Liberal Orthodoxy
This post is based on the idea that there is a form of liberal theology that approaches religion rationally while respecting religious experience and commitment. It is passionate about both intellectual integrity and spiritual depth. Elsewhere I have referred to it as a kind of progressive orthodoxy. Michael J. Langford in his book A Liberal Theology for the Twenty-first Century: A Passion for Reason calls it liberal orthodoxy and Thomas Oden, one of the most outstanding theologians of the twentieth century thought of it as postcritical liberalism. Liberal Christian Orthodoxy can be characterized as:

A search for understanding and truth through rational critical understanding based on a faith that a benevolent and loving God of mystery is to be found wherever the human mind and spirit can reach.

With this basic definition as a starting point the gist of liberal orthodoxy, or progressive Christian orthodoxy, can be outlined as follows:

Reflective thinking
Reflective thinking involves not just one, but multiple ways of thinking or seeking the truth of things. It believes that truth is not flat and one dimensional like a window pane, but multidimensional like a diamond––reflecting light with infinite variety and beauty. Just as the beauty of a diamond must be viewed and appreciated from multiple angles so truth must be understood from multiple perspectives.

• Reason: The ability of the human mind to reason at a high level of abstraction, the power to think, understand, solve problems and form judgments by a process of complex logic is one of the most distinguishing marks between human beings and the rest of the animal world. It is not that humans alone reason, even crows can solve problems and devise simple tools, but only human being are capable of employing abstract logic sophisticated enough to eliminate smallpox or build bombs powerful enough to obliterate the whole planet. Even when someone argues there is no such thing as absolute truth they are using reason to make their case––which, strangely enough, is that the absolute truth is that there is no absolute truth. The great mystics and contemplatives do not deny the need for reason and logical thought. Their advice is that thought alone can only take us so far on the spiritual journey. They are not looking for a way of knowledge that contradicts human logic, but for one that transcends it. The sort of liberal or progressive orientation advocated here, then, affirms that rational thought is crucial in the quest for truth.
• Tacit Knowledge: Michael Polanyi (1891-1976) the Hungarian scientist and philosopher who made major contributions to the study of physical chemistry, spoke of a nonverbal intelligence which he called “tacit knowledge” –– an expertise in something real, and a demonstrable knowledge about a subject which cannot be put into words. Such knowledge requires years of experience to develop, and while it cannot be put into words or stated in logical syllogisms; it is, nevertheless, very real and can be verified empirically. Tacit knowledge is “wholistic.” That is, every experience we have ever had, and all that we are in mind, body, and soul, shapes the way we perceive absolutely everything and is an essential part of the very questions we ask. Pure objective reason as described in elementary school textbooks is a delusion. It does not exist. In his book God and Spirituality: Philosophical Essays, Glenn F. Chesnut suggests that the Alcoholics Anonymous program furnishes one example of tacit knowledge. “In the Alcoholics Anonymous program,” he writes, we have a number of tests which can identify those who have developed greater expertise in the spiritual life.” Notice, that while Chesnut validates growth in tacit knowledge as growth in spiritual expertise, he simultaneously uses reason as a way of verifying tacit knowledge or spiritual expertise.
• Sensus Divinitatis: For centuries Christians like Saint Thomas Aquinas, thinker, scholar, philosopher, theologian, and contemplative Christian monk have spoken and written of what has often been referred to as the sensus diviinitatis––”sense of the divine.” Actually the concept goes back as far as Plato and perhaps even further than that. It is the recognition that there exits in us a natural sense of the reality of God. Spirituality, as genetic studies seem to suggest, is somehow hardwired into our genes. The sensus divinitatis is to be understood as a faculty like our faculties of reason, or our five senses, or feelings, or intuition which are all work to lead us to a knowledge of the truth. And like each of our other faculties our sense of deity is not infallible so that it has to be correlated with our other faculties of discernment.
I do not want to get overly involved here in epistemology––how we know what we know. I am simply proposing that liberal Christian theology which goes beyond the liberalism of the older sort, recognizes that reason is inextricably bound up in the quest for meaning and truth and beauty; but, reason narrowly defined as empiricism, or mathematical logic, or the scientific method is not a lens powerful enough to see into the vast reaches of spiritual reality. Ultimately, all ways of knowing should be lines of thought, and feeling, and being which converge in one infinite singularity.
• Probability: In the debate between Daniel Wallace and Bart Ehrman regarding whether the original autographs of the New Testament had been hopelessly corrupted in transmission; or, are essentially reliable representations of the earliest Christian documents, Wallace kept arguing that the evidence indicated a high degree of probability that the New Testament of today is a reliable version of the original writings. Bart Ehrman, on the other hand, doggedly maintained that we could not know this with absolute certainty. Ehrman’s demand for absolute proof was a clever move, but itself highly unrealistic in the pondering of those things that matter most. Reflective reasoning, recognizes that many problems, issues and question cannot be framed in such a way as to render definitive yes or no (mathematically certain) answers. Yet, life and reality, circumstances and people require answers, and choices and commitments must be made. And so we choose and commit and act based on what we are convinced is the highest reliable probability. A genuinely liberal theology will emphasize reason, but the reason it emphasizes is a more “reflective reason.”

