Conservative - Liberal spectrum

The current discussion regarding the QBC made me curious about the how conservative or liberal participants in these forums regard themselves. So I want to ask some basic perspective questions. I know we'll have enough love and consideration not to zap folks down because they're on the other end of the spectrum. Similarly, I think we can have enough humility to know that "liberal" is not a dirty word if we're conservative, and "conservative" is not a dirty word if we're liberal. Finally, please don't pick decimal numbers. "A scale of 1 to 10" involves an even number of possible responses; 5 is closer to 1 than to 10; so there's no sitting on the fence! Smile

So, I'd like to know:

1. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being most conservative and 10 being most liberal (however you want to define these terms and however you regard the average), where do you put yourself?

2. On the same scale using the same definitions as in question 1, where do you see the average Logos user.

3. On the same scale using the same definitions as in question 1, where do you see Faithlife as an entity?

Thanks!

Lew

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Well at least the QBC was a resource question/suggestion. This would be maybe a software glitch?

It's naive to use a 'scale'. I'm conservative relative to the evangelicals. But they'd say I'm liberal since I don't agree with them.

Goodness, Lew?

Rich DeRuiter

I won't classify myself with these categories as how one defines the terms "liberal" and "conservative" vary so widely that it quickly becomes unhelpful. Liberal about what? Conservative about what? Nowadays, terms like "Evangelical" or "Mainline" are losing some of their meaning. I was even part of a discussion (off these forums) where there was a battle of words over "Reformed" vs "Calvinist" (with some claiming to be Reformed but not Calvinists -- I don't get it either).

In short, such classifications are often so esoteric as to be useless.

Further, this really has nothing to do with how to use Logos software, nor is it a suggestion for what Logos ought to include or change.

MJ. Smith

Assuming the standard social science division of conservative=conserve the status quo and liberal=change the status quo .... and assuming only in the religious context ...

I'd love to participate but I have a problem. Two priests who knew me well would describe me as so conservative as to be positive Mediaeval which is our society is mistaken for liberal. And, as taught by my very academic grandfather whose was interested in everyone and everything, I find that curiosity and suspension of judgment is often taken as liberal in these forums. So I would self rate as a 3 and expect many on the forum to rate me 9 [:)]

I can't rate the average Logos user but the average forum regular I'd rate around 3 with a vocal handful who would push into negative numbers. - or perhaps imaginary numbers as they wish to preserve a past that is so idealized as to have never existed.

Faithlife as an entity I cannot rate, only its target market which is in a state of flux. They were a 3 but are edging close to a 4 and clearly have a mixed goal of a neutral 5 on the resources offered and a 3 on the resources they publish themselves. This strikes me as a very evenhanded way to broaden their market share while sticking to what they know and serving their (current) largest market.

But then again, if I were writing the original post I'd be more apt to warn that "conservative" wasn't a dirty term. (just kidding). But Rich is right - this belongs on ChristianDiscourse.com more than the Logos forums.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707500#Comment_707500

Just slightly off-topic: I am tagging my library and I haven't found a good English term to a sort of diplomatic middle theology that many pastors use in a state church to keep the audience happy. It sounds conservative but it is not particularly biblical nor liberal, and is not intended to start any religious awakening. Could you suggest a suitable short tag for that kind of theology?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707514#Comment_707514

wishy-washy? [:D]

Matthew C Jones

So, I'd like to know:

FWIW

me, 2
others, 7
Faithlife, 6

Rayner

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being most conservative and 10 being most liberal (however you want to define these terms and however you regard the average), where do you put yourself?

I can't answer this because I don't really see discipleship as a sliding scale. Is belief that Jesus is present in bread and wine liberal or conservative? What about Christian pacifism? Where do views on, say, birth control fit in? Or is conservatism about biblical infallibility? Or papal infallibility? Or belief in evolution? There is a political compass that at allows for movement across four quadrants which I think would be more useful here.

