www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Are you a liberal or conservative

In their mudslinging campaign, the opponents of the hesychast revival have now called the supporters of this tradition conservative. But what does the word conservative mean in the West? In the West, a conservative is someone who still identifies the Bible with Gods revelation to mankind and the world, because in the old days Protestants and Roman Catholics believed in the literal inspiration of Holy Scripture. In other words, they believed that Christ dictated the Bible word for word to the prophets and writers of the gospels by means of the Holy Spirit, so that the writers of the Bible were like scribes who wrote down whatever they heard the Holy Spirit say.

But now Biblical criticism has come along and discredited this line of thought, dividing those in the Protestant world into conservative and liberal camps. For example, the Lutherans are divided into conservative and liberal factions. In America, there are separate Lutheran churches one church for liberals, and the church of the Missouri Synod for conservatives. One faction does not accept the Bible as revelation on absolute terms, while the other faction does. One can also observe the same phenomenon with the Baptists. The liberal Baptists do not accept the Holy Scripture as literally inspired revelation, while the others embrace it as revelation that is inspired word for word. You can also find the same division among the Methodists. In fact, this split between liberals and conservatives over the issue of Holy Scripture can be seen in all the Protestant denominations in America.

Now, ask yourself whether this division can be applied to Orthodox tradition. Are there conservative Fathers and liberal Fathers with respect to the Bible? Is there a single Church Father who teaches the literal inspiration of Holy Scripture? Is there a single Church Father who identifies the Holy Scripture with the experience of theosisitself? No, there is not one, because Gods revelation to mankind is the experience oftheosis. In fact, since revelation is the experience of theosis, an experience that transcends all expressions and concepts, the identification of Holy Scripture with revelation is, in terms of dogmatic theology, pure heresy.

Can someone who accepts this Patristic teaching on theosis be characterized as conservative, based on the split over Scripture in the Protestant world? When liberal Protestants hear about this Patristic principle, they say, oh yes, that’s liberalism! While conservative Protestants say, No, its heresy! In other words, when we follow the Fathers, we Orthodox are heretics as far as conservative Protestants are concerned.

You may well ask, who are the Orthodox liberals and the Orthodox conservatives? They are those who do theology in a way that corresponds to the theology of Protestant liberals and conservatives. This is the reason why certain theologians in Greece have been divided into liberal and conservatives camps. The liberals follow liberal Protestants on these subjects while the conservatives follow their conservative counterparts.

But can we classify Patristic tradition using such characterizations and buzzwords? Of course not. Nevertheless, a hesychast theologian of the Eastern Church will be viewed as a liberal in the West, because he refuses to identify the written text of Holy Scripture, including its sayings and concepts, with revelation.

Since revelation is the experience of theosis, it is beyond comprehension, expression, and conceptualization. This means that the labels conservative or liberal should not be applied to those who adhere to Orthodox tradition. Based on what is meant by revelation, the Fathers are neither liberals nor conservatives. Simply put, there are Church Fathers who are saints of the Church who have only reached illumination and there are saints of the Church who have also reached theosis and are more glorious than the former class of saints.

This is the Patristic tradition either you attain to illumination or you attain to theosisonce you have already passed through illumination. Orthodox tradition is nothing other than this curative course of treatment through which the nous is purified, illumined, and eventually glorified together with the entire man, if God so wills. Therefore, is there such a thing as an illumined liberal or an illumined conservative in this context? Of course not. You are either illumined or you are not. You have either reached theosis or you have not. You have either undergone this treatment, or you have not. Apart from these distinctions, there are no others.

* This excerpt is taken from the book “Patristic Theology” by Fr. John Romanides

Yes, I am.

Shalom,
Memo

I agree that the Fathers are not liberal or conservative. They practice the Royal path, the middle way.

