What Are the Weaknesses of Conservative Christianity?

RDKirk said:

The letter of James sounds an awful lot like a call to orthopraxy (rather than mere orthodoxy) to me.

Click to expand...

It does, but perhaps because his audience seemed to be too rich and hypocritical. Perhaps James puts us in our place, reminding us that to be complacent with a mere intellectual orthodox belief is to have no belief of substance at all. We are not called to have an intellectual faith in Christ, as James points out - so do the demons. We are called to have that faith work upon us to yield fruit: In other words, we are called to have some kind of praxis. James gives us a few examples, but they are by no means exclusive, nor can many of the things we are called to do be quantified or codified.

ShaulHaTarsi said:

It does, but perhaps because his audience seemed to be too rich and hypocritical. Perhaps James puts us in our place, reminding us that to be complacent with a mere intellectual orthodox belief is to have no belief of substance at all. We are not called to have an intellectual faith in Christ, as James points out - so do the demons. We are called to have that faith work upon us to yield fruit: In other words, we are called to have some kind of praxis. James gives us a few examples, but they are by no means exclusive, nor can many of the things we are called to do be quantified or codified.

Click to expand...

I agree with all you've said here. I'd clarify (IMO) that James is not saying so much "we are called to have some kind of praxis" as much as that if we have the kind of faith he's talking about, we would be compelled by it to some kind of praxis...and if we don't feel that compulsion, we don't have the faith he's talking about--we have something else that is utterly ineffectual that we're calling "faith." If we had the faith he's talking about, there would be some kind of praxis (if nothing more manifest than the feeling of the compulsion itself) as an inevitable result.

I would identify something I'd call "cold orthopraxy" that in some ways would look like legalism (or what some might call "liberal legalism")...going through the motions of doing good deeds that are convenient to do, rather than daring to ask, "What must I do?" That's a scary and dangerous question for a comfortable person to ask the Lord...as the story of the rich young ruler shows us.

thatbrian said:

If you are talking about standards such as extra-biblical tests of orthodoxy, I agree with you. If we say that you can't possibly be a Christian if you don't support affirmative action, or gun control, then it should be obvious to us that there lies the source of righteousness for the person speaking those words. These causes are our "functional" righteousness. They are our salvation. This is how we understand ourselves as alright (righteous).

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. But your use of orthodoxy here is a bit questionable for me. I was thinking of justification, because I talked about use of legal tests for whether we are God's people. This is the issue Paul was dealing with in Romans. Being one of God's people is not the same thing as orthodox. There can be people who are heterodox who Christ would still recognize as one of his own.

Legalism really destroys faith, which is sort of ironic because I believe some of the people most compelled by it believe exactly the opposite. Unfortunately, it also has a lot of collateral damage.

There are a lot of Pentecostals, Baptists, and Non-Denoms that are ripe for legalism. It's not so much a problem with Presbyterians or Lutherans because they have a Law/Grace distinction. To be a Baptist or Pentecostal you usually have to prove yourself to the congregation you want to be a member of. Unfortunately, Presbyterians and Lutherans are dwarfed by churches that take a Baptist style model of Christian living, at least in the US.

Catholic and Orthodox churches are another story altogether. The Orthodox in theory should not be legalistic because they have an experiential theology and recognize that sometimes rules must be laid aside for the purposes of building up the Church, but I've encountered it personally. Catholics, on the other hand, are hamstrung by a patrimony of theology that focuses on holiness in the abstract to such an extent that it divorces it from the lived experience of individuals. I agree that Francis is trying to reform this but this is no longer the days of Ultramontanism, there are institutional forces in the Roman church resisting his desire for a more lenient kind of Catholicism.

You can get moralism in all sorts of churches, of course, but that's a lot less damaging. Disapproval or an occasionally odd look is a lot more bearable than being told "we don't want you here".

I tend to see the mark of theological conservatism centering in one's view of innerancy and inspiration of Scripture.
Theological liberals are marked by a low view of the Divine authorship of Scripture often putting human reason close to being on par. Because they usually use reason to dethrone Scripture, reason becomes king.

I see myself as a theological conservative under these terms and the weakness being (due to my dogmaticness on this issue) is my lack of patience in giving a fair hearing to those that play fast and loose with Divine inspiration of Scripture.

As somebody has already said, their biggest single problem (at least in America) is their inability to live in peace with science.

Something else which is deeply unattractive about American evangelicals is the marriage of religion with nationalism and right wing politics.

lesliedellow said:

As somebody has already said, their biggest single problem (at least in America) is their inability to live in peace with science.

Something else which is deeply unattractive about American evangelicals is the marriage of religion with nationalism and right wing politics.

Click to expand...

The single biggest problem is the inability to love and take care of each other even within the Body of Christ.

By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you love one another

lesliedellow said:

As somebody has already said, their biggest single problem (at least in America) is their inability to live in peace with science.

Something else which is deeply unattractive about American evangelicals is the marriage of religion with nationalism and right wing politics.

Click to expand...

