Last week I was surprised to hear from 3 different people that they thought I was theologically moderate. I was taken aback because I have always thought of myself as theologically conservative. But all three insisted that they knew conservatives and I was not one of them.
A few months ago I was accused of being an outright liberal by some folks because I dared to question the creation account in Genesis as scientific. In my mind it is not. God may have created the world in 6 days but science is not the intended meaning of Genesis 1 – 3. I have no problem with people believing in a literal 6 day creation but I also think that both science and Genesis are correct. It was assumed by these people that because I don’t believe in a literal 6 day creation I also don’t believe in the resurrection or the authority of scripture! Two important matters I affirm. In fact the ironies abound: it is precisely because of my conservative approach to Scripture that I cannot affirm 6 day creation as scientific…
Then a few weeks ago I had coffee with an old friend. An old friend who I was an AG pastor with. A good friend who believes that I might have crossed the line and become a liberal. Why? Because I read Karl Barth and NT Wright. It was our former Bible College principal who saw me reading Karl Barth’s Evangelical Theology not long after I started attending seminary (note these are two different institutions) and shook his head (seriously) and said, “I thought we taught you better than that”.
And finally there are my colleagues. Most of whom, in my mind and not always negatively, I would consider Liberal. Many of them trained in what I would consider a liberal seminary. When I stand next to them I know I am conservative!
So what am I? Conservative, Moderate or Liberal? I guess it depends on where you stand doesn’t it…
the archives near Emmaus 
If that makes one a liberal then I guess I’m liberal too.
We’re all doomed to a place we don’t believe! 😉
i think you are a “questioning conservative”. That phrase is now copyrighted.
You’ll need a lawyer Doug! 😉
Now it depends on what you mean by liberal, conservative or even heretical. I still consider myself Pentecostal; even though I do struggle with aspects of it; yet I consider myself conservative. I would even call myself a fundamentalist: yet in saying that – I would not align myself with others who use that label. 😉
I guess I’m a Spirit loving, people orientated, Bible loving kind of guy… not sure where that places me now to think of it.. lol!
The terms liberal and conservative are labels. People are not labels, though we all wear labels as if they defined us. There’s also a world of difference between theologically or religious versions of those two labels and their political counterparts, though they often walk hand in glove with their respective partners.
Belief or rejection of a literal 6-day creation understanding of Genesis is not a liberal/conservative question. Not really. Its more of a revelationist/theist question. Do you view the Genesis account as a revelation from God? Even the term literalist can be misleading. There are plenty of parts of scripture that are not literal, yet are revelatory. And there are parts of scripture which records history or human thoughts or action and are recorded at the direction of God, but are not revelatory in and of themselves. It takes a bit of wisdom and discernment to cipher this all out.
As to the revelationist/theist idea I suggest, let me drill down just a tad in case you or any other readers don’t get where I’m coming from.
1. At one end of the spectrum you have the atheist who rejects scripture and denies God. Next you have the agnostic who claims to be ambivalent.
2. Next is the deist. The deist camp is where you start to gather in a lot of the Intelligent Design (ID) crowd. They believe in God (or a god or gods) in an abstract way, but don’t hold scripture as authoritative. A lot of pew warmers would fall into this category. So does much of the public.
3. The theist camp is where a great many in the Christian religion find themselves. They hold specific beliefs about God and may hold scripture in high esteem. They believe God is knowable. They tend to be intellectual, operating generally in the realm of human reason, but with some mystical and supernatural belief. This group often “believes in Jesus” and accepts the philosophy and historical account of Jesus and the New Testament, but they tend to throttle their faith within the realm of what they consider reason. Things that do not make sense or seem too fantastic (within their own sense of reason), whether its Genesis 1 or Jonah’s fish, are taken as allegory or “spiritual truth” rather than historical and fact. They tend to put on either a spiritual or philosophical lens to view and make sense of scripture. For example, Creation, Noah, and Jonah’s fish are viewed as spiritual truths to explain some “greater” truth or prophecy. This is not to say these accounts do not relate spiritual truth and prophecy – they do – but the theist tends to stop here.
4. The final category at this end of the spectrum is the revelationist. The revelationist is one who views scripture as truth revealed by God. The essential thing is the view of God as truly omniscient and omnipotent as well as entirely holy, truthful, and loving. The theist often pretends to have this view, but in reality does not. The revelationist believes scripture (while physically authored by human beings) to be a word from God, for God’s people, given in God’s time for God’s purpose. As such it must be more than a good moral story or merely poetic allegory or purely spiritual truth. The revelationist believes God revealed Genesis 1 and as such it must be true and must mean what it says literally as well as spiritually and prophetically. The revelationist sees Genesis 1 as a revelation given directly by God to man (whether to Adam and handed down to Moses or directly to Moses can be debated). The revelationist acknowledges there are various literary styles employed in scripture and that there are places where allegory (ie parables) are used – context and style distinguish when to take such a view. Text like Genesis, viewed in context and accepting the literary style as it is, can and must be taken first and foremost as a revelation of historical fact by the revelationist.
The revelationist looks at the fruit of human knowledge through the lens of scripture. The theist operates significantly on human understanding (gnostic approach) and seeks to make sense of differences, often through syncretism. The deist and beyond view biblical text through the lens of human understanding only. The upshot of all this is to come back and instead of asking about conservative/liberal labels, are you revelationist or theist (I think deist and belong are off the table)?
Well, thanks to you I, an AG pastor, am reading Karl Barth!! 🙂
Brian… I think us Pentes have a lot in common with Barth… some believe we both put our own spin on things 😉
Lance, I’ll get back to you on what you said. I need some time to read it! 😉
Craig, Brian F – Many of the Barthians I know are pentes or former pentes!
That we have changed the Lord’s question from who do men say that He is to whom do men say that we are, indicates that our minds are still operating in an unredeemed state. For if our world is turned right side up, we only care who men say that He is and could not care less who men say that we are.
I recently had a non-Christian friend ask me if I was fundamental or literalist in my Christian beliefs. My initial answer was that I thought the two were the same. After I explained to the friend that I interpret scripture primarily according to its literature, I realize that many of my own Christian friends might consider me liberal for the same reason. Science and scripture need not be in conflict and neither should science and faith. “In the beginning, God…”, is the primary essence of Genesis 1-3, and the actual events, in a literary way, follow well with what science already knows. Get past the first verse and the rest is downhill is my motto.