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707540#Comment_707540

I really do not know how to answer this.. I affirm fully the tenants of the Nicene and Apostles Creeds... This would tied me firmly into the more conservative spectrum. I do not read the Bible as a Black and White rule book but a guide as to How best love God fully and neighbour as self. It is easier to live in a world of absolutes, but then if you do you would often be standing against Jesus historically... I personally follow very much Tony Campola who once told the draft board he could only do What Jesus Would Do, who caused them to respond Jesus is not going to kill someone. The notion of Birth control and abortion were not topics too far thought of to cause a miscarriage in the OT had a penally that was very low, masturbation to avoid fulfilling ones duty in leverite marriages was seen as a grave sin. I personally would not make abortion illegal but at the same point I would not likely encourage anyone to procure one. God is infallible men who were used by God to write the Bible and transmit it were and are. Evolution is not the enemy of the Bible nor incompatible with it. Although some ardent supports on both extremes would disagree.

-Dan

EastTN

It depends on who I'm standing next to [:P]

Scott E. Mahle

So, I'd like to know:

1. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being most conservative and 10 being most liberal (however you want to define these terms and however you regard the average), where do you put yourself?

2. On the same scale using the same definitions as in question 1, where do you see the average Logos user.

3. On the same scale using the same definitions as in question 1, where do you see Faithlife as an entity?

1. 2

2. 5

3. 5

others, 7

That was an interesting choice . . . really? Hmmmm . . .

(‾◡◝)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707514#Comment_707514

Just slightly off-topic: I am tagging my library and I haven't found a good English term to a sort of diplomatic middle theology that many pastors use in a state church to keep the audience happy. It sounds conservative but it is not particularly biblical nor liberal, and is not intended to start any religious awakening. Could you suggest a suitable short tag for that kind of theology?

Vanilla.

fgh

Good thing MJ answered before me: I was so sure the scale would be liberal 1, conservative 10 that I misread it as such. (Public confession: I was, in fact, so sure of it that I first assumed she was the one who'd misread.[:$])

OK, then, turning my first intuitive rating upside down:

1) Between 1 and 2.[:)]

2) Hard to know since we're not supposed to discuss our theology, but given that I consider Protestantism to be a very liberal movement, and Evangelicalism to be an extremely liberal movement, and wouldn't dream of giving anything below 7 to anyone who denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I'm guessing the vast majority of forum regulars would fall somewhere between 7 and 8.[:D]

3) Probably about the same. Though I would hope the Verbum department to be somewhat lower.[:)]

Now you know why you shouldn't ask this kind of question on the forums...[:)]

Bruce Dunning

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707499#Comment_707499

In short, such classifications are often so esoteric as to be useless.

I am of the same opinion. Definition of terms vary so greatly that I would not want to classify myself, others or Faithlife.

Tanner Thetford

Wow, glad I read a bit. I'll give you where I thought I was at and why, then where I would adjust myself.

When I first read, I thought:

1. 5

2. 3

3. 4

I consider myself to be pretty conservative theologically. However, I am happy to read liberals and glean what I can from them. I'm happy to read secular philosophers and other religions as well and glean what I can. I have seen some backlash in some of the materials that Faithlife has offered before and I was frankly surprised to see it.

As such I figured that Faithlife themselves were slightly more liberal than their customer demographic (at least the vocal majority), and yet I was slightly more liberal than even Faithlife, wanting them to offer much more.

After reading others' responses however, I think I would revise my answers to:

1. 2

2. 3

3. 4

Rather than thinking in terms of broad reading spectrum, I am thinking more of inclusive/exclusiveness of beliefs and faith. I believe in inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, that practicing homosexuality is a sin, and I am complementarian in my view of men and women in the church (not arguing for any of these, just providing context). These all strike me as more consistent with conservative values than liberal ones.

That said, I don't think one absorbs heresy through osmosis. I don't think that you can only go to heaven if your theology is perfect or if it lines up with mine (not saying my theology is perfect). And I think the Harry Potter series is a good bit of fun. Maybe I am a 3, not sure.

Good thought provoking question, thanks!

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707755#Comment_707755

Someone asserted that protestantism is a liberal movement. we southern baptists (at least the ones I know, not sure about ST and others on the forum) are a bit of reform, and a bit of restoration. while I don't argue for the trail of blood - I do believe we have returned as far as we can to belief in the things, and in the way the NT authors believed.

In that sense then, we would be the conservatives.

I suspect most of us on the forum (though maybe not unix) would argue our positions are pretty close to what Jesus himself believed.

