Roger E. Olson's Blog

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Roger E. Olson's Blog

This post was updated on .


http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson

"My evangelical Arminian theological musings"

I am a Christian theologian of the evangelical Baptist persuasion.  I am also a proud Arminian!  And I’m influenced by Pietism.  Minnesota is my home state and I have lived in Iowa, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Germany and now Texas.  My current professional status since 1999 is Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University.  ...
http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/biography-2/
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Another hallmark of neo-fundamentalism

This post was updated on .
Another hallmark of neo-fundamentalism
July 6, 2011
http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/07/06/another-hallmark-of-neo-fundamentalism/

[neo-fundamentalists]...attacking moderate and postconservative evangelicals for daring to engage in fresh and faithful biblical research in order to test whether time honored (but still human) traditions are valid...
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What is "theological liberalism?"

This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Alex
What is "theological liberalism?"
http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/07/14/what-is-theological-liberalism/

...Schleiermacher introduced into the stream of Christian theology a "Copernican revolution" in theological method that regarded it as necessary to adjust traditional Christianity to the culture of the Enlightenment--what we call "modernity."  To be sure, Schleiermacher did NOT do this uncritically.  However, he clearly felt it necessary to rescue Christianity from the "acids of modernity" by redefining Christianity's (and religion's) "essence" so that it did not and perhaps could not conflict with the "best" of modern thought.  He redefined Christianity as PRIMARILY about human experience.  That is, as he put it, doctrines are nothing more than attempts to bring human experiences of God (God-consciousness) to speech.  Schleiermacher placed universal God-consciousness at the center of religion and Christ's God-consciousness communicated to the church at the center of Christianity.  All doctrines and all teachings of Scripture became revisable in the light of human God-consciousness.

What Schleiermacher accomplished was to separate religion (including Christianity) from the realm of "facts" discoverable by science and philosophy.  He rescued religion and Christianity from the acids of modernity by reducing them and restricting them to an entirely different realm.  Also, rather than objective divine revelation standing at the center or bottom of the theological enterprise, human experience was placed there.  This was Schleiermacher's "Copernican revolution" in theology.  All liberal theology (whether by ethos or tied specifically to a liberal theological movement such as Ritschlianism) is defined by that move first made by Schleiermacher.

Ritschl borrowed heavily from the philosopher Immanuel Kant to distinguish between two types of propositions--facts (which belong to the sciences) and values (which belong to religion).  Religion, including Christianity, has to do with the way things ought to be (the Kingdom of God) and not with the way things are.  If Ritschl was right, religion (rightly understood) and modern philosophy and science (kept where they belong) cannot conflict.

Harnack is the paradigm of the classical liberal Protestant theologian.  He reduced Christianity to a minimal ethical core--it's true "essence"--which cannot be undermined by science or philosophy.

The liberal theologians did not throw out belief in the Trinity or the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, etc.  They simply reduced their importance (they are not of the essence) and reinterpreted them non-metaphysically.

...The leading Ritschlian public figure was Harry Emerson Fosdick, Jr., pastor of Riverside Church in New York City and author of numerous books of liberal theology.  Fosdick's countenance graced the cover of Time magazine twice in the 1920s.  He was widely considered THE leading spokesman for liberal theology in America.

After WW1 in Europe and after WW2 in America theological liberalism underwent some changes.  The main one was the death of its historical optimism and adoption of a more realistic sense of human existence and history (largely under the influence of Reinhold Niebuhr).  But it retained its basic attitude toward modernity as an authority for theology's critical and constructive tasks.  (This was often more implicit than explicit.)

Gradually the liberal theological movement associated with Ritschl and his followers died out.  But the ethos it embodied remained--entering into the warp and woof of mainline Protestant life and thought.  Today it is represented by public intellectuals such as Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong.  Several theologians are attempting to breathe new life into it.  Among them are Gary Dorrien (perhaps THE leading scholar of liberal theology especially in America), Peter Hodgson, Donald Miller (of USC, not the author of Blue Like Jazz), and John Cobb.

So what are the usual, if not universal, hallmarks of true liberal theology or family resemblances among true liberal theologians?  First, here are books you MUST read if you want to discuss liberal theology intelligently.  (Read at least one of these.)  Alan P. F. Sell, Theology in Turmoil, William R. Hutchison, The Modernist Impulse in American Protestantism, Kenneth Cauthen, The Impact of American Religious Liberalism, Gary Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology (3 volumes), Peter Hodgson, Liberal Theology: A Radical Vision, John Cobb, Progressive Christians Speak, and Donald E. Miller, The Case for Liberal Christianity.

