the “fire in their belly” that radiates the conviction that their lives are the product of God’s deliverance?

    I never want to preach a sermon that’s just interesting; I hunger and thirst for a word from God that delivers people, that takes them to that place of metanoia, the word that is inadequately translated as repentance but means “never being able to see the world the same again.” While I appreciate the integrity and intellectual passion of somebody who tells me about the disagreement that scholars have over whether the scriptural passage in front of us was written by the Yahwist or the Deuteronomist, what I need to hear from the pulpit is how God is going to deliver me based on what He has done to deliver His people before. A testimony of deliverance is far more compelling than gestures of open-mindedness.

    2) There is no church without Jesus’ cross and resurrection

    The deliverance at the center of every healthy Christian congregation is the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Everything emanates outward from this eternal reality. It is only because of this reality that Paul can write, “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body” (2 Cor 4:8-10). Jesus’ cross and empty tomb are the power that causes ordinary people to do extraordinary things in Christ. The cross and resurrection should be front and center of everything we do as a gathered body in worship. That’s why Eucharist was the focal point of Christian worship for millennia and remains so for Catholics and Orthodox, because everything we are and do as Christians has its source in our participation in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ by which the world is reconciled to God and the resurrected life that emerges on the other side of this utter transformation.

    A church that completely avoids talking about the cross because it’s too bloody and the empty tomb because it defies science shouldn’t survive because it’s lost the heart of Christianity. I realize that very ugly misconceptions and monstrous caricatures about the cross have legitimately alienated millions of people, but that doesn’t mean we can put the cross in the closet. You can’t build a religion off of some vague notion of “loving God and loving your neighbor.” These two commandments are only possible to fulfill for people who have stopped trying to prove their worth to God and the world and surrendered to the reign of God’s mercy established through Jesus’ blood. Plenty of people do things to help others because it’s “the right thing to do” and it makes them feel good about themselves. But helping other people is not going to make you fall completely in love with God unless you understand it to be part of the cosmic reconciliation in which you are the mere recipient and pass-through vessel of a love that comes from Someone who let Himself be raped by the world’s nails because He wanted that badly to restore our ability to radiate His image. Everything starts with the cross and resurrection in a healthy church.

    3) The kingdom should be our only cause

    I’ve been to many protests in my life. Usually there are at least several speakers up front wearing clerical collars. I realize they are under a lot of pressure to frame their speeches in generic, “spiritual,” interfaith language. I don’t think I could do that if I were ever invited to speak at a rally for immigrant rights or health care or whatever else, because everything I believe about all the particular political issues of our time is shaped by my reflection on what the kingdom established by Jesus’ cross and resurrection is supposed to look like. I would try my best in such a situation to be respectful and acknowledge that I’m speaking out of my own faith tradition, but then I would actually speak out of my faith tradition just as I would expect a rabbi and imam to speak out of theirs. And my speech would not merely be in support of some particular piece of legislation or community initiative; it would be an invitation to enter God’s kingdom because I honestly believe that people who live in the kingdom are better equipped to propagate God’s justice and mercy throughout the land than people who support this cause or that cause because of their intellectual convictions, a rebellion against their upbringing, their cynicism, their love for Jon Stewart, or whatever else it is that makes people activists who haven’t been filled with the ravenous hunger to see the kingdom of God come with power.

    It’s because of my understanding of the kingdom that I can respect the Teavangelical perspective that society needs to be transformed and the poor need to be empowered by us as the body of Christ rather than outsourcing this responsibility to the government. I disagree with them insofar as I don’t think God is prohibited from using the secular government to care for His widows and orphans, though I would rather see them cared for by the body of Christ through kingdom means. In any case, I really feel like liberal pastors will be more effective at accomplishing their social justice objectives if their congregations are grounded in a comprehensive vision of God’s kingdom rather than a list of issues that bleeding hearts should care about.

