We live in a world divided largely by "the Left" and "the Right", "Liberal" or "Progressive" and "Conservative". This is largely in the political realm, but it also bleeds into lots of other areas. There are social liberals and social conservatives, usually in terms of "social justice" kinds of issues. There are religious liberals and religious conservatives, generally in doctrinal issues. But ... just what is "liberal" and "conservative"? I don't think we're really clear anymore.
Conservatives want to conserve the values we have. That's the general idea (despite the false propaganda from the "liberals" that conservatives just want to keep everything to themselves). But it's not quite accurate. Liberals/Progressives, on the other hand, want to move on. (No, they're not more generous.) "Onward and upward" kind of thinking. But that's not quite right, either. Ambrose Bierce described the two this way:
Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.That's really what's at issue here. The concept of conservatism is to conserve things as they are, but conservatives don't actually do that. If you were to look at the views of conservatives today they would largely coincide with the liberals of yesterday. They have been described as the shadow of a man following him into his grave. The Left moves along at a pretty good clip and the Right follows behind, trying to "conserve", and doing it badly. I don't even want to be that kind of conservative.
I am a Christian. Genuine followers of Christ fall in an unusual category in "Left" and "Right", "Progressive" and "Conservative" terms. They fall in the "both/and" category. The things that God says should remain are things that we should work to conserve. The progress that God says we should seek are things to which we should progress. So believers should stand firm for traditional, biblical marriage (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5-6; Eph 5:31-32), for instance, as staunch conservatives and should work against racism and sexism (Gen 1:26-27; Gen 9:6; Gal 3:28), as examples, as avid progressives. Move away from what is as it fails to align with what God wants and stay with what is as it aligns with what God wants. Both/and.
The Left constantly wants to move. They have vague motivation. "It will be better if ..." without actually having real knowledge of it will be better. "No-fault divorce is better than requiring a reason" turns out to be a lie. "Killing babies is a mother's right" is a lie from the pit of hell. On the other hand, when the Right refuses to budge on white supremacists or sexual harassment as if these are valid things to conserve, they demonstrate the same lack of direction. Believers should be pursuing the glory of God. Where that is currently the case, they should be conservative. Where it is not, they should be progressive. It defies the categories, just like Jesus did when He was on earth.
12 comments:
"On the other hand, when the Right refuses to budge on white supremacists or sexual harassment as if these are valid things to conserve, they demonstrate the same lack of direction."
These two examples do not in any way describe any conservative I know personally, or of any that I believe is typical. They do, however, sound just like how the left describes "the Right".
That Ambrose Bierce dude also fails to get it. Which existing evil would be an example of that which conservatives are captivated exactly?
I would also insist that the conservative/classical liberal was always opposed to racism and sexism. To oppose them as liberals of today do only perpetuates those very "isms".
Conservatism, as I understand it, is the consequence of Christianity as even you understand it...it is compelled by Christian ideology, I would say. It can even be described as the secular/political expression of Christian teaching. In short, I am conservative because I am Christian.
So there are people who are basically good? Paul disagrees (Rom 3:12) When conservatives fail to recognize that our current immigration policies are faulty and our economic system is losing ground to the greedy, they are failing. When the liberals of their day fought to overcome slavery, it was those who wished to conserve the status quo who fought against them. "Conservative" simply means "stay where we are", and any time "stay where we are" is against Christ, it's not a place Christians should stay.
My point is that no system -- conservative or progressive -- is error free. My point is that I want to move away from error. Sometimes that is conservative; sometimes it is progressive. (And you don't think there are many that would be classified as conservative who are not racist or sexist?)
"So there are people who are basically good?"
There are people who have a Biblical understanding of what "good" is and strive to be so.
"When conservatives fail to recognize that our current immigration policies are faulty and our economic system is losing ground to the greedy, they are failing."
Wow. How very sadly leftist of you! In what way is our current immigration policy faulty? To the conservative, there is no failure in recognizing our borders are porous and our enforcement is lax. In some cases, where there are so-called "sanctuary cities/states" the law is ignored and willfully disobeyed. Steps are currently being taken to address these "faulty" aspects of our immigration policy. What else do you see is faulty.
The economy is also being addressed by conservatives (to the extent they have the numbers to succeed in their agenda) to improve and expand the economy in ways that will benefit everyone...as has always been the desire. I, personally, don't care that the "greedy" benefit, but to suggest they are monopolizing things to the extent that they are "gaining ground" on the rest requires something tangible to back it up. Who are these greedy people and on what basis do you suggest they are manipulating legislation at the expense of the...uh..."non"-greedy? (And who are they?, exactly?)
"When the liberals of their day fought to overcome slavery, it was those who wished to conserve the status quo who fought against them."
This is a decidedly leftist interpretation of what modern conservatism is. It does NOT require in any way maintaining a status quo that is either impractical, harmful or oppressive. It does not require "staying where we are" at all, but advancing in a manner that does not compromise what we DO wish to preserve, such as virtue, character, honor, etc. And it insists upon doing so in accordance with the law of the land...the U.S. Constitution.
"My point is that I want to move away from error. Sometimes that is conservative; sometimes it is progressive."
This suggests that a conservative would not recognize that rare "good idea" that comes from the mind of a progressive and wish to implement it ASAP. OR, that a conservative can't be made to see that his own error is indeed error and wouldn't be willing and eager to move away from it. I don't know where you get this notion.
