#6. Liberal Theology: The Downgrade

In 2011, Rob Bell’s Love Wins became a frequent topic of discussion in staff meetings at many evangelical churches. Bell had already established himself as a prominent figure in the Christian community with the release of Velvet Elvis (2005), Sex God (2007), Jesus Wants to Save Christians (2008), and Drop Like Stars (2009). He was seen as the “hip” Christian leader—Wheaton graduate, pastor of the influential Mars Hill Bible Church, and creator of the highly popular Nooma videos. But it was Love Wins that ultimately revealed the true nature of his theology.

In the book, Bell recounts a conversation in which someone mentioned Gandhi being in hell—a statement that Bell found himself unable to accept. His central thesis was straightforward: how could a loving God send someone to hell who had lived a life of compassion and moral integrity? While such thoughts were often associated with liberal Christian circles, Bell didn’t fit that mold—not as many had thought.

As the controversy surrounding Love Wins unfolded, Bell’s theology came into sharper focus. Many theologians jumped into the conversation and argued that Bell advocated for universalism, proposing that anyone could be saved because God’s grace and love were boundless. It wasn’t that Bell had abandoned his theological roots, but rather that the church, especially in the Dutch Calvinist stronghold of Grand Rapids, had filled in the gaps in his theology with their own beliefs, but had Bell had been based in a place like Manhattan, his universalism would likely have been more obvious.

Love Wins was subtle in its approach, drawing heavily on Christian concepts and pitting truth against compassion, with compassion ultimately prevailing. But at its core, Bell’s theology was much more problematic—a form of liberal theology that eroded the authority of Scripture and a desire to remain relevant to changing cultural norms.

Authority: The Bible Vs. Human Experience

Liberal and conservative theology ultimately boil down to one central question: Who or what has authority?

In conservative theology, the Bible has the final word—it judges human experience. In liberal theology, however, human experience takes the lead, serving as the lens through which the Bible is evaluated.

Liberal Theology: Remember Harvard?

Liberal theology is nothing new, nor is it any less destructive than when it first emerged. Rooted in the rationalism of the Enlightenment, it traces its origins back to 19th-century Europe when higher criticism in biblical studies was introduced. For those unfamiliar, higher criticism involves examining the origins and authorship of the Bible. While this can be a helpful exercise when approached with integrity, it often becomes a tool to question the Bible’s credibility and reliability.

These ideas didn’t stay in Europe. They jumped the pond, taking root in places like Andover Seminary in Massachusetts. Once liberal theology established a foothold in the States, it gradually spread like a virus, permeating and infecting prominent Christian institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, Union, and Yale.

Liberal theology didn’t discriminate between church, institution, or a person’s pedigree. There wasn’t an institution, denomination, or pastor left unscathed or allowed to remain neutral. Even the prominent preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon found himself embroiled in the struggle.

In 1887, Robert Shindler, a friend of Spurgeon, wrote an article titled “The Down Grade” in Spurgeon’s periodical, The Sword and the Trowel. The article ignited a controversy within the Baptist Union, of which Spurgeon was a member. Shindler outlined how various churches and denominations had historically drifted from biblical orthodoxy, warning that similar trends were emerging within the Union. His central claim was that theological decline often started with seemingly small compromises that eroded the authority and integrity of God’s Word. Spurgeon intensified the debate in subsequent articles, ultimately culminating in his withdrawal from the Union while simultaneously affecting his health.1

Spurgeon and Shindler saw that liberal theology was not just a trend or a difference in opinion between brothers, rather it was nothing less than the integrity of the Christian faith itself. They recognized that fundamental doctrines like the authority and reliability of Scripture, the virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, and even the reality of eternal punishment were in jeopardy.

This theological shift gave rise to a more progressive and permissive view of faith—one that championed an optimistic view of human nature. Yet, instead of enriching the church, it often left it unmoored and floating from its foundation. While liberal theology promised intellectual freedom, for many, it led to nothing less than a shipwreck of their faith.

The Birth of Evangelical Institutions

Unable to remain in fellowship with those they viewed as apostates, many conservatives withdrew and established their own institutions over the following decades. Notable examples include Wheaton College (1860), Nyack (1882), Moody Bible Institute (1886), Gordon College (1889), BIOLA (1908), Westminster Theological Seminary (1929), Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1963), Reformed Theological Seminary (1966), and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (1969).2

While these efforts temporarily slowed the spread of liberal theology, they could not stop it altogether. The rise of postmodernism along with the technological revolution of the internet, further undermined biblical authority. With institutional barriers diminished, charismatic personalities gained direct access to the public, often appealing to a populist form of spirituality that was opaque enough to appeal to postmodern sensibilities and gain large crowds. Doctrinal integrity was dismissed by many as being out of date and irrelevant. Crowds and mass appeal became the markers of what was true and what was not. If it grew, it was true, if it stopped, it was a flop.

The Twelve Children of Liberal Theology:

Theological liberalism has many children who are alive and with us today. Let me briefly introduce you to 12 of them and their underlying belief:

1. Theological Pluralism: “It’s arrogant to think that Jesus is the only way.”

The downgrading of biblical authority led to the rise of theological pluralism, which asserts that no single religion can have an exclusive hold on the truth. In this view, Christianity is seen as just one religion among many that can lead to spiritual fulfillment and salvation.

Christianity promotes a kind of religious pluralism that enables the freedom of choice, expression, and dialogue that is necessary to function in a diverse society. However, it is exclusive in its belief that salvation is through faith in Christ alone and seeks to demonstrate, entreat, and persuade.

Theological pluralism is different. It maintains that there are many different paths to salvation and what is required is not doctrinal precision, but an authentic heart. It doesn’t matter what you believe or what the object of your belief is, as long as you believe it wholeheartedly.

God calls Christians to advocate for religious pluralism, pleading with people to be reconciled to Christ while respecting their freedom to choose. However, we cannot endorse theological pluralism, which suggests that everyone is acceptable as they are, since this is not faithful to Scripture.

2. The Rise of the Social Gospel: “Following Jesus means working to fix social injustices and improve society.”

The message of Jesus is often downplayed in favor of his life, but both are essential for a healthy understanding of the Christian faith.

When his message—repentance, the wrath of God, substitutionary atonement, and the necessity of new birth—is neglected, the result is often a social gospel that emphasizes social justice and poverty alleviation while losing sight of the gospel’s central call to personal repentance and faith in Christ for salvation.

While pursuing justice and serving the marginalized are vital expressions of Christian love, they are not the gospel itself. Without the transforming power of the gospel message, social efforts can become untethered from their spiritual foundation, leading to moralism or activism devoid of eternal hope. A balanced view recognizes that both the life and the message of Jesus are inseparable, calling believers to both personal holiness and compassionate action.

3. The Rise of Moral Therapeutic Deism: “God wants me to be happy.”

I have written extensively on Moral Therapeutic Deism (MTD) (see my article #4. Moral Therapeutic Deism: The God of American Comfort). When the purpose of Christ’s meritorious life, death, resurrection, and ascension is stripped away, other core doctrines inevitably collapse—God’s wrath, repentance, holiness, and more. What remains is a hollow, individualized spirituality that distorts the Christian faith and undermines a biblical understanding of God’s holiness and justice.

4. The Emergence of Alternative Theologies: Liberation Theology, Black, Feminist, Queer, Etc.

Liberal theology, with its emphasis on reason, experience, and social progress, created space for alternative theologies such as Liberation, Black, Feminist, and Queer theology to emerge. While it has contributed to a greater awareness of social injustice and the lived experiences of marginalized communities, it has often done so by prioritizing human flourishing over theological orthodoxy and biblical authority.

