Understanding Self and the World We Live In: What are the Causes, Results and Cures for Cultural, Political and Religious Liberalism and Reactionary Conservativism?

Updated: Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Understanding Self and the World We Live In:
What are the Causes, Results and Cures for
Cultural, Political and
Religious Liberalism
and Reactionary Conservativism?

Definitions

This article uses 'liberal' as synonymous with 'leftist'. While in some contexts the two terms are not synonymous, this article uses them as synonyms.

The dictionary tells us that a liberal is "A person who favors a philosophy of 'progress' and 'reform'." This definition, on the surface seems accurate because liberals are known for advocating change. Political leftists express their cause as "the march of progress". But a survey of liberal causes shows that this is a thin veneer. Most people assume that liberalism is a set of beliefs. It isn't. In reality liberalism is an attitude or stance. I'll be more specific about what I mean by this later in the article.

Conservative: A person who does not favor a liberal philosophy of (so-called) 'progress' and 'reform'. Normal average people who do not buy into liberal philosophy.

There are some who perhaps will think the definition for 'conservative' is wrong. They imagine that liberal is one extreme and conservative is the other extreme. In fact, that's what liberals teach, but that is not accurate. Here are the definitions from one dictionary for conservative as an adjective:

Resistant to change

Opposed to liberal reforms

Avoiding excess

Unimaginatively conventional

Conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class

This definition is not totally accurate either. Conservatives are not resistant to all change. Conservatives resist change for change's sake. They resist the good-intentioned but short-sighted attempts of liberals to bring about Utopia through policies that cause more harm to society than good. We'll consider this more closely in the article.

Reactionary Conservative: This is a person who has more in common with liberalism than conservatism though he without fail will see liberals as a plague upon society. In some areas, he may take conservative or traditional principles, but as the chart below will show, he is, in many ways, the twin brother of liberalism.

Do-goodism: When I use the term do-goodism, I am not referring to or denigrating genuine acts of service and sacrifice for the benefit of other people. I am referring to the utopian social programs, laws and schemes that liberals dream up whose purported purpose is to benefit some under-served or injured class of society. In reality, the schemes are really designed so that the inventors and promoters can feel like they have done something worthy of self-congratulations. Liberals are, in reality, interested in self-redemption (in whatever form they place value) and do not have the long term interests of the under-served or injured classes of society in mind. Do-goodism is some scheme whereby a person can be seen as doing some good for society or for individuals without actually having to make any real personal sacrifice.

Note: Recent articles in The Tidings magazine (D. Styles editor) as well as The Advocate (J. Millay editor) have celebrated the term "liberal" claiming that Jesus and Paul were "for (in favor of) change" and therefore they were "liberals". The "change" Jesus and Paul were for was to return to God's ways. Liberalism is not a call to former standards but a war against them. The change that Jesus and Paul were for was to call the people back to God's ways: a net change of zero if Jesus and Paul's teachings were followed.

While Pharisees and Judaizers are popularly portrayed as "right wing conservatives" (such as by the far left WCF) they in fact were not. In fact, there is a parallel in more recent history. Hitler was a Nazi which was a shortened version of National Socialist. Hitler, despite the claims of the liberal media was a leftist (think Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin), not a conservative. So also, Pharisees and Judaizers are misportrayed by liberals as if these men were conservatives. Think about the claim. The standard by which to measure these people against is God's standard. It was a standard of righteousness and the "progressives" of Jesus' day were only concerned about "establishing their own righteousness" (Rom 10:3). In the following article you will see that a fundamental component of both liberalism and reactionary conservatism is the attempt to "establish their own righteousness".

November 2005 Update: Communication recently came from Jim Phillips, a Berean, if he will allow me to say, brother, who characterized the article as more 'fleshly thinking' than spiritual. When challenged to provide Scriptural proofs he made a single contrived argument which was no proof of his blanket condemnation. He also said that the article was 'psychoanalysis' (the dictionary definition and historical use of that word did not matter) and 'psychobabble'. For all that he said, you would think the article was worthless. Yet in the same email he admits that the article's description of the reactionary conservative generally fit him, though he did not like the full portrayal of the RC. This is the first point Jim has missed: The article states that no individual will fit into a particular category 100% of the time. The characteristics of each group take the stereotypical characteristics of the specified group -- not the billions of varied manifestations of individual character. They are stereotypes. Not unbreakable laws. But I suppose he was angered at finding himself identified in one of the two fringe (far left or far right) character groups. Note: we are dealing more with individuals than with sects though sects will tend to to be left, right or center. He claimed that the article makes the argument for 'status quo' in Central.

"The constrained vision was not synonymous with (or camouflage for) acceptance of the status quo" (Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions, p. 39)

This assumption of arguing on behalf of 'status quo' would be consistent with the assumptions an RC will make. He hears you saying only what he thinks you would be saying (that is to say, whatever justifies his own position). I have made no argument for maintaining status quo of the current state of things. I am dealing with personality characteristics, no matter what age they exist in. Finally, Jim was more than happy to condemn the Central Fellowship, but when problems in his own community were pointed to, he said that not everything could be 'legislated'. The strange thing is, two of the issues mentioned were legislated -- just on the wrong side of the Scriptures.

July 22, 2006 Update: I've expanded my analysis of liberalism to reflect my current thinking in the article summary section. I also clarified the Definitions section. The main thing, the "light bulb moment", is that liberalism and reactionary conservatism are the fleshly minded man's attempt at meeting the needs of his moral sentiments on his own terms — and typically with little or no personal cost or sacrifice. I expand on this idea in the article summary section. The entire article has not been updated to reflect these changes but you can carry the analysis of the summary section into the main article without any trouble.

February 22 2007 Update: Jim Phillips, a Berean, has objected to the label "liberal" arguing, for example, that the term "liberal" means something totally different in the politics of England. Jim has missed the point. I am not cataloging Political Institutions under whatever name or label they use and discussing positions of those Institutions. England, like much of Europe, has over the last 200 years, had a lot of political instability. The so-called "conservatives" in England, have in recent years, taken positions that were more liberal than the "Liberals" and the "Liberals" have acted as if they were conservatives. Further, politicians and Political Parties often have one set of rhetoric when they are out of power, when they can afford to nay-say the ruling party, and they have a different set of rhetoric when they are actually in power and have to try and solve the problems they ran on the claim of being able to solve. I am not dealing with specific Political Groups in this article. I am defining personality characteristics and those personality characteristics manifest themselves in politics, in religion and in every other area of life.

Then Jim objects that the article is not filled with Scripture references to prove what I am saying. There are enough Scriptural references to prove the basic premise. But then, perhaps he does not like history books either and will object to an article that is based on some historical event. Or does a book on history require Scriptural proofs for every assertion made even though the Bible does not contain those specific data? The objection is misleading. Do we need a Bible reference to prove that turning a light switch on will very likely light a room up even though the Bible is silent on modern construction methods and the Tennessee Valley Authority? This article is about personality characteristics. It would be condescending to the reader to paste a reference to Jezebel or to Ishamael (a label some Bereans like to accuse others of applying to them) where dealing with the specifics. I think readers can draw their own conclusions about particular people in the Bible. I am counting on readers to have experience with life and no little amount of self-examination. Readers can decide if my explanations of the differences in people hold true or not.

I have heard, directly, and indirectly about certain Bereans who have complained about this article. If my identification of reactionary conservativism didn't touch the heart of Separatist Fellowships they would read it, perhaps disagree, and move on. Their reaction, Jim Phillips' own confession, and then his attacks on his web site indicate something else is at work.

