Traditionalism, Conservativism, and Liberalism - Glenn Conjurske
Traditionalism, Conservatism, and Liberalism
Introduction
Many of the battles which have raged in the church over the centuries have had to do with change—one side contending for change, and the other side resisting it. In this article, I aim to set forth the principles which are embodied in those conflicts. How much change is allowable? What kind of change? For what reasons? Such questions have been at the center of many of the conflicts which have rent the church for centuries. Those conflicts have been over music, over dress, over textual criticism, over Bible versions, over education, and over numerous other weighty matters. I leave strictly theological battles for the most part out of the question, for the same principles will not always apply to them which apply in other matters. I speak rather of customs and usages, of ways and means, of habits, practices, and standards. I do not intend to speak of the details of particular controversies, except only insofar as I may use them to illustrate the principles of which I wish to speak.
The Question of Change
The question of change immediately divides the church into several opposing camps. Some are traditionalists. Others are liberals. Others are conservatives. Traditionalism and liberalism are opposite extremes. Conservatism does not lie midway between them, but leans decidedly toward the traditional side. There may be a fourth position, between conservatism and liberalism, and leaning toward the liberal side. Those who wish to pursue such a distinction in their own thinking may define the resulting four positions as traditionalism, conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism. They may also wish to define a neutral position, midway between the two extremes, but for the present I desire to keep the matter simpler, defining only three positions, while granting that liberalism may exist in varying degrees. There may be varying degrees in the other positions also, and the same man may, in fact, be a traditionalist in one matter, and a liberal in another.
Defining the Terms
But I must define my terms:
- Liberalism is determined upon change.
- Traditionalism is immune to change.
- Conservatism is cautious of change. It is resistant to change, though not immune to it. It wants no change but what is clearly necessary, and clearly beneficial. In theory, the liberal also may want only such change as is clearly necessary, but, as we shall see, he has entirely different ideas about what constitutes necessity.
The Value of Conservatism
Now, of these three positions, I have no hesitation in saying that conservatism is the one which, generally speaking, embodies both truth and wisdom. Traditionalism is doctrinally false, misapprehending entirely the ways of the Lord. Liberalism is generally as destitute of truth and wisdom as it is full of pride and self-sufficiency. It takes little account of either the works of God or the nature of man.
The Foundation of Traditionalism
There are, of course, reasons behind these diverse positions, and those reasons are the actual matter of importance. Traditionalism is against change because it embodies the doctrine that God wrought in perfection in the past, while He no longer works at all today. It does not, of course, suppose that God no longer works in any respect, but that He has nothing more to do in those spheres in which He has already perfected His work. He is supposed to have led our fathers perfectly, so that He might lead their children not at all. He taught our fathers the whole truth, with the result that He may teach their children nothing at all.
The Problems with Traditionalism
It may be that the traditionalist does not occupy such a position consciously or purposely, but it is nevertheless his actual position. These suppositions belong to the foundation of traditionalism. This is the ruling principle of traditionalism, and the more closely we examine it, the more plainly it appears that the whole of it is based upon very shallow thinking. It not only limits the working of God to the past, but generally to a very narrow period of the past, and to that narrow period it ascribes perfection—or something so near perfection as to leave no room for change. It is really amazing, and sometimes amusing, to see the grave divines of the Presbyterian persuasion for three centuries ascribing perfection to the Westminster Confession. In their view, that Confession embodied the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It was their infallible standard, to which the Bible itself was subjected. The Westminster Confession was viewed not as the work of fallible men, such as we are, but as the work of God. But mark, such a view of the matter supposes that in the matter of establishing the truth, the God who wrought but imperfectly from the beginning of the dispensation, took it upon Himself to work in perfection in 1646, that He might not work at all till the end of time. It seems never to have entered their minds that the God who taught the framers of that Confession might teach us something which He did not teach them. The truth was forever settled, and there was nothing for us to do but maintain the standard. There is no reason in this.
The King James Version and Traditionalism
The same shallow thinking lies at the bottom of the modern King-James-Only position, which embodies the same sort of traditionalism. This doctrine supposes that the God who for hundreds of years, in spite of all of His promises, contented Himself with imperfect English versions, took it upon Himself to secure perfection in 1611, that He (and we) might have nothing more to do in that sphere till the end of time.
