By Mike Leno

“So is it the liberals we should be afraid of; or is it the conservatives?”

It was 1981. I was on a sidewalk in front of Pioneer Memorial Church, Berrien Springs, Michigan, listening to a conversation between those who had lead out in the worship service. I was a seminary student and had read the scripture that day. The Editor of Liberty Magazine, Roland Hegstad, had just delivered a sermon in which he had talked about “the tyranny of the righteous.” He had warned of a threat to our religious liberty, noting that the emerging religious right remained much more likely to limit our freedom of worship than was anyone else.

As I continued to listen with interest and no small amount of amusement, Smuts Van Rooyen, a religion teacher at Andrews University, good-naturedly took the speaker to task.

“You used to tell us that it was the liberals who were a threat to our freedom. Now you’re telling us it’s the conservatives. So which is it?”

The animated discussion continued all the way down the sidewalk. The small group was obviously comprised of people who knew and respected each other and who also enjoyed some good-natured verbal sparring. But the topic of that discussion remains a serious issue; one that 28 years later I still remember and wrestle with on occasion. Who is the biggest threat; liberals or conservatives? A lot of political blood has been spilled over these two labels – both within and outside the church. Yet, I often wonder if we realize what we are actually talking about. Beyond specific beliefs and behaviors that we often label as one or the other, what does it actually mean to be liberal or conservative?

My interest in this is personal as well as pastoral. After publishing a recent article decrying our apparent tolerance for the use of torture, I was accused (good naturedly) of voicing a liberal agenda. It boggles my mind that the use of torture could be considered an acceptable policy of either liberals or conservatives. But it seems to illustrate the fact that these labels remain important; so important that they often divert attention from the substance of a discussion.

The obvious problem in defining “liberal” and “conservative” is that we are dealing with generalities. Generalities describe conditions or ideas that remain true to some significant extent; such as the proverb, “Do not answer fools according to their folly, or you will be a fool yourself” (Pr 26:4). But generalities, including those in rules and proverbs, often change according to the situation; as exhibited by the next verse. “Answer fools according to their folly, or they will be wise in their own eyes” (vs. 5). So as long as we remember the changeable nature of generalities, we can use them in a helpful way. With that in mind, here are some generalizations about liberals and conservatives that I find self-evident. They may not be true all the time for everyone. But they are true enough to be helpful and to hopefully limit foolishness rather than perpetuate it.

Generalizations about conservatives: Conservatives, by definition, like to conserve. So they remain motivated to hang onto the good they already have and to pursue progress within established norms. That means they are often more concerned about not losing than they are about winning. “It’s better to be safe than sorry,” they like to say. Conservatives provide a much needed counterbalance to our reckless tendencies. They preserve the status quo, the tried and true, and that illusive commodity called the comfort zone. Comfort zones are good. So conservatives preserve our comfort and security with established principles of faith, law, and loyalty to properly established authority.

Generalizations about liberals: Liberals think about and value progress beyond established norms. “It is better to try something great and fail, than to try nothing and succeed,” they like to say. So while conservatives respond to properly constituted authority, liberals respond more to logical thinking and progressive attitudes. They provide a much needed counterbalance to the human tendency to regard authorities and tradition as infallible. So liberals motivate us to think outside the box, get out of our comfort zone, be creative and pursue the ideal. Liberals are never satisfied with the status quo and they never accept anything as true just because an authority says it is. They inspire us to seek better evidence for our faith and to throw off the fetters of narrow thinking.

Both liberals and conservatives remain valuable, but for different reasons. So it seems obvious that having the characteristics of both, individually as well as corporately, remains advantageous. It is also worth remembering that the generalizations above describe archetypes. There are very few, if any, pure liberals or pure conservatives. Thus we may hear a politician who we otherwise regard as a liberal exhort financiers to adopt more conservative policies. We all tend to appropriate liberalism or conservativism in specific contexts in order to solve specific problems or address specific needs. And this often leads to an ironic juxtaposition of views and behavior. For example, although conservatives by definition conserve, we usually associate environmental conservation with a liberal point of view. And that is probably because that sort of conserving requires a radical change in policy and behavior. In a church context I find it amusing that when it comes to finances we want our treasurers to be conservative and our members to be liberal. So even in the most conservative churches, being liberal, at least in one way, remains a valuable attribute.

A few years ago Alden Thompson wrote a piece on liberal and conservative definitions ( Adventist Review , 2 November 1989, 17-20 ). He noted that two distinct domains, religious belief and social behavior, could be graphed on perpendicular x and y axes, each representing a continuum of liberal to conservative. Thus one could be high on the liberal scale of social behavior, yet conservative in religious beliefs; and vice versa. And this provided an interesting matrix for representing various mixtures of liberal and conservative tendencies. I would suggest that the presence of such variety is a good thing. Unthinking adherence to either one of the pure archetypes may simply demonstrate the wisdom of Ralph Waldo Emerson who said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

I remain interested in “conservative” and “liberal,” however, not as sets of behaviors or beliefs, but as global tendencies that while rarely existing in pure form; continue to shape our faith and relationships. Often, we hear about things like a “liberal agenda” or a “conservative backlash” and other ways in which the terms are attached to specific behaviors or political arguments. I propose, however, that for this discussion we regard conservative and liberal as describing something basic to our personalities and psychological make-up. They are not just optional or temporary choices. They are enduring attitudes, habits of thinking, and even spiritual gifts that we need for survival and for making sense of the world. The world is too complex for anyone to examine every problem or choice from the ground up. To do that would require a complete reexamination of presuppositions, collection and analysis of data, testing of hypotheses, and formation of reasonable conclusions regarding everything from what clothes to put on in the morning, what to pick up at the grocery store, what the kids need, what decisions to make at work, to addressing issues of personal identity, political persuasion and religious belief. We need our habits of thinking, both liberal and conservative, in order to get through life and benefit others without being paralyzed by rethinking everything at every moment of every day. This is not to suggest that we do not carefully examine the facts presented to us in a given situation. But our interpretation of those facts will likely follow previous ways of thinking. That we may disagree with each other in the ways we interpret the facts does not depreciate the value of the facts or of being either liberal or conservative or some combination of both. And we should not expect to remain the same. Our tendencies continue to be shaped and reshaped by experience. Furthermore, none of us has all the data or can stand completely apart from our biases. I suggest, then, that it will be far better for us to utilize our liberal and conservative tendencies while realizing their limitations, than to pretend they don’t exist.