I think that there can be "liberals" and "conservatives" with in the Orthodox Church just as in the Protestants and the Catholic Churches. A conservative Orthodox would be one who disagrees with modernism, ecumenism and other 20th century movements (the new calendar). A liberal could be some one who doesn't think the new calendar is a heresy, ecumenism is within the bounds of Holy Tradition and that modernism is okay (to a point). I guess you could argue that Eastern Catholics are Orthodox liberals since we are in Communion with the See of Rome and find that is within Holy Tradition to be so. I had one priest tell me that we are the ultimate innovation (he was describing the attack on innovations by more extreme Orthodox)

The Fathers are none of the above. They are not extreme or conservative in their practice of Holy Tradition nor are they liberal. Like I said they follow the middle path. All Christians should follow their example of the middle path. Follow the teachings of the Church but with a spirit of moderation and love towards those who disagree with us.

I don't think any Catholic would call a hesychast Eastern Father or modern day theologian a "liberal", since hesychasim is part of the Catholic faith. Many Western Catholics may not know of this eastern theological view point but the Pope and the universal Church recognize Saint Gregory Palamas as a great teacher and saint.

Onto to divine dictating of the Bible. As far as I know, someone with more knowledge of the Latin Church, the Western Catholic Church (and for that matter the whole Catholic Church) has never taught that the New Testament was dictated word for word to the writers of the New Testament Canon. The writers are divinely inspired but are non the less Human and Holy Scripture is to never be separated from the teachings of the Church and vis versa the teachings of the Church are never to be separated from Holy Scripture. Now we may disagree between Orthodox and Catholics certain teachings of the Church.

I suppose I am a conservative in religion and a liberal in politics.

Fr. Serge

I consider my self conservative in theology, liberal in pastoral approach and middle way in temporal matters.

Shalom,
Memo

This is requires a lot of mental contortions or willful suspension of disbelief, since modern "liberal" politics are fundamentally secular and pelagian (in a way that Pelagius never was); i.e., the state views itself as omnicompetent, the source of all human rights, rejecting any notion of divine or supernatural authority that transcends the power of the state, while simultaneously believing in the mutability and perfectability of human nature through the power and intervention of the state itself.

All of these underlying assumptions antithetical to Christian belief, which is, of course, why the modern liberal state is hostile to Christianity--though willing to make fellow travelers out of Christians on "social justice" issues. The Communists had a name for such people, but it is not at all polite. In the end, Christians who drink the bathwater of modern liberalism will end up catching every disease that came of its hide in the bathtub.

Why am I not surprised?

Fr. Serge

I generally define myself as fiscally liberal and socially moderate, except for abortion which of course I am "conservative" on. As we've discussed a few times on this Forum, I just can't get worked up gay "marriage," or even "In God We Trust," as currently being discussed in another thread. Of course, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and that God exists, but in terms of the political battles surrounding those issues, it just doesn't interest me.

Alexis

The 'Australian Liberal Party' is the conservative party here and got on very well with Lady Thatcher and Pres. Reagan. They believe like all good Liberals a in the free market economy etc etc. They would not take Catholics and kept them out of positions of power and influence for years, so the party Catholics gravitated to was the 'Australian Labor Party' (uses the American spelling). The sudden influx of minor parties such as the Greens and various independents has changed everything. My own state of Western Australia is goverend by a coalition of conservative parties, the Liberals and the Nation Party. I tend to be conservative but usually vote Labor in elections but have on one or two occasions swung over to vote Liberal.

In religious matters. Latin Traditionalist
Politically. Constitutionalist, strongly identifying with those called Paleo Conservatives.

Yes, I conserve what is best in tradition, both religiously and in secular matters.
In dogmatic issues I believe what the Church has believed, still does believe and always will believe.
Stephanos I

Conservative and traditionalist.

Err, that might be better said that Reagan and Thatcher were liberals, but . . .

Classic/eighteenth century liberalism (freedom/liberty) is the source of both modern liberalism (extending "free from to entitled to) and some of the strains of modern conservatism (there are at least three, mutually antagonistic, including classic liberalism [Reagan & Goldwater], the Right, and classic Conservatism [leadership by a "superior" group, maintaining the values of the past, etc.]).

Personally, I'm a hard-core classic liberalism, somewhere between the Jefferson & Hamilton camps (although Hamilton had a strong strain of actual Conservatism), and would hardly have stuck out at either the Continental Congress or the Constitutional Convention.

hawk