Part of this lack of definition is due, in part, to the rather nebulous nature of these terms in modern times (an American conservative who does not advocate a return to monarchy would have been a "liberal" a hundred years ago). Part of it is due to the confusion between these terms as they apply to politics and theology. Part of it is due to a strong unwillingness among proponents of the two different political sides to allow any other definition other than the political. Part of it is due to an incomplete understanding of what "theology" is. And even more disconcerting is the way "Christianity" can mean whatever any commentator in these articles want it to mean.
"Christian", as my reader will most likely know, originally meant "little Christ". The early Christians were so devoted to living out the teachings and life of Christ that this term came to be applied those of the Church. Indeed, we are each of us called to live out our lives in Christ, following His example and commandments. Over the millennia this term came to be applied to any who belong to the Church. In a way, the recent attempt to define the term as a type of behavior is closer to the original definition, with the modern definition meaning whatever the person using the term thinks Christ would have behaved like. Thus, to a "conservative" a Christian might mean someone who follows an older moral code than the recent "progressive" code; to a "liberal" a Christian is someone who feeds the poor and is "tolerant".
"Theology" is a completely misunderstood term in the comments section of the NYT article. Many an apologist for "liberal" Christianity points out that "Christ tells us to feed the poor, clothe the naked, etc." This is all well and good, and a fundamental aspect (at least for the Eastern Orthodox) of theology, but it is not "theology". "Theology" is, in its most literal sense, the study of God. In the Western view this has meant quote-mining Scripture (and for more traditional Christians, the Church Fathers) in order to support various theories of atonement, practice, the Sacraments, justification, and so on. For a Roman Catholic, Thomas Aquinas is a theologian; for a Reformed Christian, Calvin is a theologian; and for the modern Christian anyone with an advanced theology degree is a theologian.
For the Orthodox Christian theology can only be done in prayer and we only have three saints with the term "Theologian" added to their name. The prototypical theologian is St John the Apostle and the proper place of the theologian is resting on the bosom of our Lord. Theology is no mere intellectual exercise but a commitment of body and soul as well.
I doubt any Christian would argue against the importance of prayer to the theologian, though they would probably say the Orthodox Church's insistence on it over a more intellectual exercise is pointless mysticism. To the one end of the theological debate it is not "critical" enough and to the other it is not "educated" enough.
But what are these ends? What is "liberal" and "conservative" in the theological debate?
There are those who would date the beginning of "liberal" theology with the application of textual criticism to the Bible, but I think this is putting the cart before the horse. Scholars began going over the Scriptures with a fine-tooth comb because they had already committed to theological liberalism. One does not reject miraculous accounts as not being in line with the "historical" life of Christ unless one rejects the possibility of the miraculous to begin with. The foundation of liberal theology is deism, the belief that God either does not or cannot intercede in the workings of the physical world. John Shelby Spong, the most quoted liberal theologian of contemporary society, has published many works (check out his "12 Theses") that basically promote deism over theism (though if you read some of his writings, he also seems to advocate a near-gnostic interpretation of the Resurrection- he believes that Christ was the "Son of God" in an Adoptionist sense, while believing the Resurrection was not a physical resurrection).
The problem with "liberal" theology is that it has no way to "study" God- and indeed would consider such study to be fruitless. It embraces all religions as being revelations of God (or perhaps better put as every human conception of God is just as good as the other, because God cannot or will not talk to us) while specifically overlooking the fact that all religions consider themselves to be the only way to know the divine- save those elements of those religions that embrace their own type of liberal theology. There is no way to study God, even in prayer, because any prayer to any conception of "god" one might have is just as good as any other.
This type of theology can be seductive, as with many such deceptions, because it actually does say something right- God is unknowable. We speak best about God when we speak in the negatives, he is ineffable, and as said time and again in Orthodox prayer (and using a translation of the Greek "athanatos" that bypasses the Latin phrase commonly used and goes straight to plain English) "deathless". But this theology of negation (in Orthodoxy the "apophatic" theology) must be balanced with revelation and the Incarnation. God is in essence unknowable, but through his energies and through his supreme act of love (one of these energies) and humility in the Incarnation he is knowable, and he is knowable in the same sense that we are all knowable. No one can be known if they spend their lives in an eternal coma, if they have no action (the human transposition of "energy"); it is only through their actions that they can be (by other humans) known. God is knowable because he interacts with humanity, through the Incarnation, through the Holy Spirit in the Church, and through the Church in the Sacraments.
