The 11 Elements of Liberal Christianity: A Conservative’s Friendly Critique

Summary: With liberal Christianity in sharp decline, a new book seeks to define its tenets and rehabilitate its negative image. But the 11 principles of liberal orthodoxy are easily affirmed by many religious conservatives, including myself. What gives? It’s a theological motte-and-bailey argument.

imageInfluential Christian author Scot McKnight writes about the Eleven Elements of Liberal Orthodoxy, citing a new book by Michael Langford, The Tradition of Liberal Theology, which defines tenets of liberal Christianity.

Langford enumerates 11 core principles of liberal orthodoxy:

  1. A use of the Bible that is not always literal.
  2. Reason and revelation are in harmony.
  3. A non-legalist account of redemption.
  4. The possibility of salvation outside a narrow path.
  5. Toleration.
  6. Original sin, but not original guilt.
  7. Belief in free will.
  8. A view of providence that respects the integrity of the natural order.
  9. The joint need of faith and works.
  10. A minimal number of basic teachings.
  11. A range of acceptable lifestyles.

As a conservative religious person, I was surprised to discover that I affirm nearly all of these. Some examples:

Literal Bible: The Bible is not always literal. Books of poetry, for example, are especially non-literal. Psalm 19 speaks of God pitching a tent for the sun, and like a championship runner, the sun runs its race through the sky, speaking its words to all living things. This is clearly not literal; it’s poetic. And I know of no conservative religious person who believes every word of the Bible is literal.

Undoubtedly conservatives and liberals disagree how much of the Bible is literal, but the difference is not binary.

Reason: We conservatives don’t believe human reason is fundamentally in opposition to divine revelation. We only caution complete reliance on human reason; “lean not on your own understanding.” Human reason is mutable and ever-changing, and the human propensity for evil can produce a kind of reason leading away from God.

Salvation outside a narrow path: OK, admittedly most conservative religious are narrow in their view of who God saves. (“Everyone is going to hell, except me [and my denomination]”). I’ve argued the opposite for years: God saves whom He will save. Evangelicals are not the arbiters of eternal life (God is), and final judgment hasn’t yet been pronounced (it won’t be until the end of the age.)

So, will God save the boy in the remote island who never heard of God? Will he save the unborn child killed in the womb? Will he save the secular Holocaust survivor? My answer is that the Judge of the Earth will do what’s right. God’s path is narrow, but His mercy is exceedingly broad.

While many conservatives differ with liberal theologians on this issue, I find some common ground.

Faith and works: I have been an avid influencer towards this in conservative religious circles: the all-grace, do-nothing gospel produces ineffective disciples of Jesus and runs counter to the gospels. It’s not limited to me; the Messianic congregations and Churches near me are likewise doing tangible works in Messiah’s name: volunteering at Loaves & Fishes, raising money for charity, taking shifts at women’s shelters, running soup kitchens, volunteering at Feed My Starving Children. I see it. My congregation has done it. Conservatives are practicing faith and works.

I think it is a dying minority of conservatives who are grace-only. It is dying because its disciples are not effective.

A minimal number of basic teachings: We conservatives are not overly loaded with basic doctrines, are we? I find Evangelicals to often have utterly barebones core teachings; usually a variation of, “Believe in Jesus so that you will be saved and live forever with God.” Conservatives have more teachings we consider important – but fundamentals? It’s minimal.

As I read these 11 principles, I found myself agreeing with almost all of them.

Why are religious liberals and conservatives so far apart, then, if we basically agree on a bunch of important things?

A real divide

A few years ago, a liberal Presbyterian minister visited my congregation. I happened to be teaching that day. The minister came up to me after the service and she said, “You know, I often have to remind my congregation, ‘God loves all people – even Republicans.’” I laughed, and replied that I have tell my conservative congregation the same thing – only with regards to Democrats!

And I think that little story sums up liberal/conservative differences: we so oppose the other side, imagining the other side so heretical they must be on the outs with God.

Longford’s own definitions of liberalism asserts that the liberal orthodox are “born again” – a defense stated almost certainly because of conservative assertions to the contrary. (In Evangelical circles, if you are not born again, you are headed for hell.)

