Bridge or wedge?

[dies-l]

I am a moderate Christian, and I have been considering for some time what exactly that means. The name of this group is bridge builders, which I think implies that the role of moderates is to build a bridge between liberals and conservatives. Sometimes, I find myself agreeing with this notion. Some of my beliefs and thoughts more closely reflect liberalism; some more closely reflect conservatism; and some are truly in the middle, taking into account the positives of both extremes.

Other times, I wonder if moderates serve as more of wedge between the two extremes. Sometimes, I find myself seeing both liberal and conservative viewpoints completely absurd. At these moments, I see the beliefs of each as a reaction to the opposite extreme, based solely on emotionalism and dismissing logic and reason. At times like these, I feel like, as a moderate in midst of the debate, I am at odds with both extremes and unable to reconcile with either. And, while I would like to be able to bridge the gap between the two, I find that I serve more as wedge, helping each side to see only the absurdities of the opposite extreme.

Can anyone else relate to this? And what your thoughts? What is the role of moderates in the Church? Bridge, wedge, neither, or both? And, what exactly is a moderate? A person who is apathetic (not me at all)? A person whose beliefs borrow from both extremes (which is sometimes where I am)? A person whose beliefs a passionately in the center? Or something else altogether?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

I can't speak for other "moderates", but I'm much like you, a mixture of conservative and liberal ideas. Sometimes I kinda agree with both sides. Sometimes I agree with one and not the other. And sometimes I think they're both full of hooey.

I'm conservative about the very basics of the faith (the stuff in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds) but liberal about much else. And when politics comes into it, I'm a passionate libertarian and a member of the Libertarian Party.

Moderate definitely does not mean apathetic. Not in general anyway -- I can be very apathetic about the so-called "hot button" issues that are so important to some. To me, all that stuff is "majoring in minors", and the big things are believing in the resurrection of Christ, confessing Him as Lord, and living the two great commandments: loving God and loving our neighbors.

I try to build bridges when I can, not drive wedges.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I'd rather be a bridge than a wedge, certainly. I prefer to sit both sides down and find where each is right, rather than take one side over the other. I am so screamingly sick of the us-versus-them way of thinking. As I've said to the conservatives, if there is an unwritten rule that says being a "true" conservative means ridiculing liberals, I won't do it. But neither will I sit idly by while liberals bash conservatives. I am equally offended by either one.

 

[Zoness]

I'd like to think that we are a bridge for conservative and liberal Christians but I am finding that to be less and less true. Our group has always been the smallest and is quickly disappearing in some circles. I have a mix of conservative ideas and liberal ones as well, some ideas that might even be considered heretical and others truly orthodox.

 

[Speculative]

I think there is a problem with the current paradigm of conservative/moderate/liberal Christians. These are political terms and I fear the church--at least here in America--is far too politicized. We already separate into our separate denominations. Isn't that divisive enough? Why bring partisan, worldly politics into it?

It is the mission of each Christian to be a Bridge Builder. It is not a realm specifically reserved for a particular type of Christian. This did not mean we compromise our beliefs. It merely means that we show respect for the beliefs of others and make an effort to see their point of view, even when we disagree.

So, I don't like these Conservative/Moderate/Liberal labels, and have asked numerous times that they be removed. Of course, no one agrees with me, so they remain.

That's just my two cents. I think the reason we appear to be driving wedges is that we have this obsession with categorizing ourselves with these labels, and those outside those categories become "them".

 

[chaoschristian]

The name of this group is bridge builders, which I think implies that the role of moderates is to build a bridge between liberals and conservatives.

Not quite.

The name was intended to convey that the 'members' themselves bridged the divide between liberal and conservative thought as it relates to Christian theology, politics and culture.

I don't think there was ever an attempt or a desire to try to bridge the divide between the existing 'liberal' and 'conservative' groups on CF, because that was and is a rather fruitless task.

Rather the desire was to build a community that rooted itself on a middle ground and disciplined itself from going too far towards one extreme or the other.

I haven't been around in a long time, so I don't know if it's worked or not.

Ask Michie. She was there and has stayed around. There were others too. But I remember Michie being the best among them.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Not quite.

The name was intended to convey that the 'members' themselves bridged the divide between liberal and conservative thought as it relates to Christian theology, politics and culture.

I don't think there was ever an attempt or a desire to try to bridge the divide between the existing 'liberal' and 'conservative' groups on CF, because that was and is a rather fruitless task.

Rather the desire was to build a community that rooted itself on a middle ground and disciplined itself from going too far towards one extreme or the other.

I haven't been around in a long time, so I don't know if it's worked or not.

Ask Michie. She was there and has stayed around. There were others too. But I remember Michie being the best among them.

