What Are the Weaknesses of Conservative Christianity?

[hedrick]

That proposal would require a lot more evidence than you've provided here (which is none).

Read Christian Advice. You'll see evidence of the result of legalism all over. I noted above that this isn't a universal failing. Conservative Lutheranism has generally avoided it, and so has the Keller-style Presbyterianism that thatbrian likes. But you only need to read CF to see just how much damage legalism has done.

 

[hedrick]

Perhaps Albion and I are using different definitions of conservative Christianity. At least in the Protestant context, the simplest definition I know is in fact based on inerrancy and the associated concepts.

This obviously doesn't apply to the Catholic tradition, and possibly not to the Anglican. Conservative there relates to holding to Tradition. That has some differences and some similarities to Protestant conservatism. I don't have time now to comment on that.

 

[Albion]

Read Christian Advice. You'll see evidence of the result of legalism all over..

I took you to be speaking, in that post of yours, about Conservative Christians and Conservative Christianity itself...not what a few posters on these forums might have said (which often is so 'off the wall' that they can't be considered typical of anything)

 

[Albion]

This obviously doesn't apply to the Catholic tradition, and possibly not to the Anglican. Conservative there relates to holding to Tradition. That has some differences and some similarities to Protestant conservatism.

Right. And not them only. So, it's all the Catholic churches and some of the conservative Protestant ones. That's what I was saying.

 

[hedrick]

Right. And not them only. So, it's all the Catholic churches and some of the conservative Protestant ones. That's what I was saying.

Remember I said it wasn't universal. Just that when conservative Christianity goes back, it tends to fall into legalism. Just as when liberal Christianity goes bad it tends to fall into skepticism.

It's often hard to tell the affiliations of posters. My guess would be that the biggest problem comes from a certain kind of "non-denominational" church, though I've heard similar complaints from some people with a Pentecostal background.

I would say that Catholics tend to fall into legalism as well, but in a different sense. And the current Pope is trying to fix that.

 

[pdudgeon]

1. being out of step with today's society.
2. makes them vunerable to criticism, harsh treatment, overt prejudice, law suits, and worse.
3. being thought less of than liberal mega church Christians who get along well with society.
4. being misunderstood---lots of this
5. oh yes...can't forget to mention being thrown in jail for their beliefs.

forgot to mention, but to conservative/traditional Christians the above 'weaknesses' are actually seen as strengths.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

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.

Is this a criticism of a conservative attitude or is it a criticism of traditional beliefs? I think they are different. Maybe I'm reflecting my personal bias of a literal belief in Genesis coupled with a fairly non-legalistic attitude towards observance and morality. Put another way, is the problem the fact that a literal understanding of genesis is understood, or is it that this understanding is being used as a sticking point to those who think otherwise?

Indeed, in my opinion it's not so much the adherence to specific doctrines which are problematic with conservatism, it's specifically the attitude to make any variation of doctrine stick out as a sore thumb. It's the insistence on orthopraxy in all matters and principles and the mere shudder at the thought of anything else as heterodoxy, which in my opinion is not a dirty word. To be heterodox is to be human, though it is another matter to explicitly adhere to heterodox doctrine.

 

[hedrick]

Is this a criticism of a conservative attitude or is it a criticism of traditional beliefs? I think they are different. Maybe I'm reflecting my personal bias of a literal belief in Genesis coupled with a fairly non-legalistic attitude towards observance and morality. Put another way, is the problem the fact that a literal understanding of genesis is understood, or is it that this understanding is being used as a sticking point to those who think otherwise?

Both. But I agree that they are separate. As I noted above, certainly not all conservatives are legalistic.

A literal approach to Genesis seems nearly universal for conservative Protestantism, at least as I define it. Not so much for Catholic (and I guess Anglican).

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Read Christian Advice. You'll see evidence of the result of legalism all over. I noted above that this isn't a universal failing. Conservative Lutheranism has generally avoided it, and so has the Keller-style Presbyterianism that thatbrian likes. But you only need to read CF to see just how much damage legalism has done.

I've come across much legalism in a variety of churches, but up until 15 years ago, I only saw legalism of the Right, but failed to see the legalism of the Left. Having understood the gospel much, much more clearly, through may former pastor (Keller) I now understand the gospel as the only moderate position, with legalism on both sides.

Do you understand, or have you seen, the legalism of the Left?

 

[hedrick]

I've come across much legalism in a variety of churches, but up until 15 years ago, I only saw legalism of the Right, but failed to see the legalism of the Left. Having understood the gospel much, much more clearly, through may former pastor (Keller) I now understand the gospel as the only moderate position, with legalism on both sides.

Do you understand, or have you seen, the legalism of the Left?