    I have no idea the extent to which this is or isn’t happening now. But I am convinced that we cannot get to God’s true justice if we’re starting from a generic secular discourse on human rights. The best justice that human rights can generate is “fairness,” where people get what they deserve. That’s not good enough for God. God’s justice (mishpat) is so much more than just getting what you deserve; it’s getting what you don’t deserve but what you need in order to have the existence of perfect completeness and fulfillment captured by the Hebrew word shalom, which some people just call “peace.” Mishpat and shalom can only be established in a space where God’s mercy reigns, where Jesus’ blood has made all things clean and the Holy Spirit has resurrected all things into a new life built on grace. That space is the kingdom of God.

    Conclusion:

    Churches gain and lose momentum for a variety of good and bad reasons. When Jesus told the crowd in John 6 that they would have to eat His flesh and drink His blood, many of them turned away saying that it was a hard teaching. So if liberal churches are declining because they refuse to conform to the worldly expectations of “focus on my nuclear family” suburbanites, then God bless them for being faithful. But if they’ve lost their mojo because their openness to questions and doubts is louder than their testimony of God’s deliverance, if their anxiety about causing offense has caused them to hide the cross and empty tomb under a bushel, and if their passion for causes is not anchored in a hunger for God’s kingdom, then the most merciful thing God can do is to crucify and resurrect them (as He needs to do with all of us).

    —-
    Morgan Guyton is the associate pastor of Burke United Methodist Church in Burke, Virginia, and a Christian who continues to seek God’s liberation from the prison of self-justification Jesus died to help him overcome. Morgan’s blog “Mercy Not Sacrifice” is located at http://morganguyton.wordpress.com. Follow Morgan on twitter at www.twitter.com/maguyton.

    Sponsor a Child in Jesus Name with Compassion

    Print Friendly

      About the Author

      Morgan Guyton

      Morgan GuytonMorgan Guyton is the associate pastor of Burke United Methodist Church in Burke, Virginia, and a Christian who continues to seek God’s liberation from the prison of self-justification Jesus died to help him overcome. Morgan’s blog “Mercy Not Sacrifice” is located at http://morganguyton.wordpress.com. Follow Morgan on twitter at www.twitter.com/maguyton.View all posts by Morgan Guyton →

      Popular Posts

      Related Posts

      • Anonymous

        Mr. Guyton,
        These are great points. Thanks!

      • tarl_hutch

        What an excellent challenge to the church, both liberal and conservative. We seem to so easily lose focus on what makes us unique and the kingdom of God. Your points are exactly the complaints that most evangrlicals have with more liberal churches, and as you point out, for good reason.

        This is something I have struggled with as well, in my search for christianity and rebellion against the overly conservative churches of my past, I too have time to time focused on the wrong things. If we remain cinscious of our tradition and history, we can move forwad without losing our special calling of God.

        I have found that many ancient practices and contemplative practices have done wonders in refocusing my wonder on Christ. The Sacred Way, by Tony Jones, is full of great, practical ways to root yourself in the presence of God.

        If all our churches could find ways to incorporate aspects of the conservative’s zeal and Passion for the transformative Christ with the socially active and open ideas of the liberal church, then maybe we can revitalize the role of the church in our world.

      • http://sheridanvoysey.com Sheridan Voysey

        Nice work, Morgan. Thank you.

      • Drew

        The liberal Church today is very similar to Pergamum and Thyatria in Revelation. Good deeds but abominable doctrine in some areas. Jesus tells these Churches to repent and replace their poor doctrine with the Truth. (Revelation also has some hard truth for “conservative” Churches, but that is not the point of this discussion, so I’ll save that for another day).

        This is essentially what Douthat is saying in his article – originally, the strength of the liberal Church was a high view of Scripture (thus good doctrine)
        with an emphasis on Christian deeds. Where the liberal Church has lost
        its way is replacing a high view of Scripture with a low view of
        Scripture (and thus bad doctrine). As Douthat points out, the liberal Church has such a low
        view of Scripture and watered-down doctrine that there is essentially no difference between
        secular liberalism and liberal Christianity. (See Jeremy John’s last article on RLC for evidence).