"Conservative" theology can be almost as much a head-scratcher as the "liberal". The problem is, there are as many conservative theologies as there are denominations, where liberal theologians are united in what they wish to reject. One denomination might hold a strict literalist interpretation of Scripture as the standard of conservative theology, another might hold an adherence to Church Tradition, and so on. Still, one can at least identify a certain "orthodoxy" at the core of every denomination. A belief in the Triune God is a must, as is a belief in the historical reality of the Incarnation.
The problem with conservative theology is that it sometimes places dogma over practice- though not as often as its detractors would suggest. Truly, those times when Christianity drifts most away from the daily living of the Beatitudes are those times when the spiritual reality is ignored and the Church is seen as being yet another secular power.
The first Anonymous commentator on Ad Orientem's site asks:
".... is questioning or criticizing the priesthood 'liberal', ( see the Parable of the Good Samaritan)?
Is questioning or criticizing those who interpret the Law, ( numerous referenbces in the N.T. about Pharisees, Sadducees, etc;),
'liberal'?"
The latter question is most interesting. The Pharisees could, perhaps, be seen as ancestors of the modern "conservative" Christian. But it shows a sad historical ignorance when one advances the Sadducees as being cut from the same cloth. The Sadducees rejected the spiritual aspects of Judaism, they refused to believe in either a physical resurrection or angelic beings, they sought the trappings and rituals of Judaism for the societal power it gave them while rejecting the reality of the spirit in which these rituals were to be performed. Those who would advance our Lord as either a theological liberal or a theological conservative miss the point entirely- our Lord did not teach theology, He was the proper focus of all theology.
At last we come to the question of politics. While there is some correlation between liberal theology and political liberalism, it does not follow that all political liberals are theological liberals. Likewise, not all political conservatives are theological conservatives. It is entirely possible, and even likely, for someone to fully embrace orthodox theology while at the same time believe that liberal politics such as welfare and universal healthcare logically follow from the teachings of Christ. It is also possible for someone to reject the Christian creed, yet believe that conservative politics, such as a "sink or swim" philosophy and lower taxes, logically follow from evolution's "survival of the fittest".
But what I see in the NYT comments section is not this type of apologetic- not a single commentator supporting liberal Christianity (all I see is either those supporting liberal Christianity or those laughing at the fact that any writer would think something so passé as religion) mentions orthodox belief- they just hold up their form of Christianity as the only "right" Christianity with as much smugness as any member of the Moral Majority. These commentators are in such a rush to place their view above the Moral Majority that they don't even realize that this article was written in support of a liberal Christianity- one that re-embraces an actual faith; that is, a politically liberal yet theologically orthodox Christianity.
And the attitude on display is repugnant, a prime example of the extreme "I'm right/ you're wrong" divide that has taken hold of this country. For many conservative and liberal Christians politics has taken priority over Christianity, and those with differing political views are now sub-humans- liberals are caricatured as out-of-touch hippies and conservatives as narrow-minded rednecks. The idea that someone could have thoughtfully, rationally, and perhaps even prayerfully come to an opposing political viewpoint is anathema. It is sad that this idea has taken the country by hold, but it is a downright tragedy that those claiming to be Christian have embraced it.
Christ sends us into the world to change the world, not by voting for a particular political party or scoring points in a debate, but by first changing ourselves. We are called to die to the world and live in Christ. After this, we are called to love every human being as ourselves. Christ was sent to death by the theological liberals and conservatives in the one time in history they have ever agreed with each other, then executed by political authorities- but He forgave them all. How can we do any less for a person whose only crime is that they voted for the other guy?
*heavy* arguments...
ReplyDeleteinteresting read