[…]Evangelicals and Political Conservatism – ReformedForum.org[…]…

It is impossible in a short show on evangelicalism and American conservatism to cover all the factions of conservatism. I do sympathize greatly with the title classical liberal rather than “conservative”. As pointed out by other posts, conservatism can mean different things depending on country and origin.

In America, all a conservative is, generally speaking, is a liberal in the classical sense. One of the posters pointed out correctly, the conservative – liberal paradigm (in America) is unhelpful. True. Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” is helpful in pointing out these distinctions, as is the work of William F Buckley. Modern liberals are not liberal –– but progressive leftists of the socialistic brand. Conservatives are liberals in the classical sense.

Dr Hart, in his new book, does a wonderful job pointing out that much of the confusion on these issues is that mainstream evangelical conservatism is suspended from conservative philosophy; merely genuflecting popular notions of evangelical “dispensational premillenialism influences” rather than true conservative thought. Much of this arises out of imbibing of the “unconstrained” vision of the left, then the “constrained” vision of limited government and classical liberal formulations believed by the founders. This is one reason why many another so-called “conservatives” have increased the socialistic entitlement programs as much –– if not more –– than progressive leftists. But this is not truly conservative, or classically liberal.

Many posters have written quite a bit about classical liberals “conserving” a small government. Depending on their meaning, however, the intent of classical liberalism has always been to constrain the Federal Government; limiting it to the confines of its enumerated powers. A key distinction.

Poster “Patrick” makes an excellent point regarding Roman Catholic tradition engaging political philosopher and evangelical and sometimes reformed, seeming anemic ability to address a cogent political philosophy. I don’t know why this is apparent in reformed circles, but in evangelical, or fundamentalist bible-believing circles, culture matters. And in much of those cultural spheres, “if it ain’t Jesus, it isn’t important.” This creates any ideas, political, artistic, et al. –– from or by –– people who did not wear their faith on their sleeves, or who were professed unbelievers, to become suspect. Hence, Burke, Locke, Rawls, et cetera, become suspect. Further, true conservatism allows freedoms and liberties Christians confess and are convicted by personally, to be sinful. America is a liberal society in the classic sense, thus classical liberalism tolerates behaviors, cultures, ideas, which are sinful in terms of the Sacred Kingdom. Politically speaking, Evangelicals and fundementalists have sought to make laws based on biblical norms, not classically liberal norms; hence the lack of desire or want for evangelicals and fundamentalists to imbibe the great thinkers of political classical liberalism. This is where Dr Hart’s idea of a certain “doubleness of mind” by confessing believers is more than helpful. The evangelical, fundamentalist approach to politics, trying to reestablish a “Christian America” which was never the case ––– America is a classical liberal nation ––– has hampered a “secular” response to political issues by evangelicals and created an impotence the likes of which are most frustrating.

It most helpful to focus on the fundamentalists when speaking about American conservatism, or classical liberalism. Free minds, free markets, freedom of speech and religion, sovereignty of the individual, freedom of consciousness, and private property. These are classically liberal principals, which historically, american conservatives have desired to “conserve”; not a Christian America.

djbeilstein

Patrick et al.,
I thought Ludwig von Mises wrote the book on classical liberalism (at least for a 20th century audience). Either way, I did appreciate one point in particular that the hosts brought out—that “conservatism” is relative. The old right can vouch for that now that the neo-conservatives have, for the most part, co-opted establishment conservatism and the Republican party (by the way, how antithetical are unjust wars to Christianity?). There are different types of conservatives even in the U.S. beyond the aforementioned social and fiscal distinctions. It’s a mixed bag. Perhaps one of the biggest downfalls of our two-party system is the fact that we try to lump political groups together under one of two banners that probably don’t belong together. It seems to me that the political spectrum is more three-dimensional than linear. I think the left-right paradigm oversimplifies things, and I might even go as far as to call it a façade.