Finally, someone called me and told me to listen to the Michael Medved show on February 21st 2007. Mr. Medved was discussing the differences in liberals and conservatives. Due to that program I was able to see further details in liberal, conservative and reactionary conservative thinking and behavior. This is one of those things where even non-believers are able to see the differences in personality traits. Doth not even nature teach you? Those additional items have been added to the chart found in this article.

March 28th 2007 Update: I don't normally spend time on Jim Phillips' web site. But I found his response to this article and he makes a number of comments that I will respond to here.

Article Summary

This is a summary. Obviously, there is a lot of material not in the summary which can be found in the article. We'll move through this very quickly without a lot of background material found in the body of the article -- material which I think you will find very interesting.

Man is, by nature, a moral creature. Unlike the lower animals, man was created with 'moral sentiments'. The moral sentiments combined with a far superior intellectual capacity (including the ability to create and utilize symbols), set men apart from the lower animals. In a normally functioning mind the moral sentiments generate a recognition that there is something greater than the here and now; that there is something greater than our own "three score" years of life; it generates a yearning to find the Creator; to worship and venerate and praise; and a desire to find existence beyond death. The lower animals do not show any sign of these desires. In the world of the lower animals, as much as liberal activists have tried to spread the "animals are people too" nonsense, there are no places of worship built by animals. But throughout history in every part of the world men have filled this natural void of the mind with a multitude of gods and religious practices that attempt to meet the needs of the moral sentiments. Liberalism, when stripped of its diverse paraphernalia, is a substitute for normal religious beliefs and world views. This explains why liberals rely on revisionist history; why liberals can become so emotional when challenged; why facts and reality are treated so lightly in argument; and why liberalism is often hostile to religious persons, beliefs and institutions.

This also explains why secularism and atheism peacefully cohabitate with liberalism. Atheism is not synonymous with liberalism. Atheism (using the modern definition) is the belief that there is no God. Liberalism is frequently what people use to fill the void left by that belief. The rare atheist who is not liberal-minded tends to be friendly, perhaps even supportive of religious persons and beliefs [Will Durant was a fine example of such].

Liberalism gives people a chance to engage in do-goodism typically with minimal personal cost or self-sacrifice.

Liberalism typically rejects traditional religious authorities of any kind though liberals who accept religion do so selectively and always on their own personal terms.

Liberalism disavows any responsibility for the consequences of its policies. Liberals substitute the intent to do good for the results, as the only standard by which liberals want their policies to be judged.

Liberals are not bothered by logical contradictions or failures to acknowledge reality.

To feel good about what they are doing and to be seen by others as doing good are the most important things

It's a self-created kind of 'redemption' and 'immortality' that liberals seek

This is not to say that liberalism and religion are totally divorced. In fact, because liberalism strives to meet the needs of the moral sentiments, liberals who are disposed to adopt religious doctrines freely mix the liberal stance with religious doctrine. Liberalism is, in reality, a kind of substitute religion — a kind of self-worship — with an individually or self-defined creed. Self-congratulations, power, self-satisfaction &c. are liberalism's "redemption" and popularity is liberalism's "immortality".

It simply seeks to meet the needs of the moral sentiments, but with only self-imposed restrictions or prohibitions (if any) on how that is done.

Now, when you look at liberalism, whether politically or religiously expressed, liberalism is

an ideology that refuses to condemn, or engages in the promotion of, that which is wrong or sinful. It is a manifestation of the natural state of man: an uncircumcised fleshly mind which abhors the condemnation of sin.

"For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." (2 Peter 2:18-19)

The hideousness of liberalism is well hidden under the garb of 'love' and 'concern for others'. In reality, the policies and practices it engages in are self-serving and only lead men to enslavement and destruction.

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15) ('satan' here is the personification of sin. The Greek means 'adversary' )

The striking characteristic of liberalism, and reactionary conservativism, is that facts do not matter. The reason for this is that liberalism is not founded upon fact and logic, but upon self-interests expressed in good intentions, emotion, sentiment, pity and naiveté. In the mind of a liberal, or reactionary conservative, contradicting-facts or historical lessons only get in the way of their self-willed conclusion.

" Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being self-condemned." (Titus 3:11)

Liberalism is built and nourished by emotion, sentiment, and man's natural naiveté. This naiveté has repeatedly been demonstrated, for example, by politicians who 'oppose' tyranny, genocide, and terrorism with a 'velvet glove'. Liberals pretend that the darkest manifestations of human nature can be worked with, or changed to their advantage, through kindness, dialog, negotiation (diplomacy), reward or bribery.

Liberals fail to see that their policies only encourage, reward and create further evil.

Though history is replete with examples, a few that come to mind:

The French attempt to pay off Viking marauders in 845 only encouraged the Vikings to raid Europe with a vengeance

Neville Chamberlain's pacification in the face Hitler's threats to Europe, 1939, only encouraged Hitler to proceed with his plans to dominate Europe

Pacification in the face of terrorism encourages terrorists in that they see the weakness and fear of their victims -- the very thing terrorism is designed to induce

Ransom payments to terrorists only reward, finance, and encourage terrorists to kidnap more people

Look at the things liberals in the world promote and you will see liberalism in the ecclesia unmasked. The method of reasoning they engage in is the same. The policies they engage in, though altered for circumstances, are the same. The results are the same.

Liberalism in the ecclesia is only different from liberalism in the world in these two ways:

in the world liberalism may be completely uncircumcised whereas in the ecclesia it, as a rule, has a mask of piety

in the world liberalism hides behind the garb of loving mankind whereas in the ecclesia it hides behind the garb of loving God and brethren

Liberalism finds that to advance itself, those who stand in its way, whether past or present, must be taken out of the way. This is done through a number of devices (2Cor 2:11) including slander.

But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise rulership. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. (2 Peter 2:10)

Please read on for an elaboration and proofs of these points.

Introduction

I am very interested in trying to understand why people think the way they do. What they think is undoubtedly very important, particularly for their own future. But how did they arrive at their conclusions? What is the process of reasoning, developing conclusions and ultimately, the reasons why people make the choices that they do? Presuppositions to my interest are, of course,

that there is such a thing as Truth

that Truth is discoverable and

that Truth is not relativistic ¹

Years ago a brother chastised me when I referred to the "liberal element" of the fellowship we were in. He thought it wrong to divide brethren up as conservative or liberal. I appreciate his good intentions, but the fact is, every society is made up of individuals who either lean towards liberal or traditional (normal) positions. The question is, "why?". The focus of this article is not a particular doctrine of liberalism, but of the basis of liberalism, and therefore, for the purpose of this article, 'liberal' will be used.

I do not believe that ignoring the divide between liberals and non-liberals does any good. I would not go to the other extreme of saying that everyone must be identified and labeled, but I don't see any virtue in ignoring an ideological divide that exists in almost any association of individuals.

In fact, I think its hurtful to ignore the ceaseless demands of liberal ideology for "progress and reform" of doctrine and standards. Liberals today like to call themselves "progressives" because the title "liberal" has become unpopular. Why? Liberals have a history destroying societies through religious, cultural, and political rot. "Progress and reform" of liberalism is never directed towards higher standards of doctrine and behavior. It is therefore not progression but digression. You can see this in the cultural and political world where liberalism always leads to the destruction of society.⁴

Liberals always portray their causes as built on good intentions but they are misguided individuals constantly at work on

bloody revolutions in the world and

"bloodless revolutions" in the ecclesia

The reason why they engage in this activism will be discussed later.

