I Am Not Not Conservative

[Reimagine Curator]

I Am Not Not Conservative

Phil Miglioratti @ The Reimagine.Network 

“What amazes me is not that conservatives and liberals can see the blindspot (speck?) in the opposing party’s perspectives but that they assume their perspectives have none."   P.M.

"Most of us are not really approaching the subject [scriptures] in order to find out what Christianity says: we are approaching it [them] in the hope of finding support from Christianity for the views of our own party.”— C.S. Lewis, (1898-1963)

 

I replied on a Facebook feed to a long string of comments blasting anything/anyone “liberal.”

• I did not defend liberalism in my post, I simply asked if those commenting thought being conservative made us inerrant because our ​we believe our ​conservative theology is based on an infallible text (Scripture). (several snarky replies)
• A different social media post of mine indicating I was concerned capitalism has become corrupted, offended a brother in Christ who replied by explaining the benefits of capitalism (he was knowledgeable and accurate, but my pont was only that a good system had been corrupted, infected)  
• I commented in one other post, expressing my concern about a national political leader, resulting in a lengthy letter from a sister in the Lord explaining her disappointment with my viewpoint. ​(she unsubscribed too)​

Until recently, I thought of myself as a most-of-the-time conservative person but the personalities and policies emerging from both the far-right and the out-in-left-field movements have forced me to revisit how I exegete (evaluate) culture.

 

To be clear, I am not not a conservative.

Unless being conservative requires me to declare I am not only not liberal, but I am also anti-liberal, declaring any liberal idea or insight as the enemy of both our culture and our "In God We Trust" American Christianity. 

I am not that type of conservative.

 

But that doesn't make me a liberal.

I feel the same peer pressure from the left to disdain anything associated with the right. (how can the left ignore the fetus when debating abortion? absurdity) 

I am realizing that while I was raised in a conservative family and church community, my experiences in the last chapter of my public ministry has prompted me to assess my worldview. Coaching citywide initiatives with all types of churches and Christian-based ministries, and facilitating interaction in gatherings much more diverse than my formative church culture had had a profound impact. It has opened my eyes and ears to the Body of Christ being significantly more varied than I gave thought to. I have been blessed to know and serve with many Christ-centered servants of God who apply Holy Scripture faithfully but with different emphases or applications than me-myself-and-mine.​ Christianity is not only American, nor predominantly white, nor theologically a closed, conservative​, system of beliefs.

 

My conclusion? 

IMHO, neither liberalism or conservatism are complete philosophies from which to express the Christian Gospel.

• "Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy that seeks to promote and to preserve traditional social institutions and practices. In Western culture, conservatives seek to preserve a range of institutions such as organized religion, parliamentary government, and property rights. Conservatives tend to favor institutions and practices that guarantee stability. Adherents of conservatism often oppose modernism and seek a return to traditional values, though different groups of conservatives may choose different traditional values to preserve."
• "Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion." (Wikipedia descriptions)

Democracy is the best antidote to totalitarianism ("a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state"). Therefore, democracy and one-party-dominance is an oxymoron.

 

The exceptionalism of America is not the party to which any of us are wedded; it is the systemic balancing of primarily two differing but valid worldviews that work together to produce and protect both liberty and justice, freedom and righteousness, rights and law, individual and community.

 

If both left and right become entrenched in the belief their philosophy is always correct and the opposing party is not only always wrong but intentionally evil, dialogue and debate turn into dispute and defiance.

 

As a Christian, I am befuddled at how "churched" people assume their worldview is the only acceptable/accurate application of God's word (the teachings of scripture). Conservatives set boundaries as if God is the founder of the Republican Party. Liberals decry those boundaries as if God has forgotten the 10 Commandments. 

 

Every philosophy, any theology, has a distinct set of foundational beliefs and applied values that emerge from a distinct understanding of how the world works (personally, locally, globally). These differences produce varied cultures, diverse styles of music or art or literature, plus distinct social practices and traditions. The solution could never be that everyone believes-thinks-looks-speaks the same about every issue nor should it be that everyone must be expected to hold to one identical position. But these differences, while difficult at times to navigate/negotiate, are not the ultimate problem; blind spots are. 

