Liberal and conservative theology.

If you’ve heard of theology, you’ve likely heard of “conservative theology” and “liberal theology”; of “conservative theologians” and “liberal theologians.” And you might presume you know what those mean: A conservative theologian is probably one who respects tradition and the bible, and a liberal theologian doesn’t.

Roughly that’d be accurate. Very, very roughly.

Properly, liberal theology is the same thing as unitarianism or deism: There’s one God, Jesus isn’t him, miracles don’t happen and never did and are myths (and therefore the bible is pure mythology), and those who consider themselves “spiritual” have gotta find a way to recontextualize Christianity for the present day. So, how you develop liberal theology is by following the present day’s lead: What do the people of today need to hear? What’s gonna make ’em feel spiritual, and feel good about themselves?

But how Christians typically use the term “liberal theology” is simply as a pejorative. Doesn’t always even mean liberal! An arch-conservative Jehovah’s Witness theologian, who interprets bible so strictly it gets ridiculous, who thinks God’s gonna smite everyone in the world but him, would be called a “liberal theologian” simply because he’s heretic. Liberal bad, conservative good.

Everybody’s kinda decided where they are on the theological spectrum. So, some woman might consider herself a theological conservative because she upholds the bible’s authority so very, very much. And most of us would agree, ’cause believing the bible is an infallible theological authority, is what we’d consider theological conservatism. But another person, a sexist man, might insist absolutely not; she’s obviously a liberal theologian. Why’s this? Well, she’s a woman. He insists the practice of doing and teaching theology is only for men, ’cause only men can teach, ’cause bible says so. She’s defying bible; ergo she doesn’t consider it an infallible theological authority, ergo she’s a liberal theologian.

I likewise consider the bible an infallible theological authority. I’d call myself a conservative theologian for this reason. But of course I’ve been called a liberal theologian—for a number of reasons. I believe the scriptures fully support women in Christian leadership, but sexists insist they fully don’t, and I must be twisting them to come to my conclusions; ergo I’m a liberal theologian.

Or I’ve expressed political views which they consider liberal. I was raised by political conservatives (and they’re still conservative), but as I became an adult and followed Jesus further, I chose to adopt a few “liberal” views because I think they’re consistent with Jesus’s teachings, and my former conservative views are not. I’m certainly not “liberal” across the board, ’cause I think my conservative views are likewise consistent with Jesus. It’s a hodgepodge of positions. But to political conservatives, any political heresy—for that’s what civic idolaters consider it—automatically makes me a “liberal theologian,” and untrustworthy when I discuss religion. Their partisanship takes priority over their Christianity. Or mine. Or yours.

Or it’s simply because I’m Pentecostal and they’re not; or because I uphold the ancient Christian creeds and they don’t. And you’d think upholding the creeds would make me considered more conservative than they, not less. But they covet the label “conservative,” and if I’m in any way wrong in their eyes, I get the label “liberal.” That’s my punishment for believing things they don’t.

So yeah—in practice “liberal theologian” means “more liberal than me,” and of course wrong and heretic.

What we oughta see in conservative theology.

Again, “liberal theology” has an actual meaning: It’s unitarianism. Doesn’t matter if it’s part of the Unitarian Universalist Church or not; when theologians believe as unitarians do, and insist Jesus isn’t God and the bible’s pure myth, and use all the traditional Christian terms to mean something new and weird, that’s actual liberal theology.

Conservative theology, in contrast, is upholding tradition and bible. By tradition I mean the teachings of the first Christians, also called “the early church” and “ancient Christianity.” Those teachings are the New Testament. There are other teachings by other ancient Christians—and they were led by the same Holy Spirit who leads us, so we can’t dismiss their teachings entirely. But just because they lived closer to Jesus’s day than they do to ours, doesn’t always mean they know Jesus any better than we do. They likewise had prejudices, cultural biases, and made assumptions they shouldn’t’ve about what the scriptures mean. They were fallible. So take ’em with a grain of salt.

Oh, and by tradition I also mean the ancient Christian creeds. The ancient Christians did figure out orthodox Christianity—the beliefs which accurately describe the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Christianity—so let’s hold to them.

Otherwise, bible. Which needs to be studied in its proper historical and grammatical context, lest we read our prejudices, cultural biases, and assumptions into it, same as the ancient Christians did. What did God’s prophets and Jesus’s apostles intend to teach us? What does God want us to learn from it?

And lastly, consistency: What we find in the bible, what we learn from tradition and our fellow Christians, what we hear from the Holy Spirit directly and from today’s Christian prophets, oughta be consistent. The Holy Spirit inspired the bible, and he’s not gonna oppose it. He may totally upend the way we understand it, and we may go through a dozen faith crises. But our new understandings are likewise not gonna be inconsistent with Christianity as Jesus first taught it. It’s all gonna work together—when we’re studying it correctly.

Those with other definitions of tradition.

Because a proper study of God is gonna inevitably lead to interactions with God, and he’s gonna challenge us to go a lot deeper in our relationships with him than we ever expected, there are a lot of Christians who are terrified of theology. They don’t wanna be challenged. They don’t wanna change. They’re happy as-is.

And the safest way to not change at all, is to redefine theology as “the study of Christian doctrine.” Not the study of God himself; the study of theological statements, which their churches have made as part of their faith statements. Memorize these beliefs, embrace them as your beliefs too, and that’s theology: Now you understand everything you need to know about God. Now, don’t push anything any further!

True, when you study theology, you’re gonna read about all sorts of Christian doctrines. Some you’ll accept, ’cause they totally make sense. Some you’ll struggle with, ’cause they don’t. You’ll be tempted, even encouraged, to just turn off your brain and accept them, ’cause supposedly that’s faith. No it’s not. Faith means trusting Jesus, not a system of doctrines which may accurately reflect Jesus… but may not.

Be wary of any Christian who tries to swap your relationship with Jesus, with a relationship with Christian doctrines. Remember, you’re saved by God’s grace, not “faith,” by which they mean orthodoxy. If you honestly have questions and doubts, God’s gonna help you through them—even though we Christians may not be much help, especially those Christians who never thought their own theology through, and simply swallowed doctrines whole.

Feel free to ask questions. Ask tough questions. Ask tough questions. Ask thousands of tough questions. Keep asking ’em even after you think you understand—just in case you don’t. God doesn’t mind questions; shallow people and authoritarians do. Feel free to go all postmodern on such people. Go get those answers!