This shift has led to interpretations of Scripture that emphasize cultural and social concerns at the expense of historic Christian teachings. Liberation theology focuses on class struggle, Black theology highlights God’s solidarity with the oppressed, Feminist theology challenges traditional gender roles, and Queer theology reinterprets Christian doctrine to affirm LGBTQ identities.

While each of these movements includes elements that align with the gospel’s call to care for the marginalized, oppressed, and overlooked, they often extend beyond biblical boundaries, transforming Christianity into a primarily sociopolitical movement rather than a redemptive faith grounded in divine revelation. These theologies, though a reaction to injustices and the reduction of gospel expressions within many Christian circles, go so far as to affirm sinful inclinations (e.g., LGBTQ) rather than challenging them. In doing so, they undermine Christianity’s call to repentance, effectively hijacking its true message and becoming apostate in the process.

5. The Reinterpretation of Jesus: “Jesus was a great teacher.”

When biblical authority is rejected, Jesus becomes a malleable figure, shaped to fit whatever narrative one desires. By dismissing foundational aspects of his life—such as the virgin birth, his miracles, and the resurrection—Jesus is redefined as a mere moral teacher. In this reinterpretation, his death on the cross is reduced to a martyrdom story, stripped of its redemptive significance.

As C.S. Lewis noted, we are not allowed to accept Jesus as simply a moral teacher, because he claimed to be able to forgive sins and no sane teacher would ever say that! We have to accept the full Jesus—the sin-forgiving Lord who told his disciples that they had to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be part of him (John 6:53-56), nothing else makes sense.

6. The Reinterpretation of Sin & Salvation: “Sin is causing harm, and salvation is about personal growth and fixing the world.”

While sitting in a seminary class, my professor, David F. Wells, posed a provocative question: “Do we continue to use the term ‘sin’?” A young woman eagerly raised her hand and answered, “No, because sin doesn’t mean anything anymore.” Her answer unsettled me deeply, so I raised my hand in turn and responded, “Of course we use the term. Without an awareness of sin, we have no need of a Savior.” This exchange brought to the forefront a critical issue: if we lose the concept of sin, we also lose the understanding of salvation. Without recognizing our need for redemption, there is no basis for grasping the significance of Christ’s sacrifice.

Liberal theology often reinterprets sin and salvation by minimizing or even redefining sin as mere human imperfection or social wrongdoing rather than a deep moral and spiritual condition that separates humanity from God.

As a result, salvation becomes less about personal transformation and reconciliation with a holy God and more about social justice, human progress, or self-actualization. This shift strips away the gospel’s core message of redemption and reduces the role of Christ to that of a moral teacher or social reformer. In this framework, salvation is not about being rescued from sin but about advancing societal goals or promoting personal well-being. This diminishes the urgency of the gospel, turning it from a message of eternal hope to one of temporal improvement.

7. Theological Evolution: “God changes with the times.”

The theory of evolution had a widespread impact, influencing not only the natural sciences but also theology. By undermining the authority of the Bible and exalting human reason and experience, it shifted the focus from divine revelation to human understanding.

As scientific theories, particularly those related to biology and the origins of humanity gained prominence, they took center stage in shaping worldviews. In response, the Bible was increasingly subordinated to human reason, leading to a reinterpretation of Scripture. Theologians, seeking to reconcile faith with the new scientific paradigm, began to adjust traditional beliefs, often compromising foundational doctrines such as creation, the fall, and the nature of sin, in order to fit them into an evolving, human-centered worldview. This shift not only redefined how Scripture was understood but also fundamentally altered the role of divine revelation in shaping theological thought.

8. The Decline of the Institutional Church: “I like Jesus, but I don’t need the church.”

As the authority of the Bible declined, so too did the authority of the institutional church over several decades. The Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, in which a teacher was tried for teaching evolution in schools, was a turning point, casting the church as anti-scientific, backward, and disconnected from modern thought.3 While this trial marked a pivotal moment, the erosion of the church’s influence continued throughout the 20th century.