So what do all these people from Schleiermacher to Dorrien have in common?  I think the liberal theological ethos is best expressed in a nutshell by liberal theologian Delwin Brown (a convert to liberal theology from evangelicalism) in his dialogue with Clark Pinnock in Theological Crossfire: An Evangelical/Liberal Dialogue.  There Brown asks THE CRUCIAL QUESTION of modern theology: "When the consensus of the best contemporary minds differs markedly from the most precious teachings of the past, which do we follow?  To which do we give primary allegiance, the past or the present?"  Brown rightly gives the evangelical answer: "We ought to listen to the hypotheses of the present and take from them what we can, but ultimately the truth has been given to us in the past, particularly in Jesus, and the acceptance of that is our ultimate obligation.  Everything the contemporary world might say must be judged by its conformity to biblical revelation."  (Of course evangelicals differ among ourselves about WHAT biblical revelation says, but all evangelicals agree that the revelation of God given in Jesus and the biblical message takes precedence over the best of modern thought WHEN THERE IS AN UNAVOIDABLE CONFLICT between them.)

Then, Brown speaks for all liberal theologians when he gives the liberal answer to the crucial question: "Liberalism at its best is more likely to say, 'We certainly ought to honor the richness of the Christian past and appreciate the vast contribution it makes to our lives, but finally we must live by our best modern conclusions.  The modern consensus should not be absolutized; it, too, is always subect to criticism and further revision.  But our commitment, however tentative and self-critically maintained, must be to the careful judgments of the present age, even if they differ radically from the dictates of the past." (p. 23)

...

Pinnock well expresses ALL evangelicals' response to Brown, this in the context of a disagreement about eschatology in which Brown expressed skepticism about belief in a final triumph of good over evil.  Pinnock to Brown: "Here we are back to where we started in the book, back to the difference between us concerning the nature of the authority of the Bible.  ...You allow the Bible a functional but not a cognitive authority; that is, you will not bow to the content of Scripture but accept it only as a power that authors your life in some (to me) vague way.  This means in the present case that you are not able to rest your hope on the revealed promises of God concerning eternal life in Christ beyond death.  Usually I appreciate your modesty in the way you do theology, but when it comes down to your not affirming clear promises of God in the gospel, the modesty is being taken too far.  Lacking guidance from the Scriptures and as if to underline my anxiety, you are forced to resolve the issue rationally and then cannot do so.  Thus is the problem of liberal theology highlighted." (p. 249)

In a nutshell, then, the liberal theological ethos accords to "the best of modern thought" the weight of authority in theology alongside or stronger than biblical revelation (and certainly than tradition).  This is what Yale historical theologian Claude Welch meant when he wrote that liberal theology is "maximal acknowledgement of the claims of modernity."

...

There are, of course, other family resemblances among theological liberals such as a tendency to emphasize the immanence of God over God’s transcendence, skepticism about anything supernatural or miraculous (if not rejection of those categories entirely), out-and-out, open universalism (a true denial of hell as opposed to a hope for eventual ultimate reconciliation), an emptying of the "dogma" category and corresponding reduction of all Christian beliefs to the opinion category.  ...



Alex's comment:  This is an essential reading in theology!  
這文章道出自由神學之精義並簡明地解通自由神學與保守神學之爭:乃今、古之爭。
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How serious a heresy is universalism?

In reply to this post by Alex
http://www.patheos.com/community/rogereolson/2011/07/30/how-serious-a-heresy-is-universalism/



Alex's comment:  This may be relevant to us Unitarian Universalists.  "May be," because not all Unitarian Universalists are Universalists.
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Should Christians sing hymns/songs they don’t agree with?

This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Alex
Should Christians sing hymns/songs they don’t agree with?
September 9, 2011
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/should-christians-sing-hymnssongs-they-dont-agree-with/

"I've come to believe it is wrong to sing lyrics that express theology with which you strongly disagree.  It seems dishonest–IF you think that singing a hymn or song is something serious and not frivolous."

