One problem with liberalism is that, while it follows the trends of current morality, it does not follow the trends of historical morality. This is a difference in worldview. The liberal agenda sees history as a constant movement of progression. It sees the present age as the age most enlightened.
A problem with that is that it is not consistent with its very beliefs. It feels the need to combat injustices. This assumes that the world is plagued with injustice. Granted, liberals tend to admit this. What I don’t understand is why the liberalism, on the basis of a naturalistic meta-narrative, thinks that, given the great and apparent injustice in the world, it is safe to assume that we, as a society, are moving in a direction of progress. It’s possible that we are, by why is it assumed?
As Anthony Hoekema pointed out, the Christian worldview is one that acknowledges a tension, a constant tension between the optimistic hope of the redemption of all things through Christ, alongside of the constant realization that the tares are accompanying the wheat until the end (Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future, 34-37).
Christianity and Western Secularism are similar in that they both have a hope in historical progress. The difference is that Christianity has a standard by which to judge progress and a solid reason to hope that it will come to fruition.