This is a very tricky issue.
I agree 100% with the OP that religious liberals provide cover to fundamentalists by claiming their holy books are the word of God. Some liberals like Anglican bishop John Shelby Spong try to sanitize the Bible by admitting to "the sins of scripture" (the title of one of his books). However, it turns into a theological dog's breakfast. Basically, he anathematizes any passages which violate the statement that "God is love." Obviously, a fundamentalist can define "love" any way he wants, for instance, God loves homosexuals so much that He cannot tolerate their sins.
Just a few weeks ago a liberal rabbi who writes a column for a large newspaper tried to hang the whole doctrine of human rights on the biblical story that God created mankind in his own image. If we found such an important matter only through the Bible, the fundamentalist can argue for taking the whole thing seriously.
The problem is this: Is it worth thumping liberals over their attachment to scripture? I must confess I have done that more than once. Yet liberal believers do a lot of good in the world. If I were offered a choice between converting all religious liberals to secular humanism OR converting all fundamentalists to liberal religion, I would choose the second in a heartbeat. The first option would make no discernible difference to the state of the work, but the second would make an immense difference.
I agree 100% with the OP that religious liberals provide cover to fundamentalists by claiming their holy books are the word of God. Some liberals like Anglican bishop John Shelby Spong try to sanitize the Bible by admitting to "the sins of scripture" (the title of one of his books). However, it turns into a theological dog's breakfast. Basically, he anathematizes any passages which violate the statement that "God is love." Obviously, a fundamentalist can define "love" any way he wants, for instance, God loves homosexuals so much that He cannot tolerate their sins.
Just a few weeks ago a liberal rabbi who writes a column for a large newspaper tried to hang the whole doctrine of human rights on the biblical story that God created mankind in his own image. If we found such an important matter only through the Bible, the fundamentalist can argue for taking the whole thing seriously.
The problem is this: Is it worth thumping liberals over their attachment to scripture? I must confess I have done that more than once. Yet liberal believers do a lot of good in the world. If I were offered a choice between converting all religious liberals to secular humanism OR converting all fundamentalists to liberal religion, I would choose the second in a heartbeat. The first option would make no discernible difference to the state of the work, but the second would make an immense difference.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House