I would argue I'm about a 2 in terms of adherence to what Jesus + the disciples believed (1 in that schema would probably be arrogant - 2 may be as well, but I do try hard...).

The average forum person is probably a 5-7. Faithlife is pretty conservative as well, maybe 3 or 4 based upon what I know. Perhaps more liberal than I am, but not liberal at all really. Nor liberal compared to the average person on here.

But who knows. When we get to heaven, maybe i will find out I was a 7 all along, and Unix or MJ, or Denise a 2...

Alan Macgregor

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707514#Comment_707514

Just slightly off-topic: I am tagging my library and I haven't found a good English term to a sort of diplomatic middle theology that many pastors use in a state church to keep the audience happy. It sounds conservative but it is not particularly biblical nor liberal, and is not intended to start any religious awakening. Could you suggest a suitable short tag for that kind of theology?

In the Church of Scotland we call such people "Churchmen". Whether that means anything outside the Church of Scotland I have no idea.

Every blessing

Alan

Lew Worthington

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707755#Comment_707755

I want to thank you all for the responses. As many have pointed out, such categories can be misleading. Further, some have even called these categories as "useless", which is generally true as a set of theological/ethical/biblical-interpretive silos into which people or ideas fit. I would go so far as to say that one of the most worrisome psychological tendencies is "categorical thinking" whereby we generalize what people are based on a small number of tags we put on them. We all do it. And labeling people "conservative" or "liberal" (always a relative term, anyway) can be "useless" as a means of understanding what they believe or who they are.

But that was not what I was after. I really wanted to see how people saw themselves, and for this reason, I think responses have been extremely helpful for me. (I would think, for marketing purposes, such an understanding might be helpful for FL, too. This topic was one of the core issues surrounding the discussion of the QBC.) And it's helpful for me to understand FL's perspective because of the resources they offer. I love that they are starting to offer resources of perspectives that do not completely overlap their apparent theological perspective. As a tool for preparing serious academic work, Logos would be greatly enhanced if it could provide a broader spectrum of viewpoints. Take a look, for example, at the March Madness authors. Many great scholars, to be sure, but a very large number of them are evangelicals. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but in the scholarly debate that takes place in papers and books, it's required to present other sides to even be conversant about what the issues are.

Furthermore, in spite of the legendary uselessness of such categories, certain tendencies are revealed simply by the vocabulary that one uses. For example, the use of the word "heresy" or "error" or "correct" when discussing one's theology reveals something beyond just the content of that theology, per se. Likewise, to focus on things like feminist hermeneutics or third world ideologies also reflects something about the respondent. And, in my view, it's all good.

Finally, a bit of self-disclosure. I intentionally did not provide my own numbers because I thought it might dampen the discussion. But I will say that my situation is a bit complex because my biblical interpretation is pretty conservative, and because of that, theologically, I'm fairly liberal. Some would find this an oxymoron, but I assure you, I'm much more "oxys" than I am "moros", and I have given my perspectives a lifetime of thought and reflection. So here are my numbers:

Me: 7

Others: 3

Faithlife: 2

And isn't it interesting how the "average" is a function of how we see ourselves?

http://www.robertburns.org/works/97.shtml

With deep love and respect,

Lew

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707789#Comment_707789

interesting article that is sort of related, finds that liberal denominations in protestant circles are on the decline.

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/factchecker-are-all-christian-denominations-in-decline

Lee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707514#Comment_707514

Veli Voipio

I would say the "Itching Ears" Theology. I say that because I take it that the state church wants to keep them happy but not teach the truth of the Bible. But that is me..

Rosie Perera

I am not going to venture an answer about myself or Logos users or Faithlife.

But I will note that the fact that this thread has so far not blown up into a huge debate is a sign that Logos users on the whole (at least the ones participating in this thread so far) are moving more towards the center of the scale than would have been the case a few years ago. There was a time when any mention of "liberal" or "conservative" or openness to dialogue with people of other perspectives than "conservative" would have brought out quite a bit of animosity, judgement, name-calling, and attempts to convert each other. I'm glad to see that it no longer does that. We've come a long way, baby!

abondservant

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707851#Comment_707851

I am not going to venture an answer about myself or Logos users or Faithlife.