Turning the tables, Langford says conservatives are irrational (rejecting rational thought and intellectualism) and tend to be fanatical. (As a religious conservative, I had to both laugh and acknowledge some truth in that!)

Meanwhile, we conservatives wonder how it is that liberal congregations can even exist.

What good is a religion if you don’t follow its rules? Why call yourself a follower of God if you don’t adhere to what God says (about sin, lifestyles, sexuality, abortion, ...). We conservatives see in liberal churches such an extreme focus on tolerance, God’s people there are no longer ruled by God, but by the whims of godless culture. Are there theological “lines in the sand” in liberal Christianity? From our view over here, it seems everything is negotiable.

To conservatives, liberal churches are nearly indistinguishable from secular culture.

Fueling our speculation, liberal Christianity appears to be shrinking and dying:

Mainline Protestants (those in the United Methodist Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America [ELCA], Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church [U.S.A.], American Baptist Churches, United Church of Christ [UCC], and The Christian Church [Disciples of Christ]) have fared poorly in recent decades. While Christianity overall is not dying in America, Mainline Protestantism is getting closer. According to the GSS, 28% of Americans identified with a mainline church in 1972. By 2014, that number had dropped to 12.2%.

A recent report from the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) corroborates this trend. The report looked at church statistics from 2002 to 2013. The denomination reported net membership losses each year. In 2002, the denomination shrank by 41,812 members. This number peaked in 2012 when they reported a net loss of 102,791.

Meanwhile, conservative religious groups are growing:

Evangelicals have remained steady for the most part, according to the polls. The GSS found that evangelical affiliation and reported church attendance peaked in the 1980s and 1990s, then declined, then rebounded. In 1972, 17.1% of Americans self-identified as evangelical. In 2014, this percentage increased to 22.7. Similarly, the number of Americans regularly attending church increased from 7.9% to 12.5%.

Theologically weak, soft or non-existent rules, shrinking membership – we see religious liberals as a dying breed that at best are highly deceived, and at worst leading people away from God.

The Liberal Motte and Bailey

So why is it that we conservatives can affirm most of these 11 principles of liberal orthodoxy?

It’s because these 11 principles are the motte of a motte-and-bailey argument.

imageNamed after medieval castles which contained a weak outer bailey but an defensible inner motte, motte-and-bailey arguments are ones in which a person makes a controversial statement (“The God of the Bible permits homosexuality” – the bailey), and then when critiqued, he retreats to a stronger position (“God loves all humanity” – the strong motte).

These 11 elements of liberal Christianity sound like the motte. They are general and obviously true. How could a religious person fail to affirm both faith and works as important?

The real problem is the liberal bailey.

Examples are in order:

Literal Bible

While it’s true that the Bible is not always literal, there are times when it is literal. The strong motte is that the Bible is not always literal. But the weak bailey says that much, if not all of the Bible, is ahistorical and fiction. The Exodus didn’t really happen. Jesus didn’t perform miracles. God didn’t literally create human beings. God didn’t actually speak to Abraham. The resurrection isn’t real. Moses probably hallucinated the burning bush. (One liberal theologian actually claims, for example, that the best explanation for the post-crucifixion disciples going from defeated band to bold proclaimers is that they shared a group hallucination of the risen Messiah. Oiy.)

We can abide that some of the Bible isn’t literal.

But if we say that core principles of faith are not real or literal – that the resurrection is airy spiritual idea rather than flesh and bones coming to life – well, that makes our faith out to be no more valuable than a children’s fairy tale.

Reason and revelation are in harmony

They can be. But who can claim an unchanging human reason? Not a few hundred years ago it was reasonable to put criminals to death by ripping their flesh off with red hot pincers.

Human reason is mutable and unreliable.

We conservatives can abide the motte that reason need not be contrary to divine revelation, but we cannot accept the exaltation of human reason to the divine unchanging standards. It can lead to increased human pride that challenges God. (Indeed, much of modern science has been fueled by the atheistic thought that with human ingenuity, all things are possible.)

This liberal principle has been abused too often. It results in people throwing out all religion and become atheists; human reason is exalted against or above divine revelation.

This produces anemic communities of faith.