This forum has never become really popular. But it's never died either, and it's slowly gained traffic. We've had some pretty good discussions here, and mostly they've been constructive and polite, and not dominated by extreme PoV's. Yeah, I'd say it's been a success. Not a wild, raging success, but still a success.

 

[chaoschristian]

The smallest victories are sometimes the most important ones.

I'm glad still folks still post here.

 

[dies-l]

I think I need to start posting here more often. Good insights from everyone.

I go back and forth on the bridge vs. wedge question. On the one hand, my two closest friends (besides my wife, of course) are a bleeding heart liberal witch who worships Athena and a too-conservative-to-vote-Republican hardcore Pentecostal. I love them both, and I enjoy the conversations I have with both of them, but I know that, if they ever met each other, they would drive each other insane. This is what I enjoy about being moderate in my views is that, even though I am no less passionate than my pagan and conservative Pentecostal friends, I can find points of commonality with each of them, and with each of them, I can discuss our differences in love and civility, without anyone's feelings getting hurt.

My late father and my step-mother were both pastors with a reputation for being on the liberal side. Nonetheless, the church that I attended in high school (and that my dad was pastor of) was one of the most conservative evangelical churches in our conference. And, the members of that church loved him enough to keep him around about twice as long as the norm in that denomination. When my dad died, one of the people who spoke at his funeral was the lay leader at that church, who is probably the most conservative member of that church. He talked about the apprehension he had when he found out that the church was going to get a "liberal" pastor, and how my dad's liberalism (which I would describe as more moderate than liberal) united, rather than divided. This is the kind of Christian that I would like to be.

But, there are times that I find that my words and opinions, especially on these forums, upset people on both sides. Liberals are upset, because I will grant when a conservative poster makes a good point. Conservatives are upset, when I agree with a liberal poster. Both sides are upset when I express an opinion that goes to neither extreme. I do want to be a bridge, and sometimes I find that that is the role God gives to us, but I also wonder if sometimes we are called to be a wedge. It is those moments, that I find myself less comfortable.

 

[WannaWitness]

Although I consider myself conservative as far as applying the Word of God to my personal life, I tend to be moderate (and sometimes indifferent) when it comes to politics, which often (and naturally) makes me feel awkward in some of the CC forum's discussions (even though I do sometimes give my views). Morals and values are often spoken of (which is good), but I see true morals lacking in Democratic, Republican, and other political parties -- there is no such thing as a "Christian" party, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, morals are VERY IMPORTANT to me as a Christian; it's just that I don't really think that Republicans are as lily-white as they are sometimes made out to be, nor are Democrats as evil as those on the far-right may believe them to be. I do not condone abortion or homosexuality by any means; it's just that there are other moral issues to look at, as well. Combining all of the issues I like from both of the main two parties would turn me, politic-wise, toward Independent or nonpartisan, which makes me, to conclude, more of a bridge (or I try to be) between the two political opposites (or any kind of extreme opposites, for that matter). It depends on how effective my "two-cents-worth" is at any given time.

 

[WannaWitness]

I think there is a problem with the current paradigm of conservative/moderate/liberal Christians. These are political terms and I fear the church--at least here in America--is far too politicized. We already separate into our separate denominations. Isn't that divisive enough? Why bring partisan, worldly politics into it?

It is the mission of each Christian to be a Bridge Builder. It is not a realm specifically reserved for a particular type of Christian. This did not mean we compromise our beliefs. It merely means that we show respect for the beliefs of others and make an effort to see their point of view, even when we disagree.

AMEN!

 

[hedrick]

The problem with moderate is that it's hard to draw the line between moderate and liberal. Everybody thinks they're moderate.

I agree with evangelicals from the Reformed tradition most of the time. However I'm a bit more willing to make allowances for differences in the social context of the Biblical writers and today. So on a couple of issues (evolution and homosexuality) my positions are unacceptable to evangelicals. I think the mainline churches are mostly populated by people like me: pretty much standard Christian, but a bit more flexible in how they apply the Bible than a strict evangelical.

Is that what a liberal is? Certainly a real evangelical would call me liberal, because I don't quite believe in Biblical inerrancy. (At least an American evangelical. People I admire, such as N. T. Wright and Alister Mcgrath seem to be seen in the UK as evangelicals.) But there's little similarity between me and some of the real liberals who will reject the idea of Christ dying for us because they think that sacrifice is an outmoded and inhumane idea.

I started in the Reformed group here, since I am Reformed. I keep Calvin's Institutes right by my computer, and I use his commentaries all the time. But in practice, that community here seems to be pretty conservative.

 

[dies-l]

The problem with moderate is that it's hard to draw the line between moderate and liberal. Everybody thinks they're moderate.

