"Liberal" v. "Fundamentalist" Christianity:

There is a big internal battle going on in Christian Churches in Western culture between the "liberals" & the "fundamentalists." I'd like to explore the distinction between these two variations of the Christian faith because I think more understanding is needed.

First off, it's very easy to see this battle in the larger context of modern politics, as a battle between the left & the right, with fundamentalists representing the traditional conservative forces, i.e. Republican voters, and the liberal Christians representing leftist Democrats who profess to be Christians. There certainly is a kernel of truth in this analysis. Christian fundamentalism does seem to be closely connected with religious conservatism, i.e. the religious right, who are, in turn, a big part of the Republican party's base (although it hasn't always been that way). And if one is a pro-choice, pro-gay rights card carry Democratic voter and also calls him or herself a "practicing Christian," it's unlikely that he or she will be of the fundamentalist variety. Folks like Peter Jennings, John Shelby Spong, Howard Dean, Phil Donahue, Garry Wills and countless others come to mind as examples of professing Christians who ascribe to this "liberal" version of the faith and also happen to be modern leftist liberals in their political inclinations. And "social justice theology," which is basically a leftist political ideology, steeped in Marxist economics, does seem to have pervaded some of the teachings of "liberal Christian" churches (as well as segments within the Catholic Church -- see liberation theology).

But the story is not so cut and dry. It's my contention that "liberal Christianity" ought not to be automatically conflated with modern liberal, i.e. leftist politics, even though there is a significant overlap between the two. In fact, it is not at all inconsistent for someone whose politics tend to the conservative side of the spectrum to nonetheless practice a form of Christianity that reasonably could be categorized as "liberal." (And even though I am not going to go into as much detail on this point, one can also be an evangelical or fundamentalist and have a fairly "social conservative" personal worldview, but still be more politically at home with leftist Democrats. I think Jimmy Carter is a good example of this. In fact, polls show that at least *some* significant minority percentage of self-identified evangelicals/fundamentalists [and yes, I know there is a difference between these two varieties of the faith] voted for Bill Clinton and then Al Gore and other Democrats in those respective elections).

Let us define the difference between a "fundamentalist" as opposed to a "liberal" version of the faith. Fundamentalists interpret the Bible literally. (With "Catholic," as opposed to Protestant fundamentalists, more of a focus may also be paid on dogmatically following official Church doctrine/teachings.) So if Leviticus says "a man shall not lie with a man..." or in story of Sodom & Gomorrah, that Lot's wife turned to salt..., fundamentalists believe that these things happened exactly as they are written. "Liberal" Christianity, on the other hand, posits that some scripture needs to be taken with a "grain of salt" so to speak, and that many of the things in the Bible really didn't happen in the way they were written, that perhaps such stories are better understood as metaphors as opposed to actually events. A liberal Christian might not believe that Lot's wife actually turned to salt or that two of every creature (that would be billions & billions of species) were put onto Noah's Ark and that God killed all humans save Noah & his family with the flood and on and on....

Now, I think we all know that there are many conservatives, social or not, who happen to be non-religious. But there are also many conservatives, again, social or not, who happen to be professing Christians, but not of the fundamentalist variety. And this makes sense; there are many who believe in a Deity and are conservative in their politics who nonetheless have a hard time taking the Bible literally. For instance, Bill O'Reilly, by no means a leftist, and with all of his talk about traditionalists v. secularists (coming down on the side of the traditionalists) is more of a "liberal" Christian than an Orthodox one, at least he is on some pretty important issues, particularly homosexuality. He has publicly stated that accepts homosexuals for who they are (gave an interview to the Advocate, a leading gay magazine), and really doesn't know whether being homosexual is immoral or not and leaves that up to God. When challenged with scriptural passages by an "ex-gay" now Fundamentalist, O'Reilly stated that he thinks many parts of the Bible, i.e., the story of Sodom & Gomorrah, Lot's wife turning to salt, really didn't occur, that they are just metaphors.

And there are others. In fact one of the most articulate and distinguished expositors of "liberal" Christianity, the Rev. Peter J. Gomes of Harvard University, is a card-carrying Republican and is conservative on many many issues (he's also gay). Not meaning to harp on conservative gay Christians who practice "liberal Christianity," but three other prominent figures, Bruce Bawer and Rich Tafel (former head of the LCR, and also a Christian minister), and Andrew Sullivan come to mind as examples of such. And I'm sure I can come up with examples of other heterosexual Republican conservative Christians whose Christian faith tends more towards the "liberal" as opposed to the "fundamentalist" side of things. I want to say Dick & Lynn Cheney (they fully accept their gay daughter; what are the chances that they take Leviticus literally?) -- and I'm probably correct. But then again, I want examples that don't tie into homosexuality. I'll come forth with some later.

There is an historical connection between political liberalism and liberal Christianity -- but that raises so many other issues that I will have to explore it in a subsequent post. Liberal Christianity is not new; it existed during the time of the Founding and some prominent founders qualified as "liberal Christians." But just as the "liberals" of today are different than the "liberals" of the Founding, "liberal Christians" of today also are distinguishable with the "liberal Christians" of the Founding. However, there is an important common ground between the two -- challenging traditional Orthodoxies and rejecting parts of scripture that don't comport with "reason" (back then, whether one believed in "the Trinity" was the classic line of demarcation between "liberal" and "Orthodox" Christians; the doctrine of the Trinity is a prime example of an orthodoxy that didn't comport with "reason.").