Part Three: “Theological Crossroads: Liberalism, Evangelicalism, and the Struggle for Scriptural Authority.” Theological Diversification and the Rise of Liberalism (1800s)
The 1800s were a time of theological tension and transition. As society marched forward with scientific progress, industrial revolutions, and new political ideas, the Christian church found itself at a crossroads. On one side, liberal theology was gaining momentum, driven by intellectual movements that sought to harmonize Christianity with modern thought. On the other side, evangelicalism was pushing back, insisting on the inerrancy and authority of Scripture as the foundation for Christian faith.
This century became the battleground for what we now call the modernist-fundamentalist divide, with seminaries, churches, and believers grappling over how—or even if—Christianity should adapt to an evolving world. Let’s dive into the key movements and figures that shaped this era and see how their contributions stack up when compared to the Bible itself.
Friedrich Schleiermacher and the Birth of Liberal Theology
In the early 1800s, Friedrich Schleiermacher emerged as one of the most influential theologians of his time. Often called the “father of modern liberal theology,” Schleiermacher proposed a radical shift in how theology was approached. Instead of grounding faith in the authority of Scripture, as had been the practice for centuries, Schleiermacher suggested that religious experience was the true foundation of theology.
For Schleiermacher, Christianity wasn’t primarily about doctrines or dogmas—it was about the feeling of absolute dependence on God. In his landmark work, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers, he argued that religious faith was an expression of the human soul’s sense of connection to the divine, not something rooted in intellectual assent to specific beliefs. Schleiermacher saw the Bible as a record of these experiences, but not as the final word on truth.
Now, let’s compare this to Scripture. The Bible teaches that faith comes by hearing, specifically through the Word of God (Romans 10:17). While experience can play a role in our relationship with God, Scripture consistently places revelation, not feeling, as the foundation of faith. For example, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Paul writes that all Scripture is “God-breathed” and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Schleiermacher’s emphasis on experience effectively sidelines the Bible’s central role in guiding belief and behavior.
The Impact of Higher Criticism
Schleiermacher wasn’t alone in rethinking how the Bible was viewed. Throughout the 1800s, a movement known as higher criticism took hold in European seminaries, particularly in Germany. Scholars like Julius Wellhausen began applying historical-critical methods to the Bible, treating it as a document that evolved over time, rather than as the inspired Word of God.
One of the most influential theories to come out of this period was the documentary hypothesis, which argued that the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) were not written by Moses, but were instead a compilation of different sources stitched together over centuries. According to this view, the Bible wasn’t a unified, divinely inspired text, but a patchwork of human writings, subject to error and historical revision.
This approach profoundly impacted how seminaries taught theology. Instead of studying the Bible as God’s Word, it became more like an ancient artifact to be dissected and analyzed through the lens of human history and culture. While some of the insights from higher criticism helped deepen our understanding of the Bible’s historical context, it also had the effect of undermining its authority as divinely inspired.
Again, Scripture itself speaks to its origins in God’s revelation, not human invention. 2 Peter 1:20-21 says that “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The higher critical method, by emphasizing human authorship and development, often lost sight of this divine authorship.
The Evangelical Response: Defending Biblical Inerrancy
In reaction to these liberal theological trends, a movement emerged that sought to defend the inerrancy of Scripture and uphold the traditional Christian faith. This movement, which would eventually develop into what we now know as evangelicalism, was led by figures who believed that the Bible was not just an important religious text—it was the very Word of God, without error in all that it affirmed.
Charles Hodge and Princeton Theology
One of the leading voices of this evangelical movement was Charles Hodge, a theologian at Princeton Seminary. Hodge staunchly defended the infallibility of the Bible, insisting that Scripture was the inspired Word of God and could be trusted in everything it taught, from doctrine to history to morality.
In Hodge’s view, theology wasn’t just about experience or human reason—it was about revealed truth, as found in the Bible. He famously wrote, “The Bible is to the theologian what nature is to the man of science,” emphasizing that just as scientists study the natural world to discover truth, theologians study Scripture to understand God’s will.
Hodge’s position was deeply rooted in passages like Psalm 119:160, which declares, “The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of Your righteous rules endures forever.” For Hodge and his followers, the authority of Scripture was non-negotiable. They argued that if the Bible could be questioned or treated like any other book, then the foundation of Christian faith itself would be in danger.
Princeton Seminary became a stronghold for this Reformed theology, and Hodge’s teachings on biblical inerrancy would go on to influence generations of evangelical pastors and scholars. While liberal theologians were dissecting the Bible through critical methods, Hodge and his students were defending its reliability and divine inspiration.
Charles Finney and the Revivalist Movement
While Hodge was engaged in theological battles within academia, another figure was sparking a different kind of theological movement—one based on emotional experience and social reform. Charles Finney, an evangelist and key figure in the Second Great Awakening, rejected some of the more traditional doctrines of Reformed theology, particularly the idea of predestination. Finney believed that people had the power to choose salvation and that revival could be brought about through human effort and persuasion.
Finney’s revival meetings were legendary for their emotional intensity. He introduced new methods, such as the “anxious bench”, where individuals who were seeking salvation would sit in the front of the congregation and be encouraged to come forward and make a public decision for Christ. Finney believed that people’s wills played a crucial role in their salvation, a departure from the Reformed emphasis on God’s sovereignty in electing those who would be saved.
Finney’s theology placed a strong emphasis on free will and the ability of individuals to turn to God through their own efforts. This stood in stark contrast to Reformed teachings, such as those of Hodge, which held that salvation was a work of God’s grace alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) and that humans, in their fallen state, were incapable of coming to God apart from His intervention (Romans 3:10-12).
While Finney’s emphasis on personal conversion was biblical in its call for repentance (Acts 2:38), his views on human will and the mechanics of revival sometimes downplayed the role of God’s sovereign grace in the process of salvation. Finney’s approach marked a significant shift from the theology of men like Jonathan Edwards, whose own revival preaching was grounded in the understanding that salvation was fully the work of God.
Theological Tensions and Shifting Seminaries
As these various movements collided, seminaries became theological battlegrounds. Institutions that had once held firm to traditional doctrines found themselves grappling with questions of how—or if—the Bible should be adapted to modern thought.
The Social Gospel Movement
In the late 1800s, yet another theological movement arose, driven by a desire to address the social problems of the industrial age. This movement, known as the Social Gospel, emphasized the need for Christians to be actively involved in reforming society, particularly in areas like poverty, labor conditions, and racial justice.
Walter Rauschenbusch, one of the key figures in the Social Gospel movement, believed that the Kingdom of God wasn’t just about individual salvation—it was about transforming society to reflect God’s justice and mercy. While his passion for social justice was certainly commendable, critics argued that the Social Gospel movement sometimes downplayed or even neglected the traditional focus on the atonement of Christ and personal repentance.
The Bible teaches that believers should care for the poor and pursue justice (Isaiah 1:17, James 1:27), but it also maintains that the ultimate solution to humanity’s problems lies in spiritual regeneration, not just social reform. John 3:16 makes it clear that the central mission of Jesus was to save the world through His death and resurrection, offering eternal life to those who believe. While Christians are called to address injustice, Scripture consistently teaches that salvation is first and foremost about being reconciled to God through Christ.
Conclusion: The Battle for the Bible in the 1800s
The 1800s were a century of theological tension. On one side, liberal theologians like Schleiermacher and Wellhausen were rethinking how Christianity fit into a modern, intellectual world. They emphasized human experience, reason, and the historical development of Scripture, but often at the cost of the Bible’s authority as God’s inspired Word.
On the other side, evangelical leaders like Charles Hodge were fiercely defending the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, insisting that God’s Word was trustworthy and true in everything it taught. Revivalists like Charles Finney, though less doctrinally focused, were calling people to personal repentance and conversion, even as they introduced new methods and ideas about human free will.
By the end of the 19th century, these debates had reshaped seminaries, churches, and the faith of millions. The struggle for scriptural authority would only intensify in the years to come, setting the stage for the modernist-fundamentalist divide of the 20th century.
Glossary
- Liberal Theology: A movement that seeks to reinterpret traditional Christian doctrines in light of modern thought, emphasizing reason and experience over the inerrancy of Scripture.
- Inerrancy: The belief that the Bible, in its original manuscripts, is without error in all that it affirms, whether in matters of faith, history, or morality.
- Higher Criticism: A scholarly approach to studying the Bible that seeks to determine its historical origins and how it was written, often questioning its divine inspiration.
- Documentary Hypothesis: A theory that the first five books of the Bible (the Pentateuch) were written by multiple authors over time, rather than by Moses.
- Second Great Awakening: A Protestant revival movement in the early 19th century that emphasized personal conversion, emotional worship, and social reform.
- Anxious Bench: A method used by Charles Finney during revivals where people seeking salvation would sit in the front of the congregation to receive prayer and encouragement to convert.
- Social Gospel: A movement that emphasizes the application of Christian principles to social problems, advocating for societal reforms based on the teachings of Jesus.
- Atonement: The doctrine that Jesus Christ, through His death and resurrection, reconciled humanity to God by paying the penalty for sin.
This part sets the stage for understanding how liberalism and evangelicalism battled for the heart of theology in the 1800s. In the next part, we’ll explore how these conflicts exploded in the early 20th century, leading to the rise of fundamentalism and the continued challenges posed by modernism.
Go to Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
