Am I Liberal or Conservative? Or Both? (Part 2, by Romal Tune)
[... continued from part 1]
All I'm trying to say is that whether we wear the label of Christian conservative or Christian liberal, what matters most is that we are Christian. The Bible reminds us that there is no male or female, Jew or gentile, bond or free, but in Christ we are all the same, sinners saved by grace.
What I've learned is that many of my liberal and conservative friends draw the line around issues of gay rights and abortion. But people in the church I attend disagree on these issues, and yet somehow are still able to worship God together on Sunday morning. To me that's evidence of the Holy Spirit -- that in spite of our disagreements, we all agree that God is worthy of our worship and deserving of our praise. Each of us is evidence that the gospel still works; if it didn't, we wouldn't gather together on Sunday mornings.
The bottom line is that as I travel the country visiting churches, talking about issues of justice, and organizing congregations, I don't hear these terms very often. I'm not sure where these labels come from or what relevance they have in advancing the work of the church. But I do know that most of the time I hear them being used, it's by the media, politicians, and religious organizations that seek to separate Christians into clearly defined groups to meet an institutional agenda around a given issue. Shouldn't we be seeking unity in the body of Christ, rather than entrenching ourselves in positions that distance us from each other? It's hard enough trying to do the work of ministry, so why should we expend so much energy defending ourselves against other Christians?
The harsh reality is that there are people outside the church waiting on us to show up. And when we don't show, many of them are giving up. My prayer is that we would be like Paul and say, "I press toward the mark of the high calling for which God has called me Heavenward through Christ Jesus."
Rev. Romal Tune is the CEO of Clergy Strategic Alliances, a graduate of Howard University and Duke University School of Divinity, and a member of the Red Letter Christians.
Add to:
Category: Churches, Poverty
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
People at my church disagree on things as well and are able to worship together too. It's great how a shared faith can bring different people together.
Posted by: Eric | August 4, 2008 10:18 AM
It became political when Christian groups started working for candidates. I think to bring politics into church or into Christian discussions, is a recipe for hurt and division.
We are all products of our inherent beliefs, passed onto us from our families and our life situations. We can't all possibly agree on Conservative or Liberal, since we all bring different aspects of life to the decision of who to endorse.
I've been very disappointed in the Religious Right, in the past, and this election, I am finding I'm very disappointed with Christian websites like this one. At the Faith Forum, where Hillary and Obama both spoke, it was fairly obvious which candidate this website was enthused with and which one they would be, subtly (or not so subtly), endorsing.
I think it is mistake to be so bold, and divides Christians needlessly.
Posted by: Sami | August 4, 2008 2:43 PM
nice guy/Mod'lad: "I see no need to put the word 'Christian' in front of either one of them."
I'm a Christian first and foremost. But my politics are liberal to left. Doesn't it seem reasonable that, to distinguish my politics from secular lib/leftists, I refer to myself as a "Christian left lib"?
Posted by: carl copas | August 4, 2008 5:11 PM
It's hard to figure who's both or even who's conservative anymore? The Republican's Family Research Council (FRC)and big talk radio hosts are lamenting that Congress has closed shop and passed only about 300 bills this time. The ultra conservatives demand a big protest for more government meetings and more legislation.
Once upon a time they wanted less government and fewer bills passed. Now that the Congress has limited government like they have been demanding, they are called anti-family and sinful?
How can we make good choices when every choice made by Democrats is against America they claim?
Posted by: Steve | August 4, 2008 6:09 PM
Is it useful to note that the idea that "that government is best which governs least" originated in the Age of Enlightenment along with the belief that reasons trumps faith and the God of the universe is a deistic god who stands aloof from the affairs of men? These views were those of many of our early Founders who feared the tyranny of an absolutist monarchic state ( and incidentally saw a large standing army as the greatest danger to a republican form of government). So perhaps in our complex modern world where so many needs require more than individual action, we have to do more things communally in various issues which confront us, poverty for one? Our Founding Fathers wanted a government that did little; and in a way that is the way it still works, in some instances at least, thinking of such matters as energy and immigration. However, when an Administration comes along and in the guise of security tramples all over the separation of powers concept, the Constitution and the Courts, there the vision of the Fathers has broken down. Is it liberal or conservative to oppose such?
Posted by: George, Jr. | August 4, 2008 6:30 PM
George Jr,
Unfortunately, it seems like the answer to your question all depends on who's guy is in the oval office. If it had been a Democrat the last eight years doing what Bush had done you'd hear a lot fewer liberal protests and plenty more conservative ones. In past administrations in the 20th Century Democrats have tried to consolidate power in the White House. But because it's a Republican in the office conservatives have remained silent and liberals have spoken up. Consistency has never been very apparent in DC.
Posted by: Eric | August 4, 2008 7:05 PM
The church became political during the Constantine era. Excellent treatment in "A Peculiar People" by Rodney Clapp(former editor of Christianity Today).
Posted by: Ross Banister | August 5, 2008 1:59 AM
Eric says, "In past administrations in the 20th Century Democrats have tried to consolidate power in the White House."
Dems may have tried, but the current Repubs have succeeded more than any other administration I have ever seen in my 50 years. NO information comes out of there that isn't completely controlled, and 3 different White House staffers can go on 3 different networks and say the same thing, word for word. And the White House can no longer be investigated by their choice.
Eric also said,"But because it's a Republican in the office conservatives have remained silent and liberals have spoken up. Consistency has never been very apparent in DC."
VERY true.
just call me a Christian, pro gun, anti abortion, political left winger from the Green Party. Whatever all that means.
Posted by: Paul W. | August 5, 2008 7:21 AM
I was shocked into recognizing the lies of the Right, not to mention the manipulation of faithful souls for political maneuvering. The hatemongering, scandalmongering, and focus on sex sins and lack of compassion sent me packing. The Right uses the Bible for its laws and rules but conveniently ignores its heart for sinners and sufferers.
Posted by: Cheryl Spencer from Lewes, Delaware | August 5, 2008 9:55 AM
Once upon a time they wanted less government and fewer bills passed. Now that the Congress has limited government like they have been demanding, they are called anti-family and sinful?
That hypocrisy makes sense if you understand their real goal, which always was cultural, political and social domination. "Limited government" -- in practice for only their opponents, that is -- represented only a means to that end.
Posted by: Rick | August 5, 2008 11:59 AM
Paul,
You're a perfect example of why it's hard to classify someone as down-the-line conservative or liberal, as much as some people on this blig may like to try.
Posted by: Eric | August 5, 2008 12:28 PM
Sorry...forgot to add that I don't think the examples you cite Paul come anywhere close the consolidation of power that FDR was able to achieve.
Posted by: Eric | August 5, 2008 12:34 PM
Eric:
You may be right about FDR, I don't know enough about him. But if Pres Bush had 4 terms, who knows what he could have done!
Notice the lack of comment on whether that is a good or a bad thing :)
Posted by: Paul W. | August 5, 2008 1:19 PM
Paul -
I'm pretty certain that if Bush had four terms it'd be a bad thing. Perish the thought.
Posted by: Eric | August 5, 2008 4:35 PM
Personally I hate labels. Once we label someone we are able to place them in a box and no longer listen to them. But, alas, labels are somewhat necessary. I enjoyed your comments. In my youthful days I was a "fighting, separatist, fundamentalist Baptist" buth with age one hopefully becomes more open to other views. I no longer hold to my formerly held postions in so many areas. I continue to hold my evangelical beliefs but have mellowed and hopefully are more Christian in my attitudes towards others. Thanks for you good comments.
Frederick
Posted by: Frederick L. Pattison, retired evangelicl pastor | August 7, 2008 5:30 PM
I thank God that in my serves may be both liberal and conservative as needed, liberal with love and conservative in not over-loving.
I thank God that just because I live in this world, I do not have to become part of this world, Christ being adequate guide and example.
I thank God that I need not look at the world other than Christ has taught, seeing a cup neither half full nor half empty, but discerning this cup it's content, and it's purpose.
I would like to hear the end of tagging people liberal or conservative in the church, let those in the world slander without our help.
Posted by: DeWayne Benson | August 7, 2008 9:12 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?