It’s true. I am not a social conservative, but that does not mean I am unsympathetic with the concerns of those who describe themselves as such. I am certainly much closer to them than I am to the economic libertarians in the conservative movement or to the lifestyle libertarianism that has come to dominate élite opinion in the arts, the media and the courts. At the same time, I cannot add my own name to the number of professed social conservatives. Why?
Take abortion as just one example. I am unequivocally pro-life. I believe that we are obligated to care for the lives that have been put in our care and to protect the vulnerable. I agree with the late Senator Edward Kennedy (yes, you read right!) that “human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.”
Moreover, try as I might, I cannot follow the logic of those advocating a so-called consistent life ethic, in which abortion is lumped together with a host of other issues, including poverty, health care and the like, which generally involve differing prudential judgements as to how best to provide undoubted, albeit scarce, goods in the most equitable manner. The fact that many proponents of the seamless garment approach turn out to be pro-choice on abortion does little to recommend their position to those who believe abortion to be a genuine justice issue.
At the same time, being pro-life can hardly add up to a coherent approach to understanding the important role of political authority in God’s world. St. Paul famously affirms the place of government and its divinely-appointed mandate in Romans 13:1-8. John Calvin writes of civil government that “Its function among men is no less than that of bread, water, sun, and air; indeed, its place of honour is far more excellent.” The various Reformed confessions, from the 16th-century French and Belgic Confessions to the 17th-century Westminster Standards, all affirm the crucial function of the civil magistrate in God’s governance of his human creatures. In other words, far from being among the adiaphora peripheral to the faith, the place of civil government is a genuine confessional matter.
Even when government tolerates specific injustices, it nevertheless plays a crucial larger role in the maintenance and flourishing of human social life. Although it would take too much space to recall every possible way it does this, we can point to six basic tasks: (1) to uphold the public legal framework within which a variety of human activities take place; (2) to defend life, liberty and property; (3) to protect the diversity of human communities; (4) to care for the commons, that is, the shared patrimony of the body politic; (5) to temper the harsh edges of the economic marketplace; and (6) to assume some responsibility for the economically disadvantaged.
Though there are undoubtedly individual exceptions to this, social conservatives are generally unable to comprehend the place of government beyond the life issues to which they properly draw our attention. Yet what if we were to succeed in enacting legal protections for the unborn? What if governments were to come to recognize that the legal redefinition of marriage and family lies outside their sphere of competence? What if even the thought of ending prematurely the lives of the frail and elderly were to be excluded from the realm of civilized discourse? What, in short, if every issue dear to the hearts of social conservatives were to be resolved in their favour? One suspects that many of today’s political activists would declare victory and go home.
Yet the political process is always animated by a genuine spiritual vision with profound ramifications for the doing of public justice. For that reason Christians cannot afford to abandon the realm of government, even if their pet issues were to be settled. When approaching the closed union shop, for example, liberals and socialists find themselves on different sides of the issue, though each side wishes to see justice done and is convinced that the failure of its position would be nothing less than the triumph of injustice. The liberal believes that legal recognition of the closed shop is a violation of individual liberty of contract, while the socialist believes that it enhances class solidarity, a necessary means to doing justice to those in a naturally disadvantaged position. Given their respective worldviews and their concomitant views of justice, the stance of each party makes sense within the context of its own set of controlling assumptions.
What does the social conservative believe? It’s not clear that she possesses, as such, the resources to answer this question. She may indeed have an opinion on the matter and she may express it publicly, but not as a social conservative. This is a principal reason why social conservatism is incapable of carrying the day over the long term: it fundamentally lacks the cohesiveness necessary to serve as a genuinely political philosophy. At most it can add up only to an ad hoc movement based on co-belligerency on concrete issues. If we seek a theory of justice based on a solid, spiritually discerning understanding of God’s world, of human society and of the place of the state within it, we shall have to go elsewhere.
October 24th, 2009 | 12:15 pm | #1
“Though there are undoubtedly individual exceptions to this, social conservatives are generally unable to comprehend the place of government beyond the life issues to which they properly draws our attention.”