But I will note that the fact that this thread has so far not blown up into a huge debate is a sign that Logos users on the whole (at least the ones participating in this thread so far) are moving more towards the center of the scale than would have been the case a few years ago. There was a time when any mention of "liberal" or "conservative" or openness to dialogue with people of other perspectives than "conservative" would have brought out quite a bit of animosity, judgement, name-calling, and attempts to convert each other. I'm glad to see that it no longer does that. We've come a long way, baby!

[Y]

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707851#Comment_707851

We've come a long way, baby!

And Virginia lights up her cigarette..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80GYLwgVxQs

Just remember we are talking about a vocal minority in times past. There has always been a silent majority who have been content to live at peace with others. Just my opinion.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707853#Comment_707853

Just remember we are talking about a vocal minority in times past. There has always been a silent majority who ave been content to live at peace with others. Just my opinion.

That's true. Maybe the vocal minority have all left because they couldn't stand the peace and quiet here. Kumbaya! [:)]

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707514#Comment_707514

Just slightly off-topic: I am tagging my library and I haven't found a good English term to a sort of diplomatic middle theology that many pastors use in a state church to keep the audience happy. It sounds conservative but it is not particularly biblical nor liberal, and is not intended to start any religious awakening. Could you suggest a suitable short tag for that kind of theology?

Thanks for all who answered. I feel the word "circumspect" is the best I've found so far, but it is too long, and maybe not in common use.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707855#Comment_707855

Just remember we are talking about a vocal minority in times past. There has always been a silent majority who ave been content to live at peace with others. Just my opinion.

That's true. Maybe the vocal minority have all left because they couldn't stand the peace and quiet here. Kumbaya!

For what it's worth, I've found that "Militant" vs. "Peaceable" is a different dimension than "Conservative" vs. "Liberal", so you get more of a four quadrant grid with all the combinations (Militant-Conservative, Militant-Liberal, Peaceable-Conservative, Peaceable-Liberal) rather than a single, one-dimensional scale.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707930#Comment_707930

For what it's worth, I've found that "Militant" vs. "Peaceable" is a different dimension than "Conservative" vs. "Liberal", so you get more of a four quadrant grid with all the combinations (Militant-Conservative, Militant-Liberal, Peaceable-Conservative, Peaceable-Liberal) rather than a single, one-dimensional scale.

Good point. So perhaps the militant conservatives and militant liberals have left the forums or moved more towards the peaceable quadrants.

BTW, I love the word peaceable. I wish Faithlife would offer Stanley Hauerwas's book The Peaceable Kingdom.

Some of my favorite verses that use the word are:

"Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone." (Titus 3:1-2, TNIV) Like we've been doing here in this thread.

"But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere." (James 3:17, ESV)

"And the work of righteousness shall be peace;
And the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.
And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habitation,
And in sure dwellings,
And in quiet resting places." (Isaiah 32:17-18, KJV)

"Mark the blameless, and behold the upright,
for there is posterity for the peaceable." (Psalm 37:37, NRSV)

Greg Corbin

While I will not rate myself or others on a scale, I did want to put my two cents worth in. Personally, I am a very theologically conservative Southern Baptist. However, most any degree of theological training and/or diligent study will lead to the understanding of a very broad spectrum of the Christian faith tradition. Logos, as a for profit business, is intentionally seeking to serve a large segment of this very broad spectrum. I have no expectation that Logos will exclusively offer resources that agree with my tradition/viewpoints.

In addition, I have found that Logos gives pretty extensive information regarding resources - including excerpts from the books, etc. They also have a very generous refund/return policy if you aren't satisfied with a resource. These facts empower each Logos user to purchase resources that they feel meets their needs.

That being said, I have found the Logos/Faithlife/Lexham produced resources to be pretty Biblically conservative resources very much in the conservative evangelical vein.

Veli Voipio

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/707961#Comment_707961

...very theologically conservative...

I just wonder whether the word "conservative" may sound like old-fashioned, dilapidated, rusty, molded, out of order, potentially dangerous or so in the secular Europe.

Is there any better word for it? Biblical may do, but is there anything that could better describe the proactive, dynamic of even positively radical nature of the original Christianity?