Further, the ecclesia inevitably reflects the pressures placed upon it by the world. While liberalism is only a minority sentiment in the United States (about 5-10% for far left committed liberals; less than 30% overall; and not 50% as liberals like to portray), that minority is very vocal. Not only are they vocal: Liberals tend to be the activists whereas the rest of society -- the normal people -- are busy raising children, working, and doing things most cultural liberals claim to hate (eg. burning hydrocarbons, using other natural resources, spending time with family, attending religious functions and so forth). I have found that examining liberalism in the world, where it is demonstrated in every shade and degree, is a lesson on what the general causes and results of liberalism are.

And as liberalism in the world makes one of its final inescapable transitions, as it always does, into a culture of death, I believe that now, more than ever, it is appropriate to spell the issues out, so that others can understand where liberal thinking comes from, see the result of it, which is death, as demonstrated before them by the world, and to warn them not to fall into its seductive trap.

The Scriptures provide everything we need so far as giving us guidance on what to think and how to arrive at the right conclusions. It is the only Guide. But if we only read the Bible, and had no experiences in life, the development of meaningful knowledge and character would be impossible (Heb 5:8). Therefore the necessity is to apply the knowledge of man's nature we derive from the Bible to the world in which we live and to ecclesial or fraternal experiences. The Bible is the guide. Life is the classroom, or better yet, the lab where we learn (much through suffering) the realities of the human nature on an individual, communal, and national basis. To put it in a slightly different way, life gives us working knowledge of 'the devil' (Heb 2:14) in its individual, religious and political manifestations.

Facts: 'Concepts whose truth can be proved'

"Take heed therefore how ye hear" (Luke 8:18)

Given the exact same set of facts, two people may arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions. There are only a few reasons this can happen:

A person might misunderstand the facts as presented

A person may not have all the facts necessary to draw the right conclusion

In some cases, a person may lack experience, and therefore be less capable of coming to a factual and wise conclusion

A person might ignore facts he/she prefers to disregard in favor of a preferred opinion or desired outcome

The first reason does not reflect on the facts presented, but on the presentation, or on the hearer's ability to perceive the facts and their consequences. The second reason does not reflect on the facts but upon the ignorance of the hearer. The third reason reflects upon the hearer's inexperience. Both the first and second reasons are solvable. The third reason has a solution if the person is willing to hear the counsel of experience.

But the fourth case, a fairly common case, is indicative of the hearer's thinking process -- and it impugns the facts, as though they are not credible, and therefore not facts. That being the case, to understand the process of thinking, and how one can be mislead in the thought process, is an important step in preventing self-deception. A person cannot guard against wrong thinking if he is unaware of how he can be self-deceived.

Here then is the problem: two people may study the Bible, both appearing to approach it with sincerity and a proper attitude, yet arriving at completely different conclusions. I have, in some cases, found that fact very perplexing. Now, of course there are some obvious reasons why this can occur:

Pre-conceived ideas is by far the most common problem

Privately held wrong attitudes

Wrong intent for the study and other things can lead a person to wrong conclusions.

We could even generalize and say that such deception is inevitably the result of sin. These general answers are sufficient to my mind for most cases. But other cases seem to want further investigation. Specifically, the mind of the liberal and especially the activist liberal. This is a case where there is no direct correlation between the (Bible) facts presented and the position taken.

For example, the Bible presents the way of salvation as a strait and narrow way. Christ very plainly says,

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (Matthew 7:13-14) Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. (Luke 13:24)

These ideas find confirmation in other places where related ideas appear such as,

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16) And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. (1 John 5:19)

The liberal mind ignores these plain declarations and advocates for a broad, very tolerant, 'more charitable' way. How does the liberal mind arrive at such a diametric conclusion? That is a specific example, but here is a more general scenario:

Two young men, both intelligent in the Scriptures, are baptised. Both are very capable of making contributions to their ecclesia and the brotherhood in their youth, and it looks promising that they will both be shepherds in their latter years. But the first brother, as he ages, grows increasingly liberal in his views. He develops a disapproving attitude for the current Statement of Faith, seeing it as too narrow. He develops relationships with the other likeminded brethren and these join together to "unite" the fractured Fellowships, not based on sound doctrine, but on bridging documents that allow for a wide lattitude of beliefs. He becomes an activist for a broader Fellowship.

The second brother, as he ages can also take, to be general, one of four routes:

He can maintain his position, growing in wisdom and knowledge, grace and character.

He can grow increasingly narrow in his position, moving to smaller and smaller fellowships in an attempt to find a 'pure' Fellowship. This is a special case of self-deception that also requires closer examination. It is what I will term, reactionary conservativism. The reasons for this development are, ironically, on a parallel with the liberal minded brother. In both cases the individuals have chosen an essentially single-dimensional or flat view of God's character. They each have taken whichever characteristics of God are convenient to their own self-justification and projected a God who matches that flat view.

He can also develop in the same direction as the liberal minded brother.

He can fall away from the truth

Liberalism in the World (Individuals and Collective) -- Causes

What are the causes of liberalism in the world? The following list are some of the reasons why liberalism is adopted. There are other things that could be added to this list, but I think these are many of the major causes of liberalism.

Self-Justification

Self-Importance -- Pride

Peer pressure

The need for social acceptance (this is stronger in women than most men)

Naive idealism (this is more predominant in the inexperience of youth)

Affluence

The rejection of religion and morality

The rejection of law and authority

The rejection of tradition

The rejection of reason

The desire to be part of something greater

The quest for power

An inability to deal with human suffering in its many forms

The establishment of a utopian society by human means

The search for meaning in life

The need to be the one who finds some new thing

Sentimental or emotional demands

Self-Promotion

Self-Pity

Prestige

Envy

Boredom

I list self-justification as the first reason, because I believe this is the leading cause of liberalism. Some people are unwilling to examine themselves. They cannot accept the idea that they might be evil and sinful "and would rather hurt others than admit they have serious, deep faults or sins." (People of the Lie, Scott Peck). "They are not pain avoiders or lazy people in general. To the contrary, they are likely to exert themselves more than most in their continuing effort to obtain and maintain an image of respectability. They may willingly, even eagerly, undergo great hardships in their search for status. It is only one particular pain they cannot tolerate: the pain of their own conscience, the pain of realization of their own sinfulness and imperfection." (ibid) "A predominant characteristic of the behavior that I call evil is scapegoating. Because in their hearts they consider themselves above reproach, they must lash out at anyone who does reproach them. They sacrifice others to preserve their self-image of perfection." (ibid) "Since they must deny their own badness, they must perceive others as bad. They project their own evil onto the world. The evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Spiritual growth requires the acknowledgment of one's own need to grow. If we cannot make that acknowledgment, we have no option except to attempt to eradicate the evidence of our imperfection. Strangely enough, evil people are often destructive because they are attempting to destroy evil. The problem is that they misplace the locus of the evil. Instead of destroying others, they should be destroying the sickness within themselves." (ibid)

This scapegoating behavior partially explains why the left, as a rule, hates Jewish people and Israel. And as John Ray points out, "Leftists hate all sorts of people -- businessmen, the rich, overweight people, the bourgeoisie, corporate bosses, and almost anybody who is doing well for himself or herself. Nonetheless it is true that the 'tolerant' pose Leftists adopt does cut them off from admitting to hatred or dislike of quite a lot of people and since people who consider themselves superior really despise just about everybody, that does leave unfulfilled a big need to put other people down. So the groups that are 'permissible' to hate often get a fierce dose of that hate."