On the other hand, my experience has been that many conservatives think that "a liberal" is anyone who is not as conservative as they are.

I have been thinking that perhaps "moderate" is a somewhat misleading term. It seems to imply that there is a group of people who, as neither liberal nor conservative, tend to agree pretty much with one another (in the same way that conservatives are similar to other conservatives and liberals are similar to other liberals). I have been observing, lately, at least two worldviews that as different as liberal is from conservative, which are both sometimes labelled as moderate:

There are libertarians, who are conservative in the sense that they believe that government should be small and tax them minimally and liberal in the sense that they believe that government (and religion) ought to keep out of their moral business.

I think I would likely fall into the other camp, for which I don't know of a universally accepted label. For lack of a better term, I would use the term "communitarian." I believe that inidivual rights are highly overrated by our culture and that individuals' responsibility to their community is highly underrated by our society. In practice, this means that I have no problem with so-called "big government" so long as the government effectively organizes us as a people and respects and supports the various communities that exist within the nation (States, The Church, the family, municipalities, and so forth). To some, this might make me look like quite the liberal. But, I also believe that individuals and business have a moral responsibility to promote the common good, at least to some extent, and I have no problem with government penalizing those who signifanctly compromise the common good, whether for profit or pleasure or any other motive. Furthermore, I believe that the Church has a responsibility to teach biblical morality. To some, this would make me look like a conservative.

Has anyone else thought about these types of classifications?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

On the other hand, my experience has been that many conservatives think that "a liberal" is anyone who is not as conservative as they are.

I have been thinking that perhaps "moderate" is a somewhat misleading term. It seems to imply that there is a group of people who, as neither liberal nor conservative, tend to agree pretty much with one another (in the same way that conservatives are similar to other conservatives and liberals are similar to other liberals). I have been observing, lately, at least two worldviews that as different as liberal is from conservative, which are both sometimes labelled as moderate:

There are libertarians, who are conservative in the sense that they believe that government should be small and tax them minimally and liberal in the sense that they believe that government (and religion) ought to keep out of their moral business.

Sounds like you're describing me. Except for one thing: churches are voluntary associations, and teaching morality is within their rights and their duties. But when they step over the line is when they try to make their morality mandatory for non-members, i.e., when they to make Christian morality the law of the land. I think all of us on the libertarian side of things would agree with that.

I think I would likely fall into the other camp, for which I don't know of a universally accepted label. For lack of a better term, I would use the term "communitarian." I believe that inidivual rights are highly overrated by our culture and that individuals' responsibility to their community is highly underrated by our society. In practice, this means that I have no problem with so-called "big government" so long as the government effectively organizes us as a people and respects and supports the various communities that exist within the nation (States, The Church, the family, municipalities, and so forth). To some, this might make me look like quite the liberal. But, I also believe that individuals and business have a moral responsibility to promote the common good, at least to some extent, and I have no problem with government penalizing those who signifanctly compromise the common good, whether for profit or pleasure or any other motive. Furthermore, I believe that the Church has a responsibility to teach biblical morality. To some, this would make me look like a conservative.

Again, I'd be on the opposite side from you, except for the very last part. The job of government is to be the referee, not a player in the game. Its job is to settle disputes and keep us from killing each other. I don't think government is itself very moral, and has no business setting itself as any kind of standard of morality. I don't trust my government to do that anymore than I'd trust my lawyer or accountant to do it. All of them are hired experts with a particular function, and morality is not part of their job description outside of their field.

If you want government to promote the common good, what do you get when the government is not in the hands of the good? A group of evil or amoral people promoting their own good, using the common good as their excuse. And that's exactly what I think the government is now, and what it will always be, unless you take promoting the common good out of its responsibilities. But what about putting good people into government? It's been done... and the system always corrupts them, with a few exceptions. Those few (like Ron Paul) who remain uncorrupted lack the power to change anything.

But the Church is another matter: it's a voluntary association, which by its very nature must deal with morality. If you're unable to accept the moral standards of a particular church, choose another.

Has anyone else thought about these types of classifications?

All my adult life. I've been an ideological libertarian and a member of the Libertarian Party since I was old enough to vote, in 1972. Thinking about those kinds of classifications is what we do. But that's politics, not theology.

And I too would be a communitarian when it comes to voluntary associations, including churches. The essential, and critical, distinction is that government is coercive... and that makes all the difference.

 

[dies-l]

Sounds like you're describing me. Except for one thing: churches are voluntary associations, and teaching morality is within their rights and their duties. But when they step over the line is when they try to make their morality mandatory for non-members, i.e., when they to make Christian morality the law of the land. I think all of us on the libertarian side of things would agree with that.

