Request your free, three-month trial to Tabletalk magazine. You’ll receive the print issue monthly and gain immediate digital access to decades of archives. This trial is risk-free. No credit card required.
Try Tabletalk NowAlready receive Tabletalk magazine every month?
Verify your email address to gain unlimited access.
To identify the nature of theological conservatism, it is necessary to understand the meanings of the words we use. Theological is the adjectival form of theology, and theology, of course, has to do with our knowledge of God and the words we use to speak of all that God has revealed in His inspired Word. But when we add the adjective theological to the word conservative, what are we talking about? What is the meaning of conservative? This question is somewhat complicated by the fact that conservatism is usually spoken of in contrast to liberalism, not only in the realm of theology but also in the realm of political ideology. If we are not careful to observe the different ways that the words liberalism and conservatism have been used and defined, confusion will be the inevitable result. It may be helpful, therefore, to begin by discussing political liberalism and conservatism to distinguish those ideas from theological liberalism and conservatism.
political liberalism and conservatism
The philosophical roots of the political ideology known as classical liberalism were established by John Locke (1632–1704), one of the most influential thinkers of the Enlightenment. Locke developed his views in part as a response to the traditional idea of an absolute monarch who acted as a “father” over the citizens of his kingdom. He criticized this view of monarchy and elaborated his own theory of government in his Two Treatises of Government (1689). Locke had an optimistic view of human nature and argued that it was characterized by reason, freedom, and equality. Through the use of reason, human beings are able to deduce various laws of nature, which then serve as an ethical standard for human behavior. Human beings, in their state of nature, are also free and are completely capable of self-determination. These free individuals create the state and delegate to it very limited powers. Because individuals create the state, individuals are more important than the state. Human beings are also naturally equal, but their natural equality will never result in perfect economic equality. This is due to another feature of classical liberalism, elaborated by Adam Smith (1723–90). Smith argued that liberalism goes hand in hand with capitalism, the idea that individuals acting on the basis of their reason exchange their property or their labor with others on the basis of their self-interest. Such exchanges should be free from all state interference even though these exchanges will inevitably result in economic inequality.
In contrast to classical liberalism, modern progressive liberalism, which arose in the nineteenth century, argued that economic and social inequality necessitates government intervention. Modern liberalism was rooted in forms of philosophical idealism that saw individual parts only in light of the whole. Individual human rights, therefore, cannot be abstracted from the social whole. Progressive liberals, such as Thomas Hill Green (1836–82), argued that economic and social inequality limits the freedom and choices of those individuals who find themselves in poverty. Therefore, the state should intervene to provide greater freedom for them. Modern liberals thus desired a larger and more powerful state. The difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism was rooted in different understandings of individual rights and different understandings of the nature of freedom and justice. Classical liberalism began to be defined as “conservative” in the twentieth century to distinguish it from the modern form of liberalism. Today, political conservatives and libertarians argue for the basic tenets of Lockean classical liberal political theory (e.g., the ideas of individual freedom, limited government, and laissez-faire economics).
Like political liberalism, political conservatism also comes in different forms. One form of contemporary conservatism is simply classical Lockean liberalism with a different name. Another form of political conservatism traces its roots back to the works of Edmund Burke (1729–97). This version has sometimes been termed traditional conservatism. Burke’s conservatism differed from Locke’s view because Burke was far less optimistic about the abilities of unaided human reason. Burke believed that if we study history, we see that humans are often irrational, acting on the basis of uncontrolled emotion rather than reason. He did not believe, therefore, that individuals have the capacity to live their lives solely on the basis of their reason. Instead, human individuals need guidance from outside themselves, and that guidance is found in traditional authorities such as the family and the church. Instead of living on the sole basis of unaided reason, we should live according to those rules that have been handed down from one generation to the next and have stood the test of time. A good society, therefore, will not be one in which every individual does what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants, because true freedom does not mean the freedom to act in an immoral way. A good society will be one in which individuals live according to the laws of God. These moral traditions are therefore more important than individual liberty. A Lockean conservative, therefore, is primarily interested in conserving the liberty of the individual. A Burkean conservative is more interested in conserving traditional authorities.
