What Are the Weaknesses of Conservative Christianity?

[actionsub]

Personally, it's the marriage of politics to religion. I lean more toward the conservative side theologically, but more toward the liberal side politically. I've found it challenging at times to find a church (I'm in the Army; I move often) which doesn't compromise evangelical theology but also doesn't preach conservative politics (especially on political issues far removed from religion) or preach nastiness at non-conservative politicians from the pulpit.

^^^This.

Over the years, I've found myself on both sides of the liberal/conservative fence. What BrianJK has described is for me a weakness for both sides, a tendency to conflate one's political views with one's theology. The other side is then demonized and treated as something less than human. With this upcoming American election of two equally divisive and controversial candidates, it's very easy to throw around the epithets...(ex. I like a good Bible-based sermon, but the overall effect is ruined when one of the lay leaders starts making cracks about "Killary"... On the other hand, I can be in a liberal church and be uplifted, but then people who aren't on board with LGBT rights or other social justice issues get blasted from the pulpit.) Drives me nuts.

 

[BrianJK]

^^^This.

Over the years, I've found myself on both sides of the liberal/conservative fence. What BrianJK has described is for me a weakness for both sides, a tendency to conflate one's political views with one's theology. The other side is then demonized and treated as something less than human. With this upcoming American election of two equally divisive and controversial candidates, it's very easy to throw around the epithets...(ex. I like a good Bible-based sermon, but the overall effect is ruined when one of the lay leaders starts making cracks about "Killary"... On the other hand, I can be in a liberal church and be uplifted, but then people who aren't on board with LGBT rights or other social justice issues get blasted from the pulpit.) Drives me nuts.

I agree that it's true in both sides... hence the "moderate" label. What I was describing, and what some of the other posters were describing, weren't necessarily weaknesses unique to conservative Christianity, yet they are weaknesses of conservative Christianity nonetheless.

 

[WannaWitness]

I have never been a fan of "politicking" from the pulpit in church. It is actually a bit of a pet peeve with me, although I am trying to work on it. I have been to churches that have done this, and I don't think it's right, whatsoever. I am in total agreement with preaching about moral issues (sanctity of life, marriage, etc.) and how they line up with the Word of God. I am also all for praying for the government in church, for wisdom for our leaders to make wise, fair, and moral decisions for the good of the nation. I just don't like campaigning for or against any candidate, no matter who they might be, from the platform, exalting one to almost "God-status" while the other is irredeemably evil and "just might be the Antichrist".

I am one who feels outnumbered by fellow believers in this way. Politically (well, what I can understand of politics, anyway), my views are all over the place - conservative in some while moderate to somewhat liberal in others, so I have no real political affiliation. A staunch conservative would believe me to be too liberal, while those who lean more liberal on most things would view me as conservative. Theologically, I feel myself to be reasonably conservative as I have my standards based on my understanding of the Bible, and separate from politics. But the world of politics gets uglier and uglier as time progresses, and to mix it with Christianity is enough to make one's head hurt. It's all just a big, steaming, smelly mess to me.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Can you then define for me, (and perhaps everyone else would find it helpful too), what you mean by conservative and liberal in this context? Because I am not sure we are talking about the same things.

As to your question, does God not allow many evil things to exist? Should we presume to do otherwise?

In the US we don't just use the terms, conservative and liberal to describe political ideologies, but I think that you understand what liberals and conservatives are, in a Christian sense.

 

[Albion]

It's a worthy question, Brian, but I can't really think of a weakness that's inherent in conservative Christianity. I don't know that the obvious replies--complacency, stagnation, over-emphasis on doctrinal certitude, etc.--hold up as weaknesses of conservative Christianity, given that such things are more the weaknesses of individual people and afflict churches that wouldn't normally be called "conservative." Then too, Paidiske is right that we're at something of a disadvantage because we don't have a firm definition of "conservative Christianity" to work from.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It's a worthy question, Brian, but I can't really think of a weakness that's inherent in conservative Christianity. I don't know that the obvious replies--complacency, stagnation, over-emphasis on doctrinal certitude, etc.--hold up as weaknesses of conservative Christianity, given that such things are more the weaknesses of individual people and afflict churches that wouldn't normally be called "conservative." Then too, Paidiske is right that we're at something of a disadvantage because we don't have a firm definition of "conservative Christianity" to work from.

I'm attempting to build up this sub-forum of "moderates", and my contention is that there really is no such animal, so the real work is in getting liberals & conservatives to see each other in the best light possible. As a token of my sincerity, I've invited criticism of my "side".

Active posters on CF know the liberal / conservative divide, as it's in nearly ever thread.

 

[Paidiske]

In the US we don't just use the terms, conservative and liberal to describe political ideologies, but I think that you understand what liberals and conservatives are, in a Christian sense.

I have my own sense of what I would call "liberal" or "conservative," theologically, but I would like, if we are going to discuss it here, to have a shared working definition. I suspect we would not define it in the same way.

So, if you don't mind, could you please lay out your definition for me? Otherwise I suspect this isn't really going to go anywhere.