The possibility of salvation outside a narrow path

Yes, perhaps there will be more people in God’s kingdom than what any person might imagine. That again is the strong liberal motte.

But the weak bailey is that liberal Christianity – and even liberal Judaism for that matter – tends to say all paths are valid. Everyone is welcomed, and any condemnation of sin, most any standard for living is frowned upon as legalistic.

God’s mercy is indeed great, but God is a God of both mercy and justice. Compassion and standards. It seems that liberal Christianity has forgotten the latter.


The strong motte is that we should be tolerant of those who are not living in the ideal standard God set. On this we conservatives agree.

The bailey is that tolerance means acceptance. Tolerance has been redefined from, “Tolerating a bad behavior” to “Accepting the bad behavior as good.”

The Bible does speak of tolerance, but it’s in the context of God’s tolerance for sinful people so that they repent of the thing He’s tolerating:

But you, O man—judging those practicing such things yet doing the same—do you suppose that you will escape the judgment of God?  Or do you belittle the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience—not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?

-Romans 2

Tolerate and welcome people where they are, yes.

But leave them unchanged and remaining in sin? No.

A view of providence that respects the integrity of the natural order

This means things like the parting of the Red Sea happened because of an earthquake or other natural event.

They might be right; maybe miracles are done within the framework of the natural rules of the universe.

But…why limit God? Imagine there is this software engineer, a computer programmer, who designed a complex system. When he makes changes to that system, when he intervenes, he only does so within the rules of the complex system he designs. He doesn’t write new code – he just changes the values of the the variables to make the desired event occur."

I mean, why?

I think the liberal answer is, “Because our message about miracles are more credible to the unbelieving world.”

We conservatives do not believe that a sufficient reason to limit God’s intervention in human affairs. Will unbelievers flock to our churches, or be swayed more towards faith, if we tell them miracles are actually natural events? I’m very skeptical of that claim, and I think most conservatives are too.

The joint need of faith and works

 We agree on this motte – and I’d be glad to work with liberals to do good works in unison! But the bailey here, I suspect, has less to do with good works and more to do with politics.

How many liberal Christians were cheering on the student walk-outs to protest the 2nd Amendment? How many liberal Jews take the tikkun olam motto to mean opposition to the Republican party?

On my side of the fence, it feels like the liberal “good works” too often means, “Doing what leftist politicians say we should do.” (And, if your values align virtually in perfection with one political party, I suggest you are driven not by your faith but by partisan politics.)

If liberals want to feed the poor, I’m there. If you want to visit the sick, I’m with you. If you want to visit people who are suffering, let’s do it together.

A minimal number of basic teachings

Yes, let’s not overcomplicate matters. The gospel is quite simple, after all. And the Torah itself is concerned primarily with loving God and loving neighbor.

But so often, this devolves from “a minimal number of teachings” to “zero fundamental teachings.”

If we throw out the reality of the resurrection, what faith do Christians and Jews really have? It’s no wonder Paul said it was a fundamental matter – if there is no real resurrection, then Messiah didn’t raise either, and our faith is in vain. Likewise Maimonides encoded in his 13 principles of Jewish faith that the dead will raise; it’s a fundamental.

If we throw out these fundamental principles and say they are not basic, plain teachings, there is little religious ground left to stand on. It becomes purely emotional and feelings-based, and that does not produce strong, vibrant religious communities.

A range of acceptable lifestyles

This is the biggest whopper of all the motte-and-bailey arguments.

The strong motte here is that God accepts people where they are, and so should we. “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

But the reality is the bailey: to liberal Christianity, virtually all lifestyles are acceptable. Gay Christians. Transgender Christians. Christians having sex outside of marriage.

Is adultery permitted? It wouldn’t surprise me.

“Acceptable lifestyles” to God? Those are already defined in the Bible. But liberal Christianity and liberal Judaism discards those rules about lifestyles. So ultimately, most anything goes.

If the Law doesn’t matter, the Lawgiver doesn’t matter. This again produces lawless lifestyles that are not governed by personal discipline over one’s desires, but by freedom to be slaves to our own vices. This kind of religion doesn’t change people. This kind of religion has little impact on the daily lives of people – there are virtually no rules to govern them, after all.

