What Are the Weaknesses of Conservative Christianity?

[ShaulHaTarsi]

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

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.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

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.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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.

You understand me very well.

To the extent that one, consciously or not, places his trust in his works to justify him, rather than the work of Christ on his behalf, he is in a position of great insecurity, because his works could never justify him. This insecurity causes all of the symptoms of legalism, which, by the way, is how we can spot it in ourselves. Desperate to secure ourselves, we do more of the works which we have deemed righteous, for Left, that can be social causes, and for the Right i can be church attendance, "daily devotions". . . and we look in judgement at those who don't do as much as we do. This is unavoidable when we are attempting to justify ourselves.

Because legalism leaves us on such shakyAnother sign of legalism is adding extra-biblical tests of orthodoxy e.g. you arern't a Christian if you vote for X, or drink alcohol, or don't fight global warming.

On the Left, a Social Justice Warrior, at some point, can end up the mirror image of Westboro Baptist Church. These are just two expressions of the same disease.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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

I'm not certain what you mean here.

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?

No. Not in and of itself. It's where our trust is placed that makes the difference, which is why legalism is not a weakness unique to the Right.

It may be if we think people who disagree with our standards aren’t God’s people.

At some point, a person leaves orthodoxy if he fails to hold to a minimum of Christian doctrine or adds to Christian doctrine.

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).

 

[hedrick]

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).

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.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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.

I can scratch the term "orthodox" from that post without changing what I meant. Replace it with, "one of God's people". Yes. Orthodox was not the clearest choice of words.

Helpful quote from Keller on the subject:

The Christian Gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me. This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time. It undermines both swaggering and sniveling. I cannot feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone. I do not think more of myself nor less of myself. Instead, I think of myself less.” - Tim Keller​

 

[FireDragon76]

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".

 

[crossnote]

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.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

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.

I agree. And, it is hard, if not impossible for me to give a fair hearing to such because scriptural authority, sufficiency, and inerrancy are non-negoshables to me.

The first person to alter or question God's word was Satan himself, so I'm leery of those who follow in his footsteps by bringing into question the very texts of holy scripture.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

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

 

[TNF_13]

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.

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.

 

[W2L]

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.

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?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

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.

 

[lismore]

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

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

 

[lismore]

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

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

God Bless

 

[hedrick]

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

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.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

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

 

[lismore]

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

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.

 

[hedrick]

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.

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