Posted on 04/17/2006 10:49:23 PM PDT by NZerFromHK
Conservatism seems to be getting more popular in America. In the moral realm that encourages me. In the political realm, I have mixed feelings.
While it was still unpopular conservatism offered many necessary correctives to the liberal status quo. I'm not sure, though, how it will stand up under greater power and popularity. Conservative politics as usual may prove not much better than liberal politics as usual.
When liberalism was popular it became arrogant and presumptuous and sunk to its lowest levels. I fear the same could happen to conservatism. And I fear it not only in society , but in the church.
The largely liberal philosophies that have dominated American media and politics for years have failed us miserably. Some recent elections testify to the fact that America is fed up with the lies and half truths of liberalism. While the media are still much more liberal than the country as a whole, even they have been penetrated. Rush Limbaugh and a host of other conservatives jam the airwaves with their ideology. Millions of Americas, including many Christians, are taking notes and saying "Amen."
But what about conservatism? Does it have its own dangers? Or is "Conservative" simply a synonym for Christian?
Many people I have talked with and many articles I have read seem to equate a return to conservatism with a return to the Christian faith. "Rush is Right" bumperstickers share space with "Jesus is Lord" bumperstickers, as if both are undeniable truths existing on the same plane.
I get the feeling from excited politically-oriented Christians that voting Republican is equivalent to falling on your knees at a revival meeting and getting your life right with God. It's like if America gets more conservative it's the same as drawing near to God.
The possibility of a Republican controlled House, Senate and White House may have some merits (it's hard to imagine things getting worse in Washington), but it's hardly on the level of the Great Awakening.
Though they are too slippery to allow simple definitions, the words "conservatism" and "liberalism" contain hints as to their essential nature. Conservatives want to conserve for society what is right. Liberals want to liberate society from what is wrong. To this extent, both philosophies are in theory right and biblical. Unfortunately, in their practice both are capable of being thoroughly unbiblical.
Liberals want to change the status quo. That's good when the status quo is wrong. Liberals desired to change from the status quo of racism in the 60's and they were right. Even though I oppose most of what it does today, I thank God for what liberal groups like the ACLU accomplished in the racial arena.
But liberals didn't know where to draw the line. They seemed to want to change everything, as if the notions that society once held (including that abortion and adultery and the homosexual relations are wrong) are restrictive and unhealthy, demanding liberation.
But it is wrong to seek liberation from all norms. It used to be that marriage was much more sacred, divorce was much more rare and abuse was much less common. Children learned how to read, achievement scores were much higher. Life was more sacred, religious values more respected and upheld.
Liberals have done much to "liberate" society from what is right, removing the guard rails that kept Americans on the road. In so doing they have enslaved while claiming to liberate.
Too often politically liberal Christians end up being liberals first and Christians second. They redefine compassion according to current political correctness. They act as if you either have to hate and vilify homosexuals or you have to say their behaviors are right. As if these are the only two alternatives.
They need to read Ephesians 4:15 about "speaking the truth in love." We are not to choose between being loving and being truthful. We are to be both. Jesus loved the woman who committed adultery. He loved her the way she was, but loved her too much to let her stay that way. His love didn't compel him to say "adultery is okay, you don't have to change," but "Go and sin no more."
Conservative Christians, on the other hand, like to conserve and hold on to the existing or past norms. In a society they believe to have been recently ruined by liberalism, they want to go back to the way things used to be, i.e. the old status quo. They want to go back to when America was a Christian nation, when there was prayer in public schools, when abortion and homosexual behavior were illegal and known to be immoral.
Conservatives seem to want every-thing the way it used to be, like it was when kids weren't bringing guns to school and killing each other in gangs and dying of AIDS and when television wasn't filled with garbage (which many of them watch, despite their complaints).
Well, that all sounds good. But you have to qualify what you're talking about. "The way things used to be" includes women being unable to vote. "The way things used to be" includes slavery. In the post-slavery era it included notoriously racist Jim Crow laws and segregation. And frankly, to their shame, many, even most conservatives wanted to conserve these unjust practices.
Many conservatives today want to go back to the days when prayer was allowed in the schools. But they forget the same schools that allowed in prayer did not allow in black children. To be nostalgic without qualification about times that were racist and demeaning to many Americans is unjust and insensitive. Politically conservative Christians can thus end up being conservatives first and Christians second.
As undiscerning liberalism tries to liberate us from not only the bad but the good, undiscerning Conservatism tries to conserve the bad along with the good. Liberals live under the false notion that change is always good, conservatives under the equally false notion that change is always bad. ("Who do those northern agitators think they are comin' down here and stirrin' up our niggers?")
