Please answer the following question:
What is the opposite of theological liberalism?
a) conservatism
b) biblicism
c) what’s the difference? conservatism is biblicism!
d) biblicism, which is not necessarily conservatism
If you answered a or c, you are part of the “old guard” of conservative evangelicalism, whereas if you answered d, you are part of the new (which is not really that new) radical evangelicalism. If you answered b, I’d have to probe you further to figure out what you mean by that.
Read on, if you are curious for an exposition of the above question.
Richard Cizik, the Vice President of the National Association of Evangelicals, recently began promoting environmentalism as part of our biblical Christian duty—after all, God commanded us to be good stewards of his creation in Genesis! Creation Care is not a new idea (nor was Cizik the first to promote it), but there has been a reawakening among evangelicals about the issue (and other social justice issues) in the past few years. However, James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, blasted Cizik for being “a threat to the unity and integrity” of the NAE, even going so far as to suggest that he resign his position as VP! All because of the Creation Care issue. This Cizik-Dobson incident is illustrative of the two main streams of evangelical Christianity in the 21st-century: conservative evangelicalism and radical evangelicalism. In 2006, the L.A. Times gave its own definition of radical evangelicalism, placing Cizik within “a slightly younger, considerably less pugnacious, and less reflexively Republican generation of conservative leaders, bidding to dislodge familiar faces such as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Richard Land.” This is not wholly accurate, as Cizik is not that young (hence it really has nothing to do with age, but with a new mentality, as opposed to the “old guard” mentality). And Cizik is not trying to “dislodge” anybody (if anything, Dobson was trying to dislodge Cizik!) but to offer a different perspective, expressing what many evangelicals are now thinking.
Let’s rewind 100 years: in the 20th century, theology was characterized by the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. Either Christians identified with conservatives like J. Gresham Machen who held to the “fundamentals” of the Christian faith (hence the term “fundamentalism”), or they swung to the far left and followed modernists like Harry Emerson Fosdick who epitomized liberalism. Fosdick famously preached a sermon called “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” while Machen published a book called Christianity and Liberalism, explaining how liberalism was not Christianity at all! Then, along came people like Billy Graham, Harold Ockenga, and Carl F. H. Henry, who deplored both rigid fundamentalism and extreme liberalism. They called themselves “neo-evangelicals” and tried to navigate between Scylla and Charybdis toward a biblical path. Graham co-ministered with African-Americans like Martin Luther King, Jr., when the fundamentalists warned him it was unpopular to do so. And he held firmly to Scripture when the liberals would not. These neo-evangelicals recognized that the solution to liberalism was not fundamentalism but biblicism.
This debate continues today. Dobson thinks that the opposite of “conservative” (where he stands) is “liberal” (what he perceives Cizik to be). But really, Cizik is doing what Graham, Ockenga, and Henry tried to do: keep that biblical center. Dobson is picking on the wrong person! Cizik represents a kind of evangelicalism that takes its cue not only from Billy Graham’s neo-evangelicalism but even more from 19th-century evangelicals like William Wilberforce and Charles Finney, people who held Scripture as their highest authority and consequently lived out lives of both holiness and social justice. And dare I say it goes as far back as Jesus himself—hardly a conservative!—whose radical ideas got him killed. Jesus railed against the fundamentalist conservative moralists of his day (the Pharisees), and instead hung out with “sinners,” prostitutes, and tax collectors. He was definitely more social justice-oriented than fundamentalist. To further illustrate this, in Jesus’s parable of the Prodigal Son (which should really be called the Parable of the Two Lost Sons), the younger son (the wild, broken, “sinful” one) actually was restored while the older son (the legalistic, “conservative” one) remained entrenched in his self-righteousness. Jesus made it quite clear that neither extreme was appropriate, but at least the younger son could see his sin because it was so glaringly obvious. The older son—well, he was a tougher nut to crack because it takes keen discernment to see the difference between righteousness and self-righteousness. And that’s the big danger with conservatism.
This 21st-century recovery of 19th-century/Jesus evangelicalism has been called by a number of different names: radical evangelicalism (going back to the “roots” which is what “radical” actually means), Red Letter Christianity (taking the words of Jesus, which are rendered in red letters in many editions of the Bible, as our cue rather than cultural ideas of Right or Left), holistic Christianity (not an either/or perspective but a both/and approach), and social justice evangelicalism (recognizing that taking the Bible seriously includes identification with the poor, compassion for the suffering, and the courage to stand against injustice). This radical evangelicalism is best expressed in a recent document (written on May 7, 2008, in Washington, DC) by a number of evangelical theologians such as Dallas Willard, Timothy George, Rich Mouw, and Os Guinness. Their document is called “An Evangelical Manifesto” which can be found here.
Of course, there can’t be a Cizik without a Dobson. And there can’t be An Evangelical Manifesto without a counterpoint. Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Seminary, criticized the document because it “says far too much on the one hand, and far too little on the other.” What he meant is that it has far too much about “public relations” and far too little theology. Mohler is right if he takes the Manifesto as a complete statement in and of itself; however, its mission is not to be all-encompassing but to provide much-needed balance. Evangelicals already have great theology; we just need more purposeful (and gracious) engagement with the world, not more doctrine. Our doctrine is fine; we need to fix the areas in which we are ailing. Social consciousness is not liberalism, it is commanded in Scripture.
