Liberal theology cannot be easily categorized (as the "Got Questions" website attempted to do) in a few sentences. In fact, Got Questions completely ignores the fact that the so called "liberal theology" arose in opposition to the Enlightenment, which was an effort by many agnostic scientists and philosophers who were highly critical of dogmatic Protestant orthodoxy, among them Immanuel Kant, who put an end to the Enlightenment's pursuit of knowledge through pure reason. However, he introduced the concept that human knowledge arises from the interplay of incoming sensory data (absorbed through the five senses) and innate categories built into the human mind which process that data and in turn made it “knowledge.”
He further held that reality was to be divided into two realms, the phenomenal (the created order in which we live and which is open for us to experience) and the noumnenal (spiritual, metaphysical reality). Well, at least he acknowledge the created nature of this world, but the rest is what has led us to question God's word as God breathed, literal in meaning within the context of the obvious literal and figurative language, allegory, parable, etc., as well as the validity of the Bible as a message for today.
Friederich D.E. Schleiermacher is considered the father of liberal theology. Building on Kant's postulations, he determined three things: (1) The criticiism of Protestant orthodoxy is valid; (2) Romantic Idealistic philosophy gives a better soil in which to ground the Christian faith than the shallow moralistic rationalism of the Enlightenment, (3) Christian theology can be interpreted in terms of romantic idealism and thus allow mankind to be both Christian and modern while being intellectually honest.
In viewing the neologians’ ("new theologians") critique of orthodoxy as correct and in light of Kant’s perceived destruction of the possibility of a rational knowledge of God, Schleiermacher influenced by Romanticism, found a new seat for religion and theology, one that could not be touched by enlightenment criticism--the Gefuhl (the feeling). This feeling is not to be understood as mere emotion. It is the deep inner sense of man that he exists in a relationship of absolute dependence upon God. It is his “god-consciousness” This is the center of religion and piety, according to him.
Schleiermacher turned the traditional theological method on its head. Rather than starting with any objective revelation, religion was seen at its core as subjective. Experience was seen as giving rise to doctrine rather than doctrine to experience. Theological statements no longer were perceived as describing objective reality, but rather as reflecting the way that the feeling of absolute dependence is related to God. It is this experience which is seen as the final authority in religion rather than the objective revelation of an inerrant Scripture. He said “Christian doctrines are accounts of the Christian religious affections set forth in speech.”
For Scheleiermacher, Jesus Christ was unique. Not that he was the God-man of historic orthodoxy, but rather in that he demonstrated in his life a perfect and uninterrupted God-consciousness,. He displayed the “veritable existence of God in him.” This was the redemption which Jesus accomplished. and brought to mankind. In this understanding the cross is not in a sacrificial atonement, but rather it is an example of Jesus’ willingness to enter into ‘sympathy with misery.’
Redemption was then the inner transformation of the individual from the state of God-forgetfulness to the state of God-consciousness. To put it another way, redemption is that state in which god-consciousness predominates over all else in life. Thus his theology was utterly Christocentric in that it was concerned with the example of Jesus as the perfectly god-conscious one, but it ignored Christ's deity and did away with the cross as the atoning sacrifice that restores our fellowship with God.
It took years for these philosophies to worm their way into so-called "mainstream" theology, which is what many of those churches I call "Liberal" in nature -- Anglican, Episcopalian, United Methodist, and others like them -- believe they are: Mainstream. In reality, it is those denominations that are typically criticized as narrow-minded and static in their beliefs that are the mainstream of Christian thought, because these are the denominations that remain closely aligned to what God's word says. These are the Southern Baptists, Evangelical Free, PCA (not PSUSA), Free Methodist, Disciples of Christ, Reformed, and similar churches.
The former churches in that list are more a follower of Schleiermacher than Christ.
