Journey to the CRA: The Rise of Theological Liberalism and Its Emergence Within the Restoration Movement

While theological liberalism and political liberalism may often cross paths, one should not assume the two ideas are the same.  It would be a mistake to assume anyone on the liberal side of the political spectrum must necessarily be a theological liberal, or vice versa.  Moreover, it has become somewhat commonplace, specifically among conservatives, to describe anyone with a view that differs from their own as liberal.  Undoubtedly the views of others may be described as “more liberal” or “more conservative” than one’s own views, but that does not necessarily place an individual in the camp of the “conservatives” or the “liberals.”  The goal of this article will be to provide a cursory overview of the ideas that gave rise to theological liberalism and how these ideas made their way into the Restoration Movement. 

The views that came to be known as theological liberalism were developed, primarily by German theologians, in the early nineteenth century during a period that has often been described as the Romantic Age.  Romanticism was not necessarily a theological movement, but it was a far-reaching reaction against the supposed certainty of Enlightenment rationalism.  Among theological thinkers, where the Enlightenment appeared to challenge traditional theological perspectives, Romanticism sought to shift thinking away from logic and reason to a greater emphasis on feelings and personal experiences.  This redirection of perspective led directly to the emergence of theological liberalism. 

The first of four basic components of theological liberalism is an emphasis on feeling and conscience.  German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), often described as “The Father of Liberal Theology,” redefined religion as a “sense and taste for the infinite” in his book On Religion (1799).  By suggesting that religion should be understood as a feeling of dependence upon the Infinite, Schleiermacher dismissed the value of doctrines and belief.  His desecration of the significance of belief and doctrine within the realm of religious thought opened the door for the emergence of the additional components of theological liberalism. 

The second building block of theological liberalism is the development of Biblical Higher Criticism (also called Historical Criticism, Radical Biblical Criticism, or Destructive Criticism).  The traditional form of biblical study, known as “Lower Criticism” or “Textual Criticism,” sought a full and accurate understanding of the biblical text by comparing ancient manuscripts, studying the background of biblical words, identifying cultural influences upon biblical events and ideas, etc. This method of study is not referred to as Lower Criticism because it’s a lesser form of study than Higher Criticism, but because it’s an examination of the foundational (lowest level) and primary elements for biblical understanding.  Students of Lower Criticism were almost universally believers in the divinely inspired and inerrant nature of Scripture.  Promoters of Higher Criticism, however, tended to reject any supernatural aspect of the Bible and tried to “demythologize” Scripture by questioning the validity of its content, and casting doubt upon the traditional authorship and dating of the books of the Bible. By doing this, the higher critics were calling into question the reliability of Scripture and removing the only objective authority for Christian faith and belief. 

Numerous individuals contributed to the growth of Biblical Higher Criticism, but two of the most significant proponents were Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860) and David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874).  Both were students of Georg W. F. Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher, and both relied upon his dialectic approach to history.  Hegel believed opposing ideas ultimately resolved themselves in history with a new outcome.  In Baur’s thought, there were two original forms of conflicting Christianity:  Jewish Christianity (Petrine) and Gentile Christianity (Pauline).  He theorizes that the struggle between these two forms of Christianity concluded by the second century, so any New Testament books that do not show Jewish-Gentile discord must be from the second century and not written by Paul.  In a similar manner, Strauss’ book, The Life of Christ (1835), relies on Hegelian dialectics to contend that Jesus was merely a first-century man (a typical rejection of divinity by a higher critic) who was confronted by the Jewish expectations of a supernatural messianic figure.  The resolution of this conflict, according to Strauss, was the second-century development of the Christ figure who was both human and divine.  Thus, Strauss argued, the gospel accounts of Jesus were not written by His eyewitness followers, but by those in the second century (the church) who adopted the god-man resolution of the first-century conflict.  Both Baur and Strauss conclude that the information contained in the New Testament cannot be accepted as reliable. 