• "The bias blind spot is a cognitive bias that causes people to be less aware of their own biases than of those of others, and to assume that they’re less susceptible to biases than others. This can cause someone to assume that other people’s politicalstance is influenced by various biases, whereas their own political stance is perfectly rational." effectiviology.com
• Blind spots are the cause of much ​of our ​disagree​ing and disputing, miscommunicati​ng​ and misunderstanding. 
• Blind spots infect every person and perspective
• Your blind spots are obvious to me; invisible to you.
• My blind sports are obvious to you; invisible to me
• To ignore or refuse to believe I have blindspots can only cause me to promote an agenda that has invisible (to me but not others) faults or cause me to purse solutions that have weaknesses...this presumes my viewpoints are immune from the benefit of critical analysis 
• Truth seekers have nothing to fear from discovering and uncovering their own blind spots; much to gain
• ​T​he most dangerous blind spot is thinking one’s ​personal or partisan ​perspective is the truth, the whole truth, and contains nothing but truth. Always. Every issue. 
• Blind spots are dangerous to relationships (personal, social, political, national) because they stiflle an active listening approach to ​dialogue and sabotage ​authentic ​cooperation; both essential to democracy. Without respectful (open-minded) engagement we achieve neither progress (liberalism) nor preservation (conservatism). 
• Ignoring blind spots is tantamount to saying me-and-my-people are inerrant and our perspectives/policies/programs are infallible.
• BLind spots do not nullify any philosophy or theology; they diminish eye-clarity, thereby infecting application and actions if ignored

My social media comments were an attempt to speak into a group-think dominated conversation by asking if we thought we had a viewpoint that was 100% true. My goal was not to defend liberalism nor was it to knock conservatism​ per se​ but to challenge each reader, conservative or liberal or something else entirely, to confront the reality that our preferences and policies, our views and values, are not faultless. Has believing in a true biblical text led us to believe our applications of that text are therefore foolproof or the only direction we must all follow? Conservative blind spots are different but not automatically better than liberal blind spots. For either red or blue to think their choices are authoritative for everyone, only makes their blind spot more dangerous.

 

The truths and wisdom of God’s word are foundational; bedrock. But that commitment to Scripture does not eradicate a blindness to the blind spot of conferring inerrancy on our interpretations and applications. Those human rules and restrictions are not flawless; even if we attach a Bible verse to them. We must invite the review of the Spirit, listen to other voices in the Body of Christ, and be ready to rethink; "not conformed but transformed by the renewing of our minds." (Romans 12:2)

 

“And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye. Mathew 7:3-5

 

Someone messaged me with a question after reading one of my posts: “Are you saying you’re not a conservative?” My reply: I am not not a conservative…

I am a citizen of the Kingdom of God.

 

 

Consider>>> "The Danger of a Homogenous Blindspot    -  #ItSeemsToMee...

 

[Reimagine Curator]

#ItSeemsToMe...

every philosophy is a mixture of good and bad, a combination of partial truths and unintended hurtful consequences.

Mos people would argree, until you asked them to apply that observation to their preferred perspective (left or right, liberal or conservative).

Phil Miglioratti 

[Reimagine Curator]

Your Theology Is Not Completely Independant of Your Psychology

This article explains how everyone is predisposed (personality; family history) to lean towards conservatism or liberalism.

Christians should recongize that predispsition impacts our theology and our political phiosophy.

Our beliefs and preferences have truth, but never the whole truth nor can they be nothing but the truth. 

Even when inspired by Holy Scripture, no one is inerrant; no dogma is infallible.

Phil Miglioratti

 

Historical Roots and Psychology of Liberals, Conservatives

What polarizes us today stems from deeply rooted psychological and social norms.

Gina Simmons Schneider Ph.D.

April 26, 2024

Reviewed by Tyler Woods

 

KEY POINTS

•Personal life experiences and personality differences predictably shape our political affiliations.

•Many of my therapy sessions address relationship ruptures caused by political differences.

•Bridging political divides and conflicts requires listening with the intent to understand others.

 

We live in polarizing times. It's tempting to see the great political divide between liberals and conservatives as a recent phenomenon. A brief look at the historical roots of liberalism and conservatism shows that these conflicts began generations ago. Modern psychological research offers some understanding of these divergent ways of thinking. It helps to view these differences from the perspective of a parable.

 

The Blind Men and the Elephant

 

The parable of the blind men and the elephant appears in the earliest Buddhist writings. Versions of it appear in many religious traditions. In the story, a group of blind men stumble upon a creature they have never met. One holds the elephant's tusk and says, “This is like a spear.” Another man holds the ear and says, “No, you’re wrong. It’s far more like a fan.” Another has the tail and exclaims, “You morons! This creature is like a snake.” Another man rests his palms on the elephant's sides and sighs, “I do not understand how you cannot see this creature is like a wall.” The last blind man, holding the leg of the elephant, exclaims, “None of you make any sense at all. This creature is clearly like a tree.”

 

Much human conflict stems from the certainty that our way of viewing the world is the one right and true version. We make decisions about our political ideals and values based on our own limited experience. Conservative and liberal perspectives emerged from each founder's life experiences.