Who have you read on these matters? Probably the most important social conservative theorists–including Russell Kirk, George Gilder, Francis Canavan, Robert P. George, and Hadley Arkes–do in fact offer overarching theories of government including defenses of the separation of powers, rule of law, morals legislation, etc., etc. Take Arkes, for example, he has published an impressive body of work from his Philosopher in the City (Princeton, 1981) to Natural Rights and the Right to Choose (Cambridge, 2002) and in between the highly influential First Things (Princeton, 1986).
October 24th, 2009 | 1:03 pm | #2
What does the social conservative believe? It’s not clear that she possesses, as such, the resources to answer this question.
I think there are two ways in which the term social conservative is used. In one way it does refer to those who care primarily about “pet issues” like abortion and marriage. In that sense, you criticism may be applicable.
But the other way that the term is used is as a stand-in for the philosophy that could be considered traditional conservatism. You can’t truly be a conservative unless you are a “social conservative”—otherwise you’re simply a confused libertarian. Unfortunately, though, we have too many people that claim the label conservative without having an understanding of what the term means.
Also, as Dr. Beckwith pointed out, there is a robust form of social conservative thought that would be immune to your critique. Just because the average voter is unaware of it is more a problem of PR, not a problem with its philosophy.
October 24th, 2009 | 1:05 pm | #3
“Even when government tolerates specific injustices, it nevertheless plays a crucial larger role in the maintenance and flourishing of human social life.”
What lines can’t the government cross in terms of what it “tolerates”? Do you think there are any lines, specifically social issues, which would call for revolution? If so, what?
October 24th, 2009 | 1:08 pm | #4
I’m still trying to work out what the point of this post was. Incoherent or ignorant, or both. But it doesn’t come close to being an argument… about anything.
October 24th, 2009 | 1:10 pm | #5
Perhaps it’s helpful to think of two kinds of social conservatism: a) conservatism on ‘social issues’ like the definition of family, state’s role in protecting the unborn, availability of pornography, etc.; and b) conservatism premised on a view of society that is neither individualist or statist, and starts political reasoning from the belief in the family as the primary unit of society, and ‘organic’ and local social realities (church, neighbourhood and other Burkean ‘little platoons’) as central to both healthy political change and healthy political continuity.
You seem to be saying that the version “a” doesn’t give guidance in other policy areas. That doesn’t seem so groundbreaking to me. You may just be a social conservative who wants to combine types “a” and “b”.
October 24th, 2009 | 1:14 pm | #6
I have a policy of not blogging on the weekend which this post and its response are tempting me to violate.
We’ll see if my non-blogging interests overcome my empathy for Koyzis’ post here.
October 24th, 2009 | 1:20 pm | #7
@Michael Patton:
Whatever lines government could possibly cross that would call for revolution, you can be sure that Rome crossed them. You can also be sure that the only form of revolution practiced by followers of Jesus is the kind discussed in the Sermon on the Mount, and emulated by Ghandi and Martin Luther King.
Unbelievers, when offended by the actions of their government, talk of revolution. Christians pray, and God changes the world.
October 24th, 2009 | 1:28 pm | #8
Don, I am not talking about Christians as a part of the Church, but Christians (and all people for that matter) as a part of a democracy which requires the people to exist legitimately. Romans 13 does not allow for passivity in such a situation as the people as a part of the government have the obligation (for the Christian, a biblical one) to engage…even to the point of bearing arms for the protection of the society.
All I am asking is if there is a point when people can legitimately say, in a government such as ours and a constitution as we have it, to say “no”, this has gone too far and we have the responsibility to this country to fight for our survival?
October 24th, 2009 | 1:50 pm | #9
David,
You assume a definition of social conservative that is shared by your readers, but I would prefer you had stated that definition up front.
It seems to me you equate all social conservatives with “single issue” politics.
Obviously the limitations you cite with that approach are dangerous and, indeed, limiting.
On the other hand, firemen on the way to a fire with sirens screaming are “single issue” and in that setting, their singlemindedness is what they’re paid for and is applauded.
But once the fire is over, randomly hosing down pedestrians simply to occupy idle moments would be frowned upon! :)
I suppose the question is… “is the fire out?”
But though the fire’s not out, we do need those with a vision to replace what is lacking. Usually though, those people are excoriated until their issue becomes the fire du jour!
October 24th, 2009 | 2:11 pm | #10
@1 (FB)
While true, there are those with a cohesive SC viewpoint, how many of those individuals are either read or championed by either our social conservative “leaders”, or by the hoi polloi?
