Why liberals and conservatives have difficulty talking to each other

I don't want dry doctrine, just give me Jesus." "Traditional hymns don't do any thing for me. Give me contemporary music; it speaks to my soul." "Ordain women? I don't know how that can even be contemplated when one considers the clear biblical evidence against it!"

And so the debates, myriads of them, swirl and persist.

Is there a way to lower the volume and minimize theological and behavioral differences in our churches?

Why do well-intentioned conversations break down so quickly, whether at the dinner table or in the open forum? It matters not what the general area of discussion is, whether the arts, music, ethics, law, education, economics, epistemology, politics, or even architecture. But particularly theology . . . ! Generally, the cause is not stubbornness or meanness—although such may be the result.

Conflicting paradigms

At the heart of the problem, intellectually at least, is the fact that few realize that behind every viewpoint is a presupposition based on a conceptual paradigm. This paradigm sets the fundamental architecture of each view point as well as the limits of what can be conceded. Further (unfortunately, often unknown to the conversants), the paradigm determines the definition of words that both parties freely use, which explains why both sides can listen to a speaker and conclude that he or she is supporting "their" side. Both use a common language without a common understanding.

Whether conservatives or liberals (we are using these two terms merely for illustrative purposes, knowing that other labels would also be useful), each group, working within its paradigm, sincerely believes their opponent's viewpoint is dangerous. Why? Because they see their counterpart's position as deficient in something very precious and very real to them—and "that something," they feel, must be protected at all costs. And they are both right!

The typical solution for the friendly "peacemaker" is to appeal to "unity" and to search for "balance" as if truth is a mean between two errors or a compromise between two extremes. And, because most people shy from public confrontation, "peacemaking unifiers" fall back on the cop-out language of "tensions," "paradoxes," and "antinomies" as if truth is finally elusive, even contradictory.

The real problem is not the so-called "paradoxes of truth" but conflicting paradigms—as well as knee-jerk thinking that everything has to be discussed with either/or categories. Such a conclusion is unwarranted. For millennia such determinations have torpedoed every attempt to find constructive solutions to serious differences. In every church, for example, such mind-sets have guaranteed division and debate—and the emotional fallout can never be measured or healed until the way we think is radically changed. For example, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists (Reformed), Methodists, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and Seventh-day Adventists to name a few, all have traditional, distinct paradigms separating them, even though they share the common language of the Bible to explain their differences.

The holy "and"

Instead of the "either/or" straight-jacket, we must use the holy "and." That is, when thoughtful people see the global nature of truth (in whatever thought areas) both sides see the treasures that the "other side" will not surrender. And they work at transcending the man-made moats that wrong paradigms have created so that the treasures of both "sides" are reset in a position that preserves the integrity of former "assailants." Again and again, the "and" proves to be truth's way of seeing and saying it correctly!

The easiest way I have discovered of suggesting a solution to the problem of conflicting "truths" is to employ the ellipse principle. The ellipse is an interesting geometric device which must have two foci, each in proper relationship to the other. Some machinery and engines work on this principle. Pushing one foci so that it no longer has the correct relationship to the other destroys the ellipse—and the machinery!

Water, or H2O, is a good illustration of these things. Hydrogen and oxygen by themselves are very important, but without their proper interactive and proportional union, water does not exist. The question of whether hydrogen or oxygen is more important becomes meaningless when one needs water to drink. The truth about water is that water does not exist unless both hydrogen and oxygen are understood as equally essential and are present in their proper balance.

The same is true for components in the ellipse of truth, regardless of the subject. For example, when the ellipse of truth regarding righteousness by faith and the purpose of the gospel is understood, arguments over the relative importance of justification and sanctification in the salvation process are as irrelevant as the relative importance of hydrogen and oxygen in the making of water. Without the ellipse, two "sides" remain two circles confronting each other in a typical stalemate.

"Objectivism and subjectivism"

Misunderstanding the inclusive, proportional, and elliptical nature of truth lies at the base of almost all epistemological, theological, and philosophical controversies. The "two sides" in such controversies are generally known as "objectivism" and "subjectivism." For example, human history is a study in oscillation between those who have emphasized one focus or the other in the objective/subjective ellipse.

Every thought area (such as music, law, or theology) has drawn great battle lines because one exponent dwells too much on the subjective focus rather than giving appropriate weight to the objective focus, and vice versa. Both sides are right in what they affirm but wrong in what they deny. The age-old result: overemphasizing one's own circle of truth makes one virtually incapable of recognizing even the obvious in a counterpart's circle, when it threatens a cherished position. What is worse, too many times those in conflicting circles rush too eagerly to deny or question the integrity of the other.

Note how prevailing this age-old seesawing of opposing philosophies and theologies affects us today:

Education—content-centered versus student-centered;

Politics—free enterprise (individualism) versus socialism (collectivism);

Graphic Art—imitation of reality versus expressionism;

Ethics/Law—moral or constitutional absolutists versus cultural relativists;

Economics—free trade versus Keynesian;

Epistemology—Idealism versus Naturalism;

Religion—transcendence (revelation) versus immanence (reason, feeling, intuition).