God
Liberal Christianity, as posited here, believes that the essence of reality, as even the quantum physicists are now suggesting, is something, or someone, more akin to mind or consciousness; that is, reality is more easily and rationally understood in terms of consciousness than by materialistic concepts. This, some think, is the first and most basic question for anyone embarking on the spiritual quest to consider. What is the fundamental nature of reality? Is it mindless? material? physical? Or is it, for want of a more adequate term, better described as mind or consciousness?

Liberal Christian theology believes that the very essence of this reality is personal; that is, that this reality, this consciousness, makes itself known to human beings, is experienced by us in ways and in terms that can only be described as personal –– trust, gratitude, loving kindness, listening and hearing, presence. One trusts and is trusted only by another person. I may love my money and even in a sense trust it, but that is not the same thing as loving and being loved and trusted by my wife and children. But reason also tells us that while it is helpful and appropriate to refer to God as a person, it also informs us that God is infinitely more. So the great twelfth century theologian Anselm said, “God is that than which nothing greater can be thought.” No matter what we think, imagine, conceive, or feel God is always still greater; and, therefore, always indefinable and inexplicable even though we attempt to do so by ten thousand adjectives.
• Liberal Christian orthodoxy believes that this mysterious reality we call God is, in the words of the seventeenth century mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal, “not the God of the philosophers, but the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob.” That is to say, God is not an intellectual idea in someone’s mind, but the personal God of the Bible. This, means of course, that they also believe a number of others things about God, for example, that God is the Creator and Source of all the beauty and goodness to which we human beings are witness; that God is somehow involved in human history so that all things are moving toward a just and good resolution –– toward what the British Christian mystic Evelyn Underhill called “the triumph of charity.”

Scripture
Liberal Christian orthodoxy believes inspired Scripture has the power to transform our lives, that it shows us the way to live, brings enlightenments, corrects our character flaws, and trains us as instruments of love, justice, and compassion (See 2 Timothy 3:16). Liberal Christian Theology also affirms that Scripture must be interpreted in the light of reason, experience and tradition.
• Reason: The application of reason is necessary for even a rudimentary understanding of what we read. As a young minister I frequently heard a criticism of the Bible I hardly ever hear anymore. The criticism was: “You can make the Bible say, or mean, anything you want.” In a sense that is true, and it is true not only  of the Bible but of anything we read––including the breaking news on our computer screen. However, the fact that we can make the Bible say anything we want it to say doesn’t mean that is what it actually says. I have heard doctors tell patients they had stage four metastatic cancer. That it didn’t look good. That the patient should get his affairs in order. And then when the patient asked how long he had for the doctor to say, “Well no one can say for sure, but we will do everything we can to keep you comfortable.” Then, when the family comes in, and asks what the doctor said, the patient tells them: “Well, the doctor said it’s serious, but they can help me. I should live a long time.” Everything we hear, see, read, experience has to be interpreted by the ordinary rules of reason. The simpler the communication the less thought we have to give it. The more complex the communication the more we have to think about it, and may even have to break it down into sequential steps. Normally seminary students are required to take a class in Hermeneutics, which is a course in how to interpret Scripture–– the long established principles of interpretation and application. For example, every text must be interpreted in both its immediate and remote context. The genre of every text must be taken into consideration. When you read the Book of Revelation you have to read it as the apocalyptic literature it is. You can’t read it as if it is a literal book of history. Well, you can. But then you are going to come up with something bizarre like The Late Great Planet Earth.
Reason tells me Scripture is not “inerrant.” Given the number of factual discrepancies in the Bible inerrancy is hard to defend. I am not thinking of scribal errors or spelling mistakes that are somewhat like the equivalent of a modern “typo,” but clear differences between two passages. For example, Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5 and Deuteronomy 10:22 all say the total number of people who went with Jacob into Egypt was seventy. However, Acts 7:12-14 says it was seventy-five people who went into Egypt. Actually, the notion of inerrancy is a little less than a hundred-fifty years old. Even today it is a doctrine more prominent among North American than British evangelicals.
Reason also tells me that the “higher-criticism” methodology of modernity is, in spite of its intellectual sophistication, highly problematic. The Jesus Seminar was quite successful in marketing itself as a scientific exploration of the authenticity of Jesus’s words and actions; yet, the criteria it followed was riddled with obvious errors in logic. And, as is now being pointed out more and more often, the widely divergent conclusions obtained by scholars claiming to use the same methods in studying the Gospels can only lead one to the reasonable assumption that their work is neither reliable nor valid.
• Tradition –– when we examine Scripture paying attention to how the church has interpreted and understood a text across the centuries that is using tradition. Words have to be understood according to the accepted definitions at the time they were written, and the accepted grammatical rules of ancients languages applied. Tradition is the collected wisdom that we find in the practices and writings of Christians throughout history. Tradition may not always be totally correct, but that does not mean it does not have much to contribute to our understanding of significant issues and questions.
• Experience –– is the way in which not just our own individual experience, but the way the general human experience and the experience of the Christian community through the centuries coheres with reason and tradition in interpreting a biblical text. The more an interpretation of a Biblical text embraces reason, tradition, and experience all at once the greater the probability of it being correct. Unfortunately, experience as a criterion of biblical interpretation is often erroneously understood to be nothing more than the personal experience of an individual. A pivotal moment in my own life occurred when I realized that the denomination of my youth was focused on prohibiting practices in the church’s ministry based on a faulty understanding of Scripture, and were issues that had become matters of intense debate no more than twenty-five years before the night of my little epiphany. The critical moment came when I then asked myself: “Do you really think Christ is concerned with this sort of trivia? Was the Christ you have encountered in Scripture ever concerned with this sort of minutia?” I was obviously asking questions of Scripture and tradition, but also of my own personal spiritual experience––as well as that of the larger Christian community across the centuries.