        I agree with all three of your points, Morgan, but it’s not enough to suggest a few tweaks. First and foremost what is needed is a high view of Scripture being restored in liberal Churches. Once that happens, everything else will fall into place.

        • tarl_hutch

          Based off of our previous discussions, do you believe it is possible to maintain a high view of scripture without a belief in inerrantcy?

          • Drew

            Inerrancy is a viewpoint; errancy is a spectrum of viewpoints. It really depends where you are on that wide spectrum.

            However, that is not the only thing that makes one have a high or low view of Scripture (inerrancy). The main determinant is whether you believe Scripture is God-breathed or God-inspired. If you believe it is God-breathed, you are more apt to look at the entire Bible and take it seriously. If you believe it is God-inspired, you are more apt to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you want to take seriously… you can always just say the inspiration wasn’t very strong or that man failed for all the points you disagree with.

            • tarl_hutch

              For me the whole breathed vs inspired debate is Tue same thing. While I may not think every verse is 100% “true”/fully accurate, I believe, as you have said, that one can interpret scripture through other scripture, thus eliminating the need to pick and choose based solely on bias. Though all our readings hold some personal bias, like it or not, we read from a specific framework that we are a part of.

              This being said, I do hold a high opinion of scripture and how God reveals himself in it. Thanks for the answer, I was just curious.

              • Drew

                Again, it depends where you fall on the spectrum and what one means by “God-inspired.” Some people have a pretty low opinion of what God is able to inspire.

        • http://twitter.com/MAGuyton Morgan Guyton

          I’m not sure that what I’m calling for amounts to only “a few tweaks.” I hope that’s not all it is. I have a very high view of scripture. I just don’t have a populist view of scripture like the fundamentalists. Some parts are weighted more than the others. Sometimes Jesus or Paul is being pastoral in a particular context; other times they are being paradigmatic. But what I’ve noticed is that for Jesus, everything has to do with the kingdom. For Paul, everything has to do with Jesus’ cross and resurrection. The poor doctrine generally has to do with sidestepping or rejecting the scandal of the cross and empty tomb and with fighting for a list of issues that we call “social justice” with proof-texts that support it instead of “seeking first the kingdom of God and His justice” as the basis for every cause that we pursue.

          • Drew

            What I mean by “tweaks” is that I think liberals fundamentally need to change the way they view Scripture.

            In my opinion, liberals are not devaluing Scripture because of simple proof-texting but rather because they lack belief that Scripture is truly the God-breathed Word of God, that cannot be added or subtracted from, that every word is useful, and that Scripture should be read and studied consistently. Once you have a low view of Scripture, proof-texting is almost a necessity, since so much of Scripture is irrelevant or in error or fallible or can be reinterpreted and be invalidated against worldly authority and knowledge. In short, the best case against proof-texting is to hold Scripture in high regard.

            Once you hold Scripture in high regard, your 3rd point becomes possible.

            • Anonymous

              But Scripture isn’t the Word of God. Jesus Christ is. John Chapter 1 makes that quite clear.

              • Drew

                I think you are coming from a Catholic perspective that is wholly different. I understand your viewpoint, and I agree that Jesus is the Word (as is clear), but would disagree with you on the role of the Bible, ect.

        • http://twitter.com/david_pickett David Pickett

          Drew,
          This is a simplistic response to a set of very complex issues which Morgan addresses with humility and wisdom. In response to your primary point, one of the reasons people and churches are “liberal” is because they respect the Bible enough to think it can stand the tests of the best of modern scholarship and the most difficult problems the world can throw at us. Some of the conclusions drawn from that engagement take great courage to live out. When you insult people who disagree with conservative interpretations of the Bible with words like “abominable” and “watered-down,” you not only show your own prejudices, you also show a lack of understanding of and respect for part of the Body of Christ. Calling a reading of Scripture that differs from yours “low” and reserving “high” for yourself reveals more about you than it does about the ones you characterize as having an inferior view. Is it a high view of Scripture that allowed conservative Evangelicals to ignore the Bible’s clear call to work for justice and against poverty for generations? I think not.