 

Historical Roots

 

Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was an Anglo/Irish member of the British parliament, a prolific writer, and philosopher. His family roots go way back to Anglo/Irish aristocracy. He believed that religion, institutions, and tradition preserved society best. He opposed the Enlightenment values of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Enlightenment ideals of reason and principles were dangerously destabilizing to society, according to Burke. He preferred tradition as the foundation of a healthy society. 20th-century American conservatives embraced Burke's ideas.

 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) did not have the comfortable relationship with established authority that Burke enjoyed. His mother died when he was nine days old. His father kept getting in trouble and had to flee the country when Rousseau was only 10. Rousseaus’ father also squandered his inheritance. From this rocky relationship with authority, Rousseau argued that the state should be judged by objective standards, not merely followed out of adherence to tradition.

 

The philosophical founders of liberalism and conservatism were influenced by their unique backgrounds shaped by differences of privilege, power, and relationship to authority and freedom.

 

Often, personality differences shape our behavior.

 

Personality Differences

 

Liberals enjoy an openness to new experiences. They like creativity and feel more comfortable with ambiguity, complexity, and nuance. Liberals seek universal values and self-direction. They are more comfortable with change and disorder.

 

Conservatives prefer stability, tradition, order, and conformity and are uncomfortable with ambiguity. They seek security and view ambiguous faces as more threatening. They value conscientiousness and conformity over change and originality (Mendez, M. F. 2017).

 

Conservatives have a greater sensitivity to issues of “purity” and have a greater disgust response under certain conditions. Liberals are less sensitive to issues of “purity” and instead use cognitive reappraisals when exposed to disgusting stimuli, which lessens the disgust response (Feinberg, M. et al. 2014).

 

 

The Fear/Conservatism Link

 

Psychological research suggests that liberalism is an aspirational perspective. Humans can aspire to create great things, make progress, and improve society. Where conservatism is more of a defensive style. Humans need security, safety, predictability, and certainty.

 

 

 

Neuropsychological Differences Between Liberals and Conservatives

 

Conservatives have a larger right amygdala, suggesting a greater sensitivity to threat and proneness toward caution. Liberals tend to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex, the part of the brain responsible for detecting errors and processing signals for potential change. These neurological differences may make conservatives prioritize safety and security while liberals prioritize creativity and problem-solving (Mendez, M. F. 2017).

 

These differences show up in the choice of occupation. Liberals lean toward creative professions, teaching, and the liberal arts, where openness to new ideas is rewarded and encouraged. Conservatives lean toward occupations with clear, measurable outcomes, like accounting, finance, law enforcement, and the military

 

 

Perception vs. Reality

 

Liberals tend to dominate cultural institutions like entertainment, theater, dance, music, and liberal arts in academia. Conservatives tend to dominate the institutions of power, Wall Street, banks, the military, the judiciary, and law enforcement. 

 

According to a recent Gallup poll, Americans’ political ideology remains at the center-right. More people identify as conservative (36 percent) than liberal (25 percent), and the rest say they are moderate (36 percent).

The perception that progressives are significantly changing the power structures of the country is a distortion of reality. Even so-called “liberal judges” are bound by legal precedent, tradition, and conservative norms.

 

 

Bridging the Political Divide

 

Like the founding philosophers, modern liberals and conservatives come to their views from personal experiences.

 

As the world shifts further right, shaped by fear of cultural and geo-political conflicts, many predictably welcome authoritarian leaders who offer the simple “I’ll fix it” solution.

 

Yet, we need creative and cooperative multi-disciplinary solutions to solve major problems like climate change, global instability, and resource management.

 

Healing can occur when we listen with the intent to understand. With each piece of the elephant shared, a wider picture emerges.

 

When I gave drafts of this piece to others to critique, I found it interesting that those who identified as conservative felt it biased toward the conservative perspective. Liberals felt the opposite. We cannot uncouple our perception from our biases until we understand another point of view.

 

The road to peaceful resolution of conflict requires listening to one another respectfully and allowing our minds to grow. As scary as that sounds, it is the only path to wisdom.

[Reimagine Curator]

When Cultural Identity Becomes Sacred

 

by BRAD VAUGHN

 

 

In contemporary American society, a striking phenomenon has emerged: the sacralization of culture and cultural identity. To put it more directly, culture has become a religion. Cultural identity has become a religious identity.

 

 

Cultural and ethnic identities have ascended to positions of reverence and unassailable authority in the lives of many individuals. This shift is emblematic of a broader social transformation, where culture has, in some respects, supplanted traditional religion in its role as a moral and ethical compass. This post delves into this dynamic, shedding light on how culture has become a new creed and why it has gained a status that is beyond challenge.