Not personally.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Not personally.

Great! That will make this thread interesting. I'll explain tonight or tomorrow.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Not personally.

Legalism, which is defined as an attempt to add anything to the finished work of Christ - to trust in anything other than Christ and His finished work for one’s standing before God. This is sometimes obvious for us to see, but often it is hidden, even from our own eyes, and it is a problem that the Left, which sees itself as far removed from legalism, is just as neck-deep in as the fundies they feel contempt toward.

Much legalism is covert. That's my assertion. On a quiz, most Protestants would know how to answer questions about one's standing before God in a way that affirms Christ's finished work, not their good deeds, but practically, they can live in quite a different way. Every Christian, to some degree, is resting the basis for his righteousness on his own deeds. Again, this is happening on a subconscious level, unless and until, by the grace of God He shakes us enough to expose the corrupt foundations that we have built upon.

TBC with some examples.

 

[hedrick]

I’d say there are two kinds of legalism. One, which is what Paul was objecting to, uses obedience to the Jewish law, or something equivalent, for justification. That is, it would say that our acceptance by God as one of his people depends upon that.

The other sense is making Christian ethics too reliant on rules, particularly when they are applied inflexibly.

But most of us have doctrinal and ethical standards, and most of us believe that God cares whether we follow them. Is this adding to the finished work of Christ? It may be if we think people who disagree with our standards aren’t God’s people. That does sometimes happen. I’ve been called apostate at times because of ethical and theological differences. But most Christians, when they’re being careful with their language, are thinking more along the lines that if you don’t accept TULIP, or gay rights, or whatever, you aren’t really showing the life that Christ wants, not that God has rejected you.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

I’d say there are two kinds of legalism. One, which is what Paul was objecting to, uses obedience to the Jewish law, or something equivalent, for justification. That is, it would say that our acceptance by God as one of his people depends upon that.

The other sense is making Christian ethics too reliant on rules, particularly when they are applied inflexibly.

But most of us have doctrinal and ethical standards, and most of us believe that God cares whether we follow them. Is this adding to the finished work of Christ? It may be if we think people who disagree with our standards aren’t God’s people. That does sometimes happen. I’ve been called apostate at times because of ethical and theological differences. But most Christians, when they’re being careful with their language, are thinking more along the lines that if you don’t accept TULIP, or gay rights, or whatever, you aren’t really showing the life that Christ wants, not that God has rejected you.

The two definitions of legalism are merely technical and reflect theology, not attitudes. This is especially evident in the more conservative circles of Catholicism where they might all say that works are not required for justification, but then inject a giant caveat: receiving grace itself is only possible by certain actions. My point being that practically, the first and second definition are largely the same for the sake of this discussion, and the two groups tend to share the same rhetoric.

The second paragraph about ethical and doctrinal rules and standards raises a few questions:

1. Are there expressible ethical and theological (creedal) standards a Christian must abide by?
2. Are these standards universal
3. Are these standards societal or individual; are these incumbent upon the Christian society, or on the Christian, or both
4. Can these standards be expressed as rules and laws?
5. Are these rules and laws universal?

I make a distinction above between standards and laws. The former refers to their existence and necessity, while the latter refers to their application and articulation.

 

[hedrick]

The second paragraph about ethical and doctrinal rules and standards raises a few questions:
Are there expressible ethical and theological (creedal) standards a Christian must abide by?

Sure. But in normal Protestant mode I see most of this as after one is a Christian. That is, given that one is a Christian there are things one has to do. They’re mostly not requirements to be accepted by God in the first place.

Are these standards universal

To some extent. God is one. Jesus is the Son of God. That’s not going to change between cultures or over time. Neither is love your neighbor. That Christ is one person with two natures is an attempt to explain the Incarnation in a terminology from a particular culture. In other cultures we can use other explanations.

That interest can’t be charged was an attempt to avoid taking advantage of the poor. With changes in economic system, loans with interest are now seen as allowing poor people to do things that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to do, though abuse is still an all too common danger.

Are these standards societal or individual; are these incumbent upon the Christian society, or on the Christian, or both

Both. There are certainly implications on both individual behavior and the right way to structure society and government.

Can these standards be expressed as rules and laws?
Are these rules and laws universal?

In some cases yes. We have laws such as prohibitions of murder. But then we have courts that work out traditional interpretations for exceptional situations such as self-defense. But if you look at Matthew 5, Jesus emphasized intent. There’s a limit to what you can accomplish with law and standards.

Not all are universal. Almost every society has laws against murder, though I don’t know enough legal history to know how the details may differ across cultures and over time. But we’ve recently tried to codify abuse against children. This was always wrong and there were always some laws, but standards have been getting stricter and laws more explicit. Slavery was once considered acceptable, but no longer is. There have been major changes in principles involving family and sexual activity. Some of these are because of changes in how Christians understand Christian teaching, others because of differences in economic and cultural institutions. Most of these changes are controversial among Christians.

This is why Jesus gave the power of the keys to the Church(es). It’s to allow us to interpret the implications of the Gospel in specific situations and with specific challenges.

But I would maintain that it’s a judgement call where we use
* general standards such as love and forgiveness
* more specific guidelines such as not looking at someone with lust
* specific rules, such as when killing is and isn’t permitted
* law (by which I mean governmental enforcement)

Making too many specific rules or laws is one kind of legalism.

It’s also worth noting that Paul recognized that there will be situations where Christians simply disagree. One of the issues he faced was eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols. He had has own position, but was primarily concerned that Christians who took different views should still respect each other as faithful Christians.

I make a distinction above between standards and laws. The former refers to their existence and necessity, while the latter refers to their application and articulation.

I think there may be more than two categories. I tried to outline them above.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

Bingo. Being tied to a nation will drag down the effectiveness of Christianity in that nation along with the nation...because all worldly nations fall.

Check my signature.

 

[RDKirk]

Looking at that with the most generous eyes you can muster, why do you think it is that conservatives would not take a, "live and let live" approach to Christian doctrine/practice? Would you say that their motivation was in fact the desire to control others?

Men count noses. Humans want to see that their own beliefs carry the weight of numbers. That's the flesh talking, and it blends seamlessly with nationalism. David went down that road, and it resulted in the greatest catastrophe Israel had ever suffered before Jeroboam's tax revolt.

People must adopt Christ's "numbers don't matter" viewpoint in order to adopt Christ's "The way is narrow and few will find it" understanding.

The Body of Christ is proclaimed by Christ to be a minority in any nation. "Few will find it" and none can who are not "enabled by the Father."

Where does it say the Father has enabled everyone? There is zero implication that everyone can or should be shoehorned into the pews, rather, the clear indication from scripture is that Christianity is a minority belief.

 

[RDKirk]

For the record, I'm not speaking about classical liberalism. TYI, I would call myself a classical liberal. We aren't referring to politics when we say conservative or liberal. We are referring to the spectrum of Christianity, Left to Right.

If you say "spectrum....Left to Right"--then you are talking about politics. Absolutely. You haven't even strained political rhetoric out of the conversation.

Are you talking about Christian doctrinal liberalism and conservatism? I don't think so. Outside the conversation between Hedrick and ShaulHaTarsi this thread has not touched on the theological issues of Tillich or Schleiermacher or even Coffin or Sloan (on the liberal side) or Niebuhr or Hodge (on the conservative side).

You totally are talking about politics, but Christianity in most western countries has been so identified politically that most people don't even realize where they've drawn the lines.

 

[RDKirk]

Indeed, in my opinion it's not so much the adherence to specific doctrines which are problematic with conservatism, it's specifically the attitude to make any variation of doctrine stick out as a sore thumb. It's the insistence on orthopraxy in all matters and principles and the mere shudder at the thought of anything else as heterodoxy, which in my opinion is not a dirty word. To be heterodox is to be human, though it is another matter to explicitly adhere to heterodox doctrine.

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

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

Legalism, which is defined as an attempt to add anything to the finished work of Christ - to trust in anything other than Christ and His finished work for one’s standing before God. This is sometimes obvious for us to see, but often it is hidden, even from our own eyes, and it is a problem that the Left, which sees itself as far removed from legalism, is just as neck-deep in as the fundies they feel contempt toward.

Much legalism is covert. That's my assertion. On a quiz, most Protestants would know how to answer questions about one's standing before God in a way that affirms Christ's finished work, not their good deeds, but practically, they can live in quite a different way. Every Christian, to some degree, is resting the basis for his righteousness on his own deeds. Again, this is happening on a subconscious level, unless and until, by the grace of God He shakes us enough to expose the corrupt foundations that we have built upon.

TBC with some examples.

If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that legalism is the external expression of our subconscious lack of faith in justification by grace: That deep down inside, many (all?) of us want to feel as if we are righteous and justified by our conscious decisions we make and the standards we set for ourselves, and as a result feel the need to impose these standards on others. Put in other words, it seems that legalism derives from our flawed human condition, rather than an attempt to correct it.

For the left the situation might be inverted. Perhaps while the left might agree that humanity needs Christ's sacrifice at an intellectual level, it is perhaps an subconscious belief on their part that in essence, Christ's sacrifice was never needed? Indeed, coming full circle it seems that both extremes originate from an implicit denial of Christ's work.