          • Drew

            I find it unfortunate that while you take me to task for a simplistic response, your response to me clearly shows you did not read what I had to say carefully.

            Jesus took both Pergamum and Thyatria to task for their poor doctrine, and in my opinion, they look a lot like the mainline liberal Protestant Churches of today. Jesus had harsher words for those Churches than “abominable”, so if you would like, I could use His words. Instead of disputing the liberal Church is not like Pergamum and Thyatria, you decided to nitpick my word choice. Maybe I convicted you on this issue?

            I think that Sardis and Ephesus look a lot like some of the conservative Evangelical churches of today. In fact, I said as much in my first paragraph when I said that Jesus would have some “hard truth” for some theological conservatives of today. So when you challenge me in your last sentence, it is statement I already agree with and have expressed agreement with.

            I said the doctrine was abominable in some areas, not all areas. Also, I said the “doctrine” was abominable (in some areas) and was watered-down, not the people. For you to say that I am insulting people because I think they believe in poor doctrine is a stretch.

            I never said that a different interpretation was “low” or “high,” but rather, the overall understanding of what Scripture is. Two people can have a high view of Scripture and come to different conclusions on secondary issues and that is perfectly acceptable. The problem is when people have a fundamentally different view of Scripture, seeing it as fallible men fumbling about with their thoughts on God.

            In the future, I just ask you carefully and thoughtfully respond rather than strawman my entire post.

            • http://twitter.com/david_pickett David Pickett

              Hi Drew, I read your post carefully, and I think your response avoids the points I made, rather than genuinely interacting with them, and therefore, with me. In the same way, your characterization of liberal doctrines as abominable and watered down (whether you mean for these insulting adjectives to apply to a few doctrines or to a larger set, you don’t make that clear) shows a lack of real engagement with the doctrines themselves, as well as those who hold them. No, you never explicitly stated that interpretations different from your own are low, but that presupposition is obvious in your response to Morgan’s article, where it is clear that you consider your view of Scripture to be high and that of the “liberal church” to be low. I will quote you when you write that “where the liberal Church has lost its way is replacing a high view of Scripture with a low view of Scripture (and thus bad doctrine).” Your post made one essential point- that the liberal Church has a low view of Scripture and needs a high view for “everything else” to fall into place. I simply responded to that point. I did not strawman your post – it seems to me that you have done that, both to Morgan’s post, as well as to mine.

              • Drew

                I interacted with everything you said. In fact, you only asked one question (and somewhat rhetorical at that), and I answered it fully. This charge is without merit.

                Douthat is arguing theological incoherence among liberals; Guyton is arguing that liberals are forgetting the basis of Christianity (death and resurrection of Christ); I am simply trying to describe why both are happening. Even if you disagree with me, it is up to you to propose an alternative to the question of “why is this happening.” That is a true dialogue, where you propose alternatives, not just going around saying “here is where you are wrong.”

                So I will ask you a question to think about and respond to – do you think Douthat and Guyton are accurate in why the mainline liberal Protestant Chruch is in freefall, that essentially they have neglected (Guyton) or liberalized (Douthat) doctrine? If you do, and assuming you think this is a negative (clearly Douthat doe), then why has this occurred?

