3 Tips for How Christian Progressives and Christian Conservatives Can Communicate
If only we had a universal translator for political ideologies...
via Scorn Profits the Blogger, but Costs the Kingdom.
The general point is that there is a great deal of scorn flying back and forth between conservative and liberal Christians today, especially online, where scorn is rewarded. This should be of great concern. We may profit from writing scorn, but the kingdom pays the cost. Scorn is corrosive. It cuts us off from fellow believers who could teach us many things. And it hardens the world’s caricatures of Christians.
My constructive recommendations for all of us would be:
1. When a Christian on the Left sees conservative Christians being caricatured, he or she should (as a general rule of thumb) first of all seek to correct the caricature, and then explain why he or she differs from conservative Christians on that issue. And the same goes for the Right. We on the Right should defend progressive Christians when they are being misunderstood or unfairly maligned. We can except truly exceptional cases where a small sect believes something genuinely evil, of course. But as a general rule of thumb, we ought to defend one another against caricature, not affirm the caricature but say it only applies to those Christians.
2. If you find that you cannot explain charitably why your fellow believers come to a different conclusion on this issue, then you should probably not write about the issue until you can. Christian charity and intellectual integrity really require us, I believe, to understand fully before we criticize.
3. Let’s be very, very careful in how we use the internet. We may think we’re addressing only believers, but then our post goes viral and the world reads it. Or we may write something in a moment of anger that soars across the blogosphere and slanders our fellow believers. We should bear in mind that the world of online media incentivizes scorn, ridicule, exaggeration and caricature. So we should never blog angry, and we should always examine our motives.
Assuming you mean Christian as in the traditional sense – virgin birth, death for mankind, resurrection, ascension into heaven and with traditional morality – extra marital sex is wrong, homosexuality and abortion are wrong, charity is required, etc. and not the feel good crap that passes for it in the mainline churches, how can a Christian be liberal?
Beat me to it.
No such thing as a Christian Liberal. It is an oxymoron. Well, there is Pelosi. She leaves religion in church, was basically her statement.
Christian Progressive (Liberal)
We are all equal in the eyes of the Lord. Some are more equal
Thou shalt not murder. Pro-Abortion
Thou shalt not covet or steal. Redistribution of wealth
Let him who will not work also let him not eat. To each according to his need
Charity. Entitlements
Faith in God. Faith in government/Man
Virtue by following God. Virtue by following the herd
“I am the Lord, thy God.” Gaia
Etc….
Progressivism (Liberalism) is Idolatry. It is all about Man creating Utopia (Heaven on Earth). We can be as gods! (Did not the Serpent whisper something belike into Eve’s ear?)
Pollyanna.
I question where most progressive Christians place their emphasis — on progressivism or Christianity. I’m reminded of the battles over “liberation theology” in the Catholic Church, where leftist clergy were informed that they could be Marxists, or Christians, but not both. Once their hand was forced, many of the clergy in question chose to leave the Church rather then disavow their Marxism, sending a clear signal as to where their true loyalties lay.
We will be judged in the next world in part by how we treat the poor in this world. That, I believe, both sides can agree on. The difference lies in whether, as conservatives tend to believe, the best expression is through the free practice of charity, while progressives tend to favor some scheme of involuntary wealth distribution.
Although progressives may make the criticism that people, left up to their own devices, will choose not to exercise charity (I do not believe this), it is not clear that state-enforced “fairness” is a satisfactory response to this concern. Acts 2:44-47 is always dragged into this conversation, and what progressives often fail to see is that the Apostles associated voluntarily.
Marxism, and it’s soft-serve subsequent “social justice,” generally hinges on the involuntary redistribution of wealth. There can be no charity when it is compulsory.
but most outside the church do not know the difference – and MANY do not care about what they view as internecine arguments. What they do see is “Christianity” fighting amongst itself. As a believer on the conservative side, I think there is value in the author’s premise.