The Elements of Liberalism

[Garland-Green]

by Matt Slick

In the context of Christianity, liberalism is the moving away from traditional, historical interpretation of Scripture into "new" interpretations that are more consistent with secular views. Liberalism occurs in different forms and intensities. Some liberals deny that Jesus even existed or say that the Bible is a good book full of moral teachings or that Adam and Eve were metaphors, etc. On the other hand, there are liberals who hold to the essentials of the Christian faith but depart from its literalness in historic understanding in areas such as male only elders--the topic under examination in this section. So, since liberalism is a constant threat to Christian teaching, wouldn't it make sense to examine some of the elements of liberalism?

Following is a list of basic principles and examples that reveal some aspects of liberalism. Of course, not all liberals hold to all the points. But as you read through them, you should see that it comes down to one thing--not believing the Bible for what it says.

1.Denial of inspiration, inerrancy, and/or authority of the Bible
1.1 Saying that the Bible has errors, is "written by man," is only a guide, or is not absolutely true.

2.Denying historic accuracy of the Bible
2.1 Denying that Adam, Eve, Moses, Jesus, etc., were real people.
2.2 Denying that the Exodus happened.
2.3 Denying that there was an actual Garden of Eden, etc.

3. Denial of particular parts of the Bible as being authentic
3.1 Denying that Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, 3.2 3.3 Deuteronomy.
3.2 Denying Paul's letter's as authentic.
3.3 Denying that the Gospels are accurate, etc.

4. Denial a basic Christian doctrine
4.1 Trinity, deity of Christ, resurrection, etc.
4.2 Salvation by grace.
4.3 Denying that Jesus is the only way to salvation, the doctrine of Hell, etc.

5. Denial of historic understanding of Scripture and substituting new ones
5.1 Redefining salvation as self-deliverance from oppression.
5.2 Saying that Jesus didn't literally rise from the dead and that it is a metaphor for success over trials.
5.3 "Husband of one wife" is not taken literally. It is a phrase applied to wives, too.
5.4 Homosexuality is not a sin. It is an alternative lifestyle.

6. Affirming experience over Scripture
6.1 A person's feelings supersede Biblical revelation.
6.2 "Feeling" that Jesus isn't the only way to God.
6.3 As long as you are sincere, God will let you go to Heaven.

7. Using outside sources to interpret Scripture
7.1 Use of psychology manuals, self-help books, science books, etc., and subjecting the Bible to their teaching.

8. Saying the Bible is outdated, patriarchal
8.1 This is an attempt to invalidate Scripture by dismissing it as ancient and, therefore, not true.
8.2 It also negates the inspiration of Scripture because it implies the patriarchal structure is due to cultural influence and not Scriptural revelation.

9. Imposing secular ideals upon Scripture
9.1 Women ordination.
9.2 Pro homosexuality.
9.3 Denying moral absolutes.
9.4 Upholding evolution as how mankind arrived on earth.
9.5 Defending "abortion rights" from Scripture.

10. Gender Neutral wording in reference to God, people, mankind, etc.
10.1 Referring to God as Mother God or Father-Mother God.
10.2 Referring to various references of male leaders as people.

As you read through the list, did you think of any church groups or denominations that fit in any of the categories? Maybe you have some friends who are liberal, or maybe you are yourself in some areas.

Is liberalism dangerous?
Yes, liberalism is dangerous because it leads to a denial of Biblical truth. But denial of Biblical truth usually means that things contrary to Scripture are often affirmed. Consider this quote:

"If we look at the denominations that approved women's ordination from 1956-1976, we find that several of them, such as the United Methodist church and the United Presbyterian Church (now called the Presbyterian Church-USA), have large contingents pressing for (a) the endorsement of homosexual conduct as morally valid and (b) the approval of homosexual ordination."1

In the article, Denominations, women ordination, and other errors, we see that women's ordination is often accompanied by other errors, namely, supporting abortion, affirming homosexuality, and a denial of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. It is rare that heresies are singular. They come in clusters.

Since Jesus claimed to be God in flesh (John 8:24) and said that no one comes to the Father but through Him (John 14:6), then we must make a decision. Either what Jesus said is true or it is false. Either Jesus was crazy or He was telling us something so profound that we better listen carefully. Which is it? If you hold to Biblical authority and inspiration, you will believe what Christ said. If you hold to liberalism, why should you?

Since Jesus rose from the dead, walked on water, raised others from the dead, performed miracles, healed people, etc., He has demonstrated His right to speak authoritatively. Therefore, we must consider His words carefully. When He warned people about eternal damnation, are we to consider His words as metaphor or absolute truth? Did He really rise from the dead, or is that just an illustration about how we can have victory over our problems?

Either what the Bible tells us in its totality is true or it is to be dismissed as the fable. I don't know about you, but I consider eternity too long of a time to be wrong, and I cannot dismiss the words of Christ as being fabrications. I trust in the absolute inspiration, inerrancy, infallibility, and authority of the Bible.