Instead, I think DK is entirely correct, or, as John Shore has pointed out, why Shouldn’t the same people who insist that the Bible be taken literally on the matter of homosexuality also insists that the Bible be taken literally on the matter of personal wealth? If we are morally obliged to cleave to exactly what Paul said, aren’t we at least as morally obliged to cling to exactly what Jesus said? A school child can see that Jesus was every bit as clear on the matter of personal wealth as Paul was on homosexuality
Or, for that matter, as Ian Clausen has pointed out, we would spend much more time thinking about the humility and radical non-violence of Christ.
Very few issues rise to any importance to most social conservatives, except as DK has pointed out. And that is why I too am not a social conservative.
October 24th, 2009 | 2:21 pm | #11
Right back @Michael:
“…to fight for our survival?” He who seeks to save his own life will lose it.
We have no responsibility to this nation other than to pray for it and its leaders, to vote according to our conscience as enlightened by the Holy Spirit; to seek justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God. Our citizenship is elsewhere, and we are here as ambassadors, agents of our King, who has committed to us the ministry of reconciliation, not revolution.
Even considering violence as an option is evidence of how far the cancer of Americanism has infected the Church. Too much individualism, not enough Gospel.
October 24th, 2009 | 2:21 pm | #12
as a side comment, I believe that this issue that DK brings up is exactly why so many young christians search for something outside of the church they were raised in – the inherent hypocrisy of what is peddled as social conservatism in our churchs, christian schools, and christian media
October 24th, 2009 | 4:10 pm | #13
If we agree on your six basic tasks for the sake of argument (and for no other reason), the social (or otherwise) conservative would say that government does best when it does least. Experience has taught us that the more government tries to do, the worse it does. Especially in the US, especially the federal government, it tends to react slowly with excessive force and insufficient care for unintended consequences that might result from its actions.
Re: the closed shop, the social (or any) conservative would say to the owner of the closed shop, “That’s a dumb idea, but its your business.” Because it’s his business. I have no more right to tell him how to run his business (beyond safety regulations) than I do to tell you what carpet you can have in your house.
“Social conservatism… lacks the cohesiveness necessary to serve as a genuinely political philosophy.”
Um, keep kicking that straw man.
October 24th, 2009 | 5:32 pm | #14
David Koyzis,
Will you be doing another post on this topic? I’m having a hard time understanding your position. You sound like a social conservative (a term which I would use to describe myself), but you seem to be implying that you are something else. What is the alternative for someone (like myself) who believes in the pro-life position and for a positive role for government in life? What am I if I’m not a social conservative?
October 24th, 2009 | 5:49 pm | #15
Why is his position hard to understand? It is obvious that “social conservatives” are those that care about gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia. It should be clear from reading the responses to Jared W’s posts about “culture war” politicking that the abortion issue is the driving issue in social conservatism’s moral conscience.
David is concerned with the narrow focus these issues demand when compared the broad scope of political philosophy. The example of “closed union shop” is an issue that does not interest the social conservative conscience, because it does not carry the moral weight that human life and gender issues do. There might be a tendency to cry “straw man” but lets face it: social conservativism is energized by its moral stance on these few issues alone and are routinely used to disqualify anyone from office who may take a different position on them. In this view, a governor may be able to solve the health care and economic problems in this nation, but they would not be eligible to vote for if they were pro-choice and allowed gays to marry. Is that the best way to approach politics? For many it is, and I think David’s critique is worthwhile if not persuasive.
October 24th, 2009 | 7:33 pm | #16
This would be my only question for the commentors who have objected to Koyzis’ post here:
How many people who are public political conservatives have read even one work from each of the men Dr. Beckwith listed in his comment? Asked a different way: what’s the extent of the influence of the here-alleged intellectually-robust political conservatism Dr. Beckwith has pointed to?
I ask because you cannot find a reference to these fellows in the public dialog on issues. It seems to me that this is a factor which makes Koyzis’ point all the more glaring and serious.
October 24th, 2009 | 7:39 pm | #17
Adam O:
You mean that the common social conservative is essentially a legalist? Good call — I go one further: he’s a statist idolater in spite of his good intentions to live in a nation where God’s law is the one people are forced to obey.
Or maybe because if it.
October 24th, 2009 | 8:35 pm | #18
Don, I am of the opinion that in order to be a biblical pacifist in such a way as you seem to describe is move to a country where a monarchy is in play. The arms that we bear are of different natures, but were we to lay them down and concede to evil, then we would be in violation of Rom 13. That is the gift and burden of America. The easiest thing to do is to turn the other check acting as if we are not the ones striking the check of the helpless.
I am not a “one issue conservative,” but the elephant will not leave the room for such a discussion as this to ring too true for me.
October 24th, 2009 | 8:43 pm | #19
However, I think I need to say, I don’t know whether or not I agree with this post. Frankly, I did not understand where it was coming from and where it was going. As best I can tell, David was speaking to those who are exclusively socially conservative??
Either way, I did not hang with the tone. I think that this sentence rubbed me wrong: “For that reason Christians cannot afford to abandon the realm of government, even if their pet issues were to be settled.” Not sure that I know whom David is talking about and, more importantly, did not like the work “pet” here. Just did not fit and slanted the entire post for me.
I may have misread it though.
October 24th, 2009 | 8:44 pm | #20
This article made little sense to until I read Dr. Koyzis’ biography and discovered that he is a Canadian political scientist. Having lived and studied politics in Canada for three years, this new information helped bring everything together for me.
Canada has three main political parties: Conservative, Liberal, and NDP (socialist). While I consider myself a center-right conservative in America, some of my Canadian friends identified me as a “Liberal” on some issues (which I initially heard as “liberal” in the American sense).
Applied to the Koyzis’ article, it becomes clear why he draws a sharp distinction between the liberal and the socialist on closed shop unions. It should also become more understandable to American readers why his description of social conservatism seems so out of sync with our common understanding of conservatism as a broad-based, well-developed, and clearly articulated political philosophy deeply rooted in the traditions handed down from our Founding Fathers. The formative experiences of Canadian conservatism have been quite different. Keep in mind that Canada never revolted against onerous British taxation and political domination. Koyzis’ impression of social conservatism as a somewhat reactionary, single-issue movement or cluster of movements may be entirely correct in his country.
Of course, all of this (if I am anywhere near the mark) should have been explained or identified in the article in some way. Still, this confusion has brought about some interesting comments above, and I’m gratified to see so many intelligent defenses of the American conservative movement!
October 24th, 2009 | 10:52 pm | #21
I have trouble thinking that abortion should not be a believers “pet” issue.
On the other hand, all of the hand-wringing and sighing that happens at the thought of another pro-abortionist being elected (or an apparent pro-lifer that won’t make it an issue, once in office) does sound, as Frank said, eerily like we believe more in the state’s power to save than in the Lord’s power to save.
I’m not sure that the answer is to over-look a candidate’s stance on abortion, in order to not be a one issue voter (I’m almost sure that we must be one-issue voters while that issue is still hanging around our collective neck), but still, we must preach and stand on the gospel as the only real answer to the problems that the religious right have claimed as theirs to solve.
The trick is to vote like it matters hugely, but to react vocally and publically, like it’s God’s realm and not ours.
John the Baptist called the state to account, to God, not to the people. And when we refer to polls and percentages and lost generations of kids, in order to bolster our case, have we not then given up the ground that we thought we could win? Ground that we should be using to call people, government’s included, to repentance?
But repentance isn’t sexy enough. And people will laugh. And throw tomatoes.
And we don’t like that.
At least I don’t.
October 24th, 2009 | 10:59 pm | #22
And then there’s this:
““For that reason Christians cannot afford to abandon the realm of government, even if their pet issues were to be settled.”
Who can know? Abortion has been a pet issue for a long time, and the gay movement as well. While it’s true that Christians can’t abandon government if those issues are ever settled, who has intimated that they would?
The question is, will Christians abandon government if those issues are, in 50 years, just as they are now?
It seems to me that, historically, that’s the greater danger.
Who will be Jeremiah? Or who will be Wilberforce?
Or will they be cowed by the accusation of religious right-ness, or social-conservatism?
Isn’t that the greater danger? Giving up because we don’t think we gaining any political traction?
It seems pretty plain that the options are, social liberal, social conservative, or Christian.
