The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pros & Cons of Conservativeness & Progressiveness

Theology Philosophical
#1

Not sure if this falls under Philosophy or not :confused:

Anyway, last night as I was trying to fall asleep I was contemplating the pros & pons of conservativeness & progressiveness, basically different rates of change, the risks of being too fast or too slow. This seems to come up in many areas of life. Do I stay in one house or should I be nomadic? Should I continue dating or should I get married? Should I stick with this job or make a career change? Should I stand firm in what I was taught or reexamine everything from scratch? Should I use “tried & tested” discipline or experiment with the latest pop psychology?

The Hare & the Tortoise come to mind, although in real life it’s not as simple as the story paints it. The Hare zooms along so fast, that it risks stepping on traps or falling off cliffs. The Tortoise probably won’t do either of those, however, it might be hit by a train, as it’s reactions are too slow!

In regards to Christian theology, the position of women, sexual orientation & evolution are examples of areas where Christians have recently had to work out whether to change from a traditional position or not. Is change always good? It certainly has risks, it’s often hard and even costly. And of course there’s universalism, how quickly will Christians change on this issue?

#2

Timid sheep prefer the middle of the flock. There’s less chance of being eaten by wolves, but there’s no green grass. Bold sheep on the edge of the flock eat green grass but are themselves eaten by the wolf. The best spot is somewhere between, which is why we all jostle about, trying to appear “middle of the road” on every issue imaginable. Pretty sad, eh. :unamused:

#3

I like your analogy :sunglasses:

Not always.

I thought of another recent issue the Church has faced: the role of the Holy Spirit.

#4

I tend to think of it in dynamic complementarian terms.

Progressives and conservatives need each other. Each positively contribute something important, and each protects against abuses typical of each other.

Without conservatives protecting what has been tested to be efficient, liberals would have a much harder time accomplishing actual ‘progression’: there has to be a standard to compare with for better or for worse. (Mere change isn’t progress.) But without liberals there would be much less (no?) progress from good to better, and much less (no?) correction of ensconsed mistakes.

We ought to be respecting one another consequently. :slight_smile: But that’s naturally difficult; so naturally it doesn’t happen often.