I am sorry you didn’t like my apology for political conservative. It was not an apology. It was a mere articulation. Take it or leave it.

Although RevJW’s startling (but very welcome and amusing) suggestion that universal suffrage has had it’s day did temporarily disturb my gentle descent into an ill-deserved post-lunch snooze.

Also, I recall from 1976 that “evangelical” Jimmy Carter had said that Paul Tillich was one of his favorite theologians.

No, didn’t forget. I just wasn’t talking about that which is known by faith (already) or the not yet. I was talking about living in this present evil age in which we are a pilgrim people, a people on the way. Although Christ certainly reigns over all, in this age a significant part of his reign is restraining evil. Christ has not yet cast his final vote.

As as moral conservative but fiscal liberal, I very much appreciated the acknowledgment of that distinction in your conversation, though I know that those of my ilk deserve the piercing and ever-watchful gaze of Pastor Waddington.

May i boast, however, that I can count myself among the ranks of Machen’s Warrior Children in more than one respect? I’m also a state’s rights democrat!

btw congrats on being a NFP. should make it easier to give!

You probably forgot about who owns everything! And which vote trumps every other vote!

If only landowners could vote, Jesus couldn’t vote. But that wouldn’t matter cuz Jesus lost his vote a long time ago, if he ever had it in the first place.

Another thing I think I see in Christian conservatism (including Reformed) is an unwarranted confidence in fallen man and common grace institutions. For example, I had an economist friend tell me that if government would deregulate business, business would self regulate. Conservatives will argue against clean water regulations as if business can be expected to practice wise stewardship of the environment. One would hope that people would be smart and wise enough to not drive dangerously and jeopardize the safety of themselves and everyone else on the road. We all know how NOT true that is. It cannot even be said of believers who seem just as prone to racing to be the first one at the next light as unbelievers. If people would self regulate we would not need traffic laws for everyone to break. I expect fallen man to destroy the environment, the economy, and anything else he can get away with, especially but for the restraint of Christ for the benefit of the church. Speaking of church, much of the time it seems to be no better than the world at large.

Another topic of interest to me is is there any such thing as “natural right?” If there is, what are inaliable rights; enlightenment life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?? My concern is that natural right may lead to tyranny of the masses as the majority, landowners, or some other group asserts its definition of natural right. I think I lean more toward John Stewart Mill’s views in “On Liberty.”

I think Machen was viewed with some suspicion by evangelicals because of his anti-prohibition view, etc.

Additionally, if only landowners should vote, only landowners should pay taxes. We already had a war over representation. Personally, I would give up my vote if I didn’t have to pay taxes. It is unclear to me that any of the candidates are worth voting for.

I think this presentation lacked some focus, but there were a number of potentially intersting topics mentioned. I really appreciate all the work you guys do putting these things together.

I also enjoy politics.

However, I found I didn’t episode this show as much as usual.

I just felt it didn’t have as much gusto as the other shows and the comments were just not as well informed as I’ve come to expect from the Reformed Forum. I think a lot of things were just glossed over. Classical liberalism was dealt with very summarily and a lot of the distinctions or reasons why one might have a problem with the label “conservative” were lightly passed by with very little mention.

Maybe its just because I find the liberal-conservative dichotomy increasingly unhelpful, and besides merely briefly talking about ‘social” vs. “fiscal” conservatism, the show really didn’t transcend that old, worn dichotomy.

Anyways, you have had many fantastic shows, if you ever compile a best of, don’t include this one 🙂

I must reiterate, I’m incredibly thankful for your show, and I’m hard on this one because it fails to meet our usual awesome standard.

The Reformed Baptist from Canada.. :).

(by the way, according to the classical way of describing things, Canada is conservative and the U.S. is classically liberal. Canada also deserves the label of conservative because we are the more tempermentally conservative society… we are slower to change and generally less radical in the way we go about change. Which might be why we haven’t had a revolution..)