"Liberal or Conservative?"
I may be naive, but I don't remember this discussion in scripture. Lest we think there were not differences between congregations in the first century, we need only look at the diffrences between individual churches within the New Testament; very different churches with extremely different backgrounds and memberships.
In Galatians, Paul is boiling about some people who have come from Jerusalem (a church of Jewish-Christians) to a place in Asia minor (churches mainly comprised of Greeks, and some Jews) trying to tell them how to evangelize within their local context. The Jerusalem brothers who were "of the circumcision group" did not know how to contextualize in Galatia. Why should they? And so they had no business telling them how to run the church there.
Rather than liberal/conservative, what I see in the New Testament is the churches throughout the world with strengths and weaknesses; the churches in Judea, Galatia, Macedonia, Asia, Bythinia, etc., with separate groups of leaders. Each had the responsibility to reach out with the gospel to the people in their respective communities.
Why do we need to be concerned about the practical decisions of leaders in other congregations in other parts of the country/world? Is not our responsibility to reach out with the gospel to the people within our local context? I have no business telling other elderships and congregations how to be salt and light in their contexts, and they have no business being judgmental on ours as well.
Please don't ask me if we are a liberal or conservative church. Those designations and their possy of accompanying issues are so petty and often more coloquial than scriptural.
Ask me, rather, if we are being salt and light. Ask me if we are reaching people with the transforming message of the gospel of grace and truth - communicated in love for God and our neighbors. Ask me if we are a church who is in a constant process of renewal and discipleship. Ask me if are committed to the God who reveals Himself in the Bible.
I will gladly answer those questions:
"May God bless bless us as we continue striving to become so."
Am I naive?
In Galatians, Paul is boiling about some people who have come from Jerusalem (a church of Jewish-Christians) to a place in Asia minor (churches mainly comprised of Greeks, and some Jews) trying to tell them how to evangelize within their local context. The Jerusalem brothers who were "of the circumcision group" did not know how to contextualize in Galatia. Why should they? And so they had no business telling them how to run the church there.
Rather than liberal/conservative, what I see in the New Testament is the churches throughout the world with strengths and weaknesses; the churches in Judea, Galatia, Macedonia, Asia, Bythinia, etc., with separate groups of leaders. Each had the responsibility to reach out with the gospel to the people in their respective communities.
Why do we need to be concerned about the practical decisions of leaders in other congregations in other parts of the country/world? Is not our responsibility to reach out with the gospel to the people within our local context? I have no business telling other elderships and congregations how to be salt and light in their contexts, and they have no business being judgmental on ours as well.
Please don't ask me if we are a liberal or conservative church. Those designations and their possy of accompanying issues are so petty and often more coloquial than scriptural.
Ask me, rather, if we are being salt and light. Ask me if we are reaching people with the transforming message of the gospel of grace and truth - communicated in love for God and our neighbors. Ask me if we are a church who is in a constant process of renewal and discipleship. Ask me if are committed to the God who reveals Himself in the Bible.
I will gladly answer those questions:
"May God bless bless us as we continue striving to become so."
Am I naive?
Labels: conservative, issues, liberal, simple christianity
posted by Daniel Cherry at 9:56 AM
8 Comments:
I agree that the categorization is often distasteful. And I think that "being conservative for the sake of being conservative" and "being liberal for the sake of being liberal" are equally disgusting.
However, I do think that these categorizations reveal how people think: what their orientation is toward fear, how much risk they are willing to take on, what their orientation is to tradition, what their orientation is to change, etc. People think in different ways, and often, birds of a feather flock together. Thus, "liberal churches" & "conservative churches."
And, although we do not see discussions of liberalism vs. conservativism in Scripture, I think it is there. I think you could fairly classify Matthew & James as conservative, and Paul as more liberal. The ideological struggle played out on that stage as it does today. I do agree that it did not appear to be a primary concern to them then, so it should not be our primary concern as well.
However, just because it's less important than other matters doesn't make it wholly unimportant at all. I am interested in which way a church leans, because it will tell me a lot about the church's identity. Won't tell me everything, but it is revealing.
My two cents. Feel free to disagree. I'm open to more dialogue about this...
Thank you Philip for your input. Your are right that there is a spectum that exists.
However, if people flock under their fine-pointed doctrinal perspective, it seems like the more important things do tend to take back seat. If these are the things that "define" "us" they necessarily become the focus of our discussions. Shouldn't we rather seek to "flock" according to our commitment to truth and love?
You bring up a great case in point. Matthew/James v. Paul. Matthew and James were Jews ministering to Jews. When people from Jerusalem (James)went into Gentile territory (Paul), they tried to minister to Gentiles as if they were Jews (Galatians). That didn't fit the context. On the other hand, when Paul came to Jerusalem (Acts 21:17ff) from the Gentile mission field, elated, refreshed excited about the gift he had collected from these Gentile churches he found the Jewish Christian debates in Jerusalem about him had hindered his ability to be affective evangelizing there. So, Paul took of his "gentile missionary" hat, donned his "Jewish Christian" had and took a Jewish vow. This would have been insainly "conservative" in Ephesus or Corinth, but beneficial in Jerusalem. Perspectives were different, but united under a common mission, they worked together in harmony.
Was Paul liberal or conservative? I don't think he would answer that question, even today. He would say "I become all things to all ment so that by all possible means I might save some." (1 Cor. 9:22) Paul was welcome in both churches.
I guess that is my point. I don't care whether a church is "liberal" or "conservative." What I want to know is, are they salt and light for Christ in their respective community. If they are not, whatever their orientation, something needs to change.
Lib. and Cons. often end in well-meaning Christians hurting each other. May we not forget Paul's warning, confronting this very issue, "If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other." Gal. 5:15
Yeah, I don't disagree one bit with your thesis that these terms shouldn't be the primary markers of identification when discussing issues of faith. As long as we both recognize that these spectrums & borders do exist & are in play, and as long as we don't just hope like heck and pretend that they won't go away if we just try to be holy enough.
I think we're in agreement here.
Well said Daniel.
I really liked this post. I have learned a lot in recent years about the danger of terms like this, although in some ways I can see their usefulness. I realized that they are too relative and conjure up so many different pictures and emotions in folks' minds.
"Liberal" and "conservative" are so inaccurate, simply because they generalize the views of living, breathing human beings. Whether you consider someone liberal or conservative depends on where you are on the spectrum, but it's not so easy to fully classify people.
For example, I do not believe either Genesis 1 or 2 to be literal "play-by-plays" of how God created the universe (someone somewhere will read this and get angry), but I believe wholeheartedly in the literal resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I don't see this as a contradiction, but as respecting the different biblical genres of writing. Those who take a more literal view flatten out most of Scripture and ignore the style and intent of the text.
My point with all this is that, although I may well be labeled "liberal" for my views, I don't think that is fair or accurate. I still believe and trust the message of Scripture, and seek to follow my (literally) crucified and risen Lord.
Thank you for your input, Adam. Lib-Cons are, as you say inaccurate terms. You and I may both, based on literary genre, believe some texts should be red literally, and others figuratively, and disagree on which texts they are.
Daniel,
Thanks for thinking through this question. Jesus was dangerous because he didn't fit the prevailing categories of his day. Why should we expect anything different? Let's break the mold and be the people God calls us to be.
Even among Jesus' disciples we had zealots and tax collectors. So, Jesus was able to bust through the labels of his day. Is that a fair comparison?
Rachel and I have a couple more weeks in the US before heading back to Mozambique. It was cool to find your blog - but, I'd love to see some pictures of your family! We love you guys and wish we could dialogue like this in person. Wouldn't that be cool.
Grace and Peace,
Alan Howell
Post a Comment
<< Home