              • http://twitter.com/david_pickett David Pickett

                Douthat draws a unsubstantiated conclusion when he assumes that Mainline decline is due to theological liberalism. The truth is, most American denominations are in decline, both liberal and conservative. The Southern Baptist denomination is in decline as well. If we apply Douthat’s conclusion consistently, we would have to blame their theology. I am not stating categorically that Mainline decline has nothing to do with theology, only that Douthat’s point is not supported by facts. I actually think that most, if not all the problems in churches of all theological stripes go back to theology, just not the traditional conservative/liberal dividing points.
                My argument against your post is similar. Morgan’s article looks at the issue of Mainline decline from a few different vantage points. Rather than interact with those, you simply reinforced Douthat’s unsubstantiated conclusion with your own argument: low view of Scripture vs. high view of Scripture. If your opinion is truly that Mainline decline is due to theological liberalism, which you seem to equate with a low view of Scripture and the abominations of Pergamum, then you’re entitled to that opinion. I just don’t think you gave any more supporting evidence for that conclusion than Douthat gave for his own. Just to make sure I don’t do the same thing, I’ll refer you to the best response I’ve seen to Douthat’s article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-butler-bass/can-christianity-be-saved_1_b_1674807.html.
                Blessings,
                David

              • Drew

                David,

                Actually, there is a clear correlation if you look at the numbers. Christianity overall is in decline in America, but when you look at the numbers, all liberal Churches are in decline while only *some* conservative Churches are in decline. Yes, SBC is in decline, but there are many other denominations that are growing such as Assemblies of God, Christian Missionary and Alliance, non-denominational Churches, and the list goes on.

                You are right that correlation does not prove causation. However, you still have to answer as to why liberal Churches are facing a decline more so than moderate or conservative Churches. You can’t just lay it at the feet of a general decline, because a lot of moderate/conservative Churches are bucking the trend.

                If you could tell me what other conservative denominations are declining besides SBC, and what liberal denominations are growing, I would like to have that information. Then I can rethink my correlation.

              • http://twitter.com/david_pickett David Pickett

                Hi Drew, this is getting tiring.
                1. You argue that I can’t talk about general conservative decline because some conservative churches are growing, yet you don’t give liberal churches the same consideration. I happen to be a pastor in a growing liberal church. There are many.
                2. So the Assemblies of God (among others) are growing. Is that because of their superior theology? I don’t know if you believe that, even though that’s where your logic goes if you apply it consistently.
                3. You apparently didn’t check the article that I referred to.
                And finally, you have yet to engage the only real point I ever tried to make – that your argument about liberal churches having a low view of Scripture is unsupported and a distraction from the excellent points Morgan made in his article. Maybe I haven’t done a good job of making that point, but I’ll sign off now and let this one go.Blessings,David

              • Drew

                Hi David,

                1) You just changed the parameters of the discussion to suit your own argument, David, which is really a shame. The whole time we were talking about denominations, but now you want to talk about individual Churches. Of course you can find a Church in any denomination that is growing; I’ll give you that. What we were talking about, however, is denominations, and you still have not given me a liberal denomination that has increased membership recently. I will be waiting for your response.

                2) I think a contributor to the growth of moderate/conservative Evangelicalism is (mostly) good theology, absolutely, just like a contributor to the decline of liberal Protestantism is (some) poor theology. There are of course other factors at play, I am just identifying what I believe to be a main one.

                3) I read the article; it was not very impressive and poorly addressed the situation. She trotted out the incredibly ridiculous logic, as you have, that one conservative denomination in decline (SBC) is on par with every single liberal denomination being in decline. She forgets to mention the dozens of other conservative denominations that are growing.

                I have constantly supported my assertion that liberal Churches are in decline due to having a low view of Scripture which is leading to them to constantly change their theology in a progressive/liberal direction. My main supporting evidence was comparing the liberal Churches of today to Pergamum and Thyatria. I thought you were clever enough to connect the dots; the parallel is obvious. Both Churches tolerated false doctrine, especially in the area of sexual immorality. The liberal Churches today have mostly approved of homosexuality.

        • Anonymous

          The problem is that with Protestantism came Sola Scriptura- the right to interpret scripture on one’s own without reference to tradition or the community which wrote the scriptures to begin with. Because of that, both liberal and conservative Christianity have gone off the rails. You say that there is little difference between secular liberalism and liberal Christianity, and I would agree. But there is also almost no difference between secular libertarian conservativism and conservative Evangelical Christianity; somewhere along the line it became “Christian” to carry a concealed handgun, ignore the plight of the poor, and respond to the genocide of abortion with empty legal condemnation instead of charity.

