One of the most tragic results of a divided universal church is the increased tendency toward using labels as a way to perpetuate disunity. And, I am not just talking about denominational labels.
A sign of our times, particularly in the polarized political climate of the United States, is the large chasms that are created by using the labels "conservative" and "liberal" in political, social and religious settings. As a movement which has resisted dividing the church based on human categories, we too have easily succumb to this form of divisiveness.
Labels themselves are not evil. They are useful to describe things. The danger comes, however, when we use labels as a simplistic way to set ourselves over and above others, and to attack people who differ with us by resorting to pejorative attacks based on nomenclature. It is too easy for a liberal to put down a conservative, or a conservative to attack a liberal. It's a great way to shut someone up, instead of really getting to know them and their ideas.
Few even understand these designations. Many assumptions and prejudices are formed in people's minds surrounding these labels, and most are not grounded on any real understanding of the issues.
It should be no surprise to most reading this that the Church of God predominately tends toward conservatism. There are very few real liberals among us. But, of course, for staunch conservatives anyone who does not agree with their worldview must be a liberal. The fact is that most of the schisms and splits that have occurred in our movement are the product of conservative factions that have emerged.
Interestingly, Scripture promotes neither a conservative nor a liberal agenda, at least by current standards. These are human perspectives that are imposed upon the message of Jesus. What people fail to see is that liberals and conservatives are simply flip sides of the same coin. That is, they are actually more similar than they are different, simply because they share the same modern philosophical roots. While they appear to have different worldviews, looking beneath the surface it becomes clear that both liberals and conservatives are products of the Enlightenment, bowing at the altar of reason to the point of extinguishing the flame of the Spirit.
I consider myself as neither liberal or conservative. But, as a follower of Jesus I recognize that I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who might fit into either the conservative or liberal camps. Our goal should be to rise above the rhetoric and find our center and ground in Christ, and to avoid being taken in by those who promote a lordship outside of Jesus, such as conservatism or liberalism.
For us in the Church of God it is especially important that we put our unity teachings into practice and avoid labels that fracture the Body of Christ. Do we really extend our fellowship to "every blood washed one"?
As traditional denominational loyalty disintegrates in our society, perhaps ideological labeling is the new denominationalism that is dividing the church.
How committed are we to our message to do something about this?
A sign of our times, particularly in the polarized political climate of the United States, is the large chasms that are created by using the labels "conservative" and "liberal" in political, social and religious settings. As a movement which has resisted dividing the church based on human categories, we too have easily succumb to this form of divisiveness.
Labels themselves are not evil. They are useful to describe things. The danger comes, however, when we use labels as a simplistic way to set ourselves over and above others, and to attack people who differ with us by resorting to pejorative attacks based on nomenclature. It is too easy for a liberal to put down a conservative, or a conservative to attack a liberal. It's a great way to shut someone up, instead of really getting to know them and their ideas.
Few even understand these designations. Many assumptions and prejudices are formed in people's minds surrounding these labels, and most are not grounded on any real understanding of the issues.
It should be no surprise to most reading this that the Church of God predominately tends toward conservatism. There are very few real liberals among us. But, of course, for staunch conservatives anyone who does not agree with their worldview must be a liberal. The fact is that most of the schisms and splits that have occurred in our movement are the product of conservative factions that have emerged.
Interestingly, Scripture promotes neither a conservative nor a liberal agenda, at least by current standards. These are human perspectives that are imposed upon the message of Jesus. What people fail to see is that liberals and conservatives are simply flip sides of the same coin. That is, they are actually more similar than they are different, simply because they share the same modern philosophical roots. While they appear to have different worldviews, looking beneath the surface it becomes clear that both liberals and conservatives are products of the Enlightenment, bowing at the altar of reason to the point of extinguishing the flame of the Spirit.
I consider myself as neither liberal or conservative. But, as a follower of Jesus I recognize that I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who might fit into either the conservative or liberal camps. Our goal should be to rise above the rhetoric and find our center and ground in Christ, and to avoid being taken in by those who promote a lordship outside of Jesus, such as conservatism or liberalism.
For us in the Church of God it is especially important that we put our unity teachings into practice and avoid labels that fracture the Body of Christ. Do we really extend our fellowship to "every blood washed one"?
As traditional denominational loyalty disintegrates in our society, perhaps ideological labeling is the new denominationalism that is dividing the church.
How committed are we to our message to do something about this?
6 comments:
Found your blog today, and I find it very interesting. This post in particular speaks to me because just this week someone said that they suspected I was a "lefty" Christian. Very surprised, I said I was not. Then the person asked if I was a "righty." Same answer. I do not like to be labeled as "liberal" or "conservative" because I think it's dangerous to identify yourself with any group that does not consider the teachings of Jesus when deciding what its followers should or should not support. A Christian's stance on the issues of the day should be informed by the Scriptures, not by man.
Interesting post. I think that the labels can be useful to a certain extent but people are often nuanced, un-thought out in every issue, and wishy-washy in certain areas.
A couple of years ago a seminar at "National Convention" pointed out that the historical positions of ChoG is slanted more to the liberal side. Equality of men and women in ministry, historic inclusion regardless of ethnicity, passivism, for example.
I think that someone can rethink their positions, reimagine how to do things and still be conservative or liberal. The premises are not the same, the conclusions often won't either.
First let me frame this so other readers might understand my heart: I absolutely love Lloyd. I love him as a brother in Christ as well as a fellow worker in the Kingdom. My question then is to provoke thought which leads to motivation and action. I do not seek thought alone nor combative arguments, which ultimately divides us.
So my question then: What is the foundation of this unity? What does it look like?
There may be those with the "spiritual" answer: 'It is Jesus and the Holy Spirit.' Which brings us back to Theology and the liberal conservative thought processes (if not actual labels).
Or it may bring historical/functional answers: 'It is fellowship and striving for unity itself.' This does not however bring us to an actionable stance but an idealistic stance (bringing thoughts of unity but not unity).
All this brings up another question: Are we drifting, either thoughtlessly or by intention, towards a stronger centralized authority system (a kind of forced unity like a denomination) in the CHOG ? [You may read about it a few posts back in Congregationalism]
Do we really extend our fellowship to "every blood washed one"?
not even close. most chog's can't even reach out to the other chog's in their own district, state, or city... however, getting together for the sake of getting together just doesn't jive with me. the last thing we need is more church meetings.
regarding politics, i get accused of being a liberal all the time by the blue collar folks of the central valley. mostly because i have a consistent ethic of life (pro-life and anti-capitol punishment), i am for stricter laws on hand guns, i didn't vote for huckabee or mccain, i want our troops home and this silly oil war to be over, i drive a scooter, listen to plenty of music you will never find on klove, and would rather wear sandals than a suit. i don't claim a party, a political side, or to be a hyper-capitalist. but apparently if you are for people having health care, a place to live, and food to eat then that makes you socialist.
i'm not really comfortable being called emergent yet, but i think it is starting to help define or label my thought process regarding faith and the politics involved. if only more people would embrace kingdom theology then we would have a context to have more relevant discussions about all of the above.
Lloyd,
To further your point. I was flying out of the West Palm Beach Airport last year after attending the Academy of Homiletics Meeting. At the airport, I recognized one of the other attendees. We struck up a conversation in which I asked where she was teaching (she and I would be about the same age). She said she was having a hard time finding employment. I asked if it was a matter of gender. It was not. What she said stayed with me. "The liberal seminaries will not hire me because I take the Bible seriously. They think I'm too conservative. But because I take the Bible seriously, no conservative seminary will hire me. They think I am too socially liberal."
I call myself a "conservative" and I do so gladly. I do recognize, however, the potential problems with labels because there is no settled definition on what these terms mean.
I was horrified, for instance, that Cheryl Sanders' articles at times seemed to be talking points for the Democratic National Committee. It disgusted me and I didn't want a subscription to the magazine. My disgust didn't have to linger for long.
It would be easy to say, "Let's just stick to Christianity and leave all potentially political matters out of the discussion." However, that's impossible because our positions are guided by our theological beliefs/interpretations of the Bible. Cheryl Sanders has a right to her views. So do I.
Post a Comment