Conservativism vs. Progressivism

If anything makes Christianity look uninviting right now, it’s the ongoing battle between the various groups and individuals who have conflated their faith with their political preferences and taken sides with the “Conservatives” and the “Progressives”.

Christians fighting it out in the public square is about as helpful to our cause as a hole in the head.

Conservativism is the term used to refer to a commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation, but it is also used to refer to political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, small government, and socially traditional ideas.

Progressivism is the term used to refer to a way of thinking that maintains it is possible and necessary for human societies to improve over time. However, this must be achieved through social reform based on advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organisation.

Research conducted in the United States suggests that only a tiny percentage of people in that country make up the vocal minority on the fringes of these two ideologies (25% when both sides are combined). 75% of people make up the “exhausted majority” who would prefer moderation, compromise, collaboration, and peace. It’s unfortunate that so few people can generate so much drama and conflict, but there it is.

For a long time now, I’ve listened carefully to Christian voices on both sides of the political and ideological divide, voices that would be regarded as representative of their respective extremities – what we call “the far right” and “the far left”.

Like you, I have thought deeply about their arguments, considered their points of view, tried to understand their motivations, and sincerely sought truth in their ideas.

I have also accepted that, in principle, it is often the extremes that inform the middle, and if it were not for the raging debate between these two sides, we might not have a moderate middle for the majority of us to occupy, where compromise, collaboration, and cooperation can and do happen.

That said, I still find these radical voices on the edges quite difficult to hear.

So, it left me wondering: What exactly do I find so disturbing about their approach? Why does it not sit well with me?

In an attempt to clarify my discomfort, I’ve come up with a few reasons why I think those on the opposite ends of this divide don’t resonate with me. Here’s what I’ve concluded so far.

I find so much of the narrative from both the far left and far right challenging to engage with because:

1. It often employs large amounts of ridicule.

Ridicule is never a great way to win people over to your way of thinking. It certainly isn’t an effective evangelism strategy if you’re a person of faith. If you must mock and shame people to make your point, you probably have to question the strength of your argument or the true motive behind that argument.

2. It comes across as arrogant and abrasive.

There is undeniable antagonism, condescension, aggression, and pride in the commentary. For example, I recently heard a representative of the far right commenting on the current debate around transgenderism, describing it as “a battle between the sane and the insane”, the implication, of course, being that if you don’t vote conservative, you’re mentally unwell.

That type of rhetoric is profoundly unhelpful and not particularly effective either. As someone once said, “You are never persuasive when you are abrasive”.

3. Whatever might constitute “sound argument” is eclipsed by the insensitivity employed in delivering that argument.

Both sides of the debate have valid points to raise, concerns to address, perspectives to offer, and solutions to suggest, but unfortunately, these often melt in the heat generated by the vitriol and anger that fills the exchange.

The lack of respect, restraint, curiosity, and humility in the communication from and between these parties is lamentable because so much potential good is lost in the process.

4. The hard-line approach often fails to acknowledge the complexity and nuance that characterises many of the issues facing our world today.

Life is never as simple as it is often portrayed (e.g., if you have a penis, you are a man; if you have a vagina, you are a woman, or Capitalism makes people rich, Marxism makes people poor). Hard-and-fast absolutes are rarely representative of the way things really are.

Life is complex. Conditions are less than perfect. People are brilliant and beautiful but also broken. What is true most of the time is not true all of the time (at least for some things).

Responding to the various issues challenging our world today requires a recognition that simplicity can be elusive. Ambiguity, mystery, complexity, and uncertainty are unavoidable realities of life. Navigating them takes wisdom, patience, grace, a willingness to learn and a commitment to change and growth.

5. It conflates conservative or progressive values with Christian values as though they were one and the same.

This falsely creates the impression that one must be politically and ideologically conservative or progressive to be Christian. The truth is that Christianity critiques both left and right equally. It doesn’t fit neatly into either paradigm. The Kingdom of God is its own reality that cannot be squeezed into the narrow confines of a human political or ideological system.

Christianity affirms truth wherever truth is found, regardless of what side of the political divide it is championed on. And Christianity should challenge evil, irrespective of what political, economic, or social justification may be used to support it.

6. It fuels the overly simplistic binary of “us and them” with no room for moderation or collaboration in the middle.

This polarising binarism advocates hard lines of separation, dividing and driving us further apart. It fails to recognise the importance of our shared humanity and our shared destiny.

In some sense, we all share the same fate because we share the same human experience, with all its limitations and possibilities. We are all human. There is as much to unite us as there is to divide us, but we must focus on those unifying elements to have any hope as a species.

7. It fails to recognise that we are all progressive and conservative.

There are aspects of our faith and tradition that can and should be preserved, and there are aspects that really do need to change.

Of course, we aren’t always going to agree on what those are, but the point is that we all believe in the value of conserving some things and changing others.

For instance, I believe in the resurrection, that Jesus literally and physically rose from the dead. In that sense, I am a conservative. I want to continue to preserve that idea, which I believe is an irreducible minimum and non-negotiable element of faith in Jesus. But I also believe we should no longer be allowed to own and beat slaves. In that sense, I am progressive (and I assume you are, too!).

Both the resurrection and slave ownership are found in the Bible (slavery is commanded in the Old Testament and tolerated in the New Testament), but one of those ideas needs to be revised, and the other needs to be retained. It’s a fallacy that you can’t be both progressive and conservative. We all are.

Assuming that someone is wholly conservative (or progressive) and therefore endorses everything associated with conservativism (or progressivism) is misguided. A person might have deeply held values about family and marriage that are typically conservative but have deeply held values about the environment and human identity that are typically progressive. That doesn’t make them an ideological hypocrite. It just means that they have thought deeply about the issues affecting life and have considered what a people-loving, Christ-centred, God-honouring, life-affirming, culturally-appropriate conviction might look like in relation to those issues.

Now, I’m a realist. I don’t expect that the current battle between Christian “progressives” and “conservatives” will die down and go away anytime soon.

Still, I do hope that more of us who profess to be followers of Jesus will choose to be peacemakers and try to engage each other with “gentleness and respect”, as the apostle Peter encourages us to do (1 Peter 3:15).

It would be a far better representation of the Kingdom of God than so much of the current discourse, and that would be very good for our world.

Grace and Peace.