We were in church ... an adult class ... and they were sharing prayer requests. Someone asked for prayer for a newlywed couple on their honeymoon ... safe travels. "No," someone said, "they already had that honeymoon ... before they were married." With a laugh. And I thought, "How did we arrive at this 'sex outside of marriage is suitable and admirable' position?" Just an example. I find it all over the place ... self-identified Bible-believing Christians ... even discussing biblical texts and principles ... explaining why modern society has demonstrated that the text can't mean what it says because modern society has improved on it. People who grew up with biblical morals are embracing worldly morals without batting an eye. And I don't understand.
I get that some of them are misinformed. They don't know, for instance, that "God created Man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27), rendering the entire "transgender" concept impossible. They maybe haven't noted that the repeated text, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31), specifies "man" and "wife," precluding "husband and husband" or "wife and wife" ... defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Maybe they aren't diligent enough to see all the texts about God placing husbands over wives (e.g., Gen 2:18; 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22-33) and choose to ignore them, not because they're vague, but because modern society says otherwise. The mere notion that wives should submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22) and husbands must sacrifice self for their wives (Eph 5:25) is abhorrent to so many Christians simply because culture (and self-centeredness) opposes it. Of course, maybe some fall into a different category entirely (Matt 7:21-23). But if Jesus said God's word was truth (John 17:17), wouldn't it be encumbent on every true believer to discard personal views that oppose Scripture and adopt biblical views at all times? Even if they oppose modern society?
If you look at the positions of the "liberals" in the '60s, you'll find that they're often the current positions of the conservatives today. "Conservativism" is an attempt to promote and preserve ("conserve") traditional institutions, customs, and values. The problem is that as things change, the "traditional" changes, so "conservative" changes. In a sense, then, "conservatives" necessarily follow behind "liberals," trying to maintain prior values that were discarded ... while discarding earlier ones. That's understandable in politics or culture, but when the values that are discarded are biblical, it's a serious problem. And when people who classify themselves as "Christians" choose to knowingly discard biblical values, that's a real problem.
As a reader who can well recall those “positions of the ‘liberals’ in the ‘60s” you mention, I concur. When I was a young believer (mid-1970s), an older Christian friend said, “Yesterday’s immorality is today’s morality.” I didn’t understand that at my young age, but I have since observed exactly how our society is on a slippery slope--and always will be, as long as Satan is active among us. It’s just a question of how far it will decline before God sees fit to let our culture collapse completely--like so many formerly “great cultures” before ours.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I am hesitant to label myself categorically “conservative” (or even “traditional”), but I certainly wish to hold biblical values (and when I deem that some “traditional” custom or other is unbiblical, I have no qualms about abandoning it).
Stan, I am very curious about your post title. What is the form of “conservatism” to which your thoughts today are in contrast (“of a Different Type”)? Are you thinking political conservatism, for example? or something else?
ReplyDeleteOh ... I thought that was obvious. We should be conserving biblical values ... without wavering or "following" the world as they "progress."
DeleteStan, Your response to me clarified the conservatism that you are promoting (i.e. the one “of a different type”). I was asking for clarification “of the form of ‘conservatism’ to which your thoughts today are in contrast.” Was it political conservatism or something else? I ask since the theme of this post seems to rest on a distinction between two forms of “conservatism,” but I am only sure of one.
DeleteLorna, when we speak of "conservatism," it is almost exclusively political. My entire intent was to move past that. There is also economic "conservatism." Also not my aim. From the New Testament when the writers addressed errors in theology in the new Church to today, what I'm addressing is the constant need to preserve the truth of Scripture. Thus the opening story of the church lady who thought sex before marriage was perfectly suitable. Too often Christians are like political conservatives ... following the "liberals" and adopting their discarded positions. We NEED to stand for the truth and conserve it ... from the start, not where (religious) liberals left it.
DeleteThanks for this extra bit of elaboration, which helps confirm my personal priorities: While I generally hold to conservative political positions, political conservatism is not my life’s passion (as it is for many people). However, I am definitely committed to conserving biblical values, about which too many people are remiss, as you point out. The first stance serves me for this earthly life, while the second goes far beyond it.
DeleteAs with everything as language changes, I often find we need a new word for those of us that don't want simply to go back to the values in the 1960s, but more back to the 1860s. I want to "conserve" a nation that hasn't been a reality for several generations.
ReplyDeleteReally, David, the 1860s?? Would that be before the Civil War to abolish slavery, or after it?
DeleteI cannot imagine that David meant to suggest, "The 1860's were perfect in their theological view of the world" or anything like it. I would argue that the U.S. in general held a more conservative (in the sense of conserving Christian values) view than the 1960's. (And it's interesting that the "conservative Christians" were the biggest proponents of ending slavery in America and elsewhere.)
DeleteLorna, despite the evils of slavery, do you think America was more, or less, culturally Christian in the 1860s than today? Why is it when anyone ever says anything good about a time before the abolishment of slavery, everyone simply assumes they want slavery back? No, I don't want to bring back slavery, or give up our health and dental care, or lose cars and electricity. I do want to live in a country that is culturally Christian that is striving to be better than it was. Instead of a time like the 1960s where sexual liberation was important, and the beginning of the hatred of our own country took root. And finally, I wasn't thinking so much about the exact years, only the word play between the 1960s and 1860s. I had even considered saying the 1760s. Just focusing on a time when the majority of Americans had a Christian view of the world and wanted that view to spread.
DeleteStan, I figured David’s intention was just to go waaay back from the 1960s. I just wouldn’t have landed on the 1860s, as they were a pretty horrible decade in the U.S.A., of course. The mid-19th century was not a great era theologically, either, as I understand it, with “spiritualism” quite prevalent and cultic movements like Mormonism, Christian Science, and Seventh Day Adventism gaining much ground. Yes, it is notable that Christians were at the forefront in the abolitionist movement (though maybe they were more “liberal” than “conservative” in that regard, as most Southerners [today’s “Bible Belters,” quite ironically] very clearly wished to maintain their current way of life and fought hard to do so).
DeleteDavid, I appreciate your clarification. I will say first that I do not entirely celebrate a “culturally Christian” America. Of course it is better for me personally than, say, a “culturally Muslim” or “culturally Hindu” America, etc., but as I am sure you know from Church and world history, the Church has more trouble staying pure in a “culturally Christian” society. But to your main point: As for the state of the Church in America 100 (or 200) years ago, I would venture to speculate that it had the same character then as today--with a small subset of true believers seeking to spread the Gospel and love their neighbors as themselves and the vast majority, alas, being only “cultural Christians” (with all the mix of good and bad aspects that entails).
DeleteWhen you commented above, “I want to ‘conserve’ a nation that hasn't been a reality for several generations,” I wanted to agree, but then I struggled to identify an idyllic generation (at least the 1960s produced great music! :). My view is that conditions in America--including the state of Christianity--have always been just like they are now--cause both for concern and for rejoicing (thus confirming my personal feeling that “conservatism” can’t necessarily be my default stance).
You know, it’s usually us old people who are nostalgic for “the good ol’ days,” and it’s almost always an era we have actually lived through. :) However, please know that, as an American history buff, I do understand your overall point--and am certainly glad your clarified that you weren’t actually wishing to relive the Civil War (in which case, you could always be a reenactor…).
Not sure I'd agree that the 60s produced "great" music. Certainly popular music, but not a lot I'd like my kids singing along with.
DeleteWell, of course there is a mixture of good and bad. (There is also instrumental music, with no questionable lyrics.) I guess the motto, “different strokes for different folks,” is applicable here--which, ironically enough, can be found in the lyrics of a song from the 1960s!! :-D
Delete