So when conservatives talk about going back to our godly roots, theologically conservative but socially liberal Christians (both black and white) are understandably skeptical.
"You mean go back to those godly roots where black people were enslaved and beaten and raped and had their families torn apart by plantation owners who were deacons in their conservative churches? Or back to those days of Ozzie and Harriet and Leave it to Beaver, where you wouldn't let black people in your restaurants and theaters and schools, and you wouldn't let us drink out of your water fountains?"
I know conservative evangelicals who are selective in standing for what's right. They may want the schools to be more hospitable to truth and Christianity. But they may not bother intervening on behalf of the unborn. Or they may be active in pro-life work but ignore or minimize the issues of poverty and racism. In the 50's and 60's, while defending the Scriptures, a very good thing, they defended institutional racism, a very bad thing. As some liberals have no discernment as to the fact that some people are poor due to laziness and need to be required to work, likewise some conservatives seem to have no heart for the truly poor, those who are not at fault for their poverty and who given opportunity and training would work hard to escape it.
Some conservatives seem to think that free enterprise (in which I believe) solves everything. They seem to have no ecological concerns, as if a sense of stewardship of the earth God has entrusted to us is restricted only to "environmentalist whackos."
Some conservatives serve the god of patriotism. Their Christian faith is dangerously intertwined with their faith in America. Ours is a great country, as countries go. But countries only go so far. Despite its flaws, America deserves our respect and loyalty. It deserves neither our uncritical endorsement nor our worship.
I know politically liberal evangelicals who are as quick to disregard the rights of unborn people as many conservatives were quick to disregard the rights of black people. To them, pro-life efforts are just another "white middle class right wing agenda."
Some liberals, even professing Christians, equate animals and trees with human beings and defend preborn eagles while advocating wholesale destruction of 1.5 million preborn humans each year.
Liberal solutions to economic problems are stealing (via taxation) from other citizens and indiscriminately passing out the money to the poor, creating a permanent underclass riddled by no sense of personal responsibility and by bitter resentment. Often liberals are more concerned about appearing to be racially sensitive by throwing people's money (others, not their own) at ineffective programs for minorities, including the largely (though not exclusively) debilitating welfare program. As black economist Walter Williams has said, "If I were the Grand Imperial Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan and my goal was to destroy black Americans, I could not have come up with a more effective plan than America's welfare system in our inner cities."
I have in front of me the evangelical but socially liberal magazine The Other Side. It professes to believe the Scriptures. Over the last thirty years The Other Side spoke out against racism and advocated racial reconciliation in America when most conservative Christian magazines had nothing to say, and by their silence perpetuated injustice. Yet in my current issue of The Other Side there's a full page worth of books endorsed by the magazine, which advocate "Christian" homosexual relationships. One book, which I've read and reject as blatantly unbiblical, is described this way: "From an evangelical Protestant perspective, the authors argue for the validity of faithful, permanent, same-sex relationships." In their attempt to be compassionate, the editors of The Other Side sacrifice the revealed truth of the Scriptures.
I get tired of being told I have to choose between conservatism's emphasis on truth and liberalism's emphasis on compassion. Why can't we oppose injustice to minorities and to the unborn? Why can't we embrace biblical stewardship of creation and the primacy of human beings over the rest of creation? Why can't we oppose the greedy destruction of the environment by some businesses and the anti-industry excesses of New Age environmentalism?
Why can't we affirm the biblical right to the ownership of property (along with the command "thou shalt not steal") and emphasize God's call to his people to voluntarily and sacrificially share their wealth with the truly needy?
Why can't we uphold the truth of God's condemnation of sexual immorality, including homosexual practices, and reach out in love and compassion to those imprisoned in this degrading lifestyle, as well as those dying from AIDS?
The answer is, we cannot do all these things if we are first and foremost either liberals or conservatives. We can do all these things only if we are first and foremost followers of Christ. We can do them if and only if we are governed not by temporal political affiliations, but by eternal allegiance to Almighty God. Our governing document must be neither the Humanist Manifesto nor the Contract with America nor even the U.S. Constitution (great a document as it is), but by the authoritative Word of God.
Neither the judicial, legislative nor executive branches of our government is the ultimate solution to America's problems. Isaiah 33:22 tells us the solution--" For the LORD is our judge (judicial), the LORD is our lawgiver (legislative), the LORD is our king (executive), it is he who will save us."
May God preserve us from a liberalism hell-bent on liberating us from what is good. And may He preserve us from a conservatism hell-bent on conserving for us what is bad.