 

[FireDragon76]

.
While I agree with you; however, I don't know if nominal Christianity is a uniquely conservative problem. Aren't there liberal nominal Christians?

No, nominal Christianity is definitely not unique to conservative Christians. If anything, I think in terms of how we usually talk about liberal Christianity on CF, conservative Christians somewhat less nominal. I've read and known of so many sad cases of somebody that grows up in a mainline Episcopalian, Lutheran, or Presbyterian home and they become a "none" and even hostile to religion, with very distorted perceptions of Christianity. Their Christian faith was shallow and paper thin to begin with, but some mainline churches did little or nothing to counter this.

But being a conservative Christian is not without its perils. There's a significant problem with legalism in conservative churches of all denominations. I've experienced this myself.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I'm not sure how to explain it, so here is my terrible explanation - I see the benefits of being a conservative as being strong-willed and determined to stay loyal to the beliefs no matter what, staying unshakeable in faith, yet on the other hand some conservatives come across almost afraid to bend at all or consider another perspective, closing their eyes to newer changes, especially with culture. It's not always about sticking loyal to the way it's always been, but realizing new enlightenments and small changes aren't going to shake the tower until the whole thing crumbles down. Faith is too strong for that too happen. Sure, small changes can be seen as slowly chipping away at foundation, but I don't think liberalism is meant to do that like so many Conservatives seem to think. I think a well rounded person needs to realize that there is one God but different personalities of Christians coming together to worship. There are benefits to being a Conservative, but you don't want to become so rigid that eventually you can't move or grow.

 

[Albion]

...but realizing new enlightenments and small changes aren't going to shake the tower until the whole thing crumbles down. Faith is too strong for that too happen. Sure, small changes can be seen as slowly chipping away at foundation, but I don't think liberalism is meant to do that like so many Conservatives seem to think. I think a well rounded person needs to realize that there is one God but different personalities of Christians coming together to worship. There are benefits to being a Conservative, but you don't want to become so rigid that eventually you can't move or grow.

That's pretty vague, you know. The most crucial thing probably concerns which changes are being proposed. Some deserve consideration and others absolutely do not.

For that matter, few people care much if the format of worship is 'modernized' in someone else's church, but the drive to change doctrine across the spectrum of denominations in order to win the favor of the secular world certainly does engender resistance. And it should.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

That's pretty vague, you know. The most crucial thing probably concerns which changes are being proposed. Some deserve consideration and others absolutely do not.

For that matter, few people care much if the format of worship is 'modernized' in someone else's church, but the drive to change doctrine across the spectrum of denominations in order to win the favor of the secular world certainly does engender resistance. And it should.

Yes. I think that some people, like myself, see the trajectory of these "small changes" and we understand what's coming down the pike, so we may seem to be making a big deal out of what some think only a minor issue.

 

[FireDragon76]

Some Christians of many traditions have a "Constantinian" approach to Christianity heavily shaped by Greco-Roman culture. Greco-Romans elevated the importance of understanding nature and the natural order a great deal, whereas this is a minor theme in Jewish thought. They also were interested in control and order, especially of society at large. Some of these things aren't bad in themselves but the problem is that these impulses sometimes come into conflict with the application of the Gospel to individual lives as Good News, and many traditionalist Christians do not see how this can contradict belief in unmerited grace.

 

[Cappadocious]

They tend to believe in the modernist doctrine of perspicuity of the Bible/the Church/the Canons/"The Fathers".

 

[jimmyjimmy]

They tend to believe in the modernist doctrine of perspicuity of the Bible/the Church/the Canons/"The Fathers".

And, how is that a weakness?

 

[Cappadocious]

And, how is that a weakness?

I think it's based on a model of perception that (1) Christians didn't believe back in the day and (2) is false and (3) is harmful.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

Conservatives have a contextual and popularity disadvantage - and indeed I'm speaking specifically about religious and social conservatives rather than political conservatives.

A key problem with conservatives is the tendency to never even give the impression of watering down the faith. It gives me the impression that they are more interested in proving their conservatism to themselves than they are in preserving (or conserving) their faith. When this approach is adopted, more and more inflammatory rhetoric is piled atop each other to the extent that it no longer becomes traditional (the tradition they are trying to preserve) but downright reactionary to the perceived liberal threat. Indeed religious and political conservatives may have this in common.

The above tactic might be good if you're in a position of power in the first place, if you have the ability to actually control opinion and have sway on the public. What happens in reality is that the general opinion (the "majority") gets chased away, and those who are genuinely attracted to the conservative message (as presented today) are just even more radically conservative.

Much of this is in my opinion vested in a legalistic view of conservatism rather than a truly traditional one. It is the legalistic view which prevents it from bending or being accommodating, bending itself being seen as already being compromising on faith.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Conservatives have a contextual and popularity disadvantage - and indeed I'm speaking specifically about religious and social conservatives rather than political conservatives.

A key problem with conservatives is the tendency to never even give the impression of watering down the faith. It gives me the impression that they are more interested in proving their conservatism to themselves than they are in preserving (or conserving) their faith. When this approach is adopted, more and more inflammatory rhetoric is piled atop each other to the extent that it no longer becomes traditional (the tradition they are trying to preserve) but downright reactionary to the perceived liberal threat. Indeed religious and political conservatives may have this in common.