The rise of evolutionary theory and scientific advancements challenged traditional religious beliefs, while the sexual revolution of the 1960s introduced social changes that conflicted with the church’s teachings on sexuality and morality. Furthermore, ongoing wars caused many to question traditional notions of divine providence and human suffering, while the exposure of widespread sexual abuse scandals within the church further eroded trust in its moral authority. These combined factors left the institutional church struggling to maintain its influence in a society increasingly skeptical of its relevance and teachings.

9. Universalism: “Everybody goes to heaven.”

As demonstrated in the case of Rob Bell, universalism often emerges when human experience is given priority over the authority of Scripture. When compassion and morality become the primary metrics for evaluating our actions and others, particularly in light of our failure to engage fully as followers of Christ, it leads to a subjective and inconsistent framework for determining who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out.’ In this context, God’s holiness, justice, and wrath are sidelined because they seem to contradict our sense of compassion.

The erosion of biblical authority undermines the very character of God, resulting in a salvation that no longer requires the cross, the recognition of sin, the pursuit of holiness, or an understanding of God’s purposes for the world. Ultimately, God is either redefined or replaced by a more benevolent figure, stripped of his distinctiveness.

10. The Disappearance of Hell: “A good God wouldn’t send anybody to hell.”

When biblical authority is lost and God’s holiness and justice are jettisoned, the belief arises that everyone goes to heaven, which diminishes the significance of hell. Hell exists because of God’s holiness and justice. Christ’s death on the cross is incredibly powerful, and anyone who trusts in him receives the benefits of his sacrificial death. But what about those who don’t? Does Christ’s love override their will?

C.S. Lewis once wrote,

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.”4

Those who advocate for the elimination of hell often do so in the name of God’s love, but love cannot be separated from justice. True justice, built on love, requires sin to be paid for and all wrongs to be righted—especially since sin is ultimately an offense against God. Because God is all-loving, just, pure, perfect, eternal, and infinite, the penalty for sin must correspond to his nature. Hell exists as a place where people face the eternal consequences for sins committed against an eternal God.

This is also why the incarnation is essential. Jesus became fully man to identify with humanity, but only God could pay the price required for sin against an infinite, holy God. Christ had to be both fully God and fully man, and without his meritorious death, hell loses its terror. God is holy, and sin must be atoned for, which, in a mystery beyond full human understanding, means that some will face eternal separation from God in hell.

11. The Rejection of Traditional Roles of Gender & Sexuality:

Almost two decades ago, I was on a boat on the Nile having a conversation with a pastor in the PCUSA. He lamented the state of his denomination and requested prayer, as it was on the precipice of splitting over the issue of homosexuality. There was a growing group within the denomination advocating in favor of same-sex relationships. His denomination had already taken a stand for women’s full inclusion in ministry, and now they were facing what to do about LGBTQ issues.

He was confused and saddened because he had made a vow to uphold the unity and purity of the church, and he felt that the unity of the church was threatened. I responded by noting that unity could only be maintained through purity. Once a group moved away from biblical orthodoxy (and purity) to something that the Bible clearly condemned, there was no choice but to separate from them.

Liberal theology enabled this conversation to play out across numerous denominations in recent decades, resulting in the formation of new denominations. The question remains: is homosexuality a sin? But that question, whether we like it or not, is often tied to another question—women’s roles in the church.

In Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, Wayne Grudem argues that the rise of evangelical feminism, which advocates for women’s ordination and leadership roles in the church, sets a precedent that can lead to more progressive views on other moral issues, such as the acceptance of homosexuality. Grudem suggests that the theological foundations for affirming women’s leadership roles are often intertwined with a broader shift of liberal theology, thus rejecting traditional biblical teachings on sexuality, including homosexuality.