Values
Liberal Christian theology embraces the values traditionally emphasized by liberal thinkers: freedom, tolerance, acceptance, justice for all in every sphere of life, and open mindedness. However, it holds these values not because they are liberal but because they are Christian. The terms used to describe liberal values may vary somewhat but the essential principles remain constant.
• Rationality: Liberal Christian theology and philosophy values rationality. By this I mean it prizes rigorous critical thinking, and adheres to the quality of appropriateness which means that what we say, feel, and think fits the event and its emotional content that we are responding to as well as its intensity. It means, among other things, that we do not make what is small large or what is large small. Rationality further means that we respond to what is required in the moment rather than reacting. The difference is simple. If in a moment of crisis we act automatically out of our inner anxieties, confusion, and turmoil that is reacting. When we are more reflective and act more in tune with what needs to be done, and in light of what will be most helpful in the present situation we are responding.
• Intellectual Integrity: Liberal Christian thought recognizes that in our philosophical and theological conclusions we can arrive at satisfying levels of probability but never absolute certainty. To reach the upper levels of probable confidence requires a sense of academic humility in which the rigor and integrity of intellectual effort convinces us that we may commit ourselves knowing we are probably right but might possibly be wrong.
• Freedom: Liberal Christianity accepts the proposition that God has conferred not only upon humanity, but evidently the entire universe, the dignity of choosing what we will become. Consequently, liberal philosophy renounces any notion that people should be coerced and forced into thinking, acting, or speaking in ways prescribed by an elite few. The caveat, of course, is that where someone is a danger to him or herself, or to others, they need to be restrained. We must each determine the way to which we are willing to commit everything. We may share with others what we have discovered and invite them to join us on this path, but we must leave them free to choose which divide in the road they will take.
• Respect: Liberal Christian theology regards respect as one of its higher values––respect for truth, for facts, for reason, for Scripture, for the sacredness of life, for beauty, for goodness and virtue, and for the Mystery we call God. Respect is a guiding principle, a lived attitude, which values the human dignity of everyone we meet, and recognizes that the desires, hopes, loves, fears, dreams, thoughts and ideas of every other person on this planet are just as significant as our own. Respect is essential for genuine progress in every area of life––intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and even physical.
• Generosity: By definition to be liberal is to be generous. I don’t hear it used this way much anymore, but as a boy I would often read or hear comments about people giving liberally to a charity––giving generously of their time, money, or skills to an organization, event, or cause meant for the good of others. But to be liberal is also to be generous in acceptance, tolerance, compassion, and good will. It is to be generous in making allowances for the mistakes people may make, leaving wide margins for error, and a willingness to understand people and interpret events in the most positive rather than automatically defaulting to viewing them in a critical or demeaning light. To have a generous spirit is be open minded. And to be open minded is to listen for understanding rather than for argumentation or points of criticism.
To be open minded also refers to how we hold our convictions. Decades ago, Milton Rokeach found in his studies that open mindedness has less to do with the ability to change one’s mind when that is warranted, than with the attitudes with which beliefs are held. He found that someone who clings to a particular set of beliefs with an angry and unreasonable attitude may very well change his or her mind; however, their new set of beliefs will be characterized by the same unpleasant attitudes. A further difference Rokeach found, was that when a closed minded person accepts a new truth it is applied only to what is understood to be the one relevant area. The open minded person sees how a new insight pertains to the whole of life. So, an alcoholic sees how the first of the Twelve Steps (Acknowledged that we were powerless over alcohol and that our lives had become unmanageable.) relates to staying sober; and, consequently is able to stop drinking. But then fail to see how this insight into a spirit of willingness, letting, go, or surrender applies to the whole of life. Consequently, while they remain sober they have little peace in doing so. The open minded person sees how that principle applies to the totality of life, practices it, and so discovers not only sobriety but a sense of serenity as well.
• Compassion: The Latin root of the word, compassion, is pati, which means “to suffer.” The prefix, com-, means “with.” So, “to have compassion” means we have fellow feeling or sympathy with those who are suffering. The most pernicious psychological disorders known are the Psychopathic, Sociopathic, and Narcissistic Personality Disorders in which the afflicted individual feels no sense of compassion, sympathy, or empathy. There is nothing but a huge empty space where fellow feelings ought to be. In Liberal Christian Theology the feeling of compassion is seen as a gift.
• Social Justice: All liberal theology agrees on the centrality of peace and social justice issues to any sort of deeper intellectual, emotional, or spiritual life. There is further agreement with the proposition that the primary imperative for human kind is love –– love for every person on the planet, love for every living creature, love for all that is––this Earth our island home, vast galaxies, and subatomic particles. Liberal thinkers may disagree over the source of this imperative, whether it rests upon a philosophical ideal or a theological reality (upon reason or the mystery of Christ), but they are in total agreement that love is the law of our being. In light of what has already been said, to now list social justice as an integral component of progressive orthodoxy may seem somewhat redundant. Nevertheless, all liberal theology is defined by a deep and pervasive sense of social justice. Racism, bigotry, hatred, unfair and hurtful or cruel treatment based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, or socio-economic status is according to both reason and the divine law of love evil, and, therefore, to be resisted and by continuous resistance overcome. Someone once asked Ted Kennedy where all his concern for the poor came from. And he responded by asking, “Haven’t you ever read the New Testament?”
An Important Distinction
A very big difference between the sort of liberal Christian theology and philosophy being discussed here and modernity––the sort of liberal thinking previously discussed that may or may not have room for God, Christ, or Scripture as sacred text, is that liberal Christianity of this second sort believes that the liberal values all come from the Christin faith. I recently read Tom Holland’s interesting book Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind. If you want to explore more seriously how Christianity is the radical revolution that is the genesis of ideas like; all people are created equal; or, how Christianity is the force that since its beginning has shaped the way we think you might want to read this book. Holland says, it was Christianity which gave to womankind the recognition of their innate dignity and equality and opened the way for women to claim self-determination over their own bodies. Even when we denounce the greed, bigotry, ignorance, and self-righteousness of American fundamentalism, Holland asserts, we are arguing from ethical, moral, and spiritual concepts planted when Christianity exploded into the world. He writes, “When the Beatles boldly proclaimed, “All You Need is Love,” whether they would admit it or not they were making a profoundly Christian statement. So had Augustine proclaimed back in the late Roman Empire: “Love, and do as you want.” But you can explore the rather lengthy and rather academic development of Tom Holland’s thesis for yourself. What I want to emphasize here in this “definition” is that progressive orthodoxy is characterized by a particular set of values inherent in the Christian faith and common to all liberal theology. They may be known by other terms than I have used (equality, authenticity, tolerance,) but the meaning remains constant.

