The labels of "conservative" and "liberal" Christianity are becoming
less and less useful. For that matter, the labels of "conservative" and "liberal" politics aren't really even that useful. To demonstrate, in my
seminary and the church I was attending at the time, I was definitely a "conservative"; in many of my interactions now, I am definitely a "liberal". My views haven't substantially changed, just who is doing the
judging.
Here are the ways I'm "conservative":
The big problem here is that no matter what camp you're in, the terms are meant to dehumanize the other camp. Conservatives assume that liberals are wishy-washy -- overly concerned with not offending anybody and probably not even really Christians. Both assumptions tend to give the other camp lots of reason they feel justified to treat each other as inferior. I'm not talking about talking openly about where we disagree. We need to be able to talk openly about where we disagree. We just need to do it while remembering the humanity of the other. I can't dismiss your point because you're a bigoted conservative or because you're a wishy-washy liberal. I can't conclude that you aren't really a Christian. I can't deny your voice. I can't deny your sincerity in following Jesus. I can't deny your basic human rights. No matter which camp we put people in, they are still first and foremost humans. Labels may be useful sometimes -- not this time -- to summarize what you think, but they can never supersede that every "liberal", every "moderate", every "conservative", and everybody without one of those labels including those outside of Christianity are first and foremost human beings dearly loved by God.
Historically, these simply aren't the words Christians used to describe one another meaningfully. To be qualified as "orthodox" in the 17th-19th centuries, you had to believe a huge range of things, a range that changed depending on your denominational tradition. Some of those things, like biblical literalism, had never even been a church hermeneutic until this time when they were suddenly treated as the only thing that mattered. If you rejected any piece of this, you were a not a good enough Christian. When they're referring to theology at all instead of to politics, this is what a lot of people today usually mean by "conservative" theology: 18th century Protestant Orthodoxy (Lutheran and Reformed).
"Conservative theology", then, has little to do with historic orthodoxy any further back than that or outside of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. And it still wouldn't have anything at all to do with politic allegiances until the mid-20th century -- and even then only really in the United States. Let's make sure those two points are clear.
But as always happens when faith gets too rigid and is hurting people as much as it helps, there was backlash. The whole idea of "liberal theology" started in the 19th century, largely fueled by a variety of new scholarly techniques on one hand and that backlash on the other. And as usual, the backlash was as dramatic as what they were fighting against was. They wondered why there were so many historical inaccuracies in Scripture and then threw out the baby (pretty much any meaningful faith at all) with the bath water. People questioned whether Jesus really existed. Maybe God existed; maybe not. They mythologized Scripture as valuable stories for life but ultimately not holding truth in the real world. In some ways I can't fully blame them, as they were just judging Scripture and faith in general by the same extreme criteria that conservatives were insisting on. But it definitely took a while before we are now finally starting to see more of a balance return to theology instead of operating on such false dichotomies.
Hear what I'm saying: Liberals and conservatives are historically flip sides of the same coin. Reacting more to what was happening in the Modern World, they defined Christianity according to modernist terms.
That's why I reject any description that attempts to place me in one camp or the other. Because I don't think Christianity can be described solely based on what me (and my group) oppose. Just because so many others in history have rushed to dichotomous labels in order to distinguish themselves from others they don't like doesn't mean we have to do the same. Especially when the strict dichotomy is so dangerous, trying to pull us toward a theology-centric or a politics-centric faith instead of one based on Jesus.
If you claim to follow Jesus, this is the primary way in which we define ourselves as Christians: The way of Jesus' radical, graceful love. If your sister or brother disagrees with you, the way to respond is radical, graceful love. That's reason enough to avoid these labels.
My Christian brothers and sisters tend to think I'm liberal based on these decisions alone:
Here are the ways I'm "conservative":
- I believe Jesus. I believe in Jesus. In fact, I have a very high view of Jesus. Jesus is "Lord" (which means I believe in following what he had to say and do). I believe Jesus is fully human -- just like me. And I believe Jesus is fully God -- that if we're going to say anything about God, we have to start by talking about Jesus.
- I have a high view of the Bible. I believe it's useful for teaching Christians about following Jesus. I believe it's completely true and trustworthy in accomplishing its self-identified purpose of pointing us to Jesus.
- I believe in spiritual forces -- that the demonic and the divine are so intertwined in and with our world that we simply can't divorce "the physical" from "the spiritual". I believe that spiritual warfare happens all around us, in our economic and political and social worlds.
- I believe in spiritual gifts -- even the charismatic ones like speaking in tongues and prophecy (both of which are ways that God speaks to us in our world about God's perspective on things).
- I have no problem confessing everything in the Nicene Creed. Even that part about Jesus descending to hell between his death and resurrection. I'll cling to every phrase of that creed to my dying days.
- I think evangelism matters, and I think it's impossible to separate that evangelism from our obligations for social justice and peacemaking. That's because I believe life with Jesus actually matters to the world.
- I tend to vote center-left in political elections. Because I'm a Christian, not in spite of it. I come from a long line of blue-blooded Southern Democrats, folks who've supported unions since the 1890s and were against slavery in the antebellum period.