Grudem’s perspective is that when denominations began to adopt more permissive views on women’s roles in the church, they paved the way for an evolving rethinking of other biblical doctrines, particularly around sexual ethics. He argues that once the authority of Scripture is undermined in one area (such as the question of women’s roles), it becomes easier to reinterpret or reject biblical teachings in other areas, like marriage and sexuality. Grudem points to the trajectory in certain mainline Protestant denominations, where the acceptance of women in pastoral leadership often preceded or was accompanied by the acceptance of same-sex relationships and marriage.

Is Grudem’s work right?

This argument certainly resonates with the experiences of some denominations that have shifted their stance on both women’s leadership and LGBTQ issues. In many cases, denominations that began ordaining women quickly faced internal debates around other moral and doctrinal issues, including LGBTQ inclusion. Critics of this trajectory argue that the acceptance of women’s leadership does not necessarily lead to the acceptance of homosexuality, noting that some evangelical and conservative denominations support women in ministry but maintain traditional views on sexuality, such as the Assemblies of God.

However, Grudem’s position reflects a concern about theological consistency and the perceived slippery slope from theological liberalism to more progressive stances on social issues. He suggests that altering biblical teachings on one issue often leads to a broader reinterpretation of Scripture on other matters. His work highlights how once a theological framework becomes flexible on one issue, it can be tempting to apply that same flexibility to other areas, gradually eroding a commitment to biblical authority.

Ultimately, the validity of Grudem’s claim depends on how one views the theological and cultural shifts in certain denominations. While some may see a connection between the rise of evangelical feminism and the acceptance of LGBTQ rights, others may argue that each issue must be evaluated on its own merits, with attention to biblical interpretation, cultural context, and church tradition. The issue remains deeply debated in evangelical and broader Christian circles.

What is clear, though, is that the conversation on gender roles and sexuality is not merely an academic or theological exercise. It is a deeply personal and divisive issue that has real consequences for the unity and purity of the church. In the face of these ongoing debates, it remains essential for the church to return to Scripture as its final authority, navigating these complex issues with faithfulness to God’s Word and a commitment to preserving the gospel’s transformative power.

12. Cultural Christianity:

I was chatting with distinguished American sociologist James Davison Hunter about his book Democracy and Solidarity: The Roots of America’s Political Crisis when he caught me off guard by saying he was no longer an evangelical. Instead, he identified himself as a creedal Christian. When I asked why he no longer considered himself an evangelical, his reasons had nothing to do with David Bebbington’s famous quadrilateral, which has long provided a framework for defining evangelicalism. For Hunter, the term “evangelical” had become so entwined with politics and a Nietzschean pursuit of power that it no longer resembled historical, orthodox Christianity. In fact, he lamented that many who identify as evangelicals today treat it as a political identity rather than a religious one — some even rejecting the label “Christian” altogether.

This concern echoes what Michael Graham and Jim Davis documented in The Great Dechurching. According to their research, 40 million people have stopped attending church over the past 25 years — a number greater than all the new converts from the First Great Awakening, Second Great Awakening, and Billy Graham crusades combined.5 Yet, the authors point out that while these people have disengaged from church, many have not entirely abandoned their faith. They simply walked away from institutional church life for a variety of reasons.

Both Hunter and the authors of The Great Dechurching have highlighted a striking phenomenon: the rise of cultural Christianity.

What is Cultural Christianity & How Has Liberal Theology Enabled It?

Cultural Christianity is a form of religious identification that emphasizes belonging to a Christian tradition without a corresponding commitment to biblical authority or orthodox belief. Instead of centering on personal discipleship and spiritual transformation, it tends to function as a social or political identity. By removing the authority of Scripture, individuals are free to mix and match aspects of Christianity according to their preferences, often blending Christian language with modern ideologies.

