What do you think?
Rate this book
Against Liberal Theology: Putting the Brakes on Progressive Christianity
Liberal Christian theology is a big topic in today's churches and seminaries. But what does liberal theology really mean and why is it so controversial? What does it actually believe about truth, Scripture, and Jesus Christ? And where does it lead? The term "liberal theology" is often misinterpreted, confused with a set of loose ideologies within the Christian faith and sometimes rallied behind by genuine Christians who are simply concerned about modern social justice issues. It's also been wrongly leveled against churches and even entire denominations that don't adhere to the tradition of liberal theology. Against Liberal Theology , is written in a direct and conversational tone that makes sense of this theological movement Sincere and to the point, professor and theologian Roger E. Olson is not interested in grinding axes. He openly admits to frustration with fundamentalist Christianity and explains why. But he warns that true liberal theology—more concerned with making Christianity palatable to the modern mind than it is committed to biblical integrity—isn't the right alternative to the cultic tendencies of fundamentalism and has little in common with classical, biblical Christianity. Against Liberal Theology is perfect for Christians on any side of a cultural debate—for those who consider themselves progressive or conservative or something in between. It's always unpopular to be against anything. But in order for Christianity to be anything, it has to stand against some things. If Christianity is compatible with anything and everything, it is nothing.
192 pages, Paperback
First published June 7, 2022
62 people are currently reading
194 people want to read
About the author
Roger E. Olson
65 books63 followersRoger E. Olson (PhD, Rice University) is professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. He is a prolific author whose volumes include The Story of Christian Theology and The Mosaic of Christian Belief. He is also coauthor of 20th-Century Theology. Olsen identifies as an Arminian and a Baptist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
June 17, 2022
Deconstruction is all the rage in contemporary Christian discourse. It refers to people reevaluating the faith commitments with which they have been raised. Some deconvert from Christianity entirely, but most reorient their faith toward theological liberalism, often out of concern for social justice.
In Against Liberal Theology, Roger E. Olson argues that doing so is a mistake. His thesis is that “liberal Christianity cuts the cord of continuity between itself and biblical, historical, classical, orthodox Christianity so thoroughly that it ought to call itself something other than Christian.”
As an adjective, liberal can mean a number of things. For Olson, it does not describe “politics, economics, social philosophies or mere open-mindedness to new ideas (to say nothing of liberality toward the poor).” He focuses solely on theology, defined as “a set of beliefs about God and things related to God.”
Olson’s thesis is controversial, but clarifying. “In today’s culture, it’s not popular to be against something unless it’s blatantly immoral or illegal,” he writes. However, he justifies his adversarial stance this way: “If Christianity is to mean something, it has to have some shape, if not boundaries” (emphasis in original).
For Olson, the Vincentian Canon points to the boundaries of Christianity: “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by everyone” (Latin, Quod ubique, semper, et ab omnibus). This is the Christianity of the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. It is what C. S. Lewis called “mere Christianity.” Olson acknowledges that Christian denominations disagree on a variety of theological topics, but he argues that they agree on the most fundamental doctrines and have done so across centuries and cultures.
By contrast, theological liberalism began in n post-Enlightenment Germany in the late-eighteenth century. It is characterized by “maximal acknowledgement of the claims of modernity in Christian thinking about doctrines.” (The definition comes from Claude Welch).
The founder of liberal theology was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), a Reformed pastor and theologian whose seminal work was On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (1799). Deism and Unitarianism foreshadowed the method and conclusions of liberal theology, but they operated outside mainline Protestantism. Schleiermacher brought them inside, investing traditional terms with radically new meanings.
Orthodoxy and liberal theology interpret Christian doctrine in radically different ways. Olson details those ways in successive chapters on the Bible, God, Jesus Christ, salvation, and eschatology. However, he writes, “the deepest difference between orthodox Christianity and liberal Christianity has to do with their differing sources and norms for belief.” In other words, their conclusions differ because their methodologies do.
Olson illustrates this using the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, first articulated by Methodist scholar Albert C. Outler. Olson writes:
Whereas orthodoxy begins with divine revelation, then, liberal theology begins with human reason and experience, both of which it acknowledges as historically conditioned. “But what if the best of modern thought is only a passing fashion of thought, a philosophy of the moment, a cultural fad?” Olson asks. “This question will haunt liberal Christianity through this book,” he answers.
Theological liberalism was a powerful force in American Christianity from the late-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. Today, however, it seems to be on its last legs, especially as evidenced by the rapid aging and decline of theologically liberal churches. This shouldn’t be surprising, given liberalism’s “maximal acknowledgment of the claims of modernity.” After all, as Dean Inge put it, “Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.”
Olson concludes his book with an appeal to Christian deconstructors. He acknowledges “the majority of people attracted to liberal Christianity are Christians raised in rigidly fundamentalist homes.” He urges them not to choose between fundamentalism* and liberalism, however, but to practice orthodox Christianity rather than either of those extremes.
Against Liberal Theology makes a real contribution to contemporary Christian discourse by clarifying what is at stake in the debate between Christianity and liberal theology. Doctrinally, the two are so different that they should be considered different religions, not variations on the same religion.
I wonder, though, whether it will answer all the questions Christian deconstructors are raising against the faith. Those questions center on social-justice issues such as race and sexuality. At a theological level, Olson has shown that deconstructing to liberal theology is tantamount to deconversion from Christianity. Perhaps in his next book, he could clarify what orthodoxy teaches about social justice.
Book Reviewed
Roger E. Olson, Against Liberal Theology: Putting the Brakes on Progressive Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Reflective, 2022).
_____
* Note on terminology: The term fundamentalism first described people in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who defended certain “fundamentals” against liberal theological critique. These doctrines included Christ’s virgin birth, incarnation, atoning death, bodily resurrection, and second coming, as well as Scripture’s inspiration and authority These are orthodox Christian doctrines that unite all Christians.
Over time, however, the term came to describe orthodox Christians who raised cultural norms, nonessential doctrines, and ecclesial separatism to the status of fundamental doctrine, unnecessarily dividing genuinely orthodox believers from one another. Following E. J. Carnell, Olson defines such fundamentalism as “orthodoxy gone cultic.” It is this second kind of fundamentalism that Olson rightly thinks is extreme.
P.S. If you liked my review, please click “Helpful” on my Amazon review page.
P.P.S. This is review is cross-posted from InfluenceMagazine.com by permission.
In Against Liberal Theology, Roger E. Olson argues that doing so is a mistake. His thesis is that “liberal Christianity cuts the cord of continuity between itself and biblical, historical, classical, orthodox Christianity so thoroughly that it ought to call itself something other than Christian.”
As an adjective, liberal can mean a number of things. For Olson, it does not describe “politics, economics, social philosophies or mere open-mindedness to new ideas (to say nothing of liberality toward the poor).” He focuses solely on theology, defined as “a set of beliefs about God and things related to God.”
Olson’s thesis is controversial, but clarifying. “In today’s culture, it’s not popular to be against something unless it’s blatantly immoral or illegal,” he writes. However, he justifies his adversarial stance this way: “If Christianity is to mean something, it has to have some shape, if not boundaries” (emphasis in original).
For Olson, the Vincentian Canon points to the boundaries of Christianity: “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by everyone” (Latin, Quod ubique, semper, et ab omnibus). This is the Christianity of the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. It is what C. S. Lewis called “mere Christianity.” Olson acknowledges that Christian denominations disagree on a variety of theological topics, but he argues that they agree on the most fundamental doctrines and have done so across centuries and cultures.
By contrast, theological liberalism began in n post-Enlightenment Germany in the late-eighteenth century. It is characterized by “maximal acknowledgement of the claims of modernity in Christian thinking about doctrines.” (The definition comes from Claude Welch).
The founder of liberal theology was Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), a Reformed pastor and theologian whose seminal work was On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (1799). Deism and Unitarianism foreshadowed the method and conclusions of liberal theology, but they operated outside mainline Protestantism. Schleiermacher brought them inside, investing traditional terms with radically new meanings.
Orthodoxy and liberal theology interpret Christian doctrine in radically different ways. Olson details those ways in successive chapters on the Bible, God, Jesus Christ, salvation, and eschatology. However, he writes, “the deepest difference between orthodox Christianity and liberal Christianity has to do with their differing sources and norms for belief.” In other words, their conclusions differ because their methodologies do.
Olson illustrates this using the so-called “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, first articulated by Methodist scholar Albert C. Outler. Olson writes:
In Wesley’s scheme, Scripture has primacy over tradition, while reason and experience are used as tools of interpretation. Liberal Christians tend to begin the theological search for truth with reason and experience and then draw upon Scripture as “our sacred stories” and Christian tradition as simply the history of Christian interpretation of Scripture and Christian experience
Whereas orthodoxy begins with divine revelation, then, liberal theology begins with human reason and experience, both of which it acknowledges as historically conditioned. “But what if the best of modern thought is only a passing fashion of thought, a philosophy of the moment, a cultural fad?” Olson asks. “This question will haunt liberal Christianity through this book,” he answers.
Theological liberalism was a powerful force in American Christianity from the late-nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth century. Today, however, it seems to be on its last legs, especially as evidenced by the rapid aging and decline of theologically liberal churches. This shouldn’t be surprising, given liberalism’s “maximal acknowledgment of the claims of modernity.” After all, as Dean Inge put it, “Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.”
Olson concludes his book with an appeal to Christian deconstructors. He acknowledges “the majority of people attracted to liberal Christianity are Christians raised in rigidly fundamentalist homes.” He urges them not to choose between fundamentalism* and liberalism, however, but to practice orthodox Christianity rather than either of those extremes.
Against Liberal Theology makes a real contribution to contemporary Christian discourse by clarifying what is at stake in the debate between Christianity and liberal theology. Doctrinally, the two are so different that they should be considered different religions, not variations on the same religion.
I wonder, though, whether it will answer all the questions Christian deconstructors are raising against the faith. Those questions center on social-justice issues such as race and sexuality. At a theological level, Olson has shown that deconstructing to liberal theology is tantamount to deconversion from Christianity. Perhaps in his next book, he could clarify what orthodoxy teaches about social justice.
Book Reviewed
Roger E. Olson, Against Liberal Theology: Putting the Brakes on Progressive Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Reflective, 2022).
_____
* Note on terminology: The term fundamentalism first described people in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who defended certain “fundamentals” against liberal theological critique. These doctrines included Christ’s virgin birth, incarnation, atoning death, bodily resurrection, and second coming, as well as Scripture’s inspiration and authority These are orthodox Christian doctrines that unite all Christians.
Over time, however, the term came to describe orthodox Christians who raised cultural norms, nonessential doctrines, and ecclesial separatism to the status of fundamental doctrine, unnecessarily dividing genuinely orthodox believers from one another. Following E. J. Carnell, Olson defines such fundamentalism as “orthodoxy gone cultic.” It is this second kind of fundamentalism that Olson rightly thinks is extreme.
P.S. If you liked my review, please click “Helpful” on my Amazon review page.
P.P.S. This is review is cross-posted from InfluenceMagazine.com by permission.
August 14, 2022
Couple years ago I probably wouldn’t have been able (or willing) to read this kind of book. What makes it different now? I’m not sure. I want to believe that my faith has grown since then. But also knowing that the book is not published by some gatekeeping publisher and that its author is Roger Olson (someone who has been critical of evangelical fundamentalism), makes it at least easier to be less defensive.
Olson’s main concern here is the appeal that “progressive Christianity” has on many Christians coming out of a fundamentalist faith. The danger with “progressive Christianity”, according to Olson, is that it sooner or later, and more often than not, sets Christians on the slippery slope trajectory towards full-blown theological liberalism. This is why he analyzes liberal theology’s teaching on God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, salvation and the future, concluding that there is not enough continuity with Biblical, historical and orthodox Christianity that it might be rightfully considered part of the Christian tradition. Olson boldly argues that if hold coherently together, liberal theology is a different religion altogether. He would have you rather jump on any other branch of historical Christianity…just not on this stuff.
As I said, really bold, and I think at times unnecessarily either/or argumentation. But it’s important to note that Olson makes this claim based on his analysis of the architects of liberal theology themselves (from Schleiermacher onwards), not merely contemporary popularizers. That’s the strength of the book. From his own church and academic experience, Olson knows what he’s talking about.
I think the people who will be most frustrated with the book are those who have been taught that the Christian tradition is and always has been immensely diverse, even in regards to core beliefs. This is why a more fundamental case must be made, namely, that biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity has remained a more or less uniform belief system throughout the centuries…which you either accept or reject.
I am also wondering what Olson can realistically expect from a book like this. I mean, it will bolster the confidence of conservatives. But progressive Christians will probably find it lacking. To be really convinced, you need not only good reasons to move away from something, but even better reasons to move towards an alternative. The book does a good job with the former but neglects the latter. Olson’s priority is to show that liberal theology is false and Orthodox Christianity is true. But for the argument to have some real traction among young folks it should also show how Orthodoxy can and is better/more beautiful. The absence of this kind of orthodoxy in fundamentalist communities is what Olson himself identifies as a big reason many move all the way to liberal theology. So it’s kind of puzzling why Olson’s remedy addresses so little of this central concern. He would probably say that this is a topic for a different book project. Maybe.
Ultimately I’m grateful for the book…but I also understand why someone might recoil at its sight. Just know thyself. You might be ready for it, you might not…
Olson’s main concern here is the appeal that “progressive Christianity” has on many Christians coming out of a fundamentalist faith. The danger with “progressive Christianity”, according to Olson, is that it sooner or later, and more often than not, sets Christians on the slippery slope trajectory towards full-blown theological liberalism. This is why he analyzes liberal theology’s teaching on God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, salvation and the future, concluding that there is not enough continuity with Biblical, historical and orthodox Christianity that it might be rightfully considered part of the Christian tradition. Olson boldly argues that if hold coherently together, liberal theology is a different religion altogether. He would have you rather jump on any other branch of historical Christianity…just not on this stuff.
As I said, really bold, and I think at times unnecessarily either/or argumentation. But it’s important to note that Olson makes this claim based on his analysis of the architects of liberal theology themselves (from Schleiermacher onwards), not merely contemporary popularizers. That’s the strength of the book. From his own church and academic experience, Olson knows what he’s talking about.
I think the people who will be most frustrated with the book are those who have been taught that the Christian tradition is and always has been immensely diverse, even in regards to core beliefs. This is why a more fundamental case must be made, namely, that biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity has remained a more or less uniform belief system throughout the centuries…which you either accept or reject.
I am also wondering what Olson can realistically expect from a book like this. I mean, it will bolster the confidence of conservatives. But progressive Christians will probably find it lacking. To be really convinced, you need not only good reasons to move away from something, but even better reasons to move towards an alternative. The book does a good job with the former but neglects the latter. Olson’s priority is to show that liberal theology is false and Orthodox Christianity is true. But for the argument to have some real traction among young folks it should also show how Orthodoxy can and is better/more beautiful. The absence of this kind of orthodoxy in fundamentalist communities is what Olson himself identifies as a big reason many move all the way to liberal theology. So it’s kind of puzzling why Olson’s remedy addresses so little of this central concern. He would probably say that this is a topic for a different book project. Maybe.
Ultimately I’m grateful for the book…but I also understand why someone might recoil at its sight. Just know thyself. You might be ready for it, you might not…
July 24, 2024
I thought this was a pretty good overview of liberal theology (not to be confused with orthodox theology from a politically liberal person). He was more fair and generous than I expected from the title. Honestly the last chapter was insightful into the main line church I am currently apart of.
July 25, 2022
I think what makes me most uncomfortable about this book is that Olson seems to be supporting an absolute allegiance to an entire package of beliefs (right or wrong) that has evolved due to a process of random mutation and natural selection into an entirely different species. It seems he must assume this package was inherited and preserved unchanged, which to any honest observer of history, is false (David Bentley Hart eloquently points this out in his recent book Tradition and Apocalypse). If Olson was a catholic living at the time of the reformation, rather than liberals, he would condemn Luther and other reformers for having the audacity to challenge tradition.
What repeatedly came to mind throughout this book is, “but, what is true?” Suppose, I have the assumption that the bible is the authority and contains divine revelation and I want to be aligned with it, Olson seems to be suggesting I definitely cannot break with tradition, if I do, on the authority of the Bible, then I should no longer be considered a “Christian.” Suppose, one believes all truth is God’s truth, and one becomes convinced of certain realities not aligned with some element of the evangelical package, well, in such case, one’s responsibility is to suppress what one thinks is true, and instead affirm what one knows is false--to deny reality. What if morality matters to you and yet it has become clear that some doctrines are immoral and some church practices are harmful, Olson seems to be suggesting that we must continue believing what we know is toxic and support practices that are harmful—violating the law of love, in order to remain “Christian”.
It really does seem to be a call of blind adherence to a package, regardless of what scripture might state, what reality presents, and what morality might press.
In ways, I agree that Liberal Theology is a pretty major departure from what is considered orthodox theology—elements that have been part of the accepted package for 100s of years, and I don’t think philosophical naturalism is a good lens through which to determine what is true (something many liberals seem grabbed by). But, as David Bentley Hart has pointed out, what we now consider “orthodoxy” is only vaguely reminiscent of central elements of the New Testament faith that quickly grew out of fashion and were replaced by alien notions. I think many of the New Testament writers today would ironically be condemned as heretics, if unlucky enough to partake in certain church councils, where nasty and unchristlike politicking established what the church would consider orthodox. If we are going to condemn Liberal theology as not Christian, but call it an altogether different religion, I think we should also go ahead, and while we are at it point out that Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the many forms of Protestant denominations are also not Christian either. First-century brands of Christianity no longer even exist, they are long-extinct species.
I think Augustine, arguably is an example of a far more major break from “biblical” Christianity. Yet, tragically, his repugnant corruptions became the default—part of the accepted package, and thus we have doctrines that imply YHWH is a fiend infinitely worse than the devil.
From my reading of the New Testament and reading of history, I am convinced that Arius was likely far closer to what many of the New Testament writers believed, and was thus the conservative, and it was Nicaean Christians who were the innovating liberals of the time. With the change of emperors and vicious infighting, it could have gone anyway. But ultimately, Arius was condemned as a heretic and thus, what was likely more of a “biblical” doctrine became non-Christian. Even though this seems pretty clear to me, it isn’t a big enough deal for me, and I am willing just to go with the theological winners of this doctrinal war, in this case. I guess this is a sign I don’t consider the bible to be an ultimate authority for me. It still is fascinating that it could have played out differently, Olson would be condemning those evil Nicene heretics and rejoicing how the Holy Spirit prevented the church from going with the liberal and unbiblical Trinitarianism.
It is overwhelmingly clear to me that Pelagius was exceedingly more aligned with New Testament writers than Augustine was. It also seems clear to me that Augustine would have had every writer of the New Testament condemned as a heretic if alive and living in his area of control. The history of how Augustine succeeded at condemning Pelagius is chilling, and it was evil and it is the shame of the church to side with the ungodly bishop. Tragically, Augustine won, so what was more aligned with biblical Christianity was condemned. Augustine’s new (exceedingly uglier) religion came into being. Hmm… I suppose I’d have to agree here with Olson, that to reject Augustine’s mutations which became part of the “orthodox” package, and instead side with New Testament writers, would be to move to a new religion.
So again, may I ask, what is true? If what became “orthodoxy” was enforced through backstabbing politics and violence, and it was radicals and revolutionaries who came later that claimed 2+2=5, then are we to really just say yes and remain loyal? Must we keep our minds closed, guarded, and closed to reality, in order to remain in perfect fidelity to the tribe? Must we engage in special pleading to defend any and all absurdities?
I personally do not think Philosophical naturalism is true. This element embraced seems absurd to me in certain regards. However, clearly, some Christians have been convinced, thinking it is true. Many feel this obligation to affirm what they think is true; so it is understandable that they would reimagine Christianity in light of what appears as reality. Now, in this case, I think they are wrong. But rather than saying, well you are a heretic and no longer a Christian (in other words, you should have remained loyal to the tribe, rather than following truth where you thought it led) it would be better to argue why naturalism is mistaken and fundamentally flawed.
Some reactions to Olson’s section on Scripture.
It seems to a certain extent, that all Christians (to an extent) force scripture within a framework of what they think is true. Take the Ken Hams of the world, while claiming to be a literalist, they claim firmament doesn’t actually mean what it says, and they ignore how the stars are fixed into the firmament, which scripture states are quite solid and holds up water. Ken Ham, while able to deny most of what science claims, still is conditioned enough to think that we don’t live within a dome, and thus forces his conception of truth onto the bible. But then, his literal reading of other parts would make him confidently against any claim of modern scientists. We Christians all grow up in communities with their unique blend of biblical adherence in the face of what seems real, and interpreting (explaining away) the plain reading of scripture, based upon their perception of reality. Some people just become aware of what is going on, and bolder as they distinguish between what they perceive as true and false, as well as good and evil. No longer can they just accept the package they inherited with fideistic loyalty?
I don’t know what to do with the concept of “biblical authority”; the fact is so much interpretation is involved, that reason, tradition, and good sense prove to be the greater authority. Even though the ancients thought the earth was a disk with a solid dome that rested on pillars and it is obvious some biblical authors thought the same, once it was demonstrated that it was not the case, we let truth override the bible. The church (outside of a few flat earthers) no longer takes these passages as authoritative on what the earth is like. Luther and Calvin would have gladly condemned to hell anyone who agreed with Copernicus.
Endless are the ways that Christians find ways to allow morality, reason, and reality to shape and alter their readings of scripture. Even the conservative fundamentalist do the same thing but don’t realize they do so. Everyone is allowing culture, reason, and morality to override somewhat. It honestly would be terrifying if this wasn’t the case, because some parts of the bible condone pure evil, even have God commanding evil, and demand absolute obedience.
What repeatedly came to mind throughout this book is, “but, what is true?” Suppose, I have the assumption that the bible is the authority and contains divine revelation and I want to be aligned with it, Olson seems to be suggesting I definitely cannot break with tradition, if I do, on the authority of the Bible, then I should no longer be considered a “Christian.” Suppose, one believes all truth is God’s truth, and one becomes convinced of certain realities not aligned with some element of the evangelical package, well, in such case, one’s responsibility is to suppress what one thinks is true, and instead affirm what one knows is false--to deny reality. What if morality matters to you and yet it has become clear that some doctrines are immoral and some church practices are harmful, Olson seems to be suggesting that we must continue believing what we know is toxic and support practices that are harmful—violating the law of love, in order to remain “Christian”.
It really does seem to be a call of blind adherence to a package, regardless of what scripture might state, what reality presents, and what morality might press.
In ways, I agree that Liberal Theology is a pretty major departure from what is considered orthodox theology—elements that have been part of the accepted package for 100s of years, and I don’t think philosophical naturalism is a good lens through which to determine what is true (something many liberals seem grabbed by). But, as David Bentley Hart has pointed out, what we now consider “orthodoxy” is only vaguely reminiscent of central elements of the New Testament faith that quickly grew out of fashion and were replaced by alien notions. I think many of the New Testament writers today would ironically be condemned as heretics, if unlucky enough to partake in certain church councils, where nasty and unchristlike politicking established what the church would consider orthodox. If we are going to condemn Liberal theology as not Christian, but call it an altogether different religion, I think we should also go ahead, and while we are at it point out that Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and the many forms of Protestant denominations are also not Christian either. First-century brands of Christianity no longer even exist, they are long-extinct species.
I think Augustine, arguably is an example of a far more major break from “biblical” Christianity. Yet, tragically, his repugnant corruptions became the default—part of the accepted package, and thus we have doctrines that imply YHWH is a fiend infinitely worse than the devil.
From my reading of the New Testament and reading of history, I am convinced that Arius was likely far closer to what many of the New Testament writers believed, and was thus the conservative, and it was Nicaean Christians who were the innovating liberals of the time. With the change of emperors and vicious infighting, it could have gone anyway. But ultimately, Arius was condemned as a heretic and thus, what was likely more of a “biblical” doctrine became non-Christian. Even though this seems pretty clear to me, it isn’t a big enough deal for me, and I am willing just to go with the theological winners of this doctrinal war, in this case. I guess this is a sign I don’t consider the bible to be an ultimate authority for me. It still is fascinating that it could have played out differently, Olson would be condemning those evil Nicene heretics and rejoicing how the Holy Spirit prevented the church from going with the liberal and unbiblical Trinitarianism.
It is overwhelmingly clear to me that Pelagius was exceedingly more aligned with New Testament writers than Augustine was. It also seems clear to me that Augustine would have had every writer of the New Testament condemned as a heretic if alive and living in his area of control. The history of how Augustine succeeded at condemning Pelagius is chilling, and it was evil and it is the shame of the church to side with the ungodly bishop. Tragically, Augustine won, so what was more aligned with biblical Christianity was condemned. Augustine’s new (exceedingly uglier) religion came into being. Hmm… I suppose I’d have to agree here with Olson, that to reject Augustine’s mutations which became part of the “orthodox” package, and instead side with New Testament writers, would be to move to a new religion.
So again, may I ask, what is true? If what became “orthodoxy” was enforced through backstabbing politics and violence, and it was radicals and revolutionaries who came later that claimed 2+2=5, then are we to really just say yes and remain loyal? Must we keep our minds closed, guarded, and closed to reality, in order to remain in perfect fidelity to the tribe? Must we engage in special pleading to defend any and all absurdities?
I personally do not think Philosophical naturalism is true. This element embraced seems absurd to me in certain regards. However, clearly, some Christians have been convinced, thinking it is true. Many feel this obligation to affirm what they think is true; so it is understandable that they would reimagine Christianity in light of what appears as reality. Now, in this case, I think they are wrong. But rather than saying, well you are a heretic and no longer a Christian (in other words, you should have remained loyal to the tribe, rather than following truth where you thought it led) it would be better to argue why naturalism is mistaken and fundamentally flawed.
Some reactions to Olson’s section on Scripture.
It seems to a certain extent, that all Christians (to an extent) force scripture within a framework of what they think is true. Take the Ken Hams of the world, while claiming to be a literalist, they claim firmament doesn’t actually mean what it says, and they ignore how the stars are fixed into the firmament, which scripture states are quite solid and holds up water. Ken Ham, while able to deny most of what science claims, still is conditioned enough to think that we don’t live within a dome, and thus forces his conception of truth onto the bible. But then, his literal reading of other parts would make him confidently against any claim of modern scientists. We Christians all grow up in communities with their unique blend of biblical adherence in the face of what seems real, and interpreting (explaining away) the plain reading of scripture, based upon their perception of reality. Some people just become aware of what is going on, and bolder as they distinguish between what they perceive as true and false, as well as good and evil. No longer can they just accept the package they inherited with fideistic loyalty?
I don’t know what to do with the concept of “biblical authority”; the fact is so much interpretation is involved, that reason, tradition, and good sense prove to be the greater authority. Even though the ancients thought the earth was a disk with a solid dome that rested on pillars and it is obvious some biblical authors thought the same, once it was demonstrated that it was not the case, we let truth override the bible. The church (outside of a few flat earthers) no longer takes these passages as authoritative on what the earth is like. Luther and Calvin would have gladly condemned to hell anyone who agreed with Copernicus.
Endless are the ways that Christians find ways to allow morality, reason, and reality to shape and alter their readings of scripture. Even the conservative fundamentalist do the same thing but don’t realize they do so. Everyone is allowing culture, reason, and morality to override somewhat. It honestly would be terrifying if this wasn’t the case, because some parts of the bible condone pure evil, even have God commanding evil, and demand absolute obedience.
June 15, 2022
Disappointing
I was disappointed with this book because I have read much better by Olson over the years. On the whole, Olson's conclusions are good, but I am not sure who his audience is. Each chapter is basically a litany of what 6 or 7 different liberal theologians thought about various doctrinal issues. The point is to show that liberal Christianity is not true Christianity. This seems like a battle from long ago as many of the theologians that Olson addresses are dead. Few are read anymore. Olson never makes the connection to modern manifestations in the church that would make this book valuable. In one way this book reminded me of the work of Carl Trueman who discusses 19th and 20th century secular philosophies and their impact on our culture today. The difference is that Trueman connects the dots, showing how these ideas shaped the present moment. Olson never does that. Sadly that limits the value of this work. This book is in bad need of editing. Quotes and illustrations are repeated far too many times. I also think that Olson is wrong in differentiating progressive Christianity from liberal Christianity, suggesting only the latter is a movement. In fact, Progressive Christianity has identifiable leaders, teachings, institutions, and networks. Liberal Christianity was largely an academic movement. Progressive Christianity is found not in academia but the internet. I just expected so much more from this book. Instead of this book I would recommend the book that Olson co-authored with Grenz, 20th Century Theology.
I was disappointed with this book because I have read much better by Olson over the years. On the whole, Olson's conclusions are good, but I am not sure who his audience is. Each chapter is basically a litany of what 6 or 7 different liberal theologians thought about various doctrinal issues. The point is to show that liberal Christianity is not true Christianity. This seems like a battle from long ago as many of the theologians that Olson addresses are dead. Few are read anymore. Olson never makes the connection to modern manifestations in the church that would make this book valuable. In one way this book reminded me of the work of Carl Trueman who discusses 19th and 20th century secular philosophies and their impact on our culture today. The difference is that Trueman connects the dots, showing how these ideas shaped the present moment. Olson never does that. Sadly that limits the value of this work. This book is in bad need of editing. Quotes and illustrations are repeated far too many times. I also think that Olson is wrong in differentiating progressive Christianity from liberal Christianity, suggesting only the latter is a movement. In fact, Progressive Christianity has identifiable leaders, teachings, institutions, and networks. Liberal Christianity was largely an academic movement. Progressive Christianity is found not in academia but the internet. I just expected so much more from this book. Instead of this book I would recommend the book that Olson co-authored with Grenz, 20th Century Theology.
July 16, 2022
Though I share Olson’s misgivings about some liberal theologians and their operating assumptions, this has to be one of the lamest critiques of liberal theology I’ve read. Apart from Olson’s inability to give a coherent account of exactly what liberal theology is (other than what he himself dislikes), Olson’s argument, put concisely, is that because liberal theology is wrong, it is wrong, and therefore it is wrong. Put more favorably: because liberal theology “cuts the cord” with what Olson deems to be “true, traditional, orthodox, biblical Christianity,” it is not “real” Christianity. However, one has to look hard for any reasons why one should adhere to Olson’s narrow vision of the faith. Also, at times, Olson doesn't appear to have a very good grasp of the theologians he’s criticizing (especially Schleiermacher, Tillich, and Cobb). Either that, or he’s willfully misleading (which would be even worse). In the end, I believe that this reactionary hunting down of “heretics” will be contra-productive, giving progressives reasons to actually give up on evangelicalism. If you want good reasons to not be a liberal, you should read something of Barth instead.
October 27, 2022
A clear and compelling case against a very specific type of theology in American Protestantism. I wish he engaged just a bit with a broader stream, but it's still a worthwhile and provocative read.
See my video review here: https://youtu.be/7TxQ7UZDYks
See my video review here: https://youtu.be/7TxQ7UZDYks
August 23, 2024
An aptly titled book, though less harsh than it sounds on its face. Olson provides an honest history of liberal theology, making a good case for why liberal Christianity is, in fact, something else entirely. Oftentimes by simply presenting right from the horse's mouth, as they say, legitimate criticisms of the whole belief system. The book is a thorough argument for a more moderate Christianity or, at least, some form of faith that doesn't throw away the core beliefs of that faith.
One comment that stuck with me was (paraphrasing), "It's not so much what they believe, but what they don't believe."
Some key phrases were repeated a bit too much for me. I believe it was to make clear what his thesis was, but I found myself thinking, "Yup. Already got it." At least he was clear and I was able to recall the point, so it accomplished the goal.
It was well worth reading and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a moderate position on the topic.
One comment that stuck with me was (paraphrasing), "It's not so much what they believe, but what they don't believe."
Some key phrases were repeated a bit too much for me. I believe it was to make clear what his thesis was, but I found myself thinking, "Yup. Already got it." At least he was clear and I was able to recall the point, so it accomplished the goal.
It was well worth reading and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a moderate position on the topic.
July 2, 2022
Different tone and more generous, nuanced takes would have invited more actual deliberation. His warnings will likely go unheeded. His use of "conservative" and "liberal" are a bit frustrating and could just ossify existing antagonisms. I expected more from Olson, to be honest!
July 25, 2023
Helpful to distinguish between progressive churches or beliefs and “liberal” theology more in line with early 20th century alignment with modernity. Very accessible (I say that as someone who doesn’t do much reading about theological or denominational differences).
March 14, 2023
Review: "Against Liberal Theology: Putting the Brakes on Progressive Christianity" by Roger E. Olson
This book was not at all what I was expecting. I hoped that as a book ”Against Liberal Theology” it would offer persuasive arguments as to why traditional interpretations should be preferred for Christian texts in the light of recent scholarship. That book isn't this book. I do have great respect for Roger Olsen. I have read other things he has written. It is obvious that he is well read in Liberal Christianity and has a great deal of first hand experience. I do not. Many of his attacks on Liberal Christianity however could also be attacks on certain strands of Eastern Orthodox thought or Universalists like Origen, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory of Nyssa. Perhaps he is unaware of the Biblical case that some put forward for such teachings, they can't be dismissed as simply liberal ideas when for many they are grounded in exegesis not wishful thinking.
His chapter on Christology and the Nicene Controversy again is left with much to be desired. There were many Ecumenical Councils called between Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) such as at Antioch (341), Sirmium (351), Sirmium again (357), Arminium (359), Seleucia (359), and Constantinople (360) where the Nicene view was not affirmed. Many of these Councils had wider support and more Bishops present than at Nicaea yet their so-called Arian theology was eventually overturned at Constantinople (381) and Nicaea was enforced by the sword of the Roman State. History is not as simple or black and white as we would like it to be.
I think the book downplays the diversity that existed within Christian thought before 381 AD and the different views of Jesus and God that existed side by side before the Roman State adopted one particular version to be the official version and persecuted all others. Rightly or wrongly that is what happened. His references to John 1 and Philippians 2 seem hollow when any person acquainted with those texts knows that there are other ways to interpret those texts within the world of Second Temple Judaism and in a book against Liberal Christianity I think he shouldn't just state something but seek to prove why his conclusions are right. That is what I was hoping for.
Olsen condemns many of the post-reformation non-conformist groups as ‘Rationalist’ without engaging with their own work on their own basis perhaps again unwilling to discover if ‘reason’ was their primary motivator or if they actually believed themselves to be more faithful to the Scriptures.
I understand Olsen’s argument that non-Nicene theology shouldn’t be labelled Christianity but by that understanding many pre-Nicene theologians like Justin, Tertullian, Origen, etc… are not Christian either! Again, I am left wondering how deeply Olsen has engaged with pre-Nicene sources on their own terms rather than filtered through the tradition.
If the Vincentian Canon is affirmed, that the faith is that which has been believed “Everywhere, Always, and By All” to include pre-Nicene theologians like Justin, Tertullian, Origen, etc. it must consist of the Rule of Faith that Irenaeus defends or the Old Roman Symbol as it is known, something similar to the Apostles Creed. That is the faith that has been believed “Everywhere, Always, and By All”. It does not include many things that I know many would consider essential to Christianity (the well-developed understanding of the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, etc.), but it is the faith that has been believed “Everywhere, Always, and By All”.
I would agree that some within the Liberal Christian camp might not be able to affirm the Old Roman Symbol. Those individuals I would consider to be outside the definition of Christian. I would agree with Roger Olsen that a non-supernatural faith is not the Christian faith but another religion altogether. Christianity is thoroughly supernatural.
This book was not at all what I was expecting. I hoped that as a book ”Against Liberal Theology” it would offer persuasive arguments as to why traditional interpretations should be preferred for Christian texts in the light of recent scholarship. That book isn't this book. I do have great respect for Roger Olsen. I have read other things he has written. It is obvious that he is well read in Liberal Christianity and has a great deal of first hand experience. I do not. Many of his attacks on Liberal Christianity however could also be attacks on certain strands of Eastern Orthodox thought or Universalists like Origen, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Gregory of Nyssa. Perhaps he is unaware of the Biblical case that some put forward for such teachings, they can't be dismissed as simply liberal ideas when for many they are grounded in exegesis not wishful thinking.
His chapter on Christology and the Nicene Controversy again is left with much to be desired. There were many Ecumenical Councils called between Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) such as at Antioch (341), Sirmium (351), Sirmium again (357), Arminium (359), Seleucia (359), and Constantinople (360) where the Nicene view was not affirmed. Many of these Councils had wider support and more Bishops present than at Nicaea yet their so-called Arian theology was eventually overturned at Constantinople (381) and Nicaea was enforced by the sword of the Roman State. History is not as simple or black and white as we would like it to be.
I think the book downplays the diversity that existed within Christian thought before 381 AD and the different views of Jesus and God that existed side by side before the Roman State adopted one particular version to be the official version and persecuted all others. Rightly or wrongly that is what happened. His references to John 1 and Philippians 2 seem hollow when any person acquainted with those texts knows that there are other ways to interpret those texts within the world of Second Temple Judaism and in a book against Liberal Christianity I think he shouldn't just state something but seek to prove why his conclusions are right. That is what I was hoping for.
Olsen condemns many of the post-reformation non-conformist groups as ‘Rationalist’ without engaging with their own work on their own basis perhaps again unwilling to discover if ‘reason’ was their primary motivator or if they actually believed themselves to be more faithful to the Scriptures.
I understand Olsen’s argument that non-Nicene theology shouldn’t be labelled Christianity but by that understanding many pre-Nicene theologians like Justin, Tertullian, Origen, etc… are not Christian either! Again, I am left wondering how deeply Olsen has engaged with pre-Nicene sources on their own terms rather than filtered through the tradition.
If the Vincentian Canon is affirmed, that the faith is that which has been believed “Everywhere, Always, and By All” to include pre-Nicene theologians like Justin, Tertullian, Origen, etc. it must consist of the Rule of Faith that Irenaeus defends or the Old Roman Symbol as it is known, something similar to the Apostles Creed. That is the faith that has been believed “Everywhere, Always, and By All”. It does not include many things that I know many would consider essential to Christianity (the well-developed understanding of the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, etc.), but it is the faith that has been believed “Everywhere, Always, and By All”.
I would agree that some within the Liberal Christian camp might not be able to affirm the Old Roman Symbol. Those individuals I would consider to be outside the definition of Christian. I would agree with Roger Olsen that a non-supernatural faith is not the Christian faith but another religion altogether. Christianity is thoroughly supernatural.
February 27, 2023
This book never gets off the ground because it's basic position is that liberal theology has cut the cord of continuity with Christian orthodoxy as to be a different religion (p. 54), but failed to establish that orthodoxy being the Bible plus historic consensus, is greater than another foundation. At the end of the argument for 'orthodoxy' there always lies the problem that it's foundation is formed on some kind of consensus and that the consensus is composed of individuals who were not verifiably commissioned by God to make the claims to which they intend humans, downstream from themselves, pay obeisance. The point in history one selects to be authoritative is always only an arbitrary pick based on what most resonates with whoever is selecting. A true foundation of a cohesive belief ought to have a more secure foundation, with a metaphysical justification, than 'tradition' or 'consensus'; truth has never been reliant on committees or democratic processes. So, the assumption (which Olson seems to hold) that the Bible plus rationale, or science, is inferior to the Bible plus ancient consensus, on the strength that it is not ancient consensus, never gets established (as it can't), it is, rather, assumed and then used in a kind of weaponized way at any person or belief that does not start with the premise that ancient consensus is an a priori virtue necessitating faith. Besides a lack of some kind of a metaphysical justification for his position being a superior one by which to criticize other positions, Olson was annoying to read as his arguments often teetered on the ad hominem as is exemplified by the way he claims that comparing orthodox and liberal theologies is like comparing apples to oranges or humans and orangutans (p. 35) (presumably the liberal theology being the ape of the two).
Olson fails to argue against liberal theology on the merits of the beliefs, and leaves his audience wishing he wrote something with which to provide a better understanding, rather than a rant against what he does not like.
Olson fails to argue against liberal theology on the merits of the beliefs, and leaves his audience wishing he wrote something with which to provide a better understanding, rather than a rant against what he does not like.
April 5, 2025
Olson did a good job in contrasting liberal theology with the orthodox Christian faith common to all 'Mere Christians' across the ages. By drawing extensively on the works of 'liberal theologians' themselves, he shows that they are really offering an alternative religion.
This liberal theology is not just 'liberal' in the sense of American politics, but rejects fundamentals of the orthodox Christian faith, refusing to believe in The Trinity, miracles, and so on because it doesn't sync with the modernist shibboleths that they have adopted. This has been a central problem since folks like Schleiermacher, whether today's liberal theologians have read him and his ilk directly or not. It is the air they breathe. Although, we should all be wary of this as it is easy to slip into Christian-sounding precepts and practices.
Olson doesn't just lament. He points out some good and some bad in modern approaches like higher biblical criticism and gives credit where it is due to liberal theologians. Oftentimes, he will lament what they have left out moreso than what they have argued for, in the affirmative. This reminded me of G.K. Chesterton's quote about the virtues run amok; Collapsing the Christian faith into 'social justice' and the like does not grasp this radical and layered way of Yeshua.
“The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.”
This liberal theology is not just 'liberal' in the sense of American politics, but rejects fundamentals of the orthodox Christian faith, refusing to believe in The Trinity, miracles, and so on because it doesn't sync with the modernist shibboleths that they have adopted. This has been a central problem since folks like Schleiermacher, whether today's liberal theologians have read him and his ilk directly or not. It is the air they breathe. Although, we should all be wary of this as it is easy to slip into Christian-sounding precepts and practices.
Olson doesn't just lament. He points out some good and some bad in modern approaches like higher biblical criticism and gives credit where it is due to liberal theologians. Oftentimes, he will lament what they have left out moreso than what they have argued for, in the affirmative. This reminded me of G.K. Chesterton's quote about the virtues run amok; Collapsing the Christian faith into 'social justice' and the like does not grasp this radical and layered way of Yeshua.
“The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.”
August 23, 2023
I've formed an acquaintance with the author, who sent me this book as a gift, given the subject matter of our interactions.
The book reminded me of a class I had in seminary, Contemporary Theology, which took us through the work of many theologians, demonstrating key features of their theology, especially where they departed from orthodoxy. This book does the same, but specifically focuses on liberal theologians.
In reading some of the negative reviews here, I think they fall into one of two categories. Some reviewers must embrace a form of the theologies Olson attacks, so they don't like the book. Others don't appreciate the objective of the book, which, as I understand it, is to demonstrate where liberal theology departs from orthodoxy.
Some reviewers don't have a good grasp of orthodoxy. Olson speaks quite broadly on the terms of orthodoxy, locating orthodoxy on the ground of where there is broad agreement among Christians (with internal debate on finer points). For the most part I think he does a reasonable job in identifying the orthodox point of view.
However, his point isn't to prove or demonstrate orthodoxy, it is to show how liberalism teaches something other than orthodoxy. He is writing for those disaffected with the emptiness of liberal theology, pointing them to a more robust Christianity. Personally, I think he is too generous with moderate Christians, and uses the term fundamentalist in a too pejorative sense. In other words, I think the place he is pointing Christians to is much more conservative than he describes. Moderate Christians are more or less in the half-way house towards liberalism that he decries.
Still, I think his warning is well taken and I think his message is worth hearing. One hopes that some of his target audience will pick this book up and get some guidance for their own lives.
I gave it only four stars because I think he should be stronger in pointing towards orthodoxy, but he has done a good job overall.
The book reminded me of a class I had in seminary, Contemporary Theology, which took us through the work of many theologians, demonstrating key features of their theology, especially where they departed from orthodoxy. This book does the same, but specifically focuses on liberal theologians.
In reading some of the negative reviews here, I think they fall into one of two categories. Some reviewers must embrace a form of the theologies Olson attacks, so they don't like the book. Others don't appreciate the objective of the book, which, as I understand it, is to demonstrate where liberal theology departs from orthodoxy.
Some reviewers don't have a good grasp of orthodoxy. Olson speaks quite broadly on the terms of orthodoxy, locating orthodoxy on the ground of where there is broad agreement among Christians (with internal debate on finer points). For the most part I think he does a reasonable job in identifying the orthodox point of view.
However, his point isn't to prove or demonstrate orthodoxy, it is to show how liberalism teaches something other than orthodoxy. He is writing for those disaffected with the emptiness of liberal theology, pointing them to a more robust Christianity. Personally, I think he is too generous with moderate Christians, and uses the term fundamentalist in a too pejorative sense. In other words, I think the place he is pointing Christians to is much more conservative than he describes. Moderate Christians are more or less in the half-way house towards liberalism that he decries.
Still, I think his warning is well taken and I think his message is worth hearing. One hopes that some of his target audience will pick this book up and get some guidance for their own lives.
I gave it only four stars because I think he should be stronger in pointing towards orthodoxy, but he has done a good job overall.
January 27, 2023
The title of this book can be a little misleading, mainly the part about putting the "brakes" on "progressive Christianity." If you're looking for a book that argues against Christians who would be labelled as "liberals" by fans of websites like The Daily Wire, this is not it.
As it turns out, the idea here is not that progressive Christianity is bad or wrong. The author's point is that there are certain boundaries within Christianity that, once violated, bring a person into the realm of being non-Christian. "Liberal theology" is a specific view going back to Friedrich Schleiermacher and spreading onwards and is not to be confused with liberal Christianity in general, which is far less defined. The author is writing against a specific view.
Interestingly, it seems the author's intention is not necessarily to lead people to Christianity. In fact, the author instead argues that if one is following liberal theology that steps outside the boundaries of "orthodox" Christianity, it is better to stop identifying as a Christian (since according to the author, that person would not be a Christian).
Overall, the book does give interesting insight upon where one draws the line in terms of their own worldview. You can't eat veal and claim to be a vegan. You can't claim to be an extreme pacifist and be pro torture. What are some examples when it comes to Christianity? Even if one does not agree with the author's views, and even if one is not a Christian, it makes for a good question for reflection on personal worldviews.
As it turns out, the idea here is not that progressive Christianity is bad or wrong. The author's point is that there are certain boundaries within Christianity that, once violated, bring a person into the realm of being non-Christian. "Liberal theology" is a specific view going back to Friedrich Schleiermacher and spreading onwards and is not to be confused with liberal Christianity in general, which is far less defined. The author is writing against a specific view.
Interestingly, it seems the author's intention is not necessarily to lead people to Christianity. In fact, the author instead argues that if one is following liberal theology that steps outside the boundaries of "orthodox" Christianity, it is better to stop identifying as a Christian (since according to the author, that person would not be a Christian).
Overall, the book does give interesting insight upon where one draws the line in terms of their own worldview. You can't eat veal and claim to be a vegan. You can't claim to be an extreme pacifist and be pro torture. What are some examples when it comes to Christianity? Even if one does not agree with the author's views, and even if one is not a Christian, it makes for a good question for reflection on personal worldviews.
July 4, 2023
It’s What’s Missing That Matters
Roger Olson has undertaken a helpful evaluation of the origins and errors of contemporary liberal Christian theology in his brief, but thorough, book “Against Liberal Theology.” Olson finds elements of this postmodern theology dating back to some of the oldest heresies in the early church, but traces the present-day beginnings to German theologian and pastor Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, clearly with influence from Enlightenment thinking. He then examines key elements and fundamental doctrines of Christian faith (the Bible, God, Jesus Christ, salvation, and eschatology) through the lenses of orthodox traditional Christianity as well as Schleiermacher and his theological successors, right up to contemporary proponents. He makes a convincing case that liberal Christian theology, while containing elements of the orthodox, in all cases falls short of, denies, or reimagines essential doctrine. It is missing what is most important, and therefore is not truly Christian other than in name. It is a new religion with Christian features, but not essential Christian belief. That’s largely what makes it attractive and effective, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as Jesus and Paul warned. This may sound impenetrably academic, but Olson keeps it uncomplicated and comprehensible. It’s worth reading if you are troubled by the apparent decline in mainstream western Christianity.
Roger Olson has undertaken a helpful evaluation of the origins and errors of contemporary liberal Christian theology in his brief, but thorough, book “Against Liberal Theology.” Olson finds elements of this postmodern theology dating back to some of the oldest heresies in the early church, but traces the present-day beginnings to German theologian and pastor Friedrich Schleiermacher in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, clearly with influence from Enlightenment thinking. He then examines key elements and fundamental doctrines of Christian faith (the Bible, God, Jesus Christ, salvation, and eschatology) through the lenses of orthodox traditional Christianity as well as Schleiermacher and his theological successors, right up to contemporary proponents. He makes a convincing case that liberal Christian theology, while containing elements of the orthodox, in all cases falls short of, denies, or reimagines essential doctrine. It is missing what is most important, and therefore is not truly Christian other than in name. It is a new religion with Christian features, but not essential Christian belief. That’s largely what makes it attractive and effective, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, as Jesus and Paul warned. This may sound impenetrably academic, but Olson keeps it uncomplicated and comprehensible. It’s worth reading if you are troubled by the apparent decline in mainstream western Christianity.
June 22, 2025
Whenever we dive into questions of theology, we are often tempted to interpret the Bible and our understanding of God either through a liberal or conservative lens. Conservative and liberal here not referring to modern political ideologies, but to the way we wait the authority of Scripture, tradition, the sciences, and human reasoning.
The challenge for believers is to thread the nettle so as to not fall into either camp, but to focus on Orthodox belief. That is the chief concern of this book, while it does focus far more on the dangers that often come with liberal theology.
Olsen main concern is whether Liberal theology, not the individuals who practice it, can authentically be called Christian and he does an excellent job laying out his points in a detailed and understanding way. If Christianity can mean anything, then in reality it means nothing. Definitions matter. In many ways, he is far more moderate in his approach than the title might suggest.
There are times when I think Olsen repeats himself far more than is necessary and he often emphasizes a point that was clearly already made very clear, but aside from that, I found it to be a helpful read and I learned quite a bit about this theological tradition I hadn’t known prior to reading.
The challenge for believers is to thread the nettle so as to not fall into either camp, but to focus on Orthodox belief. That is the chief concern of this book, while it does focus far more on the dangers that often come with liberal theology.
Olsen main concern is whether Liberal theology, not the individuals who practice it, can authentically be called Christian and he does an excellent job laying out his points in a detailed and understanding way. If Christianity can mean anything, then in reality it means nothing. Definitions matter. In many ways, he is far more moderate in his approach than the title might suggest.
There are times when I think Olsen repeats himself far more than is necessary and he often emphasizes a point that was clearly already made very clear, but aside from that, I found it to be a helpful read and I learned quite a bit about this theological tradition I hadn’t known prior to reading.
July 7, 2022
A succinct summary of liberal theology which, according to the author, is defined as “maximal acknowledgement of the claims of modernity in Christian thinking about doctrines (6).” The author argues that liberal theology is not a branch of Christian theology but an entirety different religion which is closer to Unitarianism which rejects external authority, transcendence, divine intervention. This came about through the influence of Fredreich Schleirmacher who coated liberal theology with a spiritual veneer and Christian phraseology. In support of his thesis, Olson argues that liberal theology is problematic not because of what it affirms but because of what it dismisses, ignores, and rejects. It does not say enough about important doctrines such as God’s nature, salvation, and eschatology. For those who have grown frustrated with fundamentalist Christianity, the book warns against buying into liberalism while guiding readers toward orthodox Christian belief.
January 27, 2025
I enjoy reading Roger Olsen. He puts it all on a shelf, which is fairly accessible to most people. It’s important to Olsen that the term evangelical be preserved. I don’t feel this way at all. This book has much good information. As I see it, and I may not see it correctly, it comes down to authority. Where is authority based? On the word of God, the scripture, which has been shown to be in error or contradictory in so many places, so often (after all, don’t we all interpret scripture, according to our own predispositions). Or do we place authority on our own sense of who and what God should be (as in liberal theology). I personally am not able to resolve this dilemma and so remain cautiously open to both.
December 20, 2023
This is a relatively quick read on what is a survey of liberal theology. Roger Olsen is not speculative in his approach, but thoroughly quotes theologians who have been self-acclaimed liberal theologians.
Highly respectable is the endeavor Olsen takes. It would be easier for the author to criticize contemporary figures who are liberal (theologically), but instead he only dissects the authors and founders that promote liberal theology as a sect of Christianity.
Interesting read, though it can be repetitive and in my opinion, organized better into topics in each chapter. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it!
Highly respectable is the endeavor Olsen takes. It would be easier for the author to criticize contemporary figures who are liberal (theologically), but instead he only dissects the authors and founders that promote liberal theology as a sect of Christianity.
Interesting read, though it can be repetitive and in my opinion, organized better into topics in each chapter. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it!
August 23, 2024
Certainly achieves what he set out to do. The real question is, did he come about it honestly? I am always leary of authors with an agenda who then quote their opponents. More often than not those quotes are out of context or overly simplistic of a much more complex idea. Personally, I think liberal theology is way more nuanced and complex then this little book let's on. And it is in that complexity that the author misses the major points. The good thing is he gives plenty of resources so the reader can continue their research and truly make up their own mind
September 11, 2022
A very good in-depth look at the origins and current theology of those who (as the author indicates) cannot truly be considered Christian. It was eye-opening to see words from leaders of these religions, as you could almost see how other Christians who may not have a firm foundation could be roped into believing such nonsense. The author does tend to repeat information from time to time throughout this rather short book, but overall I would recommend this to those who are students of theology.
February 4, 2023
So Liberal theology as used here has a specific definition. Liberal theology is NOT progressive theology, he writes the book to highlight the differences as a warning to progressives not to adopt these liberal beliefs.
So liberal theology has a very natural modern flavour. No supernatural, Jesus was just a very very good human, life after death is metaphorical etc.
There is repetition as he outlines liberal theology and contrasts it vs orthodox Christianity (as Olson debit) in each chapter.
So liberal theology has a very natural modern flavour. No supernatural, Jesus was just a very very good human, life after death is metaphorical etc.
There is repetition as he outlines liberal theology and contrasts it vs orthodox Christianity (as Olson debit) in each chapter.
February 14, 2023
I good review of the origins and beliefs of Liberal “Christian” theology, but very repetitive. I appreciated the heavy quoting from liberal theologians themselves, but if I have to read the phrase “cut the cord of continuity with orthodox Christianity” one more time, I may just through this book across the room. Seriously, why didn’t the editor help to think of better and different ways of saying this idea rather than let the author repeat the exact same phrase ad nauseam??
June 24, 2024
Outstanding primer on Liberal Christianity
Olsen does an outstanding job at explaining exactly what Liberal Christianity is theologically (or as he would say what it leaves out). In a conservative church culture that quickly applies the “liberal” tag to anyone left of them in the theological spectrum, Olsen defines what classic liberalism is and how it is a completely different religion from Orthodox Christianity. Well worth the read. Very readable and accessible.
Olsen does an outstanding job at explaining exactly what Liberal Christianity is theologically (or as he would say what it leaves out). In a conservative church culture that quickly applies the “liberal” tag to anyone left of them in the theological spectrum, Olsen defines what classic liberalism is and how it is a completely different religion from Orthodox Christianity. Well worth the read. Very readable and accessible.
April 10, 2025
Short and concise. Olson is pretty fair in critiquing Liberal Theology, often using verbatim definitions from liberal theologians. For Orthodox Christians, this may be preaching to the choir, but he develops a useful "genealogy" of liberal theologians throughout the years, with a focus on the United States.
April 20, 2025
Roger Olson is one of the finest evangelical scholars of the late 20th-early 21st century. I gave the work a 3 star rating mainly because of its size. It is a good introductory work for those who have never been initiated into classic Liberal Theology. For anyone looking for a more in-depth engagement you will have to consult the larger works that Olsen references.
July 19, 2022
Very informative and helpful
I appreciate Olson’s passion for Biblical truth. he takes on recent challenges to orthodox beliefs with solid theology. This is a good read for anyone who is on the fence.
I appreciate Olson’s passion for Biblical truth. he takes on recent challenges to orthodox beliefs with solid theology. This is a good read for anyone who is on the fence.
October 7, 2022
Excellent engagement with the subject
May 13, 2023
I was impressed by the nuance the author exhibited in as little space. The differentiation between liberal and progressive, as well as similarities.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews