WHY DO JOURNALISTS REFER TO 
    CHRISTIANITY'S RADICAL LEFT
AS THE "CONSERVATIVE
RELIGIOUS RIGHT"?

© 1998, 2003 by Orchid Land Publications

[lastupdated 20030614]

        Before getting into the meat of the subject indicated by the title of this piece, brief consideration may be given to the fact that the political left and right have switched places in living memory.   The political right was once a strong supporter of individualism, but that is now the cry of the political left; the political left, formerly socialist, is not a promoter of individual rights.   In Christian religion, conservative means traditionalist, though some view the right as fundamentalist.  Liberal or radical means replacing doctrine without political and social agendas, though some view being on the  left as being doctrinally relativist--which, strangely enough, is compatible with being simplistic (reducing religion to a few undefined slogans).  In disregarding or ignoring necessary distinctions, simplism often leads to confusion.  The basis for simplism may be intellectual laziness, a philistine view of religion, or other attitudes.  

    If we think of the foregoing in terms of CONTENT, we can further distinguish the form and energization of that content.
--FORM:  Like fundamentalism and some species of individualism, superstition and prejudice replace reasoning with will and/or emotion as the form of any content mentioned inthe foregoing; these attitudes can be combined with any position mentioned above except relativism.  
--ENERGIZATION:  Fanaticism is a matter of extremism in embracing, applying, or enforcing one's beliefs; moderation stands in the middle; luke-warness (acédeia; cf. psychrós in Apoc. 3:16)) stands at the opposite extreme from fanaticism.

      To sum up, it is not unusual for traditional religion to exhibit an political outlook that some would call liberal--taking care of the needy and diseased, providing medical and pharmaceutical help for the sick--or for a radical, simplistic religion to espouse a political outlook that its adherents would call conservative, i.e. being against the obligations of society to control or help those in need or who are poor or sick through what can be viewed as their own fault.  A radical religion can also ascribe the sins of parents to the children.  Hence, it muddies the waters to confuse a group's political agenda(s) with its religious stance . . . though the news media do so in a routine manner.
     There is nothing inherently liberal or conservative in individualism or anti-individualism, though historically states and religions stressed social rights over individual rights.   In that sense, Orthodox Christianity is very conservative, despite its concern for individuals.  In the sense of having preserved the Christianity of the Greek New Testament, no Western form of Christianity is ever so modestly traditionalist or ultimately conservative at all.  Only Eastern Christianity is really traditionalist or ultimately conservative--despite its energy view of the evolution of the cosmos, the recognition of the development of an inspired understanding (John 3:16) of revelation, and the divinely evolution of the administrative form of the Church.  Orthodoxy's view of the Fall and Salvation, of Grace, etc. is still ontological as in the premises of such of the Apostles who thought and wrote in Greek.  Juridical Western views are radical relatively to that outlook, as in their changes of the views of the Trinitarian God in the nine Orthodox Ecumenical Synods.
      We can base terms like conservative and liberal/radical on thinking or on volition and political administration--ecclesiastical and state polity.  Many Protestant groups follow the latter course, naming themselves for a form of polity (episcopal, presbyterian, or congregationalist).  Naming a group for the person that established its doctrinal outlook (one group names itself "Christians") seems to usurp the Apostolic origins of Christianity in a radical way.  To speak of such "traditions" is to misunderstand how long a set of beliefs has to remain consistent in order to become a tradition.   
     The most justifiable course is for journalists to speak of conservative or traditional and non- or anti-traditionalist Christians when they speak specifically of religious positions and not to confuse that with political agendas but to keep to the terminology of political (i.e. not "religious" or "Christian") right and left, however a writer may try or wish to define political positions, when speaking of political positions.  

     Religiously, it is certain that Luther called himself a modernist because of his proud embrace of via moderna philosophy that prevailed in his day and in his monastic order--and likely also because of his embrace of the quasi-Gnostic piety of the devotio moderna.  In politics, he was of course a revolutionary, except towards those (mostly Baptists) who revolted against his revolution.  See R28 and also R265.
    There is no justification for speaking of the Christian right in reference to members of the religious left, however right-wing we may deem their political agendas.    Conservatives in religion seek to preserve (or "conserve," if you will) the best of what has gone before--the survival of the fittest after every alternative on a given point has been tested and contested.  Those who reject the early post-Apostolic writings (SS. Clement, Ignatios, Eirenaios, etc.) as well as later authors like the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos, St. John of Damaskós,and St. Gregory Palamas to follow their individualistic (and simplistic) bent have the right to do so . . . but they do not have the write to call themselves conservatives . . . or to justify a political view with a religious characterization that is provably not amenable to the accompanying political terminology.   Why aren't they as proud f being relgious revolutionaries as Luther and Calvin were of their individualistic ethelothesk(e)ía (Col. 2:23).
     The reader can judge the political left and right as one chooses; that doesn't interest us here except as it breaks down the separation of church and state by trying to use the state as an agent to coërce others to accept the a political-religious agenda that makes it difficult for Orthodox and other children to avoid hearing otherdox prayers (often composed by children!!) on school loudspeakers.
     Right-minded persons who wish to avoid obfuscation will therefore practice semantic salubrity and refrain from calling religious revolutionaries, whether Liberal or Evangelical, either "conservative" or "the religious right."  "Radical religious left" befits many Fundamentalists.   We do not dispute their right to have this position; the only dispute here lies with the nomenclature.  So and ever-innovating "radical religious left" is the correct designation if terminology is to mean anything with substance.   What has just been maintained is quite objective.    Subjective wishes (in a will-based framework in which what is willed overrules objective reality) should play no rôle in this matter, however large a role it plays in the "legal-fiction" or virtual justification of the Reformers, etc.  One should be free to accept whatever faith one is persuaded to believe in without injury to others' beliefs and harmless practices.  I can defend your right to do or reject certain things  without believing that it is right or commendable.  The Christian left should accept this American view and leave people free to follow their beliefs and consciences wherever that does not unjustifiably circumscribe others' rights.
    Terminology is useful only when it is objective and neutral.  This may be difficult in politics; but religious history makes the religious terminology as crystalline as any terminology can be.  Misuse of it has the potential of perpetuating turmoil in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, Israël, etc., as well as right here on our own soil.  That must be resisted.  One way of keeping the lines clear is to use terminology that does not mislead!!