Liberal theology played a significant role in this shift. By placing human experience over biblical authority, the supernatural was downplayed, biblical teachings were reinterpreted, and human reason and social progress were emphasized. Liberal theology detached Christianity from its doctrinal foundations. This allowed people to retain the moral and communal benefits of Christianity without the requirement of personal commitment to its core beliefs. In essence, Christianity became infinitely malleable—adaptable to any cultural or political desires.

Cultural Christianity often satisfies the human desire for belonging and moral direction even though it lacks the substance. It provides a sense of identity, communal belonging, and a moral framework all the while maintaining the freedom to reject or reinterpret traditional doctrines if not deemed advantageous or convenient. This form of Christianity is particularly evident in how it functions as a voting bloc, where allegiance to certain political or cultural causes often takes precedence over theological conviction.

What’s missing in cultural Christianity is any real emphasis on sound doctrine, spiritual growth, or submission to biblical teaching. Instead, it becomes chameleon-like, adapting and reflecting societal and communal values more than biblical orthodoxy.

Cultural Christianity results in a watered-down witness that diminishes and distorts the gospel message. To restore clarity and power to the Christian witness, the church must prioritize biblical truth, authentic discipleship, and a renewed commitment to living out the gospel in both word and deed—that’s where missioholism comes in.

Missioholism: Keeping the Gospel in Focus and the Church on Track

Missioholism offers a compelling alternative for today’s church. It upholds biblical authority without clinging to outdated cultural expressions (fossil theology) or surrendering to a theology that drifts with societal trends (jellyfish theology). At its core, missioholism keeps the gospel central to life and ministry, emphasizing both the Kingdom story and the authoritative nature of Scripture.

Recognizing that doctrine serves as the framework for God’s divine story on the world’s stage — a theo-drama—missioholism firmly resists any dilution of biblical truth. It also emphasizes the vital role pastors play as primary shapers of faith. Their spiritual health, character, and faithful communication of God’s Word are essential for a thriving and faithful church. Because of this, missioholism consistently advocates for the well-being of pastors, ensuring that ministry methods convey the gospel not only through the verbal proclamation of preaching but also through the lived embodiment of its truth.

Missioholism critiques attractional, business-centered models of church that prioritize numbers over spiritual depth. Instead, it champions relationships, discipleship, and authentic gospel expression that enables effective transmission of the Christian faith across pluralistic worldviews. This holistic approach seeks to glorify God, bring salvation to the lost, equip the church for its mission, and contribute to the flourishing of society.

Furthermore, missioholism opposes the cultural idolatries that often infiltrate the church. Whether in the form of power, consumerism, nationalism, or the Western humanist story. Missioholism calls on the church to recognize and reject these distortions. It reminds believers that allegiance to Christ transcends any cultural, political, or social affiliation and cannot be conflated with the American dream.

While affirming the need for contextualization, missioholism insists on a framework of truth that resists compromising key doctrines. It calls the church to vigilance, maintaining a credible and faithful Christian witness in every cultural setting. By holding fast to both biblical truth and relational integrity, missioholism keeps the gospel in focus and the church on track.

Conclusion: The Call to Faithful Witness

Liberal theology, as seen in Bell’s Love Wins, with its rejection of biblical authority and accommodation to cultural trends, has had a devastating effect on Christian witness and a proper understanding of the gospel. Missioholism provides a path forward—one that firmly upholds Scripture, the place of doctrine, and the pre-eminence of Jesus while enabling cultural engagement with wisdom, grace, and truth. It recognizes that the gospel is not merely a personal belief system but a comprehensive vision of God’s redemptive work in all aspects of life. By reclaiming the authority of God’s Word and resisting cultural idolatries, the church can once again offer a credible, life-giving witness to a world in desperate need.

Missioholism also addresses the profound shifts in how the gospel is understood in today’s postmodern world—a pivotal issue that ranks #6 on our list of ideas that have reshaped the gospel (and not for the better): postmodernism.

You won’t want to miss next week’s substack as we explore this critical topic and uncover how it has impacted our understanding of the gospel. Be sure to tune in!