Peer pressure, another important reason is near the top because the need for social acceptance plays a large role in liberalism. To take an example from the cultural world, when you hear an American liberal complaining about how Europeans view "backwards" Americans, it stems from the liberal's need to be accepted by "enlightened" European liberals.

For some, affluence in an impoverished world leads to guilt. Affluence almost invariably leads to a life that is devoid of any meaning or purpose. Affluent people, because they've experienced affluence, can understand how empty life is once you 'have it all'. Most people never reach such affluence and therefore never have the chance to learn that what they aspire to, what they spend their lives trying to obtain to, is like all flesh-pleasing, a bag with holes (Hag 1:6).

Affluence buys conveniences and toys. Toys only entertain for a short time and then people become bored with trinkets and gadgets. Affluence then can either lead to a life centered on consumerism in a vain quest to stay entertained or distracted -- or the person will try to find a way to have meaning to their life. Where consumerism becomes the center of life, there is a demand for entertainment, and for some, the demand for entertainment leads to a demand for sensation, which leads to either violent behavior or licentiousness. We've witnessed this cycle twice in recent decades.

The violence of the 60 and 70's when liberalism hit the United States like a tsunami, and

Today in the public school system where children are being brainwashed with liberal philosophies on everything from 'alternative lifestyles' to radical environmentalism. Beating each other up on the playground is not good enough for sick children today. Now they dream of, plan and attempt to execute mass murders.

In both these cases, they were times of violence and licentious behavior by the 'enlightened' and 'liberated' liberals.

Where consumerism is rejected, some purpose to life, or a desire to be part of a greater good may be sought for. In the current climate of so much liberal propaganda and advocacy, the principles of religion, law, morality, and cultural tradition are usually rejected. Christianity and morality are mocked, 'cop-killer' music and even death is celebrated by liberal elitists, and traditional cultural values are derided as the values of "oppresive white males", "patriarchists", "religionists", "male supremacists" &c.

The individuals who reject consumerism, religion, law, morality, and cultural tradition, will often end up in, or a supporter of, one of the leftist movements: the radical environmentalist movement, the radical feminist movement, the radical animal rights movement, PETA, or some leftist "human rights" organization.

Liberalism, in its modern manifestation also celebrates the rejection of reason, or as it has been called 'the death of truth', though to be fair, 'reason' without a correct knowledge of the Gospel ultimately comes to a dead end. Taken to their logical conclusions, the false doctrines of modern Christianity, ironically, engender liberalism by their contradictory teachings and practice -- which explains why so many clergymen are either openly or closet liberals.

I think this comment about how some people choose a religion is applicable to how some people choose the liberal posture: "Many people, I guess, when they choose a religion, do it like people choose clothing. What works for me? How do I look in this context? What will my friends think? What allows me to think of myself as smart, logical, enlightened, open-minded, or caring?" (Tim's Random Observations)

You can see by the list of causes that none of these are direct causation for liberal thinking. Liberalism is not a conscientious position. It is not a preplanned, thought-out destination or a reasoned position. Rather, it is a destination arrived at over some period of time when circumstances force the individual to make choices.

Eemotion,

emotional reactions,

idealism, naiveté,

guilt, or

sentimental thinking are very much involved in a move to liberal thinking.

Liberalism may be developed from only one of these principles, or it could be a variety of these causes all working to bring the individual to a liberal point of view. Factors outside of a liberal position drive the individual to the liberal position.

Liberalism in the World -- Results

The general results of liberalism are summed up in the French cry, "Liberté, Egalité and Fraternité". On the surface, the cry for liberty, equality and brotherhood sounds appealing. The"shining hour" of liberalism, the French Revolution, still lauded by naive liberals today, demonstrated a number of things:

That unrestrained freedom is tyranny and therefore not liberty

That unrestrained equality is impossible because such equality only comes by tyranny, and tyranny must be conducted by elites who oppress the masses to enforce "equality" -- and it is therefore not equality

That liberalism ends in culture of death as demonstrated by the French guillotine

Despite the good intentions of the Rousseau and Voltaire infected people, the French Revolution also demonstrated a few things that were already obvious:

That people are not created equal -- some have talents that others do not

That people do not have the same opportunities -- and that it is impossible for everyone to have the same opportunities

That people do not always behave the same in any given situation

Therefore outcomes will differ

When the French raised up "the god of Reason" it was not a utopian "liberty, fraternity and equality" which employed the newly invented guillotine. It was unrestrained equality (egalitarianism) and unrestrained liberty (individualism) which resulted in horrific bloodletting, and the murder of so many tens of thousands of French men, women and children across the country.

The principles of liberté and egalité are still the bedrock of liberal activism today. Unrestrained liberty, or radial individualism is applied by liberals in areas of life where there is no threat that achievement will produce inequality, and in areas where liberals wish to be unfettered in their pursuit of pleasure (eg. sexuality, art, music, entertainment).

Unrestrained equality or radical egalitarianism, on the other hand, is applied to areas of life where achievement is possible and where rewards for achievement are possible, were it not for equality being established by coercion (eg. quotas, the agenda of radical feminism &c). To have "equality", which includes an equality of outcomes, it must be established and enforced by a tyranny of elites. And so we see from history that Robespierre was transformed from a non-violent leader, to a blood thirsty tyrant. The guillotine was not satiated with blood till it shed his own.

And the French mobs were anything but "enlightened" or guided by their newly proclaimed god, Monsieur Reason. While the French Revolution is an extreme, it serves to graphically illustrate the methods and results of liberalism.

This is why leftists throughout the world supported the Soviet Union: because liberals recognized that "equality", in the areas where they want "equality", can only be established by tyranny. So they shut their eyes as communism slaughtered over 50 million people. Worse, they sang the praises of such a corrupt system so long as the bodies could be hidden. This was the "collateral damage", a price leftists could mentally justify, to achieve the desired outcome. So when liberals today whine about the death of hundreds or thousands of innocents in a war (Iraq, Lebanon &c), it isn't because they really value life. No, without flinching they advocate the slaughter of unborn children by the millions. And they shamelessly advocate the destruction of Jews and of Israel. Their real complaint is against democracy a system where unrestrained equality is not allowed.

While history affords many fine examples, I cannot help but mention the case of one good intentioned Neville Chamberlain at the Croyden Airport in 1939 who standing before the cameras said, "I have in my hand a piece of paper, signed by Mr. Hitler, in which he assures us that there will be no war in Europe." This example deserves some attention later in this article.

Liberalism is founded on good intentions,
enacted with recklessly naive policies,
and inevitably produces bad outcomes for
both the individual and for societies that adopt those liberal policies.

Liberalism in the Ecclesia (Individuals and Collective) -- Causes

Ecclesias are made up of people and of course, they are flesh and blood like the rest of humanity. So many of the same factors that cause liberalism to develop in people outside the ecclesia are active within the ecclesial environment as well.

As stated before, liberalism is not a conscientious position. It is not a preplanned or thought-out destination or a reasoned position. Rather, it is a destination arrived at over some period of time when circumstances force the individual to make a choices. In the religious context, one choice is inevitably a choice that elevates God and the Bible and therefore lowers or condemns man. The other choice puts a salve on the man's conscience, sentiment or emotions. The second options is always more appealing to the flesh. It is always humanistic. It is liberalism.

Many of the same causes of worldly liberalism are found in the ecclesia, sometimes slightly modified: self-promotion, pride, envy, boredom, the desire to be part of something greater, the quest for power, pride, the establishment of a utopian ecclesia by human means, the search for meaning, self-pity, self-justification.

In the ecclesial context, I believe that self-justification is the strongest factor at work -- though it is often hidden. The Bible is designed to condemn sin. All have sinned and therefore all come under its strictures. What is one to do? The person can either accept the condemnation of sin (Psa 139:23) and put faith in Yahweh's foreknowledge and grace. Or they can pursue a course of action that they think will lead to self-justification: eroding away standards of doctrine or practice that condemn one's own position or behavior. How often has that happened!?

There's also comfort in numbers. The liberal's need for social acceptance drives him to embrace larger groups. And "if everyone around us thinks the same way we do, we must be right," or so the thinking goes. So the liberal's desire for lower standards of doctrine and conduct are inevitably expressed in unity movements that sacrifice those standards. Of course the flesh is wise enough not to broadcast the sandy basis of a 'unity' movement, but anyone not given over to liberalism who examines the basis of union can determine if this is the case or not.

Guilt over less advantaged persons is also, I believe, a leading factor in the strength of liberalism. Anyone who has a sensitive conscience, and has been placed in an (apparently) more advantageous position at any time in their life, knows the tinge of guilt that can accompany the situation. For some, guilt can become a driving factor towards liberalism.

Pride, and the desire for self-promotion is also a leading factor. The past, and those who shine in the light of the past, must be erased from men's respect, if the 'talents' of the present generation are to shine. In other cases, some brethren want 'leave their mark' on the ecclesial world. This is not simply a desire to labor in God's vineyard for His Name's sake, but a desire to leave a name associated with the work, even as men call land after their name (Psa 49:11). It is a kind of pseudo-immortality which the flesh naturally seeks after. In other cases, as the Christadelphian community has repeatedly witnessed, talented brethren get caught up (Pro 16:18) in their own popularity (Deu 17:20; 2 Ch 26:16) and forget why they are laboring (Acts 9:16; Luk 17:10). Doctrinal error or immoral conduct will follow.

There is one other cause that comes to mind. Christadelphians, because they understand the importance of correct knowledge about God, His plan, His son, human nature, God's promises, the Israelitish nature of God's kingdom, and so forth, Christadelphians stress knowledge and study. Some people are unable to handle this emphasis. They feel that we should place more emphasis on God's love and grace. In short, their emotional needs are not satisfied. Instead of demonstrating a godly life for others, there are two basic over-reactions:

Some leave the Truth (frequently ending up in the apostasy demonstrating their liberal mindset)

Others have reacted by rejecting any intellectual aspect in favor of a broad-minded 'love'.

In these cases, any perceived imbalance is met with an imbalance that is worse than the original problem.

Liberalism in the Ecclesia -- Results

Liberalism in the ecclesia manifests itself in the following ways:

An apathy towards understanding and upholding, or activism against, God's doctrinal standards

An apathy towards understanding and upholding, or activism against, God's moral standards

Now, no one would do this openly (2Co 11:14), so instead, here's how it is, in reality, manifested:

Activism from the podium presenting new ideas that challenge Biblical Christadelphian teaching

Activism to get rid of the time-tested Statement of Faith under specious pleas such as "the language is Victorian"²

Activism to lead "bloodless revolutions" that bring about changes to "our official position"

Activism to accept conduct that has been or is presently viewed as unacceptable

'Unity' movements that sacrifice sound first principle doctrine to effect union³

Liberalism, and the activism engaged in, inevitably results in declining doctrinal and moral standards. Never do such activists spell out and justify from the Bible how the changes they wish to make are for God's glory. They may assert that their desire is to glorify God, but they can never explain how reducing doctrinal and moral standards bring that result. It is emotionally driven activism.

And of course, this activism is always done under the flag of 'love' so anyone who criticizes it is instinctively shunned. It is interesting how human nature works. The man who's intentions are presented as good, and his policies philanthropic (though when examined are against God), is given the benefit of the doubt by most people. The man's who's intentions are good, but his policies are intended to uphold God's standards at the cost of human circumcision (metaphorically speaking) is not given the benefit of the doubt. The person who raises principled questions is painted as mean-spirited. Man being of an evil nature, most will at least instinctively feel there is some truth to this, only proving that men, by nature, reject God's ways hating 'the light'. in reality, this spirit is anything but the love of God, though they may have deceived themselves into thinking that it is. It is love of self and love of evil that drives this behavior. The Lord tells us as much when he said,

" And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:19)

Liberalism vs. Conservativism vs. Reactionary Conservatism

Here are some characteristics of the various positions.

Note: Individuals do not necessarily fit into one of the below categories 100% of the time -- most do not. A liberal may find himself behaving as a conservative would on one or more particular issues for example. It all depends on the thinking of the individual on a given issue.

Liberalism
Normal/Traditional/Conservativism Reactionary Conservativism

Liberalism believes government control is the solution to all problems. Safety is found in power vested in liberal government control. Problems are best overcome on an individual or local level, not dictates from the National Capitol, a seat of ecclesiastical power, or a Confederation or Conference of ecclesias. Reactionary conservatives vest control in government. In religious settings reactionary conservatives vest control in ecclesiastical organization (for example Rome; or a Conference or Confederation of ecclesias) rather than in autonomous ecclesias. Safety is found in power vested in government control.

Liberals are not particularly conscious of death. This, again, helps explain liberal recklessness. Take for example young people, who as a group, tend to be liberal. They also tend to do reckless things because people come into the world thinking "they will live forever". "Other people die, just not me or anyone I know." "Knowledge of death saves" a man. That is to say, people who are conscious of their limitations and of their time limits will behave in ways that reflect that sobriety.

Liberalism is focused on the here and now.

Some liberals take pride in not owning property, not owning a car, not having any money in the bank, and not being vested in any long term situations, like marriage. Immediate gratification. Whatever meets the immediate gratifications of the here and now are the policies and glory of liberalism.

Where property is owned, liberals are not willing to risk life and property for a higher cause. They appease dictators so as to not loose what they have. This is why liberal policies, like Chamberlain's treaty with Hitler, are reckless and shortsighted.

Conservatives recognize that there are larger issues in life and do not focus as much on the here and now. They focus more on longer term issues and stability: parenthood, paychecks, prayer, and property — which all happen to be things liberals would do away with, take from you, or like to control.

Conservatives tend to be willing to risk life and property for a higher cause (those they love, freedom, etc).

Conservatives understand some issues take time to work through, if they can ever be solved in this life. They also recognize the established boundaries of authority, be it civil or Scriptural and are loath to go beyond what is given to them.

Reactionary conservatives, though not to the same degree as liberals, are focused on the here and now.

In ecclesiastical settings, they vest control in "inter-ecclesial unity of action", or control of Fellowship problems into the community to get immediate results in solving Fellowship problems. Not willing to wait for the judgment seat of Christ, and claiming authority over all ecclesias in their Fellowship, they exercise authority now. They claim "total unity" here and now. These policies, while driven by good intentions, are shortsighted and reckless causing unnecessary division and fratricide.

Politics is a substitute for religion. Political stands may be an expression of religious values. Politics is religion.

Liberals are driven by an urge to feel superior, more intelligent, and more moral than anyone else.

Liberals love to be negative about anyone not in their "Group".

Anything that can be spun as a crisis must be a present and dangerous crisis requiring the superior knowledge and morality of the liberal.

Conservative minded persons recognize and respect others who have more intelligence, and are more virtuous. They may strive for these things but they do not have the need to feel superior.

