So, I was talking with Colleen a few nights ago, and the subject of the categorization of "conservative," "moderate," and "liberal" Christians came up. We were trying to figure out which particular camp we belonged to, and I found myself struggling a little bit with trying to nail that down.
The subject's stayed on my mind since then, and as I was trying to go to bed last night, I realized why it perturbed me so much. It's because that sort of labeling for Christians makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. AT ALL.
Bear with me here. First off, we need to unpack just what each word means. This is what Mr. Webster's dictionary has to tell us...the definitions shared are the ones most relevant.
CONSERVATIVE: 3. "Tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions; traditional"
MODERATE: 3. "Professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme." Also, 1. "Avoiding extremes of behavior or expression; observing reasonable limits; calm or temperate."
LIBERAL: This is the place where definitional realities get messy. The most relevant are 4. "Not literal or strict; loose" and 5. "Broad-minded; especially: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms."
(Thank you, http://www.merriam-webster.com)
So, there's what the dictionary says. The connotation that each word carries in describing the Church...sometimes a little different. And usually totally depends on how you self-identify. For example, someone who identifies as a "conservative Christian" probably would define "moderate Christians" as "middle-of-the-roaders; lukewarm (and about to be spit out by Jesus); wishy-washy; afraid to take bold stands," and would probably define a "liberal Christian" as "an oxymoron; not real Christians; deceived by Satan and followers of false doctrine." Pardon me if I'm making assumptions or putting words into others' mouths, but as someone who grew up a self-identified "conservative Christian," this is the framework within which I thought.
Similarly, a "moderate Christian" would probably define the others as being extremists, and a "liberal Christian" would have a similar view on "moderates" as "conservatives" profess, and then would view "conservatives" as the ones distorting the Christian message.
OK, so are you with me so far? Good. Now that we have a feel for what the words mean, here's why I think it's bogus to try and cram people into these so-called camps.
FIRST REASON: You need a framework for the conservative-to-liberal spectrum. Specifically, are you talking about doctrine, or social views, or worship practices, or what? Your average evangelical church probably holds to doctrine that would be, by some, considered "traditional" (more on that in a minute), and probably holds conservative social views, but has extremely "LIBERAL" worship practices that are non-liturgical and not in conversation with the long-held traditions of Christian worship. On the flipside, your average Episcopal church in the Northeast probably has rather more "liberal" theology and social views, but is quite "CONSERVATIVE" in its worship life in comparison to, say, an Assemblies of God church in the South. Without a defined framework, these definitions end up with the same issue as a physics problem that doesn't have a set frame - it's impossible to find an adequate solution. Is Trinity Church in Boston "liberal" or "conservative?" It all depends on what aspect of their life as a faith community you're looking at.
SECOND REASON: Many people who see their theology as "traditional" don't have much of a sense of the depth or breadth of what has been put forward as orthodox theology in the course of Christianity. Most who identify as "conservative Christians" probably mean that their doctrine is soundly biblical, and that of "moderates" and "liberals" is less so (if at all). I have a few issues with this. One, the "traditional doctrine" espoused by a lot of these groups is explicitly Protestant, so the Catholic and Orthodox churches are totally left out in the cold...and quite frankly, if anyone can claim to have old, traditional Christian doctrine, it's the Orthodox. Two, the "traditional doctrine" usually referenced also excludes almost all historically mainstream Protestant doctrine, as well as most of the Radical Reformation (e.g. Mennonites). Three, the "traditional doctrine" typically referenced is a North American amalgamation of Baptist and Congregationalist theology from English groups, which were themselves mixtures of Radical Protestant, Reformed, and Anglican influences. Insisting on this as "traditional" or "biblical" at the expense of about 90% of the rest of Christianity is really rather narrow. By the same token, "conservative" factions within Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Catholicism, etc. do the same thing, just with different "traditional" theology.
That creates this issue - who, then, gets to define what is or is not "traditional, biblical doctrine?" A Missouri Synod Lutheran would argue that orthodox Lutheranism counts, but that Southern Baptists are heretics; a Southern Baptist, meanwhile, would take a look at orthodox Lutheranism and have just about the same reaction. And then what do you do with those of us who are confessional Lutherans (and thus adherents of some pretty "traditional" doctrine, but also believe in the importance of non-traditional ways of doing biblical study and criticism, have more progressive social beliefs, etc?) on this spectrum? Does my having "conservative" AND "liberal" convictions mean that I come out in the middle as a "moderate?"
THIRD REASON: This is maybe more of an expansion of Reason Two, but regardless, I also find it problematic in this whole definitional boondoggle that we forget the breadth of beliefs that are, in fact, classified as "traditional." There's been a lot of talk about Rob Bell and universalism over the past few years; how many people have mentioned that Christian universalism has been around at least since Origen in the 3rd century, and that a very good biblical case can be made for it? Whether or not that case is the proper interpretation is another question, but it's within the range of at-least-defensible biblical interpretations. Either way, it's been around WAY long enough to be "traditional," and has always been present in the Church. Call it heterodoxy or heresy, but it's not some new, modern phenomenon. My point here, though - does that make Origen a "liberal," even though he was about as serious a "conservative" as possible on lots of other issues? Do we even think those terms have value in describing a Church Father?
FOURTH REASON: We muddy these waters even further when we move past orthodoxy and on to orthopraxy - "right actions" instead of "right beliefs." Is someone like Rick Warren, who has a "conservative" theology around salvation, the nature of the Bible, and certain issues, truly a "conservative" since he also pushes pretty heavily for ecological and economic justice, both of which are pretty "liberal" values? Does that mean he balances out to being a "moderate?" Is a hardcore Southern Baptist in Alabama who composts and voted for Obama (this presumably suggests their ethnicity...) a "conservative," a "moderate," or a "liberal?" Or, what about a theologically "liberal" UCC-er who drives an SUV, disowns their gay child, and voted for Rick Perry? What are they on this spectrum?
I think all of this is my way of saying that this categorical mania is a uniquely North American craziness. We just HAVE to put ourselves into broadly over-defined categories that mean absolutely nothing, don't we? Let's please stop doing it in the Church. I may disagree, rather heartily, with some of my Southern Baptist friends from my hometown, but at the end of the day, we are all in the same camp - the Body of Christ. Let's stop finding ways to use our ignorance to accentuate our differences, and let's start actually working together as that one Body to do God's work in this world.
No comments:
Post a Comment