theological liberalism
Like classical political liberalism, theological liberalism finds its roots in the Enlightenment exaltation of human reason and autonomy. Enlightenment thinkers were disdainful of those who submitted to biblical or ecclesiastical authority. A modern “enlightened” man was to assent only to that which his autonomous reason found worthy of assent. Human reason became the final standard. Those theologians who imbibed deeply at the well of Enlightenment rationalism took it upon themselves to create a new religion of reason. Men such as Lord Herbert of Cherbury (1583–1648) used their reason to discern the common religious notions that all men shared. Herbert is known now as the father of deism—a minimalistic, moralistic religion founded on his rationalist philosophical principles.
Around the beginning of the nineteenth century, another cultural movement arose that was also to have a profound influence on theologians. The Romantic movement did not reject the Enlightenment ideal of autonomous reason, but it insisted that there is more that needs to be taken into consideration. The Romantics exalted experience, imagination, and intuition as well as reason. They appealed to the diversity of human experience and to the potential for new human experience. The Romantics often emphasized man’s communion with nature and the organic unity of all things. The most important theologian of this era is Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834). He is often referred to as the father of Christian liberalism. For Schleiermacher, the Christian religion is not about doctrines or practices. Instead, it is a feeling, an intuition of absolute dependence. This religious experience of the individual, rather than Scripture, is the true source of authority. Such a view obviously required a complete overhaul of the doctrines of the Christian faith.
In Germany toward the end of the nineteenth century, theologians following Kantian philosophy took the next step in the development of theological liberalism. At the forefront of this movement in theology was Albrecht Ritschl (1822–89). He and those who followed his lead (e.g., Wilhelm Herrmann and Adolf von Harnack) rejected confessional Christian theology. Ritschl agreed with Schleiermacher that religion is rooted in experience, but he believed that Schleiermacher’s view was too subjective. For Ritschl, religion has more to do with the experience of spiritual freedom. His view also required the rejection and recasting of numerous Christian doctrines.
At its heart, theological liberalism in all its various versions has been characterized by the practice of accommodating Christian theology to whatever the current culture finds acceptable. The task of liberal theology is to catch up with the trends of modern thought. Whatever modern thought happens to be becomes the de facto authority by which all else, including Scripture, is judged. The doctrines of theology have to be ever and again recast so that they might be relevant as well as consistent with contemporary forms of thought. A person with a theologically liberal mindset will not look to Scripture first when he wants to know what to think about a particular idea or behavior. A person with a theologically liberal mindset will look to the modern culture to tell him what to believe or do. If the modern culture tells us that classical theism makes no sense to modern thinkers, it doesn’t matter that classical theism is the biblical doctrine of God. If the modern culture tells us that homosexual behavior is OK, it doesn’t matter that Scripture calls it an abomination.
theological conservatism
A theological conservative, on the other hand, believes that our theology is to be grounded on the unchanging Word of God. A theological conservative affirms that Scripture is the God-breathed, inerrant, unchanging standard of faith and life. It is not to be discarded or adapted to fit the fickle, ever-shifting thoughts of modern man. Instead, theological conservatives affirm that modern man must repent and conform his thoughts to God’s thoughts. A theologically conservative Reformed theologian is also a confessional theologian. He continues to teach what the Reformed churches have asserted in their public confessions because he believes that these confessions teach the system of theology found in Scripture. A theological conservative will not be continually recasting Christian doctrine. Instead, he will be able to say, with Charles Hodge (1797–1878): “I have had but one object in my professional career and as a writer, and that is to state and to vindicate the doctrines of the Reformed Church. I have never advanced a new idea, and have never aimed to improve on the doctrines of our fathers.” This is what it means to be theologically conservative.