Are Christians 'Conservative'?

[Peter DM]

I've noted that some people advocate for some things like homosexuality and yet call themselves 'conservative', such as social and political commentators like Tammy Bruce and Andrew Sullivan. This begs the question of what conservatism is and whether Christians can afford to call themselves such, seeing as homosexuality represents the culmination of reprobation and apostacy and so cannot be compatible with Christianity (unless you're an Anglican! lol).

Indeed, looking at the history of Christian interaction with society, can Christians really be considered conservative? When Christians mounted a decades-long campaign against slavery, was that the conservative position to take? And Christianity would certainly have been the opposite of reactionary when it continuously challenged the traditions of Roman society in its early years, whether it was in regard to how women were to be treated or whether infanticide was to be practiced or whether gladiator sports ought to be considered worthy entertainment.

So can Christians continue to call themselves conservative when the word today tends to mean reactionary? Christians have been anything but reactionary throughout their history; so does it make sense for professed Christians to make alliances with reactionaries as if this constitutes a permanent relationship, when history shows that Christians can only be shown to be reactionary only at certain times, radical at others, and progressive (in the truest sense of the word) most of the time?

[Cameron]

Peter,
What I can gather from your comments is that you are saying that through-out history we have been progressive in our actions in regards to what we believe are ethical issues.
However, recently we have been reactionary to issues when confronted.
I must admit I agree with you in a great sense. Even the word "conservative" has a tone that suggests being old-fashioned and out of date. Now we should neither be conservative nor label ourselves as such. I think we get lumped into this category because people perceive us as not being contemporary. Our views are seen as archaic because they do not fall in line with the norm. Hence, we are labelled as conservatives, hence, we think of ourselves as such.
And Peter you are right in the sense that if we are standing on what we believe to be solid ethical ground (i.e. the Bible) our actions should be more like the Church in history. One that is progressive. One that does the pushing, rather than the one that is pushed.
The question I'm not sure about is how do we turn around our mindset? And how can we start being more progressive?

[Peter DM]

Interestingly, apropos the question of what being a conservative means, local socio-political commentator Andew Bolt -- who considers himself a conservative -- has sparked much discussion on his blog after condemning Tony Abbott for holding reservations about homosexuality. No doubt many of Bolt's readers are confused about his positive attitude of homosexuality, given that he claims to be a social conservative and yet speaks positively of behavior that constitutes the culmination of reprobation and apostacy, behavior incompatible with Scripture. The thread of the post, the title of which sarcastically asks "What does Abbott fear they might do to him?", exceeds 500 comments.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/what_does_abbott_fear_they_might_do_to_him/#commentsmore

[Peter DM]

What I can gather from your comments is that you are saying that through-out history we have been progressive in our actions in regards to what we believe are ethical issues.
However, recently we have been reactionary to issues when confronted.

Hi, Cameron. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

Yes, Christians have been "progressives" for most of their history, since for most of that time they have been busy pulling and guiding society in the right direction, progressing toward a certain end. However, what term applies to Christians will depend on the context. When a non-Christian worldview prevails in society, Christians will be the iconoclasts, seeking to undermine and even overthrow the established order -- though almost always peacefully. Whereas where the Christian worldview has settled down to enjoy establishment status, Christians quite understandably will be keen to maintain the status quo and will therefore appear "conservative". Since the applicability of such terms depends on the context and so is variable, perhaps it would be better for Christians to avoid such labels and just call themselves what they are -- Christians.

I must admit I agree with you in a great sense. Even the word "conservative" has a tone that suggests being old-fashioned and out of date.

Whether something "old-fashioned" and "out of date" is bad will depend on one's system of ethics. Those who believe in an evolutionary system of ethics will believe that ethics does not remain static but is dynamic and evolving. Thus, the ethics that stands still is by definition "bad" while the new and creative is by definition good, the "artists" of society usually assuming for themselves the role of constantly questioning the status quo, challenging established norms and pushing the envelope in order to advance the evolution of ethics.

The Christian system of ethics holds that whatever God calls good is good and whatever God calls bad is bad. Thus, something is not inherently bad if it is "old-fashioned" or "out of date" but rather on what God's revealed view is on the matter. Besides, the idea of something being "out of date" presupposes a linear view of history, and with this teleology. But those who employ the idea of progress in order to label things as "out of date" will have to justify their teleology. Progressing toward where, for example? And how did they come to know of this destination? If there's no purpose, then there's no destination, and thus no direction toward which to "progress".