Let's change the bad and preserve the good. In doing so we will sometimes look like conservatives, sometimes liberals. But what we look like to men shouldn't matter. What we look like to God, the Audience of One, should. (He is neither Republican nor Democrat. He rides neither on elephants or donkeys. He is the ultimate independent.)
God doesn't care about conservative and liberal, he cares about what is true and right and just and compassionate and biblical. (He does therefore care about political party beliefs, platforms, moral positions and policies. Before standing behind any party we better be sure these harmonize with his Word. That's part of being a Christian first.)
So, when the status quo is right, let's conserve it. When the status quo is wrong, let's get liberated from it.
Is Jesse Jackson right about some things? Sure. About everything? No way. So if you defend Jesse Jackson, you better qualify your defense. If you attack him you better qualify your attack.
"Rush is right" cries out for clarification. Right about what? Some things? Sure. (Keep this in mind if you're a Rush basher. Better qualify your attack.) Most things? Maybe. All things? No way. So if you defend Rush Limbaugh, you better qualify your defense. After all, Rush is no more God than he is the devil.
I happen to believe that despite its limitations, conservatism is right more often than it is wrong. Still, it is sometimes wrong, it often does not resonate with the compassionate heart of God, and it never saves the soul.
"Rush is Right" is only true sometimes. "Jesus is Lord" is true always. "Rush is Right" requires qualification. "Jesus is Lord" does not.
Ping!
Hate to have to say it, but this entire article is a simply a disguised claim of moral equivalence between liberals and conservatives.
If you have friends who claim conservatism is "incompatible with orthodox/conservative Christianity", then they either do not understand conservatism, or they do not understand Christianity.
BTW: The NYT is quite hostile to theologically conservative Christians. So much so that no theologically conservative Christian could possibly be fully aligned with the NYT. To do so would be to condemn their own core beliefs.
Strawman arguments, poor logic: "If you're in favor of prayer in schools, you must also be in favor of segregation, because those existed in the same frame."
The rest of his argumentation is of the same level.
Basically hogwash, imo. Conservative= belief in conservative use of gubmint (to address society's problems)
Liberal= (substitute liberal)....
But to your larger point, about friends....I too have such friends. It is at times very difficult to get thru to them.....admire your effort to "figure it out", as it were.
No, it's not. It's saying that neither liberalism nor conservatism have everything right nor everything wrong. His argument is that some issues are ignored by both right and left, and while Christians can find common ground with both, they should not fully endorse either.
I agree with Mr. Alcorn. There's a lot of things where the Republican party is completely incompatible with Christian principles of social justice. At the same time, the Democratic party espouses principles antithetical to the moral norms clearly written in Scripture. That's why my loyalty is not to party or elected leaders, but to the Kingdom.
The author lost his credibility with this sentence. Liberals want to legalise gay marraige, and have no concept of "wrong". To a liberal, the only evil is calling evil, evil.
Too often politically liberal Christians end up being liberals first and Christians second. On the whole, Alcorn uses too-simplistic definitions for liberal and conservative, but he does a decent job of defining the problem. Where he falls short is in suggesting a good solution. The larger problem, as I see it, is that many Christians don't believe the Bible gives them any sort of commands for engaging in political action (or even re specific issues). To suggest otherwise is to invite accusations of being legalistic or Pharisaical.
As long as the majority of Christians believe this way - that the Bible gives us, at best, general principles such as "fairness" and "love" upon which to build a political philosophy on - we will continue to have more "politics first, Christians second" waffling in the political arena. Any philosophy that holds that there are no Biblical standards for judging political actions suits the politicians just fine.
I have in front of me the evangelical but socially liberal magazine The Other Side. It professes to believe the Scriptures. Over the last thirty years The Other Side spoke out against racism and advocated racial reconciliation in America when most conservative Christian magazines had nothing to say, and by their silence perpetuated injustice. Yet in my current issue of The Other Side there's a full page worth of books endorsed by the magazine, which advocate "Christian" homosexual relationships
FWIW, The Other Side is Jim Wallis' magazine. Yes, that Jim Wallis.
I understand your concerns and your mixed feelings. I am a conservative Christian and consider myself a Pro-Life Libertarian. Over many years I have had to slowly develop my ideas and integrate my religious convictions and my political ideas. I hope what follows is helpful.
How do we as Christians reconcile a compassion for people with laissez-faire capitalism?