But there are some pitfalls. In spite of the obvious lack of archetypal purity on either side, it seems that liberals and conservatives often dislike each other. Perhaps that is because they tend to identify each other by what they don’t like. The unfortunate consequence of that is that both labels have become negative. Here are some examples.

What conservatives don’t like about liberals: Conservatives see liberals as reckless and disrespectful when it comes to things like obedience, duty, standards, accountability, and authority. When conservatives call someone a liberal, they often imply that such a person is guilty of insubordination and should be considered an unbeliever with regard to standards of doctrine and behavior. Conservatives believe that liberals can have all the freedom of thought and speech they want as long as they don’t exercise that freedom in the same church or denomination to which they, the conservatives, belong. That is the conservative’s way of saying that liberals are the root of all evil. Liberals, for their part, often contribute to this negativity by taking a certain pride in their status as rebels and by expressing disdain for anything traditional.

What liberals don’t like about conservatives: Liberals see conservatives as essentially ignorant, rule-bound and intolerant. So when liberals call someone conservative they often imply that such a person is closed minded, legalistic, and unconcerned about issues of human need. Liberals believe that they can tolerate anything except intolerance, which is their way of saying that conservatives are the root of all evil. And conservatives, for their part, often contribute to this negativity by claiming an infallible orthodoxy regarding behavioral codes and interpretations of scripture.

So although both liberals and conservatives exhibit many great attributes, they both need to repent of their arrogance and stop exaggerating the faults of the other. Conservative arrogance remains rooted in a conviction of being right and then laying claim to the moral high ground. The term Pharisee, as it is popularly understood often applies to conservatives. Not all conservatives are legalists. But all legalists are by definition conservative. So conservatism can become a kind of tyranny which can and often does result in all manner of intolerance and abuse. At their best conservatives balance our reckless tendencies and contribute much needed stability and security. But conservatives need to understand that they can have this security and at the same time live and let live.

Liberal arrogance remains rooted in a conviction of being smarter than everyone else. In their claim to the intellectual high ground they often exhibit their own brand of intolerance, usually directed at those less enlightened than they. They take pride in their ability to question everything, an attitude that although associated with advancing knowledge, is still pride. The term “iconoclast” often applies here because they delight in destroying symbols of tradition, often without regard to their merit. Not all liberals are rebels. But all rebels are in some way liberal. At their best liberals pursue the ideal, encourage better ways of thinking, and keep us from becoming dull and irrelevant. But liberals need to understand that they can do this without tearing down all time honored symbols of faith and security.

Now that I have offended just about everyone, please indulge an unoriginal attempt at humor. How many conservatives does it take to change a light-bulb? None. Conservatives believe they have infallible light that never needs changing. So how many liberals does it take to change a light-bulb? None. Liberals believe the light bulb will change itself in whatever way it sees fit.

So who should we fear the most; liberals or conservatives? The question tends to bias our attention toward the worst attributes of each. And unfortunately, the terms liberal and conservative are often understood in their most exaggerated forms. So we often think that a conservative is always intolerant and out to control the world. And we think that a liberal is always elitist and lawless. But this is where the generalizations become unfair stereotypes. In spite of a supposed grain of truth, they are false most of the time. One can make a historical case for extreme conservatism, also known as fundamentalism in some contexts, as causing more tyranny and bloodshed. And that is because at their most extreme, conservatives will always exhibit less tolerance than liberals. But if anarchy can be considered an extreme form of liberalism, much bloodshed has come from that side as well.

The real problem appears to be twofold; fear itself, and an unwillingness to work together. Ultimately, fear becomes prejudice; whether on the liberal or conservatives side. That conservatives probably have a longer, more intense history of exhibiting fear and prejudice may inform our discussions, but should not control them. Fear based on the past, will cloud our present judgments and limit our willingness to work together.

After considering all the above definitions and generalizations, I’m tempted to say that throwing the labels out altogether constitutes the best course of action. But I suspect that will be impractical, if not impossible. Instead of concentrating on labels, however, perhaps we can focus on the specific issues at hand. Instead of aiming accusations at each other we can utilize our liberal and conservative tendencies to come to better understandings of the gospel and of each other. That utopian idea probably lies beyond our human capability. But by God’s grace it remains worth pursuing. If that means I’m just a bleeding-heart liberal, so be it. But perhaps it also means I’m a conservative who wants to preserve a comfort zone of fellowship. And maybe it doesn’t matter, as long as together we promote God’s kingdom of grace.

The kingdom that Jesus described contained both conservative and liberal elements. In his famous “you have heard… but I tell you” statements (see Matt. 5:21ff) he clearly modified the boundaries of traditional thinking and by doing so challenged the supremacy of Moses’ authority. But he also said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17). Thus he affirmed the enduring value of the traditional authorities. So Jesus appears to have encouraged both conservatives and liberals and at the same time superseded them. Jesus presented the kingdom of heaven as something that remains beyond our small minded notions of either conservative or liberal. So perhaps it is time to put away fear, prejudice and arrogance. It is time for both conservatives and liberals to seek first the kingdom of heaven.