The rise of the Social Gospel is the third component in the growth of theological liberalism.  Albrecht Ritschel (1822-1889), a German theologian influenced by Schleiermacher and Baur, believed Christianity developed through an evolutionary process (as opposed to being the outcome of a Hegelian dialectic struggle).  With the growth and dispersion of the gospel to various locations, Ritschel believed it was repeatedly modified to meet the needs of the immediate regions.  As a result, he contended, we cannot rely on Scripture to provide theological truths or doctrinal certainties because of its continual revisions.  To Ritschel, the only assurances we can take from Scripture are that Christ is the revelation of God’s love and morality to humankind, and the community of believers (also known as the church or Kingdom of God) must follow Christ’s example of love and morality by caring for the physical needs of others.  As such, the purpose of the church in Ritschel’s thought is not the salvation of human souls from sin, but the application of Christian ethics to the problems people face within their earthly societies.  Thus, the emphasis was on meeting the physical and material needs of the surrounding world and dismissing biblical theology or the human need for salvation.   

Additional Social Gospellers—especially Americans such as Washington Gladden (1836-1918) and Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918)—stressed the salvation of the city as efforts to provide better housing, jobs, sanitation, etc., with little or no concern for the salvation of the individual.  While all Christians have some concern about the physical and material needs of the people around them, most see the greater need for humanity as eternal salvation.  Theological liberals, however, often see social causes and physical concerns as more significant than biblical teachings or evangelistic undertakings. 

The final contribution to the advancement of theological liberalism was the popular acceptance of Darwinian Evolution.  While concepts of biological evolution had existed for centuries before Charles Darwin (1809-1882), the theory gained its greatest recognition after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859.  Thomas Huxley (1825-1895), who became known as “Darwin’s Bulldog,” promoted the Darwinian views with great force and to such an extent that he created a far-reaching interest in Darwin’s theory by the last quarter of the nineteenth century.  With this growing appreciation for evolution, numerous advocates of the view accepted it as a foundational explanation for various aspects of science and culture that went far beyond mere biological development.  As proponents claimed evolutionary theory as a defining principal in fields such as law, society, psychology, and more, it’s not at all surprising that those who had abandoned a high view of Scripture would claim that religion (specifically Christianity) must also be subject to evolution.  Thus, the belief that religion must evolve became prominent among those who leaned more toward the liberal theological persuasion, as they claimed Christianity must evolve or die.   

As one examines the four basic components of theological liberalism explained above, it becomes clear that theological liberalism found its roots primarily within the world of academia.  Schleiermacher, Baur, Strauss, Ritschl, and Darwin were all involved in academic circles, if not directly employed as university educators.  As these principles gained a greater hearing within the academic world and made their way into the university classrooms (especially into the classrooms focused on ministry training), they eventually filtered down to the students, who carried the ideas into the pulpits of their churches and into the mission fields.  Theological liberalism developed rapidly in the latter quarter of the nineteenth century and into the early twentieth century, influencing nearly every Christian fellowship of believers; even the Restoration Movement. 

The Restoration Movement had developed numerous colleges throughout the United States during the nineteenth century.  While all of them began as theologically conservative institutions, they were generally considered second-rate (if not third-rate) institutions.  In an effort to raise the status, quality, and reputation of these institutions, the leaders of these schools directed their best and brightest graduates to pursue advanced degrees in some of the nation’s elite universities, which were quickly becoming havens (if not indoctrination centers) for the advancement of theological liberalism.  The intention of the movement’s leaders was not to brainwash their graduates with the principles of theological liberalism, but to raise up a respected generation of scholars that would return to their Restoration Movement schools and give added value to their institutional reputations.  The sad reality, however, is many of these young scholars were thrust into the den of liberalism and convinced “true” scholars believed the theologically liberal views that were being taught in these nationally recognized universities.   

Unfortunately, the rise of theological liberalism within the Restoration Movement changed some aspects of the movement forever.  It brought about a divergence from the original aims and goals of the movement.  The movement’s original aims of seeking unity upon the truth of God’s Word to win the world to Christ, was rejected by the advancement of the theological liberals who no longer accepted God’s Word as truth.  The results would be threefold:  First, one segment of the movement sought to cast aside (or redefine) the original principles of the movement; second, liberalism brought about major conflicts in both the churches and the mission fields; and, thirdly, there arose a swelling interest on the part of the more theologically conservative elements of the movement to reassert the original and primary principles of the Restoration Movement.