To me the main thrust of this is to establish a clear line of separation between what the individual can do and what the government can do. The problem with some liberals is that they do not want to simply help the “poor” they want to use the power of government to force us to help the “poor” whether we want to or not. I may be a very giving and compassionate person but may want to apply Biblical principles to my generosity. 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Many liberals want to take this power out of my hands and force me to give in a certain way to certain people that I may have good reason not to help. This is called socialism and in my opinion is immoral.
As Christians should we push for Biblical principles in our government?
There are some conservatives who basically want a Theocracy. In an ideal world I would like to see our government based on Biblical ideas. There is one major problem with this: In reality very few can agree on what the Bible teaches. Look at the state of Christianity today. We can’t even agree on how to interpret the Bible. Since this is the case we must fall back on one absolutely essential principle: FREEDOM.
I believe that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. Would I like to see them all go back into the closet so I don’t have to see them? – sure. (Do I love them and want them to change their ways? – absolutely) In reality do I want to see the government outlaw or in some way prohibit homosexuality? – No. The danger here is allowing the government to make moral judgments. My concern is that if we let the government make one type of moral decision they are highly likely to make one that I don’t like. The government should stay out of everyone’s lives unless that life is harming someone else. Let God deal with the rest.
As Christians should we stand up for our religious rights?
Absolutely! The First Amendment does not create a “wall of separation.” It simply prevents the Federal Government from establishing a state religion. Religious expression of all kinds should be given equal protections.
I hope that this was helpfull
You are right in that the Kingdom is above labels such as "conservative" or "liberal".
However, that does make conservatives and liberals morally equivalent.
Simply stated, moral equivalence attacks start by finding something wrong with conservatives (not hard to do). They then proceed to claim that even if liberals are wrong on some things too, it doesn't matter because conservatives are also wrong on something. Hence, the two are morally equivalent.
Arguments like this are easy to make, and will always be possible as long as humans are sinners (which we all are).
But there is an antidote to the slippery slope of moral equivalence. If you recognize you are a sinner in need of salvation, you repent, and you ask for forgiveness, you have ceased to be morally equivalent to those who have not. Conservative Christians, generally speaking, have taken these steps. Liberals, generally speaking, have not.
Many liberals, in fact, insist that their sins are not sins at all. They have no intention of "repenting" for something they refuse to acknowledge is even wrong. Many of them have gone so far as to assert that there are no moral absolutes at all, only shades of gray.
Liberalism has long been non-Christian. But the typical liberal of today has gone even further, attacking Christians who believe in the truth of their religion as down right evil. Perhaps that is because we Christians know we are sinners ourselves, and we know that liberals are too.
I can easily see how a liberal who rejects his own sinful nature would object to those who consider him a sinner. A person like this might even consider people who call him a sinner "hateful". Such a person might strive to pass laws making it illegal to call their favorite sins a sin. Numerous contemporary examples of this come to mind...
We live in a time when right is wrong, and wrong is right. A great moral battle rages. The sides are not morally equivalent, even though the people on both sides are sinners. I know which side I am on, and I hope you do too.
This article, and your post, could be interpreted as supporting the fundamental "moral equivalence" argument. It is a slippery slope that leads to disaster. I hope that was not your intent.
The second line of my post should read, "However, that does NOT make conservatives and liberals morally equivalent."
(Need more coffee...)
I think Alcorn and Wallis run (or used to run) in the same circle at least on racial issues. I have no doubt he would have believed Wallis is a genuine fellow brother in Christ. Just found this from a blog post a few years back:
http://urbanonramps.blogspot.com/2002/06/chris-rices-new-book-grace-matters.html
"Chris Rice's new book: GRACE MATTERS
This is a big deal - Chris Rice's new book is about to be released. Chris and Spencer Perkins were pioneers in the Evangelical Christian world in the area of racial reconciliation. They wrote a book together called "MORE THAN EQUALS: Racial Healing for the Sake of the Gospel" that is still a landmark and unique book. Spencer passed away in 1998, and Chris has written about their relationship, what each learned about grace in the final year of Spencer's life, and what this means for the Church. The book should be out by July (when Chris will be at the Christian Booksellers Association in Anaheim with his publisher, Jossey Bass). Endorsers include Jim Wallis, Randy Alcorn, Leighton Ford, Glenn Loury, Stanley Hauerwas, and Philip Yancey."
It seems Alcorn (and many others) thought that political liberalism has its merits. But lately, he seems to have distanced from Wallis, as he put Chuck Colson's article on his own site:
http://www.epm.org/articles/moral_equivalency.html
I don't fully support Alcorn's general directions, but interestingly there are some Christians who do. For instance, have a look at this blog:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.