If forced by crisis, a best option to deal with the crisis is selected in the hopes that the right choice is made. Care is taken not to have a 'cure' which is as bad or worse than the original problem.

Reactionary Conservatives are driven by a feeling of superiority, an innate sense of superior intelligence, and the chutzpa of a fake superior morality -- whited sepulchers (Matt 23:27).

Reactionary conservatives love to be negative about anyone not in their "Group". Reactionary Conservatives gather documentation against others not in their "Group", not for the purpose of refutation and teaching, but for the purpose of self-justification.

The current age is viewed as a crisis far greater than the doctrinal problems in the apostolic era, and the only solution they see is to develop a form of ecclesial governance which attempts to prevent these problems, going beyond anything developed by the apostles, or the pioneer Christadelphians.

Liberals have an inherent need for rebellion and novelty. Much of the rebellion comes from rebellion against father and mother which is unresolved in the mind of the liberal (how often do we see the activist liberals are first rebels against their own father and mother). It is manifested in questioning all authority and disrespect of other people. Convention, tradition, standards. Respect of father and mother. Respect of authority. Respect of other persons including the weak and erring. Reactionary conservatives mix rebellion and novelty with a claim of upholding tradition. They like authority so long as its their own established authority, their own conference or confederations and not someone else's.

While liberals claim to love others, they in fact love themselves more than God or the rest of mankind. Though it be imperfect, as flesh is, this position offers scope to grow in genuine love of God, because self is pushed down. While reactionary conservatives claim to love God, they in fact love themselves more than God or the rest of mankind.

God is given a humanistic makeover. God is a God of grace and a God of judgment. Neither characteristic is presumed upon or over-emphasized. God is given an ascetic makeover.

Where God calls for self-sacrifice, the liberal engages in self-promotion and fratricide.
Though it be imperfect, as flesh is, this position offers scope to make genuine self-sacrifice. Where God calls for self-sacrifice, the RC engages in self-promotion and fratricide.

Liberals attribute to others what is wrong with themselves. Liberal activism is always on a mission to change the rest of the world and not themselves (see next point).

Liberal Projection:

Obsessed with 'love' because they love themselves first and foremost

Obsessed with 'hate' and prohibiting others from hating because they fear being hated. Through their policies they hate others.

Obsessed with racism because they tend to be the worst racists

Obsessed with power when others have it because it is what they must have to find fulfillment

Obsessed with "one America" and "national unity" though their policies are designed to create more division

Charge non-liberals with 'cynical manipulation of religion' while using the Bible as a prop, or after they (themselves) attend minority churches to canvas for votes

They tend to look at themselves first when placing blame and finding solutions. They (sometimes) naively think that everyone else will do the same.
RC activism is always on a mission to protect itself from the pollutions (Mar 7:3) of those who are not committed to the RC world view.

RC Problems:

The 'I'm not part of the [fill of the blank] group' is a fundamental tenet of the RC's religion.

Obsessed with isolationism (division) because it brings the divisive situations they see as self-justifying

RC's will divide and divide and divide -- all 'justifiable' (of course)

Obsessed with purity (demonstrating Ecc 7:16) because it knows its own heart is impure

A tenet of RC religion is to continually remind others why it is separate; and to spend inordinate amounts of time justifying past divisions; blaming others for past divisions; and searching for new reasons to justify current divisions.

The RC's young tend to be raised up to know that those outside their sect have doctrinal or moral leprosy without any real knowledge of the issues. Therefore it is dogmatism and not enlightened behavior.

Liberalism is based on the vain pursuit of self-justification. While the human nature is inherently self-justifying, it is a trait that can be controlled. The conservative response is to avoid self-justification, though it may be more difficult when critics are waiting at a man's door for blood. Reactionary Conservativism is based on the vain pursuit of self-justification.

They have the need to be admired by their peers and have an inability to handle exclusion or rejection. They may go to almost any extreme to avoid ostracism. They accept exclusion and rejection as a necessity of life -- and believe that in some cases it is desirable. Suffering ostracism is not fun but an unpleasant reality to be accepted.
Ostracism is met with self-justifying scorn.

Outside of its own narrow clique, the reactionary conservative is antisocial.

When RC's gather together 'outsiders' are viewed with suspicion. They are invariably "up to no good".

Some RC's may perceive arguments made against their position as 'hostility' and 'anger'. Some may purposely engage in their own hostile behavior to alienate an 'outsider' from other members of his sect.

Outsiders who are strong and have something to offer but who never join their group are viewed as 'traitors' or 'sell outs'.

Liberals engage in radical individualism -- no limits to personal gratification. The 'happiness' of the individual is more important than the health of the society. Every area of life is modified for 'feel goodism': 'Alternative lifestyles', 'Free love', the druggie culture, vulgar hedonistic Hollywood, 'Sensitivity training', deviant art and music, politically correct science, socialism, anti-war movements, multi-cultural education, feel-good religion.
Conservatives, as Will Durant said, are the "brakes (and steering wheel) on the car". Conservatives, while stressing self-reliance, see the health of the society as more important than the desires of any one individual. Unrestrained individualism is seen as the bane of society.
Reactionary conservatives engage in radical individualism. Where liberalism's unrestrained individualism is mostly associated with immorality, reactionary conservativism's unrestrained individualism is more of an asceticism.

The self-satisfaction of the RC individual is more important than the health of the society. Every area of life is modified for conformance to the standards expected of the pious reactionary conservative (Matt 23:5; Ecc 7:16).

Absolute control is a hallmark of liberal thinking. Liberalism wants control for control's sake. Not that they have any ideas of where they want to lead others to. They merely know where they don't want their group to go. The nemesis of RC characteristics provide suitable fodder to scare naive liberal followers.

Liberals are masters of controlling language. Countless euphemisms are to be credited to liberal efforts to control the definitions of words. At one time liberals were known as 'radicals' but they have now successfully changed the word to mean 'far right'. They like to speak of themselves as "progressives" and speak of the "march to progress" -- which is a euphemism for control.

Control begins with self and radiates outward with lowering degrees of responsibility.

You control what the Scriptures say you can and should control.

Control for control's sake is not following Christ's example of being 'servant of all'.

Absolute control is a hallmark of RC thinking. Control is premised on controlling the RC group. Control begins with the group and radiates in to the individual.

RCs groups tend to have one or more strong leaders who have control of the whole group. Centralized control of the group is necessary to maintain 'purity'.

For example, meeting with 'outsiders' for Bible study is a 'no no' -- even if the RC and the 'outsider' hold nearly identical beliefs (outside of RC characteristics). And if a meeting is held, the RC must be the leader.

In RC groups even public gospel proclamation activities maybe forbidden to individuals unless controlled by established authority. After all, all 'outsiders' need to be sufficiently vetted by the group to maintain total 'purity'.

Activism is engaged in under the guise of some 'good cause' but the reality is that the activism makes the individual feel superior and it enhances their public image. This is the vocal minority with a large, sometimes unwilling, audience.

Liberals are more likely to have bumper stickers. Not just one but a lot. Gems of wisdom like "Question authority".
Activism is rarely engaged in but when it is, it is because the person engaging in it finds those particular values of some redeeming quality, for self and society. Conservatives are the silent majority.
Activism is engaged in, but the activism is not outreach activism as in the case of liberalism, but usually public stands for the RC position, in the absence of anyone but the already converted, or curious outsiders. This is a vocal minority who has, essentially, no audience.