Again, I'd be on the opposite side from you, except for the very last part. The job of government is to be the referee, not a player in the game. Its job is to settle disputes and keep us from killing each other. I don't think government is itself very moral, and has no business setting itself as any kind of standard of morality. I don't trust my government to do that anymore than I'd trust my lawyer or accountant to do it. All of them are hired experts with a particular function, and morality is not part of their job description outside of their field.

If you want government to promote the common good, what do you get when the government is not in the hands of the good? A group of evil or amoral people promoting their own good, using the common good as their excuse. And that's exactly what I think the government is now, and what it will always be, unless you take promoting the common good out of its responsibilities. But what about putting good people into government? It's been done... and the system always corrupts them, with a few exceptions. Those few (like Ron Paul) who remain uncorrupted lack the power to change anything.

But the Church is another matter: it's a voluntary association, which by its very nature must deal with morality. If you're unable to accept the moral standards of a particular church, choose another.

All my adult life. I've been an ideological libertarian and a member of the Libertarian Party since I was old enough to vote, in 1972. Thinking about those kinds of classifications is what we do. But that's politics, not theology.

And I too would be a communitarian when it comes to voluntary associations, including churches. The essential, and critical, distinction is that government is coercive... and that makes all the difference.

What I find interesting about you is that I think that we are very different ideologically, at least when it comes to politics, but I find that I usually enjoy my conversations with you and agree more often than I disagree. I wonder if there is something to the idea that the idea of just being "moderates."

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

The problem I have with the word "moderate" is not so much the word itself, but common misperception of it. Too many people tend to think "lukewarm" or "fence-sitting." No. Not me, anyway. I am *passionately* moderate. I dislike extremes in either directions.

And what I dislike most about extremes is the way they bicker at each other. Oh, for the love of everything good, can't we just sit down and converse with each other, state what we believe and why, WITHOUT putting down what the other side believes? Can't we at least make an effort to see the opposite point of view, even though we may not agree with it?

I don't like extremes. Hence, Moderate.

Now--how can we drive traffic here?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

What I find interesting about you is that I think that we are very different ideologically, at least when it comes to politics, but I find that I usually enjoy my conversations with you and agree more often than I disagree. I wonder if there is something to the idea that the idea of just being "moderates."

That's mutual. I also find you very pleasant to talk with. Maybe our both being "moderates" has something do with it.

 

[WannaWitness]

The problem I have with the word "moderate" is not so much the word itself, but common misperception of it. Too many people tend to think "lukewarm" or "fence-sitting." No. Not me, anyway. I am *passionately* moderate. I dislike extremes in either directions.

And what I dislike most about extremes is the way they bicker at each other. Oh, for the love of everything good, can't we just sit down and converse with each other, state what we believe and why, WITHOUT putting down what the other side believes? Can't we at least make an effort to see the opposite point of view, even though we may not agree with it?

I don't like extremes. Hence, Moderate.

That's pretty much the size of it. Moderate simply means trying to be peaceful with everybody no matter how they believe... yet there are some on the extreme ends who are just so set in their ways that they are not open to moderate viewpoints -- which would make us moderates, in such a case, more of a wedge.

 

[spinningtutu]

I have to admit - I've struggled a bit with whether or not to apply the "moderate" label to myself (as with any label, there are pros and cons). I think that both "bridge" and "wedge" are accurate metaphors, they are both true.

Sometimes "moderate" seems to mean taking the "middle road" on an issue. However, for many things people feel very passionately one way or the other (say, for example, abortion) to the point that taking the "middle" road just seems to be mushy... it can be the whole "I wish you were hot or cold but not lukewarm" type thing. On many things, I feel, that it is right to criticize those in the "middle" as not really taking a stand. Yet, on other things (say, for example, the theological question of whether or not God is immanent and/or trancendent, there is a clear need for balance). So sometimes, the "middle" path is the right path. As another example, I occupy a middle/balanced view regarding eschatology: I affirm the rapture and second coming but refuse to get into the timing and details (that's up to God).

But... "moderate" can also mean that a person does have a very strong view about something _but_ is willing to have honest dialogue with others. For example, as much as I am pro-Life, I'm willing to admit that there is some truth to the claim made by pro-choicers that legislation is used to hurt women (especially poor women). So, while my voting record is pro-Life and while I've worked with Crisis Pregnancy Centers in the past, I do *my* part to get along with pro-choicers and help us both to understand the points the other is making. Does that make me a moderate on the issue?

Finally, some of us may come to the "moderate" label via having very solid formed views on things, but where those views fall to opposite sides of the spectrum. For example, if a person were to be all the way to the left on gay rights but all the way to right on abortion... would that person feel most at home in a "moderate" setting? Its the whole maverick thing...

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Paxi: Very thoughtful post. Reps sent.