Final Note
When I wrote and posted Reflecting on What is an Evangelical? A Movement in Crisis, I did so because as a former evangelical, albeit more in the British than American sense, I was, and am, disturbed by the way in which fundamentalists have co-opted and appropriated that designation for themselves. The hope of fundamentalists was that by doing this they would be able to elevate their image, but what has happened is that the term “evangelical” has itself become a word of approbation. To misquote Shakespeare, “A skunk by any other name would smell as bad.” That reflection then led me to go on to ponder the question, What is Modern Liberal Theology? in three essays, and to now follow with this one on A Theology of Liberal Christian Orthodoxy. It has been kind of like Forest Gump who felt like running one day and didn’t stop until he had run across the whole country a couple of times. One of the things I found is that it is as difficult to distinguish between types of liberal Christian thought as it is to differentiate between conservative and liberal Christians. However, I hope what is now a total of four posts on liberal Christian thought, as well as the one on evangelicalism, have been clarifying for you, and help in recognizing some of the subtilties involved and in thinking about matters in a more nuanced way. If you attempt to use any of this as a way of rubricizing people I am afraid you will have completely misunderstood my intent. It is my plan to write one or more little essays which looks for a less conflicted way of understanding Christian faith –– a way beyond either liberal or evangelical Christianity. In my next post then you should find something on Classical Christianity.