Introduction

Church conflicts — whether over doctrines, matters of lifestyle, or policies — are often described as conflicts between “conservatives” and “liberals.” Given the Bible’s call to unity, this factioning of the church should be cause for concern.

The factioning of the church into conservative and liberal camps is a fascinating process. To the casual observer, it may seem that the many specific points of contention between the two camps are over unrelated issues. For example, what does a theological position on the human nature of Christ have to do with the length of women’s dresses? Though both are conservative positions, a studious observer would find little direct relationship between the points. Indeed, there are many who freely hold to only one or the other of those two points, and see no contradiction in doing so. Yet despite widespread exceptions over specific points, there is a noticeable polarization. Something draws church members towards either of these two groups, each representing a collection of diverse issues. In the end, people tend to adopt a collection of related ideas and practices, which could be classed as either liberal or conservative. Put another way, people who hold doctrinal views deemed conservative also tend to adopt conservative lifestyle choices and policies. Those who favor liberal church policies tend toward liberal theological and lifestyle stances. Of course, individually people tend to take various exceptions to their party platform.

Somehow all this gathering into factions occurs without a formal platform on either side dictating what is offically a conservative or liberal position. Evidently there are forces at work — whether attitudes, cultures, or other influences — that beneath the surface affect how we evaluate a wide range of important decisions. We may be unaware of these forces, yet their influence is there.

The purpose of this article is to explore what these forces are, in the hope that it will help us find common ground with those on the other side of the fence, whichever side that might be.

Disclaimer

Because the words “conservative” and “liberal” are relative, it is impossible to attach any absolute merit to one approach or the other. We cannot say something is right or wrong merely because it reflects a conservative or liberal approach.

An additional caution is that we must distinguish between the more general uses of these terms, and their special usage regarding differing viewpoints in the church. For instance, someone who is theologically conservative may be quite liberal (financially) in supporting mission projects — statistically, that is often true. Being generous does not make a person liberal in the sense that we are talking about here. For another example, someone who enjoys liberal worship styles may be quite conservative (emotionally) in their personality. Being quiet by nature does not make a person a conservative member of the church. In a sense we are detaching the words “liberal” and “conservative” from their broad meanings, and using them somewhat abstractly to represent opposite poles in a multi-dimensional space that represents the church. (This is not to suggest the terms have no significance in themselves; however, for now it is best to simply think of them as two opposing points on a spectrum.)

Probably no one fits neatly into one stereotype conservative or liberal position. Humans are complex creatures. Life is complex. Individual may be so conditioned to a certain way of life in one area that they cannot part from it, even though it may contradict their overall course of thought and action in other areas. Thus a liberal may retain some conservative qualities, and vice versa.

The factions within the church are not two distinct camps. Rather, they form a broad space between two poles. These poles seem to magnetically pull people one direction or the other, yet there are other forces of attraction and repulsion at play as well. Many church members consider themselves “moderates” — neither liberal nor conservative. We will look at this position later.

Agents of change

What influences cause people to see things so differently? Why are most of our major differences within the church usually described (or argued) as two-sided, instead of being split among three, five, or a dozen competing groups?

Culture. Culture is blamed for much of our church strife. Indeed, the church today is composed of many diverse cultures. By definition, people from different cultures will have differing expectations, traditions, customs, and manners. The ways they socialize, conduct business, and evangelize are different.

However, upon closer scrutiny, culture does not completely answer the question. Within just about every culture we can find the same liberal-conservative split. Historically, time seems more significant than culture. That is to say, churches within our relatively liberal First World cultures (such as the United States) were closer spiritually in the past (such as the 1700s and 1800s) to the more conservative Third World nations today, even though culturally the people of those respective nations were further apart at those points in time.

To say it another way, liberals and conservatives across cultures do not have so much cultural similarities as they do doctrinal and lifestyle similarities. There seems to be a force that transcends culture.

Tradition. Tradition is also frequently put to blame for causing liberal-conservative rifts. It is obvious enough that many doctrinal and lifestyle issues can become traditions. Examples would include Sabbath-keeping practices, methods of presenting Bible truths, and what church-goers wear.

Yet tradition is also an incomplete answer. For example, conservatives are the ones usually decried as traditionalists. In this usage it implies stuck in a rut, hardened in formalism, and so on. But the facts bear out that many conservatives are anything but traditional. Many are new believers who have broken from other religious faiths (or nonbelief) that have no relationship to church culture or traditions. For those believers, their conservativism is radical, not traditional. And liberal believers can be just as guilty of traditionalism as their conservative brethren — which is why many conservatives think liberal worship styles “are all alike.”

In short, there is no direct relationship between conservative values and traditionalism, nor liberal values and radical or free thinking.

Extremes. Both factions tend to think that the other group is extreme. Conservatives tend to look at liberals as compromising and worldly. Liberals tend to see conservatives as Pharisaical, fanatics, or just sadly uneducated. But is it really possible to say that one faction is more extreme than the other? On what basis do we judge extremes?

When we look at the history of God’s people, from the story of Adam and Eve all the way through New Testament times and beyond, it appears that following God has always been rather extreme. Few, if any, of the great believers of the Bible have lived “normal” lives. Jesus Himself often presented the Gospel call in a way that could easily be described as extreme: leave all, sell all, enter the narrow (unpopular) way, take up your cross, and so on.

Of course, both factions can claim that they offer God’s extremes. The liberals offer extreme mercy-grace: “Hey, don’t sweat anything, God loves you.” Conservatives offer extreme obedience-grace: “You can be perfect, today — and if you will please God, you must be.” Liberals have extreme celebrations and rallies; conservatives have extreme Bible studies and diets. On what basis do we decide which extremes are worthy?

Yet the Bible is clear that following God is “wisdom.” Wisdom means discernment, and implies that life cannot be navigated through simple polarized thinking. In that sense godliness is a very middle-of-the-road position. There are dangers on both sides. We cannot point to the existence of extremes as a reason for or against either position. When we realize that the Bible is the arbiter, or test, of wisdom, we have a basis to decide which extremes are God’s calling and which are man’s folly.

Spiritual qualities. This is the most heated type of explanation. “Liberals are worldly.” “Conservatives lack love and the Spirit.” It is also the most frivolous. While it is certainly true that members of both camps suffer from spiritual ills, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. It is helpful to remember at this point that we are dealing with a spectrum, not two precise camps. There are worldly conservatives. There are happy, loving conservatives. Their are self-sacrificing liberals. There are bitter liberals. And many other variations exist than we could possibly name here.

Two ways of determining truth

As compared to the church as a whole, I am a conservative. You might say in some ways that I am very conservative. One day I was thinking through a particular issue. I realized that I knew of no direct Biblical or inspired counsel on the subject. Yet the principle seemed clear to me. While I had convinced myself, I knew the very suggestion of my application of this principle would sound ridiculous to liberals I know personally.

While I could envision in my mind how the conversation between myself and a liberal on that particular topic would go, it was not immediately obvious why we would see it so differently. Gradually this conclusion formed in my mind: Conservative thought and liberal thought ultimately distill down to two different ways of evaluating reality. The more I thought about it, the more obvious it seemed. Here in a nutshell is the sum of that day’s musings:

• Conservatives are idealists, who take the high road on principle; they stick to the tried and true.
• Liberals are realists and pragmatists; they tend to experiment.

Conservatives are people with high ideals, who also maintain a high regard for orthodoxy. As such, they have high standards, they attempt much, and they feel a strong burden to protect doctrinal pillars and foundations. Liberals in the church tend to look to the past as the time of darkness and ignorance, and are always pushing for freedom to explore new options. I feel there are points of merit in both views, but both can be carried to extremes.

Generally speaking, conservatives evaluate the merits of something based on the principles involved: “Is mustard known to irritate the stomach? Yes? Then I won’t eat it.” Liberals evaluate things based on effects that can be seen or experienced (a view known as pragmatism): “I’ve eaten mustard many times. Has it ever bothered me? No. Plus I like the taste. Pass the mustard, please.”

Liberals, of course, do not disdain all principles. But the question is whether they will accept a principle as an absolute guide, in itself, and especially on the word of a third party (by inspiration, for example). Liberals will generally accept the same principles that conservatives accept, when the significance of doing so is obvious and profound. For instance, nearly all church members oppose drugs, alcohol, adultery, and stealing. We can see the effects of these things. In many cases the damaging consequences are almost immediate.

But where effects are not immediate or obvious, but where the principles are known (or where in the Bible a rule is stated), strong differences of opinion exist. Conservatives will tend to see the principle or rule as a divine law; liberals will tend to find it hard to swallow and attempt to explain it away on one pretext or another.

Another food-oriented example: A conservative may hear that science through several studies has substantiated that chocolate contains substances known to impair judgment and adversely affect health. Since there is no compelling reason to eat chocolate, a conservative may find it obvious that it is best left alone. A liberal, on the other hand, may hear the same facts. But since there is little perceptible difference in the health, intelligence, or morality of an average chocolate-eater versus an average non-chocolate-eater, the liberal will tend to conclude that it does not really matter.

In this the conservative approach has advantages: It realizes the limitations of human perception, and accepts the divine principles as a wise guide. It also grasps the fact that synergy is a principle of evil as well as of good. Many little influences, inconsequential as they may seem, can add up over the course of a lifetime (or over the course of a nation’s or planet’s existence). Many interactions and reactions may exist of which we have no knowledge; therefore, if something is known to be a little bit bad, it may be very bad in ways we have not discovered yet. This applies not only to food, but to clothing, speech, lifestyle, and even matters of doctrine.

Of course, it could also be argued that the liberal approach has advantages, too, since it does not lead one to bind up himself with rules that lack a clear, compelling, rational basis. It does not make mountains out of molehills, or lead to perfectionism.

There are pitfalls on both sides. Personally I feel that liberals are wrong about doctrinal and lifestyle issues a larger percentage of the time. But conservatives can be cranks or cranky, and that’s not good. Still, there is a deep pragmatism in the view that, in a spiritually dangerous and conflicted world, there is wisdom in leaning to the safer, less licentious side.

Moderates in the church

From a very conservative standpoint, a self-proclaimed moderate is someone who knows the truth but has made some compromises. From a very liberal standpoint, a self-proclaimed moderate is a somewhat enlightened individual who is unfortunately bound by Pharisaism or tradition. However, these perceptions belong especially to those who have strongly gravitated to one end or the other of the church spectrum.

Moderates make up the largest percentage of church membership by definition. However, there is somewhat of a dichotomy in how individuals view themselves. Nearly everyone regards themselves as middle-of-the-road (which could be a definition of a moderate); on the other hand, many pride themselves on their conservatism or liberalism as compared to others (in that sense no one is a moderate). Individuals generally like to feel they have reached a higher sphere, but not that they have branched away from what is mainstream. Obviously there is a paradox in that.

Summary

My denomination, compared to others, is quite conservative. This explains the popularity of “conservative values” in certain circles of my church. But being in a church that hangs close to the conservative pole can be a dangerous crutch. We can become deceived in our own smugness. Conservative Christians cannot judge themselves by what other Christians believe or do; the Bible is our guide. We will never enter heaven because we were “less heathen than others.”

It is all too possible that our “conservative” denominations, and we along with them, have become quite liberal — or worldly, as the Old Guard Christians might have put it. The shifts in thinking and practice across centuries can leave us far away from what was once the conservative harbor, while we still congratulate ourselves that we are not as liberal as others. Today’s staunch conservative could be yesterday’s flaming liberal, or vice versa.

There is a danger in allowing ourselves to be drawn into political ways of thinking. If we find ourselves saying or thinking, “That is wrong, because that is just what a liberal (or conservative) would do,” then we know we’ve broken away from principle-based thinking and have slipped into political prejudice.

So I think it is important to apply the human mind to the Bible, to understand the principles involved. It is the bane of conservatives to get wrapped up in laws (applications of principles), rather than knowing and upholding the principles themselves. We can cite all kinds of verses to back up what we say, and point out the lack of verses to justify any other course — and still be wrong.

The Bible calls us to moderation (Philippians 4:5). But it also warns against “lukewarmness” (Revelation 3:15-19) and comparing ourselves with others (2 Corinthians 10:12). There is no safety in gauging our spirituality based on herd instincts. Only the wisdom of God, found in His Word, can lead us to the moderate, levelheaded position that is not ashamed or afraid to obey God’s extreme call.