Liberalism leads away from Biblical fidelity and compromises Scriptural truth. It only needs the door to be open a crack in order to push its way through. The only guarantee against the liberal influence on the church is to set our minds and eyes upon the Word of God, study it diligently, and believe what it says.

1. Grudem, Wayne, Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006, p. 28.

Source

More;
What’s Wrong with Christian Liberalism and Liberal Views?
Letting Go: Liberal Christianity-Retreating from the Faith  

[cristobela]

edited

I wish this article would have explained more thoroughly what "women's ordination" is exactly.

There are zero women in the priesthood in the Old Testament. But what there is evidence for in the Old Testament is that of female prophets and female shepherds. So, what are these women doing exactly? what is their function? what are they being ordained to do?

Priesthood is ALL Male.


• Exodus 29:44 (NIV)
  
  44 “So I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar and will consecrate Aaron and his sons to serve me as priests.

For the record: the mention of "sons" doesn't include daughters. When the Law wants to make reference to daughters, it says as much.

• Leviticus 22:13 (NIV)
  
  13 But if a priest’s daughter becomes a widow or is divorced, yet has no children, and she returns to live in her father’s household as in her youth, she may eat her father’s food. No unauthorized person, however, may eat it.

She may eat of the sacred offering, the portion that belongs to the priests, but she didn't cut up the animal, drain its blood, and roast it on the altar herself. The priest did. There are no female priests in the OT. For good reason, not only would she be out of service for a week every month, because of her menstrual cycle—whose blood is unclean and therefore she can't be bleeding all over the place, wherever she sits, defiling the tabernacle/temple or defiling the priestly garment with her menstrual blood, even if they had tampons and pads in ancient times (which they didn't—at most a rag or even a menstrual cup—but for argument's sake, let's say they did) she could have still leaked, defiled the priestly garments and defiled the offering–and if she is married, then every time she is pregnant too, she would be out of service for months—not to mention the physical strength it takes to prepare sacrifices. And the spiritual / prophetic significance of a priest being male (the prophesying about Jesus, who is male). So, there shouldn't be female priests.

But there is:

A prophetess counseling a priest concerning God's Will.


• 2 Kings 22:11-15 (NIV)
  
  11 When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, he tore his robes. 12 He gave these orders to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam son of Shaphan, Akbor son of Micaiah, Shaphan the secretary and Asaiah the king’s attendant: 13 “Go and inquire of the Lord for me and for the people and for all Judah about what is written in this book that has been found. Great is the Lord’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.”
  
  14 Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Akbor, Shaphan and Asaiah went to speak to the prophet Huldah, who was the wife of Shallum son of Tikvah,the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. She lived in Jerusalem, in the New Quarter.
  
  15 She said to them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Tell the man who sent you to me,

A shepherdess guiding and feeding the sheep.


• Genesis 29:6-9 (NIV)
  
  6 Then Jacob asked them, “Is he well?”
  
  “Yes, he is,” they said, “and here comes his daughter Rachel with the sheep.”
  
  7 “Look,” he said, “the sun is still high; it is not time for the flocks to be gathered. Water the sheep and take them back to pasture.”
  
  8 “We can’t,” they replied, “until all the flocks are gathered and the stone has been rolled away from the mouth of the well. Then we will water the sheep.”
  
  9 While he was still talking with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep, for she was a shepherd.

A priest is distinct from the roles of a prophet and a shepherd in that, unlike the other two roles, the "priest" role is a male-only role, and secondly, a priest offers sacrifices in the tabernacle/temple. Aside from that, there are a lot of similarities: all three offer nourishment, instruction and guidance to the people concerning God's will / God's law, which is revelation directly from God (Huldah didn't consult with her husband before reaching a verdict and sharing her revelation that came directly from God—but it was lawful and true).

So, what is this "women's ordination"...? what are they "being ordained" to do? to shepherd? to identify God's will in a situation based on the Law, like the prophetess Huldah? or...sacrifice an animal..? lol

And the reason why I am emphasizing Old Testament functions is to get a firm foundation/definition. Because by the time we get to the New Testament, the royal priesthood (not the Levitical one), mentioned in Peter's epistles, is offering spiritual sacrifices; that could lead to some unstable interpretations (that women are not suppose to pray or do good deeds).

The function of the spiritual priesthood:

• 1 Peter 2:5 (NIV)
  
  5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. 1 Peter 2:5 Or into a temple of the Spirit

Examples of spiritual sacrifices, in contrast to just animal sacrifices:

• Psalm 141:2 (NIV)
  
  2 May my prayer be set before you like incense;
      may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice.
  
  
• Hosea 14:2 (NIV)
  
  2 Take words with you
      and return to the Lord.
  Say to him:
      “Forgive all our sins
  and receive us graciously,
      that we may offer the fruit of our lips.[a]
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. Hosea 14:2 Or offer our lips as sacrifices of bulls
  
  
• Hebrews 13:15 (NIV)
  
  15 Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name.
  
  
• Acts 10:4 (NIV)
  
  4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.
  
  The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.