- I support same-sex marriage. As a pastor, if my denominational leadership allowed me, I'd perform a same-sex marriage. (For reasons purely political, this seems to be the one litmus test that makes me "liberal" these days.)
- I don't believe in biblical inerrancy. I think it falsely forces modernist conclusions about modernist problems on a text that's not modernist.
- I'm not afraid of academic conclusions about things like biology, physics or psychology. Those only enrich my faith -- they don't diminish them at all.
- I don't believe in penal substitutionary atonement. My understanding of the atonement is more heavily influenced by the early church's Christus Victor (which is much older than substitutionary atonement, by the way).
- I don't believe in eternal conscious torment for those who reject Jesus. I would tend toward a purgatorial conditionalist view of hell and a much fuzzier line of "those who reject Jesus" than simply who has explicitly said the right prayer. (That's because I take Matthew 25 very seriously.)
- I don't believe texts like the book of Revelation or the Olivet Discourse in Matthew are about the future. I believe they're meant to be practical engagements about politics and economics for Christians who hear them -- both then and now.
- I believe support for modern Israel is itself a sin that propagates modern Israel's sins of genocide. I think we offer that support because we have our own left over guilt about the Shoah. Until we repent of our own sins, it's hard to see how we're perpetuating those sins in our world now.
- I believe violence is the first fundamental theological problem for Christians. Oddly taking Jesus' teaching seriously when he says to love our enemies makes me a liberal, not a conservative. I don't get that. (Well, actually I do, but that's because most people "spiritualize" Jesus' teaching when it's convenient and take other teaching literally when it's convenient.)
The big problem here is that no matter what camp you're in, the terms are meant to dehumanize the other camp. Conservatives assume that liberals are wishy-washy -- overly concerned with not offending anybody and probably not even really Christians. Both assumptions tend to give the other camp lots of reason they feel justified to treat each other as inferior. I'm not talking about talking openly about where we disagree. We need to be able to talk openly about where we disagree. We just need to do it while remembering the humanity of the other. I can't dismiss your point because you're a bigoted conservative or because you're a wishy-washy liberal. I can't conclude that you aren't really a Christian. I can't deny your voice. I can't deny your sincerity in following Jesus. I can't deny your basic human rights. No matter which camp we put people in, they are still first and foremost humans. Labels may be useful sometimes -- not this time -- to summarize what you think, but they can never supersede that every "liberal", every "moderate", every "conservative", and everybody without one of those labels including those outside of Christianity are first and foremost human beings dearly loved by God.
Historically, these simply aren't the words Christians used to describe one another meaningfully. To be qualified as "orthodox" in the 17th-19th centuries, you had to believe a huge range of things, a range that changed depending on your denominational tradition. Some of those things, like biblical literalism, had never even been a church hermeneutic until this time when they were suddenly treated as the only thing that mattered. If you rejected any piece of this, you were a not a good enough Christian. When they're referring to theology at all instead of to politics, this is what a lot of people today usually mean by "conservative" theology: 18th century Protestant Orthodoxy (Lutheran and Reformed).
"Conservative theology", then, has little to do with historic orthodoxy any further back than that or outside of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. And it still wouldn't have anything at all to do with politic allegiances until the mid-20th century -- and even then only really in the United States. Let's make sure those two points are clear.
But as always happens when faith gets too rigid and is hurting people as much as it helps, there was backlash. The whole idea of "liberal theology" started in the 19th century, largely fueled by a variety of new scholarly techniques on one hand and that backlash on the other. And as usual, the backlash was as dramatic as what they were fighting against was. They wondered why there were so many historical inaccuracies in Scripture and then threw out the baby (pretty much any meaningful faith at all) with the bath water. People questioned whether Jesus really existed. Maybe God existed; maybe not. They mythologized Scripture as valuable stories for life but ultimately not holding truth in the real world. In some ways I can't fully blame them, as they were just judging Scripture and faith in general by the same extreme criteria that conservatives were insisting on. But it definitely took a while before we are now finally starting to see more of a balance return to theology instead of operating on such false dichotomies.
Hear what I'm saying: Liberals and conservatives are historically flip sides of the same coin. Reacting more to what was happening in the Modern World, they defined Christianity according to modernist terms.
That's why I reject any description that attempts to place me in one camp or the other. Because I don't think Christianity can be described solely based on what me (and my group) oppose. Just because so many others in history have rushed to dichotomous labels in order to distinguish themselves from others they don't like doesn't mean we have to do the same. Especially when the strict dichotomy is so dangerous, trying to pull us toward a theology-centric or a politics-centric faith instead of one based on Jesus.
If you claim to follow Jesus, this is the primary way in which we define ourselves as Christians: The way of Jesus' radical, graceful love. If your sister or brother disagrees with you, the way to respond is radical, graceful love. That's reason enough to avoid these labels.
My Christian brothers and sisters tend to think I'm liberal based on these decisions alone:
- I believe in abortion rights socially.
- I believe in same-sex marriage.
- I believe in care for the poor.
- I believe we should consume less as a society.