Today I read a great article on liberalism entitled "Air Conditioning Hell: How Liberalism Happens". It was written by Albert Mohler and can be accessed here. Dr. Mohler is well known for his role in helping bring the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) back from the brink of theological liberalism. Since Mohler was and is still a key figure in the battle against the devastating effects of liberalism, he knows a thing or two about what makes Christian liberalism tick. His article addresses the departure from a biblical view of hell by liberals and now even conservative evangelicals. In discussing liberalism's unbiblical view of hell, Dr. Mohler identifies a pattern that can be observed that leads to a slide into theological liberalism concerning any doctrine.
The article opens by speaking of the motivation behind liberalism. Contrary to what one would suppose, liberalism is not motivated by anti-Bible sentiments or even a belief in the orthodoxy of liberalism as opposed to fundamentalism. Dr. Mohler explains in his opening statements:
Dr. Mohler's article uses the doctrine of hell as a test case. In this post, I would like to take Mohler's ideas and substitute the doctrine of creation as described in Genesis 1. In other words, I would like to prove that any understanding of Genesis 1 other than the one derived from the plain meaning of the words of Genesis is motivated by the desire to save Christianity from appearing ridiculous to those steeped in evolutionary ideas.
The first step Dr. Mohler lists that leads to liberalism is this: "a doctrine simply falls from mention".[2] In other words, it just isn't talked about anymore from the pulpit or in church. This is true of the opening chapters of Genesis. They are seen as secondary and non-essential. To insist on a literal creation of everything in six real days is too divisive for the likes of some pastors. After all, why make a mountain out of a molehill? Therefore the creation account in Genesis is either entirely ignored or is skipped over as quickly as possible. Precious few pastors these days are willing to take a stand on the text of Genesis.
The second step on liberalism's slippery slope is that they revise a doctrine and retain it in a lesser form.[3] Again, we can see this done concerning the creation account in the Bible. Liberals want to hold onto God creating in some way. They haven't taken God out of the picture completely, but rather have Him involved in creation to some extent, just not creating literally, in six real days as described in the text of the Bible's first chapter. They substitute their lesser forms of creationism, i.e. theistic evolution, or progressive creation, etc.
A third step further down the liberalism road is described by Mohler. This step is taken when "a doctrine is subjected to a form of ridicule."[4] Perhaps no other doctrine of Scripture is under attack today more than biblical creationism. The plain understanding of the creation account in Genesis as being in six literal, consecutive days only a few thousand years ago is ridiculed just as vehemently within Christian circles as it is from non-Christians. Case in point; Pat Robertson's tirade against biblical creationists.
Mohler describes one final step: "a doctrine is reformulated to remove its intellectual and moral offensiveness".[5] Make no mistake, the world's scientists are greatly offended by the doctrine of biblical creation. They fanatically cling to evolution and will not allow the possibility that God created as described in Genesis. Liberals know this and seek to remake the Christian belief in God's creative work into something that is less offensive intellectually to secular man. After all, they argue, how can we share the Gospel with our lost friends if they are turned off by the Bible because they are offended intellectually by the Bible's account of origins?
Dr. Mohler's excellent article closes with a reminder:
One last quote from Dr. Mohler: "The lesson of theological liberalism is clear- embarrassment is the gateway drug for theological accommodation and denial. Be sure of this: it will not stop with the air conditioning of hell."[7] My friends, embarrassment for the plain meaning of the text of Genesis 1 leads to theological accommodation and denial.
NOTES:
[1]Albert Mohler, Air Conditioning of Hell: How Liberalism Happens, http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/01/26/air-conditioning-hell-how-liberalism-happens/, accessed on July 11, 2014.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
"Theological liberals do not intend to destroy Christianity, but to save it." and he continues, "Theological liberals are absolutely certain that Christianity must be saved... from itself." [1]The pattern towards liberalism is a slippery slope that leads to unbelief. Liberals start down this slope in a series of identifiable steps. Their motivation to take the first step is because they feel that a particular doctrine of Scripture is unacceptable to modern sensibilities. They seek to reinvent the offensive doctrine into something more palatable to the modern culture and thereby rid Christianity of its offensiveness. Once the offensive doctrine is reinvented, then Christianity will be saved from its stigma and modern man will readily embrace Christ.