The above tactic might be good if you're in a position of power in the first place, if you have the ability to actually control opinion and have sway on the public. What happens in reality is that the general opinion (the "majority") gets chased away, and those who are genuinely attracted to the conservative message (as presented today) are just even more radically conservative.

Much of this is in my opinion vested in a legalistic view of conservatism rather than a truly traditional one. It is the legalistic view which prevents it from bending or being accommodating, bending itself being seen as already being compromising on faith.

How is this a conservative weakness? Both sides hold their views, and neither thinks compromise in the direction of the other a good thing. It's only undesirable when someone doesn't bend to accommodate your way of doing things. That's where the tension lies.

 

[hedrick]

Here’s my reaction, based on reading many things in CF:

The biggest problem I see among conservative Christians is legalism, and making people fear for their salvation if they don’t obey the rules. This isn’t true of all conservative Christians, but it’s the characteristic vice to which conservative Christianity tends to fall prey (as the characteristic vice for liberal Christianity is skepticism).

The second-biggest problem is lousy exegesis. The commitment to inerrancy leads to treating complex issues through harmonization, and that leads to misreading what the Scriptural authors were actually thinking. What’s worth, “interpreting Scripture through Scripture” means taking the most explicit passages as controlling, and the way those passages are chosen often leads to choosing the most extreme or uncharacteristic passages.

Unfortunately most examples of this problem are controversial, and many of the most important lead to conclusions not acceptable to CF. However the following example seems to be within bounds:

There are many references to righteous people throughout the OT and NT. Look in a concordance or Bible search program. Yet one NT passage, Rom 3:10, and a small number of OT passages such as Ps 14:1/53:1, which say that no one is righteous, are taken as controlling. It’s pretty clear that those two psalms were written in a specific situation where the author was despairing of the situation, and were using hyperbole. Paul was using it to reject a specific kind of righteousness, a legal righteousness, as we see in his conclusion in 3:20. But if you leave the particular context of Paul’s argument, the Bible as a whole has no problem with the idea that there are people who are righteous. What it means, of course, is not that they are morally perfect, but that they live lives of faith. But in a lot of Protestant theology this “no man is righteous” supports the idea that God demands moral perfection, which no one can possibly have. Thus Christ’s righteous has to be imputed to us. Of course Paul never actually says this. He says that our faith is accepted as ["imputed as"] righteousness, a position that’s consistent with the use of righteousness throughout Scripture.

This traditional exegesis demonstrates the two characteristic flaws of conservative exegesis: taking passages out of context, and using uncharacteristic passages as controlling. (It's taking 3:10 out of context because it doesn't take into account to specific way Paul is using righteousness. He's referring to a claimed righteousness based on following Jewish law.)

 

[Albion]

Here’s my reaction, based on reading many things in CF:

The biggest problem I see among conservative Christians is legalism, and making people fear for their salvation if they don’t obey the rules. The second-biggest problem is lousy exegesis. The commitment to inerrancy leads to treating complex issues through harmonization...and that leads to misreading what the Scriptural authors were actually thinking. What’s worth, “interpreting Scripture through Scripture” means

My main disagreement here, as with the above and with what follows, is that you are equating a certain fundamentalist or evangelical or similar POV with "conservative Christianity," yet the term doesn't carry such a narrow meaning nor, FWIW, is that how it's used in the SOP of CF's forum by that name. In addition, however, I don't see anything in the OP to suggest that that is what this discussion was intended to be about.

I do agree, however, that it's fair for you to say that these are the things that, from out of the whole range of conservative Christian thinking, annoy you the most. They certainly do not characterize conservative Christian belief or practice, though.

 

[hedrick]

The third characteristic problem is an attempt to make us believe and live like 1st Cent people. Of course that’s ridiculous, so this is never done consistently. But it shows up now and then.

One of the less controversial (though still controversial enough) examples is the creation account. We know a lot more about astronomy and biology than the Biblical authors did. It’s obvious to us that these are legends. Indeed I maintain that it’s not even a short-coming. They used ideas about origins from the culture around them, but rewrote them to be consistent with their understanding of how God works.

In the area of ethics, one of the examples I can talk about here is the role of women. Sorry, but the 1st Cent had very different ideas. Our current ideas developed from a concept of equality that I would claim ultimately goes back to Christian teaching, though the path between there and here is complex. But I don’t see that Jesus or Paul ever intended to mandate that 1st Cent attitudes towards gender and sex should be maintained forever.

This goes back to what you think Scripture is. I think it’s a record of people’s experience with God. God certainly revealed truths, but the people understood and applied them within a particular historical context. The responsibility of the Church (which goes with the power of the keys) is to reinterpret the implications of this for our situation. Unfortunately this is a responsibility that most churches have not been willing to take. Instead they’ve tried to use it to hold back change. That can’t work, and it hasn’t, but it results in unnecessary problems, both intellectual and pastoral.