Such a religion cannot survive. And if statistics are to be believed, liberal Christianity is not surviving, and liberal Judaism is not thriving in the place it matters most: Israel.

The 11 Elements of Liberal Christianity are nice values. As a religious conservative, I can affirm many of them. But there’s a chasm between what these elementary principles and the state of how people are living in and leaving liberal Christianity.

What Technology, Science, And Medicine Can’t Solve


The Reverend Billy Graham passed away this morning at the age of 99. I think the world has lost its greatest servant of God.

Even for the non-religious, Graham is a remarkable figure. He spoke to more people than any other human being who has ever lived, reaching over 42 million people in person, preaching the message of the Jewish Messiah in 105 nations. He reached many kinds of people in different walks of life.

Graham reached me in the strangest of places.

Several years ago he gave a fantastic TED talk to a group of Silicon Valley technologists:

As a technologist myself, I was first surprised to see a preacher giving a TED talk! TED talks are for the technological, the futurists, the skeptics, the thinkers – what could an old fashioned preacher possibly say to this audience?

I was cringing before the video began, figuring it would be cliché old-hat religious pitches.

But Graham’s short 15 minutes on stage was something else entirely.

He first put me at ease with his gentleness and honesty. He acknowledged and praised the wonders of technology and modern medicine – noting how he personally benefited from science and medicine. Of the even-greater potential for technology and medicine, Graham says, “I would like to live in that [great future] age, but I won’t, because I’m 80 years old, and my time here is brief.”

Graham spoke a truth that was hard for me to swallow. In his gentle way, Graham broke a delusion that, I think, holds sway over many lovers of technology, science, and medicine. A delusion that has often held sway over my own thinking.

That truth? He showed that technology won’t – indeed, can’t –  address the worst problem humanity has. Science, technology, and medicine – for all it’s wonders and good – cannot address the human heart and its propensity for evil.

We technologists don’t like to hear this. We self-delude ourselves into thinking technology will solve virtually every problem humanity has.

For example, Google co-founder Larry Page (#9 on the world’s wealthiest people) has funded a company intended to solve death and make humans live indefinitely.

Microsoft’s Bill Gates is eradicating the last holdouts of polio around the world, and is tackling malaria next.

Amazon’s Jeff Bezos has made virtually every product available to any person with a tap of a finger.

SpaceX’s Elon Musk is bringing humanity to Mars and beyond.

Tech startups aim to disrupt nearly every industry, making life better and easier and more convenient.

Modern medicine has solved numerous diseases through antibiotics, vaccines, and new novel treatments for everything from cancer to heart disease to AIDS.

Science has helped us understand germ theory, the need for sanitation, decreasing illness and containing plagues that would otherwise kill thousands.

Science has shown us how to produce bigger crops yields, reduce draughts and prevent famines through crop irrigation, pest control, automated farming, genetic editing, and more.

The most optimistic thinkers among us believe that science-based medicine will eventually cure nearly every human disease.

And they might be right.

But you know what cannot be cured? The human heart and its bent towards evil.

Graham argues,

“Have you ever thought about what a contradiction we are?

On one hand we can probe the deepest secrets of the universe, we dramatically push back the frontiers of technology…we’ve seen under the sea, three miles down, we’ve seen hundreds of billions of years out into the future [through cosmology].

But on the other hand, something is wrong… [at this moment] we are ready to go to war with Iraq. What’s wrong with this? Why is it there are wars in every generation, in every part of the world?… We can’t get along with other people, even in our own families? We find ourselves in the paralyzing grip of self-destructive habits we can’t break. Racism, injustice, violence sweep our world, leaving a tragic harvest of heartbreak and death. And even the most sophisticated among us seem powerless to break this cycle.”

Why is it that no matter how advanced we are – and what wonders of science and technology and medicine we’ve achieved! – why is it that we’re so evil? Even increasingly so.

Why is it that in the 20th century – in which we saw the invention of the car, human flight, the computer, the internet, the eradication of polio and smallpox and a host of other diseases – why is it that we also experienced the greatest evils the world has ever seen in Nazi Germany and the brutal Communist dictatorships responsible for the death of over 100 million people in a single century?

Where is the disruptive tech startup that fixes human evil?

Where is the vaccine that prevents human wickedness?

(Or, on a smaller scale but more recent headline, why is it that 70% of the worst domestic shootings in US history occurred in the last 20 years, most recently last week’s Florida school shooting which killed 17 kids?)

Why isn’t technology addressing that?

Where is the disruptive technology startup that fixes human evil?

Where is the vaccine that prevents human wickedness?

All silly questions of course: science, technology, and medicine do not and cannot address the worst problem humanity has: the propensity for evil. It doesn’t even attempt to.

“I would like to see Oracle [the technology company] or some other technological geniuses work on this problem: how do we change man so that he doesn’t lie and cheat. So that our newspapers aren’t filled with stories of fraud in business, labor, athletics, and wherever else.”

Graham notes the real origin of the problem, and says that it cannot be addressed by science, technology, medicine, or any other future innovation.

“The Bible says it’s within our heart, without our souls. Our problem is, we’re separated from our Creator, who we call God. And we need to have our souls restored: something only God can do. ‘Out of the heart comes evil thoughts.’ Murder. Sexual immorality. Theft. False testimony. Slander.”

But he doesn’t just quote the Bible to this secular rationalist audience. He cites the rationalist’ own chief prophet, the atheist Bertrand Russell,

“The British philosopher Bertrand Russell, who was not a religious man, said, ‘It’s in our hearts that the evil lies, and it’s from our hearts that it must be plucked out.’”

I wonder how many of today’s rationalists could even agree with Russell’s statement about evil. I suspect very few could without apologizing and redefining terms. In my experience, many rationalists to try to muddy the waters by claiming there is no real evil, no real good. (One prominent atheist author stated that without a Commander, the commandment is useless; without a Lawgiver there is no real law, and morality is subjective.)

Graham mentioned his meeting Albert Einstein, and how Einstein too saw the problem of real evil:

“Einstein made this statement: ‘It’s easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.’”

He shows that beneficial technology can be used for remarkable evil. Technology can be twisted to into something corrupting. Graham noted the early internet and viruses as examples – 20 years later, I’d say it’s worse than that: I am thinking of internet porn, the objectification of women enabled by it (and the corresponding bad fruit of rampant sexual misconduct we are experiencing today), blackmailing ransomware attacks, digital theft, online harassment that has caused people to commit suicide, and the nasty verbal abuse enabled by the anonymity of the web.

Technology is great, but can be used for great evil, Graham says.

The problem is not technology. The problem is the person using it. King David said he knew the depths of his own soul. He couldn’t free himself from his personal problems and evils that included even murder and adultery.

Graham says our heart and our soul is something not measured by science, not addressed by medicine, left untouched by technology.

“And it yearns for God, and something more than technology. And it’s that part of you that yearns for meaning in life, and it seeks for something beyond this life. It’s part of you that yearns for God.”

It was Graham’s yearning for God that led him, in the early 1950s, to desegregate the churches and assemblies where he was speaking. At one notable event, Graham himself walked down and cut the ropes segregating the white and black sections of the audience, and told the people that Christianity is neither white nor black, and that the Messiah is Lord over all.

Graham’s own death today, remarkably, revealed the hearts of people, some for good, some for evil.

While past US Presidents praised Graham, others showed utter contempt:

Why the hate? Evil hearts.

Some folks, particularly secular leftists, felt condemned by Billy Graham’s Bible-based preaching. While Graham boldly preached in the 1950s that “there is no Biblical basis for segregation”, it’s with that same boldness he consistently spoke against sexual immorality as defined by the same Bible: adultery, promiscuity, and homosexuality. For this, some on the left demonize him and celebrate his death today.

Celebrating the death of a righteous man is, well, wicked.

This is the same wickedness of the human heart that is left unaddressed by science, technology, and medicine.

What addresses human evil?

God gives a tangible way to solve evil. It’s not easy. It’s not glamorous.

Evil – the problem unaddressed by science, technology, and medicine – is addressed by God in this way: each person must acknowledge the evil he’s done.

That takes humility. Acknowledging your own faults before God and people. It’s good for the soul.

Then, that person asks for forgiveness – both of God and the persons wronged.

Then, that person makes restitution – both with God and the persons wronged.

Then, that person – now with a softened and humble attitude – changes his behavior. The person is transformed from a wicked person into someone who reflects God’s own character. An angry and abusive alcoholic becomes a gentle, soft-spoken and clear-minded light for humanity. A drug addict turns his life around. A man turns a corner in his life.

We’ve seen this happen a thousand times; it actually works. It’s King David’s repentance. It’s Paul life-turn-around. It’s the message of Jesus and the Hebrew Prophets. It’s a cure for the worst problem humanity has.

And Billy Graham preached that message his whole life. To paupers and Presidents. And to everyone that would listen.

"Someday you will read or hear that Billy Graham is dead. Don’t you believe a word of it. I shall be more alive than I am now. I will just have changed my address. I will have gone into the presence of God."

-Billy Graham

The world has lost – for now! – one of its greatest servants of God. His hope in the resurrection – a hope that Jews and Christians share – will one day be realized in full for the great Reverend Billy Graham. May his memory be a blessing for you as it is for me, fine Kineti reader.

The Pro-Torah, Pro-Israel, Pro-Jewish Apostle Paul


I'm blown away by Paul’s theological thunder in Romans 2. 

In it, Paul says:

  • God judges people by their actions; it's not enough to believe. (vs. 6)
  • Jewish people have divine priority, both in blessing and judgment (vs 9, 10)
  • People who practice the Torah will be justified by God. (vs. 13)
  • The Torah is the embodiment of truth (vs. 20)
  • Breaking the Torah shames God's reputation (vss. 23, 4)
  • Non-Jews who keep the Torah are better than Jews who break it.(vs. 27)
  • God's people Israel includes non-Jews who keep the Torah. (vss. 27, 28, 29)
  • Authentic Jews are Jews who do what the Torah says and walk in a path of integrity. (vss. 28, 29)

In the church, we so often get laser focused on Paul's warning against religious Torah hypocrisy (vss. 21-24), that we forget he's still pro-Torah.

In Paul’s usage here, “Torah” doesn’t especially mean things like kosher and tzitzit and what we often think of Torah. We know this because his argument is that gentiles who never heard of the Torah do by nature the things of the Torah. (And gentiles without Torah aren’t wearing tzitzit!)

So, what is he talking about when he says gentiles keeping Torah? He’s talking about the basic ethical morality – Torah basics – that are ingrained in every human being. Knowing that murder, rape, cruelty, theft, etc. are wicked, despite never having read the Torah.

These Torah basics are inscribed by God on the human conscience. Non-Jews who keep them are better than Jews who break them. (Hence, Jews like Harvey Weinstein are not destined for God’s Kingdom – they know Torah but actively break it without remorse or repentance. Meanwhile, non-Jews who love God and love their neighbor will see God.

Is this an anti-Jewish message? Hardly. Paul comes to the climax of his argument in verses 28 and 29, saying that the authentic Jewish person is one who keeps the commandments of God. Talks and walks Torah.

Prolific Jewish Bible scholar and author Mark Nanos – himself a Reform Jew – argues that passages like Paul’s letter to Rome demonstrate that Paul wasn’t outside of Judaism and Jewish thought, but rather, he was a Jew within Judaism promoting a new kind of Messiah-based Apostolic Judaism:

image“I remain focused on investigating the implications for Jewish-Christian relations of my reading of Paul as a Torah-observant Jew founding Jewish subgroup communities. These "assemblies [ekklesias]" were attracting some non-Jews, but nevertheless dedicated to practicing and promoting Judaism for non-Jews as well as Jews. In other words, I propose to that we should be investigating Paul's Judaism in the intra-communal context of other Jewish groups, including other groups of followers of Jesus, which together with Paul's groups represented a coalition we might describe as Apostolic Judaism.

Nanos may be on to something. Paul reads to me as a pro-Torah, pro-Jewish, pro-Israel apostle of Jesus. Maybe Nanos is right; maybe Paul has been misread in the Christian world for a great deal of time, maybe even going as far to say Paul was promoting a kind of Judaism for Jews and non-Jews.

Returning to Paul’s Jewish context changes the way we read him.