Dr. Mohler's article uses the doctrine of hell as a test case. In this post, I would like to take Mohler's ideas and substitute the doctrine of creation as described in Genesis 1. In other words, I would like to prove that any understanding of Genesis 1 other than the one derived from the plain meaning of the words of Genesis is motivated by the desire to save Christianity from appearing ridiculous to those steeped in evolutionary ideas.
The first step Dr. Mohler lists that leads to liberalism is this: "a doctrine simply falls from mention".[2] In other words, it just isn't talked about anymore from the pulpit or in church. This is true of the opening chapters of Genesis. They are seen as secondary and non-essential. To insist on a literal creation of everything in six real days is too divisive for the likes of some pastors. After all, why make a mountain out of a molehill? Therefore the creation account in Genesis is either entirely ignored or is skipped over as quickly as possible. Precious few pastors these days are willing to take a stand on the text of Genesis.
The second step on liberalism's slippery slope is that they revise a doctrine and retain it in a lesser form.[3] Again, we can see this done concerning the creation account in the Bible. Liberals want to hold onto God creating in some way. They haven't taken God out of the picture completely, but rather have Him involved in creation to some extent, just not creating literally, in six real days as described in the text of the Bible's first chapter. They substitute their lesser forms of creationism, i.e. theistic evolution, or progressive creation, etc.
A third step further down the liberalism road is described by Mohler. This step is taken when "a doctrine is subjected to a form of ridicule."[4] Perhaps no other doctrine of Scripture is under attack today more than biblical creationism. The plain understanding of the creation account in Genesis as being in six literal, consecutive days only a few thousand years ago is ridiculed just as vehemently within Christian circles as it is from non-Christians. Case in point; Pat Robertson's tirade against biblical creationists.
Mohler describes one final step: "a doctrine is reformulated to remove its intellectual and moral offensiveness".[5] Make no mistake, the world's scientists are greatly offended by the doctrine of biblical creation. They fanatically cling to evolution and will not allow the possibility that God created as described in Genesis. Liberals know this and seek to remake the Christian belief in God's creative work into something that is less offensive intellectually to secular man. After all, they argue, how can we share the Gospel with our lost friends if they are turned off by the Bible because they are offended intellectually by the Bible's account of origins?
Dr. Mohler's excellent article closes with a reminder:
"Remember that the liberals and the modernists operated out of an apologetic motivation. They wanted to save Christianity as a relevant message in a modern world and to remove the odious obstacle of what were seen as repugnant and unnecessary doctrines."[6]This is true today with the doctrine of creation. In order to make the Bible more relevant, some are tempted to remove the doctrine of creation because it is an obstacle to unbelieving scientists. The Bible's first chapter, the only eye-witness account of the origin of the universe, is relegated to the status of an unnecessary doctrine. Many evangelical Christians who don't believe in a literal, six day creation will be offended by my next statement. Denial of the plain meaning of the text in Genesis 1 has all the hallmarks of theological liberalism. Please note: I am not saying that Pat Robertson or William Lane Craig are theological liberals. What I am saying is that their attitudes toward the plain meaning of Genesis show hallmarks of liberalism.
One last quote from Dr. Mohler: "The lesson of theological liberalism is clear- embarrassment is the gateway drug for theological accommodation and denial. Be sure of this: it will not stop with the air conditioning of hell."[7] My friends, embarrassment for the plain meaning of the text of Genesis 1 leads to theological accommodation and denial.
NOTES:
[1]Albert Mohler, Air Conditioning of Hell: How Liberalism Happens, http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/01/26/air-conditioning-hell-how-liberalism-happens/, accessed on July 11, 2014.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.