Liberals look just like the rest of us.
As Anabaptists, we typically think of the conservative/liberal paradigm in terms of outward appearance. The Old Order are the most conservative, we are moderately conservative, and MCUSA is liberal. But we need a paradigm adjustment. Liberalism has less to do with how we look and more to do with how we think.[1] I argue that conservatism and liberalism are best defined in terms of what we believe about truth, or more specifically, what we believe about God.
Conservatism, in the best sense, is about preserving the historic tenets of Christianity. We “conserve” the good and true against the perpetual onslaughts of false teaching. We conserve the gospel, the one and only truth that can lead us to Jesus Christ our Savior. Conservatism as it should be is concerned with preserving true faith—not a set of standards, not a way of thinking or a way of life, but a set of truths, namely, the gospel of Christ.
We ought to recognize liberalism, not by change in appearance but by change in mindset and belief. The shift in appearance typically follows the corrosion of biblical truth. When appropriate applications are rejected, the war is already lost. The war must be waged along the lines of truth; externals are not enough.
Two tests are helpful in recognizing liberalism. First, “Who is at the center?” and second, “What is the standard of truth?” These two questions reveal the heart of the issue. In the first question, we want to know who the main figure in a worldview is. Is this primarily about God, or about man? Is this about what man is doing for God, or about what God has done for man? Biblical conservatism is God-centered. The gospel is about what God has done to reconcile lost rebels to Himself. He has redeemed us through the blood of Christ, His gift “to all and on all who believe.” A gospel that is more about what we are doing for God than about what He has done for us is indeed a gospel of liberalism.[2]
Secondly, we should try to understand what the standard of truth is. What defines reality? What defines the gospel? Is Scripture the ultimate, unrivaled authority, or are other authorities placed on par? We may think we have this straight, but we don’t always recognize when our authority is compromised. Why is it that we find biblical exposition dry and taxing, but we are inspired by testimonials? Might it be that we place higher stock in the experiences of individuals than in the unfading truth of God’s word? When anecdotes surpass exegesis, I’m afraid we’ve elevated experience over timeless truth. Similarly, when we reject biblical truth because we don’t understand it or don’t like it, we’ve elevated human reason over God’s truth.
Back to the point, liberalism may be identified by looking for what is the standard of truth. Is it experience? Tradition? Orthodoxy? Or is it the unadulterated word of God? These other things find their rightful place when subjected to the authority of divine truth.
Liberals look like the rest of us. They are identified by who they talk about and how they define the truth. Regardless of externals, one who’s gospel is about his work for God and not God’s work for him is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. One who defines reality by experience, tradition, or preference rather than by Scripture is a liberal.
Recently, an Anabaptist Christian School administrator publicly argued that a belief in salvation by grace through faith is incompatible with a concern for societal, cultural, or moral change. That is, if we believe that salvation is based on Christ’s merits, not our own, then we will be unconcerned about what we do and how we live. He specifically argued that those who believe in justification based on Christ’s atoning work are consequently unconcerned about racial reconciliation. Substitutionary atonement is juxtaposed to any concern for gospel applications. He argues that “if one views salvation as primarily involving personal absolution and the ‘finished work’ of Jesus by grace alone through faith” then the logical result is that one will be unconcerned about living the gospel out in tangible, practical ways.
But in this, our works become the main thing. The gospel is reduced from salvation by grace through faith (God-centered) to salvation by obedience through sincerity (man-centered). Justification—the finished work of Christ[3]—is rejected. This view fails the first litmus test. It is not a gospel that glorifies God for His provision in Christ. It seeks to please God by human effort, and is thus man-centered. Works become a component of our salvation, not a response to our salvation. See the difference? This gospel is one where we cooperate with God to save ourselves. We do our best and God does the rest. But that’s not the biblical gospel. According to Scripture, God does it all. Salvation is by His grace alone.
While it is true that some have argued for loose living on the basis of free grace, that is an unbiblical argument. No true believer gives himself to a life of sin. Numerous Scriptures could be given to prove this, but that is not the point of this article. Justification by grace through faith is not a motive for sin; it is a motive for righteousness. It is precisely because we have been saved by grace through faith—not by works—that we are compelled to live lives of holy worship, serving God with our entire beings because He has redeemed us. God does not leave us to work our way to Him, nor does He reward our futile efforts at righteousness with salvation. Salvation is given to undeserving sinners by His grace. Our response is loving service. True faith always produces fruits of righteousness.
But salvation is not by discipleship. This is where much of this generation gets the gospel wrong. Believers are called to be disciples; I’m not denying that. Jesus wants disciples. But discipleship is not the means of salvation. Those who are redeemed (justified) are those who then follow Christ as His disciples. If we think we are saved because we are obedient, we are dead wrong. Salvation is not for the self-righteous. Jesus does not call the righteous, but the sinners to repentance. So long as we think of ourselves as good enough on our own, we are sterile to the gospel. God does not save us based on our goodness, but on Christ’s. We receive this grace through faith. But that’s all we do—receive in unconditional surrender.
I believe the argument in question fails the second test as well. What is the standard of truth? I was surprised at how blunt his argument against Scripture was. He specifically criticizes the belief that “[salvation] is a ‘free gift’ that entails ‘no works’ lest anyone should boast.” How can this be denied? He rejects Scripture itself, for this comes straight from Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” This blatant rejection of Scripture reveals a preference for human reason over biblical truth. Scripture is used as a helpful aid, not as the absolute authority. If this were an isolated text, we could argue the semantics, but these verses in Ephesians summarize one of the core truths of the gospel as revealed throughout Scripture. This is not simply a misinterpretation; it is a rejection of Scripture.
It is also said that a gospel of grace marginalizes the teachings, life, and witness of Jesus. But even in the gospel witness, Jesus presents Himself as the Savior. That is, He is the one who will provide salvation. He calls people to Himself, not simply to embrace His ethic but to find their salvation in Him. Christ saw His substitutionary atonement as His central purpose on earth. Throughout the gospels He speaks of “His hour,” anticipating His crucifixion whereby He would atone for the sins of believers. He is called the “Lamb of God,” which can only be rightly understood as a reference to the Passover Lamb. Jesus is the final lamb, the one who “takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). He understood that He had come to “give His life a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45).[4] Jesus came to save sinners, so that “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). It is because of His work on the cross that we can be saved by grace through faith. Salvation is not of our works; it is of Christ’s. To argue against salvation as a free gift is to argue against God Himself.
So then I argue that the aforementioned statement is liberal. Though emphasizing many good things—morality, discipleship, doing good in the world—it strips Christianity of the gospel—and thus of the only motive for Christian charity. The irony of this argument is that, in emphasizing action over surrender it undercuts the only thing that motivates the Christian to action. We love because we have been loved. We serve because Christ served us, laying down His rights, His freedoms, His life. He is the pattern we follow. “He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren” (1 John 3:16).
[1] This doesn’t mean appearances are disconnected from conservatism/liberalism, but just that appearances aren’t a good litmus test.
[2] I hope you can see in this that I am not arguing that our behavior is of no consequence. Rather, salvation (and all of the Christian life) is about us receiving grace from God, living by His power and not our own (cf. John 15, Romans 8, Galatians 5).
[3] Though this phrase is not used in Scripture, the concept certainly is, as a study through Romans, Galatians, or Hebrews will show.
[4] This is wrongly construed as validating the ransom theory of the atonement, which is at odds with biblical truth.