          But then again I’m a Catholic Monarchist, so what do I know?

          • Drew

            I am a former Catholic – baptized, altar server, confirmed – and while I now disagree with Catholic teaching and am an Evangelical Protestant I have a vast amount of respect for Catholics and Catholic teaching. In fact, moderate-to-conservative Protestant Evangelicals have been working a lot with Catholics recently, and I think it has been a healthy relationship.

            I am in a moderate to conservative-leaning Evangelical Protestant denomination, so I am someone that is standing in the middle and caught in the crossfire. While I am not a fan of liberal Protestantism, I am not a fan of hyper-conservative (fundamentalist) Evangelicalism either.

            Catholicism vs. Protestantism in regards to Scripture plus Tradition vs. Scripture has pros and cons. The same strength of Catholicism (unity, strength of conviction, tradition) is a weakness if you think Catholicism has the wrong doctrine. In that case, they are just tightly holding on to the wrong doctrine. The strength of Protestantism (Sola Scriptura) is that I think it allows us to seek and find good doctrine but a weakness is that with no agreed-upon way to interpret the Bible, most people interpret it in order to feed their own appetites (Romans 16:18).

      • Anonymous

        You might want to read Richard Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture as a further reflection on the future of the liberal wing of the Church….

        • http://twitter.com/MAGuyton Morgan Guyton

          I have thought I should read that.

          • Anonymous

            And you might also want to check out the following blog by a Conservative Quaker minister…
            http://lambswar.blogspot.com/ …and finally, a thought: what if a follower of the Living Christ was not interested in the Cross and Resurrection, rather living into the Kingdom as Jesus did in this world? I meet many folk who are not nominal Christians but Christ followers – aand doing a fine job of it as well…

      • http://www.facebook.com/david.findlay.94 David Findlay

        “their
        love for Jon Stewart” Brilliant!!! What a great piece of work, this is,
        you’re a breath of fresh air

      • Anonymous

        I was once known as a Zen Catholic- because what I saw as the hypocrisy of Protestantism led me away from Christ in my wandering college years (that every Cradle Catholic) goes through, and to the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch who invented Zen Buddhism.

        I think what the Greeks called metanoia, and what the Zen call satori, is the real point of all religion.

        I am of that generation of Cradle Catholics where American Catholicism abandoned the actual religion in favor of an “All you need is Jesus” ecumenicism (lampooned in the movie Dogma by the statue of Buddy Christ).

        But people who are comfortable, feel no need to convert. People who think that sin and hell don’t exist- have no reason nor need for heaven. People who are not wounded have no need for doctors, and men who don’t understand that they are sinners have no need for Saints.

        • Dan

          I am a recent convert to the Church. From what I read so far quite often the religious education program is really bad and that is the main reason young people left the Church after high school. Do you feel that is what happened to you? I read a 2011 survey 33 percent don’t know the Church teaching on Real Presence in Eucharist . I am shocked, how can this happen? The priest didn’t tell them? The teacher did not bother to mention it before confirmation? The parents and godparents did not share their faith with their children? I cry every time I receive the Holy Eucharist and 1/3 of my brothers and sisters don’t even know the Real Presence is beyond my imagination. It is easier for me to accept that some cradle Catholics don’t believe the Real Presence just like the disciples(John 6) and Judas Iscariot who turned their backs on Jesus because they didn’t believe the teaching of our Lord than these Catholic brothers and sisters not knowing the teaching at all. That is crazy, my brain just can’t process it.

        • http://twitter.com/MAGuyton Morgan Guyton

          You said what you were once known as. Where are you now?

      • Anonymous

        This is very thoughtful, thanks Morgan. And I don’t think these things solely apply to the “Liberal” church but to all churches. Well said.

      ×

      TRENDING: It Is Time for the American Christian Church to Surrender the Gay Marriage Fight, Apologize, and Share Love >>