Yet a little thought might teach us that the same processes are always at work both before and after that narrow period to which the traditionalist ascribes perfection, but those processes which he holds to have secured perfection at a certain narrow period of time, he holds to have been imperfect before that period, and invalid after it. The same reasoning processes, the same study of Scripture, the same prayer and meditation and consultation which produced the Westminster Confession were at work both before and after its production, yet those same processes which produced perfection in 1646 are held to be imperfect or invalid at all other times. Likewise, the same means of linguistic and theological studies which produced the King James Version were at work both before and after its production, yet those studies which produced perfection in 1611 (or perfected perfection in 1789) produced only imperfection before that date, and have been invalid ever since. I repeat, there is no reason in this.
Pride at the Heart of Traditionalism
Ah, but here the traditionalist will balk. He does not believe that those same processes have ever been at work, except in that narrow period of time in which his infallible standard was produced. He will make all that he can of the pre-eminent godliness, spirituality, wisdom, and learning of the men who produced his infallible standard, but (inconsistently enough) deny that it was that which secured the perfection. Above all of those natural and spiritual qualifications of the men who wrought in the business, he finds some special working of God—some special providence or outpouring of the Spirit—which he must attribute solely to the production of his own standards, and deny it to all others before or since.
And here we arrive at the taproot of all traditionalism, which is nothing other than pride. Traditionalism is the short road to establishing the divinity of our own standards. It gives divine sanction to our own ways, our own customs, our own denomination, our own creed. Whether it is Quaker dress, Mennonite culture, Brethren principles, the Keswick platform, charismatic revelations, the Westminster Confession, the Textus Receptus, the Scottish Psalter, or the King James Version, traditionalism puts the stamp of divinity upon our own standards, and condemns all others as debased or deficient. This is pride, and this is bigotry.
The Laziness of Traditionalism
But more. Traditionalism is not only proud, but usually lazy also. It is a very comfortable position. There is great security in it. It saves us from the necessity of thinking. It secures us from the difficult and unpleasant task of wrestling with knotty problems. It exempts us from the travail which our fathers endured in order to produce the standards to which we hold. We rest easy in the divinity of our own position, saying in effect, “I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing,” and it will be a wonder if the Lord does not respond that we are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked—for traditionalists very commonly hold to an empty shell, after all the life and power are gone out of it.
The Transfer of Authority in Traditionalism
But empty or not, traditionalism always involves a transfer of authority from the infallible Scriptures to some work of fallible man, on the supposition that the work of man is the work of God, and the only true representation of the Scriptures. The Scriptures themselves are of course appealed to, and so long as there is no discrepancy between the perfect standard which God has given, and the imperfect substitute which men have set up, there is no difficulty. But wherever the two conflict, the divine standard is subjected to the human. Traditionalists, of course, proceed upon the assumption that there can be no conflict between their standards and the Scriptures, as both are of God, but in this they are as naive as they are mistaken, and to maintain the mistake they must often close their eyes to the facts. This shutting of the eyes is indeed one of the most prominent characteristics of the modern King-James-Only movement, which constantly denies facts, invents, contorts, and misrepresents them, rewrites history, and even condemns the recognition of facts as unbelief and rationalism. All this is the natural fruit of traditionalism.
The Risks of Liberalism
The cults in general are founded upon traditionalism, for it is common with them to exalt the work of their human founder to the place of absolute authority. Romanism goes further, claiming a continuing infallibility for its popes and counsels, and it ought to be a lesson to all traditionalists to observe to what lengths Romanism must go in falsifying or suppressing the facts of history in order to maintain its position. Mormonism is in the same predicament, and alas, so are our own brethren of the King-James-Only persuasion. While we love them as our brethren in Christ, and love the King James Version as the very life of most of the spiritual Christianity which has existed among English peoples for nearly four centuries, we cannot give the least countenance to a system which must falsify the facts in order to maintain its existence. Some among these people have now begun to decry the misrepresentation of facts by others of their number, but how can they escape the same charge themselves? Their system requires it of them. It belongs to the essence of traditionalism to be obliged to circumvent either the plain statements of Scripture or the plain facts of history, and so to sacrifice honesty in order to maintain what is held to be faith. This ought to open the eyes of traditionalists to the falsehood of their position, for it is certain that the truth of God makes no such demands upon the conscience.
Conclusion
But mark, we do not accuse all traditionalists of conscious dishonesty. Many of them may be honestly ignorant of the facts, but it is a sorry system which can only be maintained by ignorance or dishonesty.