Reactionary conservatives, if they had bumper stickers, might read, "Purity of Fellowship", "Total Unity Here and Now", "Central 'Brethren' Fellowship Heretics"

Appeals tend to be based on emotion, not a balanced presentation of pros and cons. Here and now.

Liberals, in general, are more willing to engage in propaganda, obfuscation, distortions -- what is now whitewashed under the label of "spin". It is also called "lying for the truth".

For the liberal, the end justifies the means: "And finally [I wondered] whether a noble end justified somewhat doubtful means. At this point I fancied it might" (New York Times 'reporter', homosexual and Soviet propagandist Walter Duranty).

Scientific, political, religious and cultural frauds are frequently perpetrated by liberals, yet mostly forgotten because the liberal media celebrates the Walter Durantys, Rachel Carsons, Noam Chomskys, Alex Haleys, Ward Churchills, and Alfred Kinseys of the world.

Conservatives, are more interested in long term results. What happens down the road?

Conservatives, as a rule, do not engage in warfare using the same tactics as liberals.

For example, conservatives will resign from an office whereas a liberal wouldn't even think of stepping down.

The (lawful) means justify the end.

The past justifies the present and the present justifies the past.

Appeals tend to be based on a long list of twisted facts, carefully chosen to 'prove' the correctness of the RC's position. It is not a balanced presentation of pros and cons or genuine history.

Reactionary conservatives, because they are already intellectually compromised, are more likely to use liberal tactics.

RCs are more willing to engage in propaganda, obfuscation, distortions -- what is now whitewashed under the label of "spin".

Liberal's have a hard time hearing what you are saying because they are, generally, more concerned either with what they will say next, or how ignorant you are about 'the issues'. RC's have a hard time hearing what you actually are saying because they are too busy looking for what they think you would be saying. Discussions with an RC may be difficult to impossible. In discussions with the 'outsider' they may see hostility and anger where none exists.

Liberals rarely care about the results of the policies they advocate. More important is that they be seen as as having good intentions. Because of this, liberals are quicker to act.

Conservatives focus on results and are more cautious about taking action where the results are unclear.
Reactionary conservatives rarely care about the results of the policies they advocate. More important is that they demonstrate for themselves and anyone who will pay attention, that they were right, are right and will be right. Because of this, RCs are slow to take any action outside of self-justifying activism.

All division is evil Fleshly division is sinful. The divisions God creates dare not be removed. All division is justifiable (especially when personalities clash).

Liberals, more so than the other two groups, has a leaning to 'reuse' the works of others, even if plagiarism is involved.
RC's tend to have the 'not invented here' syndrome. If a work or works come from an 'outsider' -- even if they are useful -- they may be shunned, or evil spoken of, or if used, uncredited. To acknowledge outside help would be to admit that 'Camelot' is insufficient or flawed. Burning 'outsider' works (even though they are doctrinally sound and really useful) are spoken of by the most rash.

Because the worldview of liberalism is one that justifies 'darkness', intellectual and moral, liberalism views 'fellowship' in very broad terms. There are few, if any, boundaries, and the liberal will look for ways to broaden 'fellowship'. 'Fellowship' in this context is so watered down it means nothing.
1) The conservative sees fellowship as premised on fellowship with God (1John 1:3-7).

2) Christ and Belial cannot be joined (2Co 6:15) "for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Romans 9:6)

3) Fellowship is a relationship and action, not an Institution as the RC sees it. God has only one body (Eph 4:4) and man-made names do not establish that body.

4) In the Scriptures there was never a command, warning, suggestion or innuendo to establish a new 'fellowship'. While many, throughout the world may be claiming the name of Christ, the conservative understands that Paul never advised anyone to create a new "fellowship" -- even though all Asia had forsaken him. Likewise, he understands that in dealing with ecclesias at each end of the spectrum, Christ never advised any of them, including those with false teachers, to create "a new fellowship" (Rev 2, 3). Christ plainly says there were "a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy."

5) “But among the Laodiceans the Antipas are not found. Their existence is a supposition, as, 'If any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him, and he with me.' The Satan was triumphant there, and the faithful witnesses reduced to such an insignificant minority as to be noticeable in the prophecy only as an hypothesis. They were 'a contemptible few' not submerged in 'the depths of the Satan as they speak;' but not enough of them to save the ecclesia from being spued out of the Spirit's mouth.” (John Thomas, Eureka)

The RC's view of fellowship is sectarian. Fellowship is an Institution -- a Church. A Pure, Worldwide Fellowship is the 'fellowship' an RC seeks to achieve (One can only wonder why Paul handled the Corinthians as he did; or why Christ handled the weak and sick ecclesias of the Apocalypse the way he did. In neither case were faithful brethren in those ecclesias accused of having fellowship with errorists -- the constant refrain of RC's.

In trying to prove their purity of fellowship, the RC proves too much for if at any time any individual in the group holds doctrinal error or moral impurity then he or she 'pollutes' the whole group -- therefore at any given time the whole group must be 'polluted'.

One wonders why the Lord's description of the final state of the true ecclesia in Rev. 3:17 does not match the RC's claims about his own community. There is a serious disconnect here which the RC cannot see because the conclusion of this point is fatal to the RC premise -- that a pure, or even semi-pure 'fellowship' can co-exist with mortality.

The RC must apply the words of Christ, "when the son of man cometh, shall he find faith" to only those outside his own community.

If Israel of old is a type of the ecclesia, as most brethren will admit, how is it that the RC will not apply this continual straying from sound doctrine and lifestyle to his own community? The RC is quite adept at applying this to all outside his own community.

When faced with fundamental error, the RC may conclude that starting a new Institution is the best solution. 'Earnestly contending for faith' and not 'fleeing' from the wolf are not options unless the RC believes he has full control.

For all the searching for iniquity within 'outsider' communities the RC engages in, one wonders how much self-sacrificing love exists; how much self-sacrifice has been manifested; how much grief exists for a perishing people? How much wine and oil have been applied? Or is he just counting how many stones he has thrown?

I should note that individuals do not necessarily fit into one of the above categories 100% of the time -- most do not. A liberal may find himself behaving as a conservative would on one or more particular issues for example. It all depends on the thinking of the individual on a given issue. However, liberals tend to be liberal. Conservatives tend to be conservative. Reactionary conservatives tend to be reactionary conservatives.

Types of these individuals are found in the Scripture. But again, no individual is likely going to be aligned 100% with these stereotypical characteristics. Jezebel and her extremes were a manifestation of self-centered Liberalism. To a lesser degree was her husband Ahab.

Jehu, and to a lesser degree Joab, fit the reactionary conservative mold -- generally on the right side but the zeal was misplaced and did not mature into genuine fruit. If I might add, I would not be surprised to have modern RC's disagree because proof that the RC exists indicates a middle position they would recognize they are not in. So it would, in a twisted logic, be mischaracterized as 'lukewarmness' &c. But it is not self-centeredness -- both principles of the far left and the far right -- that we are striving to achieve.

The Core Principle of Liberalism

While there are many different causes and manifestations of liberalism, whether it is culturally, politically, or religiously manifested, liberalism is quite simple to understand:

it is an ideology that refuses to condemn, or engages in the promotion of, that which is wrong or sinful. It is a manifestation of the natural state of man: an uncircumcised fleshly mind which abhors the condemnation of sin.

It is a manifestation of man's natural thinking. It is based on human emotion and human instinct.

The problem with this is that God's plan of salvation is based on the condemnation of sin. Without a condemnation of sin, there can be no declaration of God's righteousness -- the two statements are closely related, though in one sense, opposite expressions.