In theology especially, note the objectivism/subjectivism antithesis in key thinkers such as Barth/Bultmann and Hegel/Kierkegaard, and in colossal standoffs such as in the case of fundamentalism versus modernism. And the list could go on!

Every difference of opinion within Christianity can be explained as an overemphasis on one focus or the other in the ellipse of truth. Every thought conflict within the Church today has the same problem. The solution to all such differences lies in seeing truth as an ellipse with two equally important foci that must be constructively and proportionately related to one another.

Using typical religious language, conservatives form the "objectivist" circle and liberals, the "subjectivist" circle. Each circle emphasizes some thing correct, timely, and needed. Even as water is not formed until the circles of hydrogen and oxygen are reformed as an "ellipse," so the partial truths represented by conservatives or liberals do not set forth the full picture of truth until they are both cast within the ellipse of truth.

Key words for conservatives and liberals

Key words (or concepts) for religious conservatives (for which they will fight to the death) are: transcendence, authority, law, structure, orthodoxy, certainty, absolutes, grace—all good words to hold on to. But the historic weakness of conservatives is often a misunderstanding of the character of the transcendent God. They often emphasize authority at the expense of human responsibility and freedom. Because of these misunderstandings, faith all too easily becomes a form of mental assent to doctrine. The result too often is human passivity in the salvation process, which ironically is itself an irritant to the religious conservative.

Key words (or concepts) for liberals (for which they also will fight to the death) are: immanence, freedom, responsibility, reason, flexibility, meaning, relevance, and personal faith—also good words to hold on to. The historic weakness of liberalism is rooted in its subjectivity.

Pietists, mystics, and rationalists (and whoever else puts human autonomy "in front" of divinely revealed truths) base their security either on reason, feeling, intuition, or historical research. Absolutes are rarely appealed to. "It must make sense to me" is often heard—and by all means this is a wish not to be overlooked.

In our day, these historic distinctions get blurred when both conservatives and liberals no longer ask, "Is it true?" but rather, "Does it work?" Pragmatic experientialism poses the question, "What is there in it for me?" rather than the more biblical, "What am I going to do about it?"

How does the ellipse of truth help us through our conventional tensions? On many occasions, Ellen White puts these confrontations into proper perspective as she appeals to both traditional conservatives and liberals to see the answers within the purpose of the gospel as framed in the great controversy theme. She under stood well the historic standoff between these two circles. They were profoundly present in the Church of her time.

Transcending the weakness of conservatives and liberals

Ellen White pointed out how both conservatives and liberals alike fail to see how the ellipse of truth transcends the weakness of both conservatives and liberals: "The progress of reform depends upon a clear recognition of fundamental truth. While, on the one hand, danger lurks in a narrow philosophy and a hard, cold orthodoxy, on the other hand there is great danger in a careless liberalism. The foundation of all enduring reform is the law of God. We are to present in clear, distinct lines the need of obeying this law. . . . One of the most deplorable effects of the original apostasy was the loss of man's power of self-control. Only as this power is regained, can there be real progress. . . . Apart from divine power, no genuine reform can be effected. Not until the life of Christ becomes a vitalizing power in our lives can we resist the temptations that assail us from within and from without. . . . Subjection to the will of Christ means restoration to perfect manhood."¹

"Hard, cold orthodoxy" and "care less liberalism" are the end results of placing truth in two circles rather than letting truth be truth, combined in its elliptical form. Note how Ellen White transcended these two circles by uniting the biblical concepts of divine authority and personal responsibility, basic ingredients in the great controversy paradigm.

Understanding the purpose of the gospel as restoration (Rom. 1:9; 8:29) helped her to unite God's grace with man's response of faith.² In this exchange, the objective, external Word saying, "This truth is for you," meets the subjective response of a per son saying, "This truth is for me."

In other words, when someone emphasizes the Bible as "truth," even as doctrinal correctness, without an equal emphasis on personal meaning, relevance, and character change, we know that the ellipse has separated into two distinct, even separate, circles. On the other hand, when one appeals primarily to reason or feeling as the test of truth, we also know that the ellipse has become two circles. And thus the gospel is blurred, whichever circle is emphasized!

The ellipse of salvation truth, seeking the restoration of human beings as the purpose of the gospel, binds together the objective will of God and the subjective "Yes" of a responsible (able-to respond), reasonable person. Even as water cannot be divided between hydrogen and oxygen and remain water, so the objective and subjective elements of salvation can not be divided and yet remain "salvation."

This union provides both doctrinal security and heart assurance so that Seventh-day Adventists don't need to fall back into the theological arguments that are so generally divisive. We are not left with an either/or choice. We understand the ellipse present in how Christ provides salvation, uniting His objective gift of a sacrificial atonement with the subjective regenerating work of His Spirit: "Our only ground of hope is in the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and in that wrought by His Spirit working in and through us."³

A clear presentation of full-or-bed truth in these conflicting areas of thought is exactly what honest truth-seekers will recognize. We live in a day when all the thought tensions of the past are hitting the minds of young and old everywhere in ways that no other generation has had to face.

We are constantly bombarded with either/or choices in a relativistic environment where full-bodied, conflicting information is available. Perhaps Truth has never had a better opportunity to be seen in contrast with the anemic substitutes that have been current for so long among us.