Book Review: A Generous Orthodoxy Part 11 of ??
Liberal/Conservative
This was definitely one of the more interesting chapters for me to read. McLaren believes that the current liberal/conservative labels grew out of the transition from the Medieval Period to the Modern Period, which occurred roughly from 1500 to 1700. This, amongst other things, included the Protestant Reformation. An important part of this shift involved how people determined how they knew truth.
For a Medieval person, it went something like this:
Q. How do we know what is true?
A. The authorities tell us.
Q. How do you know the authorities are right?
A. They tell us so on God's authority.
Q. How do you know the authorities are right when they say that they're right on God's authority?
A. Don't ask that question.
For a Modern person, it went something like this:
Q. How do you know what is true?
A. I think for myself. I reason, debate, do experiments, reflect on my experience.
Q. How do you know you are right?
A. It's just simple reason; of course I'm right.
Q. Why are there so many others that use reason who disagree with you?
A. Because they're wrong/evil/stupid/biased/immoral/not really using reason.
McLaren thinks that this modern attitude might have first been successfully expressed by Martin Luther, "Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other … I will not recant ... Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise." This quote also indicates the initial Christian response to modernity, which was to switch form the authorities (such as the Pope, etc.) as the arbitrator of truth to viewing the Bible as the arbitrator of truth.
The problem quickly became apparent though that people interpreted the Bible differently and had completely different systems of interpretation. Who was to say which interpretation was correct? An authoritative person or council? If someone had to decide which interpretation was correct, wouldn't that just be, in effect, making someone else the Pope? McLaren writes that this issue was at the center of the conservative/liberal divide.
The conservative response was basically to say, "don't ask that question." They insisted that the Bible was the ultimate authority, without error or contradiction, and that men were capable of understanding and interpreting it. To give this up, conservatives feared, would be the first step to inevitably losing the whole faith. Liberals thought this system merely replaced a flesh-and-blood pope with a paper one, and replaced the cardinals and bishops with scholars and teachers. Liberals thought this interfered with free-inquiry, something upon which they insisted.
Both groups developed problems as time moved on. Conservative interpretations multiplied wildly, and seemingly, the Bible could be used to "prove" anything. This brought into question what good it is to have an inerrant Bible if no one can agree on an inerrant interpretation of it. As conservatives could "prove" anything, liberals proved capable of questioning everything. It wasn't long before the central tenants of Christianity were questioned (and rejected by some), leaving many to wonder just what was the point of being a Christian. Conservative and Liberal groups often pushed each other further apart by comparing their best features against the other side's worst.
McLaren writes that modernity was a difficult challenge for the Christian faith, one that the Christians found two ways of surviving: conservative and liberal. He writes that he is both conservative and liberal, in the sense that he wishes to affirm the positive aspects of both (and that he can learn from the mistakes of both). Liberals pioneered in the areas of science (addressing issues like evolution and the age of the earth) and ethics (helping to end slavery and then segregation, finding a bigger role for women, showing concern for the poor and for the environment). Conservatives took the lead in individual conversion and discipleship (starting Sunday Schools, funding and going on missions, effective outreach through television, radio, and by parachurch organizations).
McLaren writes that both groups have often defined themselves in their response to modernity, their response to each other, and their alliance with political factions. If they keep doing so, they risk being relics - stuck in the past. Now that the influence of modernity is fading, McLaren hopes that conservatives and liberals can come together in a place "that is both orthodox and generous."
This was definitely one of the more interesting chapters for me to read. McLaren believes that the current liberal/conservative labels grew out of the transition from the Medieval Period to the Modern Period, which occurred roughly from 1500 to 1700. This, amongst other things, included the Protestant Reformation. An important part of this shift involved how people determined how they knew truth.
For a Medieval person, it went something like this:
Q. How do we know what is true?
A. The authorities tell us.
Q. How do you know the authorities are right?
A. They tell us so on God's authority.
Q. How do you know the authorities are right when they say that they're right on God's authority?
A. Don't ask that question.
For a Modern person, it went something like this:
Q. How do you know what is true?
A. I think for myself. I reason, debate, do experiments, reflect on my experience.
Q. How do you know you are right?
A. It's just simple reason; of course I'm right.
Q. Why are there so many others that use reason who disagree with you?
A. Because they're wrong/evil/stupid/biased/immoral/not really using reason.
McLaren thinks that this modern attitude might have first been successfully expressed by Martin Luther, "Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of popes and councils for they have contradicted each other … I will not recant ... Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise." This quote also indicates the initial Christian response to modernity, which was to switch form the authorities (such as the Pope, etc.) as the arbitrator of truth to viewing the Bible as the arbitrator of truth.
The problem quickly became apparent though that people interpreted the Bible differently and had completely different systems of interpretation. Who was to say which interpretation was correct? An authoritative person or council? If someone had to decide which interpretation was correct, wouldn't that just be, in effect, making someone else the Pope? McLaren writes that this issue was at the center of the conservative/liberal divide.
The conservative response was basically to say, "don't ask that question." They insisted that the Bible was the ultimate authority, without error or contradiction, and that men were capable of understanding and interpreting it. To give this up, conservatives feared, would be the first step to inevitably losing the whole faith. Liberals thought this system merely replaced a flesh-and-blood pope with a paper one, and replaced the cardinals and bishops with scholars and teachers. Liberals thought this interfered with free-inquiry, something upon which they insisted.
Both groups developed problems as time moved on. Conservative interpretations multiplied wildly, and seemingly, the Bible could be used to "prove" anything. This brought into question what good it is to have an inerrant Bible if no one can agree on an inerrant interpretation of it. As conservatives could "prove" anything, liberals proved capable of questioning everything. It wasn't long before the central tenants of Christianity were questioned (and rejected by some), leaving many to wonder just what was the point of being a Christian. Conservative and Liberal groups often pushed each other further apart by comparing their best features against the other side's worst.
McLaren writes that modernity was a difficult challenge for the Christian faith, one that the Christians found two ways of surviving: conservative and liberal. He writes that he is both conservative and liberal, in the sense that he wishes to affirm the positive aspects of both (and that he can learn from the mistakes of both). Liberals pioneered in the areas of science (addressing issues like evolution and the age of the earth) and ethics (helping to end slavery and then segregation, finding a bigger role for women, showing concern for the poor and for the environment). Conservatives took the lead in individual conversion and discipleship (starting Sunday Schools, funding and going on missions, effective outreach through television, radio, and by parachurch organizations).
McLaren writes that both groups have often defined themselves in their response to modernity, their response to each other, and their alliance with political factions. If they keep doing so, they risk being relics - stuck in the past. Now that the influence of modernity is fading, McLaren hopes that conservatives and liberals can come together in a place "that is both orthodox and generous."
posted by Freethinker at 10:08:00 PM
1 Comments:
This does sound like it was an interesting chapter. It seems like he analyzes the conservative/liberal thing pretty well.
Post a Comment
<< Home