You can't examine politics or religion without hearing the terms "conservative" and "liberal". Oh, and we're all sure what they mean. They mean "that other side from us who are totally rotten and mean and completely out of touch". Odd, isn't it, seeing that the definition fits both sides? But, seriously, I suspect that the two terms (as they are employed in politics and religion) have lost their meanings. Words without clear definition simply lead to confusion when two people use them, thinking that the other is working off the same intent ... and they're not. Let's see if I can offer a clear definition so that, whatever you mean by it, you'll know what I'm intending.
First, it is necessary to ask, "Where are we?" It is humorous to me that Canada uses "Conservative" to reference those who are part of the Progressive Conservative Party. It's funny to me simply because, in my use of terms,"progressive" and "conservative" are contradictory. The U.K. also has a political party called the Conservative Party. In the U.S., it is commonly believed that the Democrats are "liberals" and the Republicans are "conservatives". However, many conservatives have left ... no, jettisoned the Republican Party because, well, it isn't very conservative. So, depending on where you are, when I reference "conservative" and "liberal" I am not reference a political party.
So, what do these terms mean? (Remember, I'm defining them for my use, so most accurately I'm referencing what they mean to me.) The dictionary defines "conservative" as "favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change." That is precisely how I understand "conservative". Here's the idea. In politics and in Christianity, the earlier views tend to be the better views. Therefore, the intent is to conserve those earlier views, ideals, and values, not to leave them.
Now, "liberal" is generally viewed as the opposite of "conservative" (in politics and religion ... not in other uses). Context, then, determines the meaning of "liberal". If you say, "He gave liberally", you are not saying, "He gave from a mindset opposite of conservatism", but that he gave with generosity. And therein lies part of the problem. I looked up the word in the dictionary and found 13 definitions. The primary thought (in the terms we are considering) is that of "progress or reform". (You can see how that is the opposite of "conserve".) Of course, some of the definitions are misleading in the context we're speaking about. For instance, one definition is "permitting freedom of action" or "in accord with the concepts of maximum individual freedom". I would hope that you can see that "favoring traditional values" would not preclude "permitting freedom of action". Another is "open-minded or tolerant". Again, "favoring traditional values" does not require "close-minded". It's entirely possible that a conservative (of the type we're examining) has openly examined all the options and concluded that traditional values are better than new ones. The most often misused definition is "generous". We all know that definition. To give "liberally" is to give generously. This is not, however, related in any way to the ideas at hand. (One of my sons had a teacher who tried to tell him this was the case. "Liberals want to help people, but conservatives just want to keep it for themselves." It's simply a lie based on the wrong definition of the term due to the context.) Here, look at it this way. In the world of religion and politics, "liberal" and "conservative" are opposites. However, in the world of charity, "liberal" and "stingy" would be opposites. Different definition from a different context.
Perhaps you can now begin to see the need to define terms. It is a very easy thing to use the wrong definition for one term as a weapon against the other. "Oh, so you don't want to allow freedom??" "I see; you aren't very generous, then, eh?" These are evidences of two people separated by the same language. It's good to use common terms for communication, but it is essential that we are defining our common terms commonly.
So ... what is a "conservative" Christian? This Christian sees the continuum of Christendom as a single system of theology, doctrine, and living that is based on the Bible, focused on the God of the Bible, and intended to make followers of the Christ of the Bible. As such, the notion of "liberal" in the sense of "progressive" or "reform" doesn't really make sense at all. If the historical, orthodox Christianity needs to progress, it was apparently started by a short-sighted God and His errant Son. The whole idea of "reform" in the Reformation was not "progress", but a return to the original ... the ultimate in conservative thinking. "We've strayed from the original values and views and need to return to them." It would seem, given the biblical view of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit, that "liberal Christianity" would be an oxymoron. Except for peripherals (like how your church is decorated or the music form you assume), it would seem contradictory to aim for a Christianity that changes from its roots. That would seem to be a contradiction of the nature of God and an indictment of the abilities of the Holy Spirit.
As for "liberal" or "conservative" politics, you're on your own. I do know that there is no longer a "conservative" party in America. Whether or not that's a good thing is certainly based on your view (positive or negative) of political conservatives. But I'm not going to debate that one here.
13 comments:
So before reading this this morning I was thinking along the same lines when I asked myself, was Jesus in his day a conservative or a liberal? The text I was thinking about as I asked this was the sermon on the mount. I'd be interested in hearing your thougts on this.
Good question, Dan. Since the Church didn't exist when Jesus walked the Earth, and since there was only the "Old Testament", the "Old Covenant", it would seem entirely necessary that "Christianity" was progressing, not fixed, in Jesus's day. It really didn't become "fixed" until the end of the Canon. So in that sense, Jesus was a "liberal". He was moving from traditional doctrines to new ones, or at least clearer ones.
Now, when Jesus did the Sermon on the Mount, I'm not entirely sure I would classify that as "liberal" or "progressive". I think, in that case, He was seeking "reformation", a return to the original intent. Adultery always meant "lust", but people weren't aware. Murder always meant "hate", but people forgot. And clearly the traditions of the Pharisees had pushed God's truth and God's Laws places God had never intended. (I mean, seriously, counting steps on the Sabbath to define "work"?) I would call that more of a Reformation than a progression.
You?
It seems that you're being over generously liberal in ascribing a "return to the original" reformation — in that, no way could that be in a world transformed in a post-Gutenberg era. It was a "return" to an idealized conception that never existed.
Ditto for the theme of "traditional values" — idealized portents, a frame of what never was, except as an envisioning of an anointed interpretation of canon. One that conveniently sets aside cruelty, violence, child (of course, the definition of "child" too is a modernist grasp) exploitation, objectification and polygamy.
Regarding politics, roots of "conservatism" lie with Edwin Burke, support for tradition and status quo. A far cry from how many "conservative" Christians define "conservatism" (and one in stark contrast to others calling themselves "conservative" who share little in common with religious folk in outlook other than on some matters of commerce).
In a way, today's "liberals" are the true conservatives — striving to keep the New Deal advances forged generations ago afloat, those popular contrivances that became woven into the nation's social compact whereas the modern "conservatives" are the bearded "liberals" earnestly striving to tear those FDR/LBJ society accepted planks down. And since the Age of Reagan, this brand of "conservatism" has been the dominant political philosophy governing the nation (even during Clinton's term, which Alan Greenspan stated was the best "Republican" president he served under, the one with the economic policies closest to his "conservative" liking). Which, not coincidentally IMHO, has effected a grand transformation in the nation's economic moorings — from world's leading exporter (circa 1980) of goods to leading importer, and from top global creditor (again, ~1980) to top global debtor.
Naum,
I'm fascinated that you know without a doubt that the Reformation was not a return to biblical Christianity; that, in fact, it was impossible to do so. However, my point wasn't what they did or didn't do, but what they did or didn't intend. Would you argue that they intended to move Christendom to new places or return to old?
Of course, your statement that "traditional values" are "idealized portents" of "an anointed interpretation of canon" is also interesting because it is put out there without room for error. You're right. Anyone who disagrees is wrong. That pretty well settles it, right? I would argue that your certainty that the Bible is a book of "cruelty, violence, child exploitation, objectification and polygamy" is a twisted portent of a tainted interpretation of the canon, a product of modern views read back into the Bible without concern for what was written or intended. But, hey, that's just my opinion, right? Mine might be wrong; yours can't.
You're free to argue about who is liberal or conservative politically. As I said in my post, "As for 'liberal' or 'conservative' politics, you're on your own." If you want to argue that the best "traditional values" that we should hold on to is "New Deal advances", that's your privilege. I know there are many historians who would argue otherwise, but I'm not a historian. But you should be very happy with our current "conservative" (by your measure) president who, in New Deal style, is planning to have the government spend us out of trouble, eh?
@Stan, from my study of history of the Reformation, and reading not just the words of Luther, Calvin, etc.… but other prominent "voices" of the age, plus the wide swath of historians it seems like they intended to move Christianity to new places. And excise it of the taint that had collected and permeated the institutionalized church for centuries. But no way could it be construed as "returning to old" — impossible to return to a frame of the early church — not in a world radically upside-down from that of the first centuries AD.
Did I state that the Bible is a book of "cruelty, violence, child exploitation, objectification and polygmay"? Now, you're twisting my words that were posted in response to your "traditional values" quip — far from an overall pronouncement of the Bible and quite contrary to my assessment and feelings. Engaging in logical fallacy to obfuscate my point that you're picking and choosing, plucking out that which you wish to see, discarding any truth that does not match prescribed preconceptions. We're all guilty of this — it's utterly impossible to divorce yourself from culture and context.
…we look not at what can be seen but at what cannot be seen; for what can be seen is temporary, but what cannot be seen is eternal.
Naum: "Ditto for the theme of 'traditional values' — idealized portents, a frame of what never was, except as an envisioning of an anointed interpretation of canon. One that conveniently sets aside cruelty, violence, child (of course, the definition of 'child' too is a modernist grasp) exploitation, objectification and polygamy."
I responded to what I thought you said. If that's "logical fallacy", I guess I'm stuck. If it's simply a failure to comprehend on my part, on the other hand, then I apologize. Far be it from me to "twist" your words. I had no such intent. It was simply how I understood your comment here. If you could explain what you actually intended to say here as opposed to what I understood you to say, we could clear this up.
As to the Reformers ... since they constantly hearkened back to the Bible and since they constantly referenced beliefs that preceded their day and since they constantly held to "Ecclesia reformata semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei" -- "The church reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God" -- I have to disagree with you that they intended to move the Church to "new places". But, hey, it's a free country. You can choose to disagree.
@Stan, again, in response to your quip about "traditional values" — we seem to be speaking past each other, so I shall lay this to rest, other than to reiterate my point was your casting of "traditional values" that omits a great deal, and in acknowledging that, does not deem the Bible any less sacred.
Regarding the reformers — "hearkened back to the bible" — uh, for the early church, there was no "bible" (that took a couple of centuries to come together on a "consensus"), and the "word of God" was the OT which, how much depending on interpretations, was superceded by Christ. And if you think those councils deciding that were pristine and holy, free from machinations and Machiavellianism, that's just naive credulity.
It had to go to "new places" as the church as a persecuted band of followers in the early centuries was the complete opposite of the apparatus that intertwined church and state, with the interlocking elements blessing and sanctioning each other. It would be akin to a hunter/gatherer tribe being lifted out of the outback and deposited into New York or Tokyo or London to forge a new compact for their members. That might be an extreme metaphor, but the 16th century world was vastly different than the 1st century world, especially in regard to chuch/state relations, despite the preconceptions many hold.
And if you think those councils deciding that were pristine and holy, free from machinations and Machiavellianism, that's just naive credulity.
Plese Naum, could you explaine what it was that you meant by this? I'm haveving a hard time understanding.
Naum,
Since you are laying this to rest, I fear I won't actually be able to learn from you what you originally intended by your first claim -- the one you accused me of distorting.
Nor am I at all clear on what you mean by "your quip about 'traditional values'". I didn't actually list any "traditional values", so I don't know what your objection is. The Reformers meant "the teachings of the Bible". You seem to think they had to mean "the culture of the day". But, again, I may be misunderstanding you entirely. Would you say it is actually impossible for anyone to engage in biblical Christianity?
Here's one bible scholar's take on the councils and formation of Christian doctrine.
The point is that in the first five centuries of its existence, the church sought to develop a new terminology that would help it to understand more fully what it believed, that God had revealed the divine nature and acted for human liberation in the person of Jesus. This new terminology was accepted only after many arguments, some of them regrettably vicious, and it is now found in the classical Christian creeds, especially the so-called Athanasian and Nicene creeds.
I do not suppose for a minute that either Jesus or any of the apostles could ever have imagined the Nicene creed, or the later more elaborate definition of Christ’s nature at Chalcedon. That does not mean the creed is false. It means that it does not come from Jesus and the apostles – even though the Council of Chalcedon quaintly claimed that the doctrine that Christ was two natures in one person was as ‘the Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us’.
If Jesus ever had taught that, it took the church over 400 years to discover it, and even then many fervent disciples continued to dispute it. It is nowhere in the New Testament, pious reading of which produced as many different theories as it is possible to imagine, and possibly even more. It is the creation of the fifth century church, concluding (or trying to conclude) centuries of disputation. It is to be judged on how adequately it enables us to understand what God has done for humanity in the person of Jesus.
After rereading your post, @Stan, my reply on "traditional values" might be (or not :)) more germane to other posts and I humbly withdraw it from this here thread ;(
The problem with these venues is that it seems nearly impossible to actually have a conversation. And it's certainly not limited to Naum. I responded to what I thought Naum said. He accused me of "twisting my words". Now, I don't want to twist words, so I asked for clarification. I never got it. I never got answers to my questions. Now, lest anyone think I'm complaining about Naum, it is pretty clear that my responses didn't satisfy Naum either.
So we throw out thoughts and ideas and hope that real communication is taking place and it's pretty clear that it's not happening. It's a shame, too. I really am curious when I ask questions.
That was very gracious of you Stan. Generalities are a requirement for us mere mortals. As Alexis de Tocqueville put it:
God is able to see the differences between all individuals so it follows therefore that God has no need of general ideas, that is to say, He never feels the necessity of giving the same label to a considerable number of analogous objects in order to think about them more conveniently. Not so with man who in our impressive limitations need all the help we can get from such general ideas lest we get lost in the dazzling plethora of details that passes in a hazy hurry before us all. General ideas have excellent quality, that they permit human minds to pass judgment quickly on a great number of things, but the conceptions they convey are always incomplete, and what is gained in extent is always lost in exactitude.
There is a point also , I might add, that they simply turn in to fine sounding arguments built on very little fact. I think this was just such a case. I would hope that someone of such superior intellect as this fellow surely has would not be above explaining himself. Oh well.
@Stan, thanks, just want to be courteous and respectful, and I must confess, at times, am guilty of premature comment responses. I realize I swim against the tide here :)
In the exercise of being concise and succinct, thoughts are skimmed, or worse, answering the wrong argument or seeing something that isn't even there, and plainly evident after rereading.
And you are a gracious host, and I earnestly respect the civil manner and tone you conduct the discussions here. It's inspiring.
Even if I disagree with ~90% of what you conclude ;)
Post a Comment