 

 

Culture as the New Creed

The decline of traditional religious adherence in many Western societies has left a vacuum that has been filled by the rise of culture as a source of meaning. Cultural or ethnic identity has become the primary source of meaning, ethics, and community for many individuals—roles traditionally played by religion.

 

This transition is not merely about rediscovering or reconnecting with cultural roots; it is about elevating those roots to a status that is beyond reproach or challenge, where cultural practices, norms, and values are viewed with a reverence akin to religious dogma.

 

Religion, for centuries, has provided frameworks for understanding the world, moral codes, and a sense of belonging. As the grip of organized religion loosens, these alternative frameworks are increasingly drawn from cultural narratives. The stories, traditions, and collective memories of culture provide a scaffolding for individuals to construct their identities and moral understanding of the world.

 

This reverence for culture has reached a point where it has become a creed— a set of beliefs and practices that command the ultimate loyalty and devotion.

 

 

Unchallengeable Authority

The sacralization of culture is marked by the idea that cultural identity and its related practices are beyond criticism. To question cultural norms and values is to risk being labeled as an offender of cultural sanctity. Such social “sinners” are deemed “bigots,” “colonialists,” “racists,” “close-minded,” and some flavor of -phobic.

 

Much like how religious dogma has historically been protected from scrutiny, the challenge to cultural norms is often met with vehement opposition. In public discourse, this dynamic plays out in debates where the criticism of cultural practices or perspectives is met with severe backlash, often framed as a defense against cultural insensitivity or appropriation. “Cancelling” is one of the most common mechanisms used recently.

 

In this context, cultural identity is not only a source of personal meaning but also a form of authority that dictates social interactions, political discourse, and personal relationships. The perceived inerrancy of cultural norms can be so ingrained that it assumes an almost canonical status, guiding behavior and thought in a way that parallels religious texts.

 

 

Cultural Identity and Personal Meaning

The sacralization of culture (i.e., making culture sacred) addresses a need left by the decline of traditional religious structures by providing personal meaning and identity. In a society characterized increasingly by secularism and individualism, cultural identity offers a sense of belonging and a connection to a larger narrative. This need for connection and meaning is a fundamental aspect of human nature, and as traditional religious observances wane, the rituals, symbols, and collective memories of a cultural identity step in to fill the void.

 

For many, their cultural heritage is not just a backdrop for their life story but the very essence of their being. This heritage provides a link to ancestral history, communal values, and a sense of continuity in a rapidly changing world.

 

The deep connection to cultural identity infuses everyday practices and traditions with sacred significance, turning cultural festivals into solemn celebrations and traditional costumes into ceremonial garb. Virtue signaling is an act of devotion. Cultural narratives become not just stories of the past but moral lessons and guiding principles for the present and future.

 

 

The Veneration of Cultural Identity

The sacralization of cultural identity also manifests in the elevation of symbols and figures that represent cultural heritage to a status of veneration. Icons of cultural history are treated with a reverence that mirrors the respect given to religious saints and prophets. Murals, statues, and other representations become sacred relics that embody the collective spirit and pride of a people.

 

 

To deface or disrespect these symbols is to commit an act tantamount to sacrilege, provoking a defensive response that is both visceral and intense. In some cases, one must be born into a culture to participate in the pseudo-religious rites, lest one be accused of “cultural appropriation,” a type of social sacrilege.

 

 

The Role of Media and Education

In this climate of cultural sacralization, the role of media and education becomes ever more critical. They are the main channels through which cultural narratives are disseminated and reinforced. Through film, literature, and the arts, cultural stories are told and retold, each time reinforcing their sanctity and central role in the community’s moral fabric. 

 

With evangelistic fervor, media and schools are primary engines for spreading propaganda.

 

Education systems have the responsibility of imparting knowledge about cultural heritage, but with the added challenge of doing so in a way that respects the sanctified status of culture while still encouraging critical thought and individual interpretation.

 

 

Challenges to Integration and Cohesion

While the sacralization of culture can strengthen communal bonds within cultural groups, it also presents challenges to social integration and cohesion. When cultural identities are held as sacrosanct, they can become barriers to cross-cultural understanding and interaction.

 

The reluctance to challenge or critically engage with different cultural practices can lead to a form of cultural isolationism, where communities become echo chambers that reinforce their own sanctity while being resistant to external influences.

 

 

Conclusion

Sacralizing (“making sacred”) culture and cultural identity in American society represents a fundamental shift in how individuals find meaning and a sense of belonging in the modern world. It is a testament to the power of culture to provide a moral compass and a communal identity in the absence of traditional religious structures.

 

However, this elevation of culture to a sacred status also brings with it challenges that must be navigated with sensitivity and openness. As America continues to grapple with its diverse cultural landscape, the dialogue around the sacralization of culture will remain a pivotal part of its ongoing narrative.