And often social conservative and Christian look a lot alike.
Let them. Just remember which track you’re on when the other track merges with yours for a while.
October 25th, 2009 | 2:51 am | #23
Many of the comments here seem to reject Dr. Koyzis’ description of social conservatism. I would agree that if he were describing American conservatism he would be way off the mark. However, the article works when you apply it to Canadian politics, with its three party system (Conservative, Liberal, and NDP). It appears to me that Koyzis, who is a professor of political science in Ontario, failed to identify his subject properly and caused a great deal of confusion and push-back from his readers.
Read as a commentary on Canadian politics it works perfectly. In the States we think of liberals as pro-union, but if the distinction Koyzis makes between liberal and socialist viewpoints on closed shop unions is seen as a difference between the Liberal and NDP parties it makes sense.
Additionally, his main idea that social conservatism is something of a reactionary cluster of single-issue groups, though perhaps still a difficult argument to prove, makes much more sense in a Canadian context.
America’s conservatism is a rich political philosophy inherited from our revolutionary founders. Canada, having never revolted from the onerous taxes and political dominance of England, never had a conservative foundation to build upon as a nation. Their foundation leans further left and resembles a more European political philosophy. As such, wouldn’t it be quite reasonable to expect Canadian conservatism to suffer from a lack of an overarching vision or political narrative for Canada?
Rather than defending American conservatism from Koyzis’ charges we should think about whether they accurately describe Canadian conservatism.
October 25th, 2009 | 5:59 am | #24
I’m a legalist and an idolater for holding socially conservative views, Frank? I’m at a loss for words.
October 25th, 2009 | 12:04 pm | #25
Frank said You mean that the common social conservative is essentially a legalist? Good call — I go one further: he’s a statist idolater in spite of his good intentions to live in a nation where God’s law is the one people are forced to obey.
@22 (Terry)
Frank was making a generalization, much like DK was in his original post. So know, he was not calling you an idoloter. Trust me, if he was, you would know.
And no (to address a previous comment), a generalization is not a straw man. It is an observation about the general state of something. An observation which I agree with and is easily documented.
@17 (Frank)
My pastor just preached through Hosea (concluded last week) and I find your point that social conservatism as an idol to be one I agree with. Many have replaced God with Social Conservatism.
Of course much of what passes for liberal christianity has also replaced God with it’s own idol, but that is for another post.
October 25th, 2009 | 1:44 pm | #26
Terry,
The idolatry isn’t in the views one holds, but in the belief that it’s the government and the passing of laws that will effect the change the world needs.
October 25th, 2009 | 3:04 pm | #27
Thank you, Francis Beckwith, for the reminder of the good work done by the scholars you mention above. As you can probably tell, my post was directed primarily at the activists on the popular level who are issue-driven, and not at the likes of Russell Kirk or Hadley Arkes.
Chuck Huckaby, I do not at all have difficulty with those who pursue single-issue agendas. Not everyone is called to do the same things. Pro-lifers can hardly be faulted for not also condemning racism. Those seeking to help the poor ought not be blamed for not speaking out on the plight of political prisoners overseas. There is simply no way that we as limited persons can do everything that needs doing. This necessitates a division of labour. Furthermore, I did not mean to use the word “pet” in a derogatory sense. Perhaps there’s a better word I could have used for this.
My difficulty is with those who believe that a focus on issues is an adequate substitute for a comprehensive approach to political life that can account for their interconnectedness. These are found among the “religious right” and “progressive Christians” alike. The latter think that they can bypass issues of life, marriage and family, preferring to focus on alleviating poverty, all the while blithely unaware of the interconnections among these issues.
Robert Brink, you are correct to point to some of the nuances in the definition of social conservatism. In fact, I am quite confident that, because of my stance on abortion and other life issues, the popular media would be comfortable in labelling me a social conservative, if not a right-wing extremist!
However, the difficulty I have with the social conservative moniker, at least for myself, is that one can easily take the “correct” stances on abortion, family, &c., while still holding to a liberal view of the state, i.e., that it is fundamentally a voluntary association based on a social contract rather than a divinely-established institution charged with doing public justice. Hobbes was definitely pro-life, but he was also a legal positivist and a voluntarist with respect to social and political order. Are the heirs of Hobbes to be found among social conservatives? Undoubtedly, yes. Might even socialists be found among social conservatives? I would not be at all surprised, even if they are unlikely to constitute more than a small minority of the movement. And if so, these cases make the label somewhat less than fully useful as a description of a genuinely political philosophy.