I completely concur. It is also an inability to try to understand the opposing side in their terms, not only the conservative understanding. You bring up sexual education, and conservative Christians chime in by advocating abstinence-only education, not realizing that sexual education encompasses far more than just intercourse, and is also about boundaries, feelings, how to make relationships work (before and after marriage). The same thing happens with gun control: "No one takes my guns away!" when the purpose is simply to restrict guns from people who have no business owning them because of a lack of responsibility.

A similar divide happens with theology: If it is not conservative theology, it is from the devil! False dichotomies at every turn.

Then you have liberal Christianity, which rejects some of what the Bible says entirely, like Jesus' claims to exclusivity, or the idea that other religions are indeed seen as wrong by God. I think there are weaknesses on both sides, but I think the conservative weaknesses rear their heads more frequently, only because they are more noticeable- and shunned- by the American public.

jimmyjimmy said:

Any effort to be a moderate must begin with an understanding of one's own weakness, as it's only in the fertile ground of humility, bridge-building can grow, and, evaluating one's "side" is a beneficial undertaking, now and again.

As a theologically conservative Christian myself, I want to explore the weaknesses and blind spots of conservative Christianity and where it possibly overreaches.

In the spirit of the sub-forum, please discuss the topic with respect and gentleness.

Click to expand...

Politics will always divide both believers and unbelievers. Its the very nature of political factions. Division and factions are referred to as works of the flesh in galatians 5. Are'nt political division/factions proof that we're on the wrong road?

crossnote said:

I tend to see the mark of theological conservatism centering in one's view of innerancy and inspiration of Scripture.
Theological liberals are marked by a low view of the Divine authorship of Scripture often putting human reason close to being on par. Because they usually use reason to dethrone Scripture, reason becomes king.

Click to expand...

There is a history of people saying just that and being dreadfully wrong, as when Martin Luther denied the teachings of that upstart astronomer, Copernicus, who taught that the the sun doesn't really move as the cause of day and night, rather, the earth rotates.

Alas, we have no other guide except our reason to tell us when we need to re-interpret an incorrect interpretation.

jimmyjimmy said:

As a theologically conservative Christian myself, I want to explore the weaknesses and blind spots of conservative Christianity and where it possibly overreaches.

Click to expand...

Hello Jimmy,

In my experience conservative christianity can sometimes be mixed too readily with conservative social and political views making it too worldly. I don't believe you could fit the Lord Jesus in with any human political viewpoint, His Kingdom is not of this world and never will be. He was not a Conserative, Liberal, Socialist, Capitalist or any of that. The Kingdom of God transcends every human Kingdom and the foolishness of God trumps human wisdom.

God Bless All

hedrick said:

At least in the Protestant context, the simplest definition I know is in fact based on inerrancy and the associated concepts.

Click to expand...

Hi Hedrick. Might a belief in inerrancy not be more of a 'Fundamentalist' position?

God Bless

lismore said:

Hi Hedrick. Might a belief in inerrancy not be more of a 'Fundamentalist' position?

Click to expand...

Fundamentalism certainly includes inerrancy. But the Chicago Statement on inerrancy is widely accepted among evangelicals. If you don't accept inerrancy, typically you'll accept evolution, full participation of women, and other things I think of as not part of conservative Christianity. Do you know of groups that don't hold inerrancy but still hold most of the positions associated with conservative Christianity?

Note that I'm speaking of the Protestant context, since in that context traditional understandings of Scripture define conservative. Catholics and EO have a different source of tradition, so conservative for them isn't based on inerrancy.

I'm also speaking of theological and moral conservatism, not politics or Christian action. Groups with conservative theology have become increasingly interested in social justice and moderate or liberal politics.

One thing that's making lines blur is that there's an increasing group among evangelicals that prioritize evangelism, worship like other evangelicals, and generally look like evangelicals, but reject inerrancy, accept women and gays, and otherwise look like mainline in theology and sexual ethics. I don't consider these folks conservative.

I've been saying that these folks are likely the future of mainline theology. However the numbers I'm seeing for millennials aren't entirely consistent with that. White evangelicals are losing millennials much more than the mainline is. Both are at about 8% of millennials. Catholics and non-white Protestants are doing better, and of course there are a lot of agnostics and atheists.

hedrick said:

I'm also speaking of theological and moral conservatism, not politics or Christian action. Groups with conservative theology have become increasingly interested in social justice and moderate or liberal politics.

Click to expand...

If that happened, it certainly wouldn't be before time.

hedrick said:

Do you know of groups that don't hold inerrancy but still hold most of the positions associated with conservative Christianity?
.

Click to expand...

It's a very complicated issue, but perhaps the Wee Frees? Heavy tradition there, ultra-Conservative. They didn't allow music instruments in their meetings for many years, punished people for Sabbath breaking and yet got most of their beliefs on origins from James Hutton and Charles Lyell.

lismore said:

It's a very complicated issue, but perhaps the Wee Frees? Heavy tradition there, ultra-Conservative. They didn't allow music instruments in their meetings for many years, punished people for Sabbath breaking and yet got most of their beliefs on origins from James Hutton and Charles Lyell.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Is that still true? Most of them united with the Church of Scotland. At least some of the remnant seems to hold inerrancy.