...spiritual sacrifices were offered in the Old Testament as well, not just animal sacrifices, but spiritual ones (clearly, because I quoted from the Psalms and Hosea). Women weren't forbidden from doing that, just from offering animals / blood sacrifices.

Hannah, for example,

• 1 Samuel 1:9-13 (NIV)
  
  9 Once when they had finished eating and drinking in Shiloh, Hannah stood up. Now Eli the priest was sitting on his chair by the doorpost of the Lord’s house. 10 In her deep anguish Hannah prayed to the Lord, weeping bitterly. 11 And she made a vow, saying, “Lord Almighty, if you will only look on your servant’s misery and remember me, and not forget your servant but give her a son, then I will give him to the Lord for all the days of his life, and no razor will ever be used on his head.”
  
  12 As she kept on praying to the Lord, Eli observed her mouth. 13 Hannah was praying in her heart, and her lips were moving but her voice was not heard. Eli thought she was drunk

And the spiritual priesthood in Christ specifically offers spiritual sacrifices. We can't offer animal sacrifices because we're not descendants of Aaron nor male, nor are we in Jerusalem.

Is the "male-only" priests role of the Levitical priesthood the role that this article is referring to about women's ordination? because if so, that would only apply to offering animal / blood sacrifices, cooking the bread on the sabbath, and keeping the lamps of the temple lit (although the ten virgins, who are female, have to keep their own lamps lit). Or is this article talking about the spiritual priesthood? the latter of which, I don't see how sex plays a role... since they only offer spiritual sacrifices, and both men and women pray—albeit differently—otherwise they dishonor their head (men dishonor Jesus and married women dishonor their husband).

• 1 Corinthians 11:3-6 (NIV)
  
  3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,[a]and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. 1 Corinthians 11:3 Or of the wife is her husband

...and both do good deeds.

An example of a woman known for her good deeds:

• Acts 9:36 (NIV)
  
  36 In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (in Greek her name is Dorcas); she was always doing good and helping the poor.

So, both pray, both offer spiritual sacrifices, in the spiritual priesthood. Clearly, when the Levitical priesthood will be up and running in the third temple / Ezekiel's temple to come, there can only be males operating as priests. Women cannot offer animal sacrifices. But there is no Levitical priesthood outside of Jerusalem. So what are women doing in Christian churches, today, that is going contrary to the spiritual priesthood?

What the women mentioned in the article above are guilty of—big time—is going contrary to the Law, like many men do, but is their ordination in the spiritual priesthood the act of disobedience? what are the functions of the spiritual priesthood? I would understand if this were the Levitical priesthood that they were trying to be ordained into. That's unacceptable. For one, they're not a descendant of Aaron and second, they're not male. To try and be a Levitical priest despite not meeting both of those qualifications—descendant of Aaron and a male—is a sin. But what command, of the Father, are they violating merely for offering spiritual sacrifices (assuming that is even the issue here)? and if offering spiritual sacrifices is not the issue, then this is not really an issue about the spiritual priesthood (priests offer sacrifices). But this is about some churchy definitions as opposed to biblical definition. If they were offering animal sacrifices, I could see the violation, but spiritual sacrifices? Because that is what the royal priesthood does—offers spiritual sacrifices through Jesus Christ. And women do offer, as obedient and righteous examples in scripture, praise, prayer and good deeds too.

What we need to reach is a clear, biblical, definition of the "priest" role described in the spiritual priesthood. Assuming I didn't just provide it. Whatever it is, it does not prohibit that women can operate in prophetic and shepherd roles, because women operating in prophetic and shepherd roles in the Old Testament didn't violate the priesthood in the Old Testament (neither Melchizedek's nor Levi's), so they wouldn't violate the priesthood (neither Melchizedek's nor Levi's) in the New Testament either. And also identify, what, if anything, is leaven of the Pharisees (tradition that nullifies the Commands of God) that is present on the topic of the spiritual priesthood.

Again, I am at a loss for what this "ordaining of women" is talking about. question

[That said, I'm clear on everything else he's describing]

edit: btw, in case this is about 1 Timothy 2:11-13...

• 1 Timothy 2:11-13 (NIV)
  
  11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
  
  Footnotes:
  
  a. 1 Timothy 2:11 Or wife; also in verse 12
  b. 1 Timothy 2:12 Or over her husband

This isn't a blanket statement. Wives must submit to the authority of their husband—thus not assume authority over her husband or be the one teaching him—because he serves as the visual representation of the head in the relationship. We don't tell Jesus what to do, Jesus tells us (his body) what to do. We don't teach Jesus what to do, he teaches us. And we must honor the roles of that marriage. If she is fatherless, and without husband, a woman's head is Jesus, is it not? And the head and his body can teach other individuals:

• Acts 18:26 (NIV)
  
  26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.

Priscilla was involved too in the teaching. Is the implication that single women can't teach / correct the male sex ever, on anything? That's not what the verse is addressing. It's addressing married couples and how they relate to one another—not people outside of their body/relationship.