The church that I attend presents itself as being a very different alternative to what most people think of when they hear the word “church.” There aren’t any vestments or suits, there are no hymnals or corporate readings, and the whole thing feels much more relaxed.
I have noticed that other members often describe their previous experiences in more familiar and conventional church settings as “Conservative Christianity,” or “Conservative Churches.” I’ve been considering that phrasing and, while I don’t wish to police language and become belligerent with those who use words differently, I’ve come up with a different model for speaking of church cultures which I personally find more helpful in terms of both clarity and empathy.
It seems to me that we mean something different when we speak of Theological Liberalism / Conservatism than when we speak of Political Liberalism / Conservatism. We use the same vocabulary to describe how governments should run, and what churches should do and teach. If there is an inherent connection between ‘small government’ and hymnals and suits or vestments, I don’t see it; same with ‘big government’ and a pastor with tattoos. My concern is that when we speak of the worship style or theology of a congregation or individual in terms of Liberal or Conservative, we risk misunderstanding the underlying reasons and motives of that congregation/individual (and lose clarity) and we import unnecessary feelings of political division (and lose empathy).
So I present an alternative way of sorting through things. I’m sure it has inherent flaws of its own, but I at least find it helpful to have a point of contrast when I’m faced with various issues discussed and debated within the church.
Rather than a congregation being entirely of one homogeneous ideology, each has a combination of impulses to embrace received tradition or to change or depart from received tradition. If a church quotes from the Bible as an authoritative word, that is a traditional impulse even if the church is “Liberal.” If a church in North America has people from multiple ethnicities breaking bread together, at some point that emerged as an impulse toward change, which then became part of received tradition; thus even a “Conservative” church has inherited progressive impulses.
To this, I add a second axis. Some topics which affect the church come from within the Church and concern matters of faith, and others come from outside the church and concern how we interact with surrounding culture. I call this “Secular” not because it is necessarily atheistic or irreligious, but because it concerns matters of day to day life and the ways the world works. Considering these helps me to see where a different idea might come from and how it might be lived out.
A church that changes its preferred translation, or a monk who challenges papal authority, are opting for change on sacred grounds. A church that becomes convinced of evolution and rejects old-earth creationism is opting for change on secular grounds, still believing in the authority of the scriptures but changing interpretation in light of scientific consensus. Churches I have attended have affirmed the ideals of democracy, and this has become a secular pars of our traditional church culture, and of course the preaching of the gospel and prayer are sacred and ancient traditions.
In none of the above examples do I wish to make any value judgements. They are just the best examples I can think of.
This way I can describe them without using the unhelpful labels of “Liberal” or “Conservative.” I might think “Oh, this is a secular value (I have those) which they have received from their community (as I often have),” or “Oh, this is a theological idea (I have those) in which they differ from many of the common trends (I’ve done that),” etc. Even more helpful are the cases in which a seemingly radical idea or practice was once a tradition, or a received tradition began as a radical idea. These cases are helpful because they help me to defuse a sense of “us vs them” and to see not just what all we have in common, but what actually sets us apart beyond superficial factions or labels.
All this helps me to understand what other church-goers mean when they describe their past experiences. There are many factors that go into making one congregation a better fit for a person than another. After retiring the old labels, I now find those factors easier to understand. I’ll probably continue refining my language over time, but perhaps this might help.
Of course, then there are the churches which do preach politics from the pulpit, but you won’t find me in those.
Voice of One Whispering 