In the case of Neville Chamberlain at the Croyden Airport in 1939, England was in no position to fight a war. Everyone knew this, most of all Winston Churchill. But the difference between a Chamberlain and a Churchill is that Churchill knew that pacification against tyranny -- that is, a failure to stand up against what was wrong -- was only an promissory note for English slavery payable at a future day to one Herr Hitler.

The Cure for Liberalism

" Let no man deceive himself.
If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world,
let him become a fool, that he may be wise." (1 Corinthians 3:18)

My interest is not to cure cultural or political liberals, though such a change would be welcome. Rather, the foolishness and deceptiveness of liberalism will not be eradicated from the earth till Christ returns and restores sanity to the world (Rev 18:3-8).

Liberalism is not easy to cure because liberalism is not arrived at by conscientious choice. Liberalism is a destination arrived at by force of wrong choices, in the face of unwanted alternatives, circumstances, and emotionally charged situations that lead the individual to liberal ideology. In some cases the person may even believe they had "no choice" -- whereas the truth is more likely that they did, but it was not appealing to the emotional demands or sensitivities of the individual.

Worse, the liberal mind believes he/she has arrived at liberalism by intelligent choices. They are so convinced of the superiority of their way of thinking that they view the "bourgeois", "unwashed masses", or common man, as an inferior class of humanity. The liberal is so convinced of his superior intellect and methods that he considers himself "enlightened".

You cannot just sit down with a person whose mind is given over to liberalism, lay out the facts that demonstrate where they are wrong, hold an intelligent discussion to clarify any particulars, and walk away with a converted mind. It won't happen for one reason. The reason is that it is emotion that brings a person to liberal ideology. It is emotion that keeps them there. The striking characteristic of liberalism is that facts do not matter. You can recite a litany of facts to a liberal minded person and he probably won't be influenced, except in one way: he/she will conclude that you are a hard unfeeling unloving person -- because you cite such "hard" facts. But notice that in this situation the liberal has unconsciously concluded that facts equals "hard" "unfeeling" and "unloving", or put another way, "facts" = "evil". Welcome to the world of liberal thinking!

However, it is worth setting forth how a liberal thinking individual could theoretically be cured.

The first step of curing any disease is for the person to recognize the affliction. The person must recognize that their world view has been shaped by many experiences and events that have lead them to view things as they do; that their view has been driven by emotional and not by intelligent, Biblically reasoned, thoughtful choices.

That the evidence of this is found in those verses of the Bible that they either ignore or wrest. That Bible facts/the Word of God and the Words of Christ must be faced -- now or later.

That God, while He is a God of Grace, is not a God of unlimited Grace. He is also a Holy God and a God of Judgment. One must recognize that God's righteousness will be justified (shown to be right) in judgment -- upon individuals and nations.

Recognize and accept that 'life isn't fair' and that it was not designed to be fair. That the inequalities that exist were made to exist to give man room to exercise free-will and/or self-will.

That the condemnation of sin in one's life is a necessity. That one must come to terms with the fact that they are sinful; that they are not superior to others; that they are not the most intelligent persons in the world. That they have and will continue to commit sins. That they must do all in their power to resist sin, through application of the Word and prayer. That God is glorified and justified in the act of the condemnation of sin.

That sin therefore is not to be whitewashed or coddled in any way, whether it belongs to one's own person, or to another, no matter how dear and close they may be.

That if others are unwilling to take the appropriate steps in dealing with sin, that they must be helped, for their own sake and for others, to see the required steps for forgiveness and justification.

That life presents everyone difficult choices and that in the future, conclusions must be driven by thoughtful, prayerful effort and not emotional or sentimental demands.

Reactionary Conservativism in the Ecclesia -- Causes

The reactionary conservative, like his liberal relation, conveniently applies one set of principles ('strait is the way') to the exclusion of others: patience, long-suffering, self-sacrifice, agape, and so forth. The core principles of liberalism and reactionary conservativism are directly opposite -- the first a broad minded self-justifying humanistic philosophy, the other a narrow-minded ascetic self-justifying one. Yet in the working out of their beliefs, the two share some common characteristics as the chart above shows. "Extremes meet and embrace".

The list of causes is greatly diminished for the reactionary conservative. He is almost invariably non-affluent, and his asceticism would more likely turn riches away if they came to hand, or if he embraced them he would be forced to leave the reactionary conservative plantation. Like the liberal, the reactionary conservative is unwittingly engaging in self-justification.

Where the liberal mind sees all division as evil, the reactionary conservative views all division as justifiable. Piety is proved by his excessive (and unjustifiable) exclusivity.

Reactionary Conservativism in the Ecclesia -- Results

The results of the reactionary conservative are simple: schism. He is an isolationist by nature, and his intellect just happens to find plenty of reasons he must separate from others. The reactionary conservative will divide, and subdivide till he perhaps becomes disturbed by how few people are in his Fellowship. It seems to have never occurred to the reactionary conservative, that room for growth must be allowed -- even as God has longsufferingly shown the RC so many years of patience and care.

The Cure for Reactionary Conservativism

Reactionary Conservativism is not easy to cure either because it is not arrived at by conscientious choice. Like liberalism, it too is arrived at by force of wrong choices, and circumstances. And like the liberal minded person, the reactionary conservative believes that they arrived at their position by years of growth and intelligent choice. One could recite a litany of opposing facts and the reactionary conservative will only be convinced that you are a 'bleeding heart liberal'.

A short list cure for reactionary conservativism includes:

A recognition that God created the ecclesia for a purpose

That the ecclesia is a place where trials will inevitably come (1 Co 11:19)

That no ecclesia is composed of perfect sinless individuals (1Jo 1:10)

That the basis for patience is the patience and longsuffering God has shown to us (Matt 7:2)

That there is only one Fellowship, while there are many "Fellowships" (1Joh 1:7)

Conclusion

As the reader will see, liberalism and reactionary conservativism are opposite extremes but share many similarities. People only find truth when they seek for it (Pro 2:3; Luke 11:9). Where minds are already made up, any new information will only be construed or ignored to fit predetermined outcomes and conclusions.

Incidentally, if the reader is a liberal, he will probably assess the author of this document as a reactionary conservative. If the reader is a reactionary conservative, he will probably assess the author of this document as a liberal. If that is your assessment then I close with this thought: having exposed both deceptions, I lay this last evidence at your feet and rest my case.

By Stephen Genusa

Home

Footnotes:

¹ The philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved
² The Victorian era ended in 1901. I hope no Christadelphian is so challenged by the English language that he has trouble understanding 1901 or 1877 English.
³ Support for union on this basis is not necessarily driven by liberalism. Ignorance of differences also contributes to this. ⁴ Never was a great empire built by effeminate elitists though great empires were ended by them.
⁵ Children are not taught respect of authority; or they lose respect for authority. They increasingly see themselves as 'the authority'. When therefore they have limited power or no power at all they may become increasingly radical in their attempts to effect change.

Other References:

Hoodwinked: How Intellectual Hucksters Have Hijacked American Culture by Jack Cashill
Leftists by George Irbe
The Motivation of Political Leftists by John J. Ray

Liberalism, when stripped of all its paraphernalia, is nothing more than an ideology that refuses to condemn, or engages in the promotion of, that which is wrong or sinful. It is a manifestation of the natural state of man: an uncircumcised fleshly mind.

The striking characteristic of liberalism, and reactionary conservativism, is that facts do not matter.