"(And you don't think there are many that would be classified as conservative who are not racist or sexist?)"
Not sure I understand this question. Are you suggesting that the conservative who is not racist and/or sexist is the oddity? Or do you mean that there are likely some conservatives who are one, the other or both? Please clarify.
"There are people who have a Biblical understanding of what good is and strive to be so."
Okay, well, then, you and I disagree. We disagree on definition. You think "conservative" means "moving on to better things" and I think it means "conserve what is". And we disagree on conservatives themselves. Since I don't believe all conservatives (or even a majority) are people who have a biblical understanding of what good is, I don't believe all conservative values are good ones. I say this largely because of how far they have deviated from what they used to be and how far they are from biblical values.
Because I think our current immigration policies are too restrictive means that I'm leftist? Here's a prime example of how the "conservatives" have drifted from their conservative values. When did they jettison the concept, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore"? When did our policies shift from inclusive to restrictive? That's not leftist. That's yesterday's conservatives. That is a value conservatives failed to conserve.
You hold a rosy, "can't do wrong" view of conservatives. I hold a "tainted by sin" view of conservatives. Conservatives can be sexist, racist ... a lot of "ists" I find sinful. (Didn't the president indicate that there are bad people in both camps?)
To me, to the extent that conservative values line up with God's values, I'm all for it. To the extent that they fail to line up with Scripture, then, I would be "progressive" ... lining up my values with Scripture. Or, to turn this around, the primary function of "progressives" and "conservatives" is to look at what is and try to make it better; my view is to look at Scripture and try to make my values align to it.
Marshall, where are you getting the idea that most conservatives are Christian? Roughly half of the population seems to be conservative. You really believe that half the population of the U.S. is Christian? I guess if you agree with the polls that say some 60% of Americans identify as "Christan". But what true believer actually believes that? And the would be both liberal and conservative Christians. So let's be generous and say that 70% of Christians are conservative. Ballpark math puts us at a 30% Christian conservative demographic. That's a full 20% of conservatives that don't even identify as Christian. And that's being generous with the definition of Christian.
I think Stan's point is that we shouldn't lock ourselves into the label of conservative if what the conservatives want isn't Christian.
I wish to get into this in a bit more detail, but can't for at least another day. For now, I would respond to David's initial question.
"Marshall, where are you getting the idea that most conservatives are Christian?"
I didn't say that. I said I believe conservatism, of the type that now is common, flows from and more than any other political ideology in this country, aligns with Christian teaching. Perfectly? Who does? But it's true nonetheless. I would also suggest that the more conservative one is politically, the more likely that person will be Christian...and not "progressively" so. For those that aren't, they are likely strongly tied to some faith, such as Judaism (though conservative Jews are rare on the whole I think).
I'd like to see some examples from the conservative wish list that isn't Christian from either one of you. I'm not saying such doesn't exist, but only that I can't think of what that might be. I'll address the immigration thing later.
"I'd like to see some examples."
Well, one that concerns me is one that you appear to hold, the positive isolationism that seems to say that we should severely limit (as in "near zero") who gets into this country. Christian values would be to show hospitality and charity. A modern conservative view (because it wasn't in the old days) appears to be "Keep 'em out!"
Please note, however. I did say, "I am not saying I would not be ranked among the 'conservatives'." In the tests I've taken I'm more of a centrist, but what I'm saying is I'm not a "America right or wrong" type and I'm not a "conservatives right or wrong" type.
My position on immigration is not to prevent people from coming to this country to be Americans...eagerly wishing to become a part of the one nation with the most opportunities for the most people. My position is that we live in a time that requires we work harder to prevent those who are clearly undesirable from entering, even if it means suspending all immigration for a time so as to improve the process. No nation is required to allow ANYONE to enter, but rather to welcome those who will be a benefit. While we do have, in my opinion, some obligation (if we are truly Christian and/or charitable) to aid those in need, we are not obliged to stick our collective necks out in hopes that only the truly needy (but just swell individuals) are entering. We know this is not the case. Truly evil people are entering all the time (as measured by intent to do harm, take advantage of our charity and benefits without providing any, etc.) and our own people do not deserve to be made victims just to appear to the world to be great guys.
There's nothing wrong with protecting one's own, and our government is tasked with that most important task well above any obligation to those who try to enter. We already, even with all the imperfections in the system, allow more people in than do most countries. There is no "modern conservative" position to "keep 'em out", unless the "'em" being referenced are those that are dangerous or entering illegally.
"to welcome those who will be a benefit."
That's very "conservative" and even "American", but are you saying it's "Christian"? That's my point.
Yes. I don't believe that, aside from seeking to help sinners be saved, we are not expected to welcome the unrepentant and reprobate into the church where doing so would...how did the Biblical comparison put it?...degrade the quality of the dough. In the same way, on what basis do we let in just anyone without some criteria for doing so? How does that make us "Christian" to welcome in those who will kill us, directly or indirectly, or harm us by their unwillingness to live by our cultural and societal standards? And of course, immigration is a governmental process and the government is tasked with acting on the best interests of its citizens, not those who are not citizens.
You asked for an example that I see of conservative values that differ from Christian values. I believe that charity -- "love your neighbor" -- to include your enemy is a Christian value. You don't. And that's an example of where conservative values differ from Christian values from my point of view.
Post a Comment