There is a blogversation going on about the merits of liberal Christianity. It started when apologist-turned-atheist John Loftus criticized liberals for not abandoning Christianity:
What I don’t get is how these critically honest scholars could come to these correct conclusions and still profess to be followers of Christ (i.e. Christians). I think anyone with intellectual honesty should jump ship like I have.
Liberal Christian James McGrath steps up and defends his brand of religion. AIGBusted piped in his thoughts (liberal Christianity is bankrupt).
Personally, I don’t have much of a problem with liberals. They tend to be more tolerant of nonbelievers than their more evangelical brethren. So I usually just let them be. The world would be a better place if people like Karen Armstrong or John Shelby Spong would replace Benedict XVI and Pat Robertson as spokespersons of the faith.
But I can relate to the atheists in their critiques. The thousand little nuances and complex wordplays ensure that the liberal God can never be understood rationally (and therefore cannot be refuted rationally). I mean, what’s with the impenetrable prose? Do I need to go to seminary to understand what Paul Tillich is talking about? Oy vey!
I’m currently reading Spong’s book Why Christianity Must Change or Die. It is both refreshing in its honest criticism of the author’s faith system, yet infuriating in that the alternative being offered is an amorphous blob of feelings and babble. Where’s the “meat”, Right Reverend?
Next up on my reading list is Richard Holloway. I hope his exposition of liberal faith would be more informative.
10 comments: