Does liberal theology necessitate liberal politics?

[Elijah John]

It seems an observable tendency that theologically liberal churches and scholars are more often than not are politically liberal as well.

Example, the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Quite tolerant of a wide array of theologies, but almost entirely politically liberal. No theological orthodoxy, but a political one.

And historical Jesus scholars such as John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg. Both progressive Episcopalians, both theologically liberal and politically liberal.

For debate.

Why this tendency? Does it follow that if one is theologically liberal, that one must be politically liberal as well?

If so, why so?

[bluethread]

It is a "humane and compassionate view" according to them. The concept that all are created equal is not an absolute. The ideas of "equal respect and rights" also presume a limited context. Men and women, for example, are unequal in many respects, and to treat them as equal in those respects is neither humane nor compassionate. It would probably be more accurate to bypass the value judgement and just say that what one calls "liberal" really refers to the premises of "equal respect and rights". That said, those who believe in omnibenevolence tend to support egalitarian public policy.

In that case the Bible cannot represent an omnibenevolent God, because the Bible clearly does not allow for equal respect and equal rights between men and women.

That is correct.

In fact, it starts off in Genesis having the Biblical God decreeing that the man shall rule over his wife and her desire shall be to serve him. So it starts off with extreme inequality basically proclaiming that wives should be slaves to their husbands.

No, the Scriptures say, "... your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." The term for desire refers to biological attraction not wishing to be a slave. Also, it is stating that men will dominate. That is indeed the case. This is not a should, but statement of fact. Whether that is a blessing or a curse is a matter of prospective, I guess. But this is not a commandment to make women slaves.

The Bible doesn't stop there. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

So if omnibenevolence = egalitarian public policy, then the Biblical God cannot be omnibenevolent. So supporting omnibenevolence would be to blaspheme against the will of the Biblical God.

Yes, that is correct. If you can show me where it says otherwise in the Scriptures, I would be happy to examine that.

[JP Cusick]

Wrong says who?

If you are claiming that it is wrong according to the will of God, then to support omnibenevolence would be to blaspheme against the will of God.

You are saying that God can not be omnibenevolence - and I am saying that God is not omnibenevolence - so that makes two of us saying that same thing.

People who do say it are just wrong - and it is not blaspheme when a person is wrong in their belief.

It is not wrong according to the will of God, it is just another one (1) of many wrong beliefs.

[amortalman]

It seems an observable tendency that theologically liberal churches and scholars are more often than not are politically liberal as well.

For debate.

Why this tendency? Does it follow that if one is theologically liberal, that one must be politically liberal as well?

If so, why so?

I think your observations are correct.

Generally speaking a liberal worldview (and conservative worldview for that matter) influences how one understands scripture as well as for whom one votes on election day.

That does not mean that if one is theologically liberal he must be politically liberal as well. But to be otherwise is like wearing one shoe that fits and one shoe that doesn't. You can walk in them but it won't be very comfortable.[/i]