"Conservative Christianity" has always seemed a problem terminology. We know what its adherents intend it to mean: bible-believing Christianity. But the appended political modifier always raises a question: as opposed to. . . ?
The implied answer, of course, is "liberal Christianity." By the definition "conservative" Christians wish to claim for themselves, "liberal" Christianity must logically be Christianity that DOESN'T believe scripture, and DOESN'T follow scripture's teachings. That's a problem. None of my "conservative" friends would consider such a thing Christianity at all...as I don't...yet their self-identification as "conservative Christians" is based on what manifestly cannot be, being so.
Probably few "conservative Christians" give any thought to the logical problem. What they can't miss, however, is that by identifying themselves with a modifier they proclaim themselves different, and separate, from other "Christians." Their intent is that we perceive them as they perceive themselves: a class of more-truly scriptural Christians (moreso than any others).
Surely they can't miss either, that desire to identify oneself as more scriptural, more true to the faith, oozes self-pride. And self-pride's manifestation in the Body of Christ is factionalism and divisiveness...contrary the unity Jesus prayed for us ("...that they may all be one; even as You, Father,... and I..." John 17:21) Can there be any regard in which the enemy more grievously wounds the Church than in deceiving believers to think of themselves proudly as " the real Christians" ? None of the evil doctrines of "conservatism" in which he misleads American Christians do as great harm to the Church as the enemy's assault on our unity in Christ with others who are in Him.
Honest criticism of any group must examine its teachings as formulated by its intelligent and articulate adherents. A "conservative Christian" friend who is both has written about what he considers essentially "conservative" in his beliefs: it's a good starting-point. This seems to be his central statement of that philosophy:
What then am I trying to “conserve” as a conservative Christian? In a nutshell, I want to protect the liberty provided by the Constitution and Bill of Rights that allows Christians and all other Americans to live peaceably, under the rule of law, free from government control and oppression, so that we may raise our families and practice our religion without hindrance. Put another way, I wish to conserve the liberty that I believe God has granted this nation, and oppose the soft tyranny of expansive government and secular religion that the statists seek to impose.
Political philosophies are always context-specific (and notoriously changeable). That's true of my friend's belief, whose context is America's human kingdom, at this exact point in time. What he defines as "Christian conservatism" here is obviously about this single nation, America, at this specific moment of its history. Christianity is contrary to such narrow political and national intent.
His operative ideas of "liberty" and freedom reinforce that political and nationalist relativism. His conceives both is the terms of American political culture, rather than as defined by scripture. He goes so far as to say liberty and freedom are "provided by") America's national political culture: with the same waffling generic nod to God we see in America's founding documents, which he cites. I'd question whether this philosophy of "Christian conservatism," based on human operative ideas in preference to scripture's, can be called Christian in any sense.
By those culturally-defined ideas, my friend holds that "Christian conservatives' " mandate is to "conserve" America's temporal human political "liberty," in order to "practice our religion without hindrance." He goes on to liken that mandate to Paul's using the privileges of his Roman citizenship to further the gospel.
The analogy doesn't work. Paul treated his earthly citizenship as incidental (secondary) to the purposes of God's Kingdom. He nowhere urges we seek or "conserve" the privileges of that citizenship as necessary (primary) in order to "practice our religion without hindrance." And we know that Paul's (scripturally-defined) liberty was unhindered by lack of those privileges, when he was in chains in a Roman jail.
Heavily telling against "Christian conservatism" is its already-mentioned lack of scriptural attestation. There's no scriptural evidence that Jesus was "conservative," or taught His followers should be. Rather, we know that Jesus regarded the "conservatives" of His time...the Pharisees...as embodying all the ungodliness and hypocrisy of human politics and religion.
But most telling of all is simply that the idea of "conserving" anything of any human system is contrary to the teaching of the Kingdom of God. Are Christians, transferred to the kingdom of God's beloved Son, told to "conserve" any part of the unrighteous world-system they were saved from ? Rather the opposite. As new creatures, living under God's rule even in the midst of an unrighteous world, we pray for God's Kingdom to reign on earth, as it does in heaven. The idea that God's purpose is to "conserve" anything good in human kingdoms, rather than replace human kingdoms entirely with His, is deeply counter-biblical.
"Christian conservatives" can rightly claim the latter identity: their attitudes, beliefs, and values are very much those of that human faction. The question is whether their core ideas may truthfully be called "Christian." In the absence of scripture's teaching those ideas, I'm not persuaded. And in "Christian conservatism's" operative pride, factionalism, nationalism, et al...I'm convinced contrariwise. I regard my friend's "Christian conservatism" is exactly the "secular religion" he opposes: and the enemy's deceit for calling itself "Christian."
God, in Your mercy, open the eyes of the hearts of Your deceived people !!