Now we should neither be conservative nor label ourselves as such. I think we get lumped into this category because people perceive us as not being contemporary. Our views are seen as archaic because they do not fall in line with the norm. Hence, we are labelled as conservatives, hence, we think of ourselves as such.

As mentioned above, whether Christians can legitimately be called conservatives will depend on the context. Christians can be conservative sometimes while at other times they are not. Conservatism is not automatically synonymous with Christianity. It would have been conservative to maintain Apartheid, Jim Crow, slavery, not count Aboriginals in the census, limit the voting franchise to white men, and so on. Surely the Christian position on most, if not all, of these questions would have not -- could have not -- been conservative.

So we should be "conservative" at times -- when being "conservative" is the practical outworkings of being Christian. Since Christian morality has held sway in recent history, Christians will quite naturally appear "conservative" (or reactionary) on many social issues, such as on questions to do with abortion, sexuality, the role of men and women in the family, and so on. So Christians can be, and often ought to be, "conservative".

However, better then constantly jumping from one label to another, perhaps it would be better for Christians to describe themselves just as that -- Christians. If Christians make the mistake of thinking that just because they are today "conservative" on many social issues, that then this means that they are "conservative" on everything else, then this puts them in the morally hazardous position of making alliances with reactionary pagans that are treated as if indissoluble . This is because the non-Christian conservative (often a racialist) has no other basis to justify his conservatism other than his reactionary impulse, being against any social progress whether it is right or wrong from the point of view of Christian ethics. The Christian, on the other hand, can only justify his "conservatism" if there is something worth conserving, that is, if that which he is seeking to conserve coheres with Christian morality. When it does not, then the Christian cannot be a "conservative".

I made this mistake when I figured that because I was "conservative" on social issues (given the current social context in which I find myself), that it followed that I ought to hold to the "conservative" position on other matters. The "conservatives" were anti big government and pro-free market, for example, so I uncritically adopted this as my position since I reasoned that if they were right on the social issues, then they were bound to be right on this as well. I had neither the time nor inclination to examine all the various political and economic arguments before I made the conclusion that big government was unequivocally bad, so found it much easier to simply buy the "conservative" package as a whole and cling to it tightly as my political life buoy. Did it make sense for poor and developing nations to subscribe to "free trade", as was the "conservative" position, or to institute a high tariff wall in order to protect and nurture developing industries in order to advance economically and left countless millions out of poverty? I didn't ask such questions but unquestioningly toed the line because I was, after all, a "conservative" and this was the "conservative" position on the matter. The "conservative" package stood and fell as a unit, and so any attack on one of its supporting pillars threatened to bring the whole edifice down on itself, impelling me to rush to hold up whatever pillars were under threat, even if the relationship between that pillar and my pillar of "social conservatism" could not easily be explained or justified.

If the alliance Christians often make with "conservatives" in the public sphere can be justified on the grounds of pragmatism, then such Christians will need to clearly acknowledge and come to terms with the morally complex and murky world of political expedience. They will have to shed their puritanical insistence on absolute refusal to compromise on questions of morality (see homosexuality) and replace this instead with the acceptance of the give-and-take that inevitably comes with politics -- in reality a recognition of the pluralistic polity in which we find ourselves and thus an act of maturity. They already have, after all, lied to themselves and everybody else that they are "conservative", when this can never be completely accurate with genuine Christians, so why not swallow hard, steel themselves and boldly advance into the maelstrom? (Either that or choose to maintain Christianity as a "private affair".)

If such a thought is too discomfiting for Bible-believing Christians, then perhaps they ought to shed their alliance with "conservatives" lest they begrime themselves with the spurious idea that they are "conservatives" instead of Christians who merely find themselves in the current historical context on the conservative side of the fence on many social issues, and instead form an explicitly Christian party that will not engage in the impurity of political expediency and compromise. Either this or devote their energies to an already existing party like this, such as the CDP. As to Family First on this matter, they quite clearly have rejected the CDP's "loud and proud" honest stance and headed in the the sneaky, cunning serpant direction instead, evidently having made the resolution to roll up their sleaves and get down-and-dirty in the world of politics. So unlike the CDP, they belong not to the approach of puritical intransigence but rather to the mature acceptance of reality.

So if Christians are "conservatives" only in the sense called for by pragmatism, then why stop there and not continue on into the world of politics proper, with its bargaining and trading, back and forth, wheeling and dealing, negotiation and compromise? Either Bible-believing Christians do that or drop the "conservative" pretense and instead be "loud and proud" like the CDP, not hiding behind any spurious labels or making alliances with reactionary pagans.

That's all I have to say on the matter.