I was astounded to Christopher Pearson's claim in today's Weekend Australian that "Real Christians are Social Conservatives". He backs up this claim with three arguments: that the Bible mandates a theology of conservatism, that Christian tradition demonstrates a history of convservatism, and that contemporary church-attendance trends vindicate a strategy of conservatism.
Pearson mocks Kevin Rudd's claim that "the starting point of Christianity is a theology of social justice," countering that instead , Christian theology begins with the incarnation, culminates in the crucifixion and resurrection, and anticipates the return of Jesus. While what Pearson affirms isn't incorrect, he is wrong in what he fails to even address: the goal of these central doctrines. The incarnation is announced in terms of justice (God visiting his people to depose rulers and elevate the humble, and fillig the poor with good things while sending the rich away desolate). Jesus' message proclaims his work in terms of good news for the poor and the otherwise soically marginalised (directly, rather than in a trickle-down approach). The apostles use justice and social reform images to illustrate the significance of Christ's death and resurrection. Finally -- and as if these alone were not progressive enough -- Jesus' return is seen as consummating such changes in an even more revolutionary way. Neither is justice a "second-order concern" of either the Bible or theology as Pearson claims, but one that is foundational, inherent and ultimate.So, far from mandating conservatism, the biblical witness and central Christian doctrines provide solid theological foundations for radical social reforms.
In recent history one particular example of Christians appropriating the rich biblical and theological resources for radical social reform stands out: the abolition of slavery. Because the quantity of proof-texts seems important to Pearson's "second-order" argument, it should be noted that the New Testament has less to say about homosexuality than it does about both slavery and gender relations which are given roughly equal coverage (and less to say on all three topics combined than about the proper and improper use of money). But the abolitionsits might well be considered by Pearson as "ecclesiatical modernisers" for their alliance with "the Zeitgeist". Yet, in a contradictory way, he cites contemporary acceptance of Christian conservatism as its vindication. While theologically and socially conservative churches in the West aren't declining at the rate of more progressive churches, theologically conservative but (arguably) socially progressive churches in the global South are growing at an unprecedented rate. Strategically then, even if Christians in the West are loathe to attempt to imrove on their heritage, they may still be able to learn something from their more effective brothers and sisters in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
If Christians and their leaders really are as conservative as Pearson suggests, perhaps they desparately need to become reacquainted with their heritage, their doctrine, the Bible and -- above all -- with Christ, and discover in the process that real Christians are radicals.