To take a non-biblical example, it is interesting to me that so many American Protestants would call themselves “conservative.” Allow me to point out: if not for your non-conservative forebears, you would not be here today. Both the American Revolution and the Protestant Reformation, the two major movements upon which you build your identity, were radical anti-authoritarian movements that were civilly disobedient. However, what was once non-conservative has become conservative today. All that means is, being American and/or Protestant used to be against the mainstream, but they are no longer. All American Protestants owe these two essential parts of their “conservative” identity to extremely radical people who dared to stand against the tide! It just goes to show that “conservative” is really a relative term. Conservative compared to what? Culture shifts, the Bible does not.
One defining issue that conservatives hold onto strongly is the pro-life stance. Well and good. But there is “old guard” conservative pro-life, and then there’s radical evangelical pro-life. What’s the difference? Radical evangelicals take a holistic pro-life approach. Life is affirmed in all arenas—not just life before birth, but life after birth. Ron Sider, founder of Evangelicals for Social Action, explains: “We must be pro-life and pro-poor, pro-family and pro-creation care, pro-racial justice and pro-peacemaking. This ‘completely prolife’ agenda is now the official stance of both the Catholic bishops and the National Association of Evangelicals… ESA [Evangelicals for Social Action] believes in a ‘completely pro-life’ agenda—i.e., life does not begin at conception and end at birth. When millions die of starvation or diseases we know how to prevent, when millions die prematurely from smoking, when terrorism and war destroy innocent persons, the sanctity of human life is violated. But that broader ‘completely pro-life’ agenda does not mean we forget about abortion.” There aren’t only two options available. Conservatives think that the opposite of pro-life must be pro-choice; that the opposite of the Republican Party must be the Democratic Party; but there is a third way, the “completely pro-life” agenda, which is beholden to neither party and is staunchly biblical. In fact, a recent poll shows that this is now the majority view among evangelicals.
Why do I keep using the word “opposite” to describe radical evangelicalism? You must be thinking, “Surely you mean radical evangelicalism is the middle route between liberalism and conservatism, rather than the opposite of conservatism.” Though liberalism and conservatism are not alike in degree, they are alike in kind. These two extremes have distorted the biblical message to mean either freedom to sin (what Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls “cheap grace”) or religiosity/moralism; it is either the younger son or the elder son. When I say that radical evangelicalism is the opposite of conservatism, I don’t mean that it is opposite in degree, but opposite in kind. It is that “third way” that is neither elder son nor younger son, a way that goes liberal when the Bible calls for it (social justice and accepting “sinners” in our midst), and goes conservative when the Bible calls for it (holiness and not letting “sinners” remain in their sin). James 1:27 puts it thus: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” And Jesus expressed this same sentiment when he said to the woman caught in adultery: “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?… Then neither do I condemn you… Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:10-11)
Evangelicalism in the 21st century is increasingly becoming less “conservative” because of a recognition that the opposite of liberalism is not conservatism but biblicism. Between these two streams of evangelicalism (conservative vs. radical evangelicalism), Christians are beginning to think more like Cizik than like Dobson, more like the Evangelical Manifesto than like Mohler, more like Sider than the Republican Party. Even Rick Warren, Billy Graham’s successor as “America’s Pastor,” can be considered a radical evangelical (Obama chose Warren to pray at his inauguration, but Warren supported California’s Proposition 8 and also fights to end poverty, AIDs, and global warming). A very helpful radical evangelical voice in this conversation is Roger Olson, professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University. Part of his contribution to the debate is to coin his own term, “postconservative Christianity.” Here is my review of his book, How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative, on The Other Journal website, if you want to read more about this discussion.
P.S. I wrote this blog a few weeks before I posted it, but in the meanwhile there has been breaking news about Richard Cizik. On December 2, 2008, Cizik had an NPR “Fresh Air” radio interview with Terry Gross. He made a few other comments in that interview which stirred up controversy, not just about environmentalism, but about contraception, gay civil unions, and voting for Obama. As a result, he was sadly asked to resign as VP of the NAE, and he did. It was noticeable, however, that his theology and ethics were nuanced rather than black-and-white:
-he doesn’t support premarital sex but if non-Christians are going to do it anyway, better to give them contraception and prevent pregnancies rather than hiding our head in the sand and expecting abstinence from them;
-he doesn’t support gay marriage or a redefinition of marriage, yet he doesn’t feel like gay couples should lose legal rights;
-he doesn’t support abortion but he voted for Obama anyway because he figures you can’t have everything you want in presidential candidate, but Obama has most of what he wants.
Without necessarily agreeing with everything that Cizik said in that interview, I still think that Cizik fairly represents radical evangelicals in that he nuances his theology. He is not unilateral in his thinking, not just black or white, not just older son or younger son, but he takes that different, middle, radical, Jesus way, which believes that hanging out with “sinners” does not mean you condone all their actions, but instead accepts them as they are and hopes for something better. After all, isn’t that what God does for us?