Conservative and liberal

He's just a liberal." 'She is so conservative." I don't know about you, but lately I have felt the inadequacy and destructiveness of describing positions taken, philosophies propounded, theologies advocated, and groups or individuals being characterized in the tired terms of "conservative" or "liberal." The real problem is that when we say "He's a bit liberal in his thinking," it inevitably means he's dangerous and should be watched. "They're too conservative" means they are unintelligent, rigid, and censorious. Used this way, the words are much more dismissive and insulting than they are descriptive. They hurt people. Using these words as we often do tends to create a polarizing attitudinal extremism, which is unnecessarily divisive.

Liberal-conservative concerns enter our lives on many levels and are constantly being irritated by their critique of one another. The two words by themselves are decidedly incapable of illuminating things to any beneficial extent. We have a pivotal need to be much more descriptive when it comes to the polarities between which we bounce.

Everyone can perceive extremes in people they have met. On the one hand there are "the high noses, compressed lips, pale complexions, dryness and taciturnity of the one; the open mouths, the facile laughter and tears the garrulity and (so to speak) general greasiness of the others. [There are] the men of rigid systems ... Stoics, Pharisees, Rigorists, signed and sealed members of highly organized 'Parties.' [And the] less definable; boneless souls whose doors stand open day and night to almost every visitant... [and who encourage] the smudging of all frontiers, the relaxation of all resistances." ¹

One might assume logically that the two poles would tend to compliment one another. But because of the characteristic egotism that has a strong tendency to accompany extremes, they are both quite wrong, even evil, and, therefore, they usually aggravate and exasperate each other. They are wrong because their spirit is negative and destructive of the "spiritual house" (1 Peter 2:5, NIV) God is building. Working in a mutually reactionary mode they can wreak, as every pastor knows, a particularly potent brand of havoc in a local or corporate church setting.

More often than not there is much more significant "truth" or "error" revealed in the spirit of those in dispute than within the issues of a particular controversy. The key to the truth or error of a position lies easily as much in the arena of attitude as it does in any objective lines of thought that may be pursued. The objective issues underlying a dispute may be important, but the spirit of a dispute is always crucial. It is also true, however, that the more extreme one's factual positions the more likely one is to display a disruptive spirit.

So, when it comes to the North and South poles of virtually any matter, the pastor's concern should be to avoid both like the plague. A pastor simply must take the high road between the poles. This does not mean, of course, that he or she should take fifty percent of the one and fifty percent of the other and so end up hovering at a sceptic point halfway between. It does mean that the pastor must simply seek to move lovingly and integratively between the two, traveling the road that the Word, the Spirit, and thoughtful wisdom indicates.

The factions championed by people in Jesus' Palestine were, in principle, uncannily similar to those of our time. The New Testament is replete with numerous portrayals of casuistic contentions between factious people and parties. In the midst of all this, leaders such as Paul operated in a distinct third dimension. This was even more true of Jesus. He was not Pharisee or Sadducee, Essene or Zealot. "My teaching is not my own," He said. "It comes from him who sent me" (John 7:16, NIV). The mere act of aligning oneself with a certain party or philosophy has a way, within itself, of encouraging a level of division that is often quite unnecessary.

But Jesus did not hold Himself aloof from anyone. Though acutely aware of His environment, He did not get embroiled in its battles. If you look at Him carefully, you realize that the reason He didn't get embroiled was that, tempting as it might have sometimes been, He did not allow Himself to walk through the extreme left or right doors. Truth is distorted the moment it is sought or carried behind either of those doors. The physical creation is not exclusively black or white, it is expressed in myriad colors. There is an innate righteousness in walking the high road between. Jesus knew where He had come from, who He was, what He was here to do, and where he was going (John 13:3).

The way Jesus handled His world is as always archtypical for leaders everywhere.