譯:基督徒應否唱他們不同意其歌詞的詩歌?唱反對其歌詞的詩歌,我相信是錯誤的,是不誠實的,若果你認真對待你唱的詩歌的話。



Alex's comment:  Agreed.  Hymn lyrics is one of the main reasons that I've turned to Unitarian Universalism from Christianity.  The Unitarian Universalist hymn book Singing the Living Tradition has many traditional Christian hymns.  Yet their dogmatic and exclusivistic original Christian lyrics have been replaced by humanistic lyrics which are much more inclusive.  Therefore, in Unitarian Universalist congregations, unlike in a Christian church, I will not be forced to tell lies when I sing, I no longer have to bear the guilt of being dishonest any more.  同意。詩歌歌詞是我由基督教轉向UU的重要原因之一。UU詩歌書已將很多傳統聖詩裡教條而排他的基督教歌詞修改為更寬宏包容的人文主義歌詞。因此,在UU教會裡,不像在基督教會,我不會被迫唱我不同意的歌詞,不會被迫說謊,良心好過得多!
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Hell is not part of the gospel

In reply to this post by Alex
Is hell part of the gospel? (Read all of this or don’t read any of it!)
September 14, 2011

In the Al Mohler article I previously discussed in The Southern Seminary Magazine Mohler argues that hell is part of the gospel.  I disagree.

NOW, before someone goes off on a disinformation campaign to smear me (and by extension my denomination and the institution where I teach) let me be crystal clear: I DO BELIEVE IN HELL.

Contrary to many (notice I said “many”) fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists, not everything revealed in Scripture or believed and taught by Christians throughout the ages is part of the gospel.  I am using "gospel" here in the traditional sense of the message of good news about Jesus Christ and salvation by grace alone.  I do not agree with those who think or claim that “the gospel” is another word for "what authentic Christianity teaches."  Authentic Christianity teaches many things that are not part of the gospel itself–such as the Trinity.  ...
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Christian Smith's "The Bible Made Impossible" the most important challenge to evangelicalism

In reply to this post by Alex
An invitation to read and discuss (here) an important new book
September 17, 2011
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/09/an-invitation-to-read-and-discuss-here-an-important-new-book/

In about a week I plan to begin discussing here The Bible Made Impossible by Christian sociologist Christian Smith (Notre Dame).  The book was recently published by Eerdmans.  I consider it one of the most important challenges to evangelical theology ever written.  The subtitle is Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture.  I invite you to get the book and join in the conversation about it.  It is only 178 pages long and easy to read, but it packs a real punch. ...
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Atheism

This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Alex
For God So Loved the World…That He Couldn't Stay Away (A Christmas Meditation)
December 25, 2011


Why belief in the deity of Jesus Christ is crucial for Christian identity
December 23, 2011


And end (for now) to the "Atheismusstreit"
December 22, 2011


A comment about atheists' comments here
December 21, 2011

Alex's comment:
//My challenge to atheists is simply this: Explain what grounds objective (universal, transcultural, unchanging) right and wrong. Explain what grounds absolute meaning (e.g., absolute dignity of human life including certain human rights) beyond culture (which changes) and its social contracts. In other words, to be perfectly blunt, OTHER THAN the fact that Hitler lost, what makes his projects (genocide, world domination at the expense of mass murder and enslavement) absolutely wrong? What if Hitler had won? On what objective basis (having nothing to do with preference or feelings) could you condemn his actions as absolutely wrong?//
My answer is that there is no objective right and wrong.  Atheists don’t need objective right and wrong.  All we need is safety and comfort.  In naturalism, morality is a social devise evolved by social animals to enable, by reducing violence, a safer and more comfortable social life.  Atheists/naturalists don't need to say Hitler is wrong, they just need to say Hitler is dangerous, rendering the world unsafe.  Has this answered your challenge?


Atheism and nihilism
December 20, 2011


Thank God for atheists
December 17, 2011

Alex's comment:  
//I don’t really believe there are true atheists. As Paul Tillich well pointed out, everyone has an ultimate concern and the object of their ultimate concern is their god.//
Suppose a person’s ultimate concern is her new-born baby.  She is a Naturalist in full agreement with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and late Christopher Hitchens.  So you say she is a "theist" because her baby is her god?  Are you kidding?
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Religious identities geographically displayed

In reply to this post by Alex
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What distinguishes “evangelical” from “fundamentalist?”

In reply to this post by Alex
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A Christian Humanist Manifesto

In reply to this post by Alex
A Christian Humanist Manifesto: God Is Most Satisfied with Us When We Are Most Glorified by Him (Part 1)
November 14, 2012
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/11/a-christian-humanist-manifesto-god-is-most-satisfied-with-us-when-we-are-most-glorified-by-him-part-1
Alex Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Why I Am Not a "Liberal Christian"

In reply to this post by Alex