October 25th, 2009 | 6:03 pm | #28
Thanks, Daryl. That makes sense. Christ alone can make the changes the world truly needs.
October 25th, 2009 | 7:12 pm | #29
Thank you, Francis Beckwith, for the reminder of the good work done by the scholars you mention above. As you can probably tell, my post was directed primarily at the activists on the popular level who are issue-driven, and not at the likes of Russell Kirk or Hadley Arkes.
Chuck Huckaby, I do not at all have difficulty with those who pursue single-issue agendas. Not everyone is called to do the same things. Pro-lifers can hardly be faulted for not also condemning racism. Those seeking to help the poor ought not be blamed for not speaking out on the plight of political prisoners overseas. There is simply no way that we as limited persons can do everything that needs doing. This necessitates a division of labour. Furthermore, I did not mean to use the word “pet” in a derogatory sense. Perhaps there’s a better word I could have used for this.
My difficulty is with those who believe that a focus on issues is an adequate substitute for a comprehensive approach to political life that can account for their interconnectedness. These are found among the “religious right” and “progressive Christians” alike. The latter think that they can bypass issues of life, marriage and family, preferring to focus on alleviating poverty, all the while blithely unaware of the interconnections among these issues.
Robert Brink, you are correct to point to some of the nuances in the definition of social conservatism. In fact, I am quite confident that, because of my stance on abortion and other life issues, the popular media would be comfortable in labelling me a social conservative, if not a right-wing extremist!
However, the difficulty I have with the social conservative moniker, at least for myself, is that one can easily take the “correct” stances on abortion, family, &c., while still holding to a liberal view of the state, i.e., that it is fundamentally a voluntary association based on a social contract rather than a divinely-established institution charged with doing public justice. Hobbes was definitely pro-life, but he was also a legal positivist and a voluntarist with respect to social and political order. Are the heirs of Hobbes to be found among social conservatives? Undoubtedly, yes. Might even socialists be found among social conservatives? I would not be at all surprised, even if they are unlikely to constitute more than a small minority of the movement. And if so, these cases make the label somewhat less than fully useful as a description of a distinctively political philosophy.
October 26th, 2009 | 8:32 am | #30
[...] if to make my point for me, a great post went up over the weekend at that new blog “Evangel” that I brought up last week. Consider: Though there are undoubtedly individual exceptions to [...]
October 26th, 2009 | 9:11 am | #31
Dear David T. Koyzis: Yes, you are a social conservative. The problem might be (and perhaps it is impolite to bring up this point on this particular blog), you do not seem to recognize yourself (yet) as a social conservative Catholic.
Welcome!
October 26th, 2009 | 9:44 am | #32
Thanks, Craig, for your warm welcome. I am pleased you think there is still hope for me!
October 27th, 2009 | 7:23 pm | #33
There is quite a bit to respond to here. I think social conservativism is robust enough and can handle all your objections because it is grounded in a proper Conservative/Orthodox theology, not the Liberal Theology so popular among liberals.
1. Citing Ted Kennedy as being pro-life is rather absurd. Can we take anyone’s claim to be pro-life seriously when they constantly support pro-abortion absolutists? God clearly has a heart for the fatherless and it is Liberals who tolerate their unrestrained murder, even now accepting infanticide as collateral damage.
2. I think Romans 13 also contains within it that the State ought to punish evil and reward good. Liberalism undermines the biblical view of good and evil by inverting such notions. The constant attack on the Ten Commandments is evidence of this.
“Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20
3. I do not see the State ever bringing about the conditions you describe, just the opposite. President Obama is seeking to push abortion as a health care right and to proclaim the sin of homosexuality a public right. Such state of affairs will likely lead to the persecution of Christians, and ultimately Jesus Himself. For how can we preach the Gospel when such sin is a right? For to so would be considered an act of hatred. How can anyone justify supporting those who advocate such things?
4. I think your part about unions should use the terms conservative and liberal. I use to be in a union and got out of it because of it’s support for liberal politicians. Liberals support unions today, ala Card Check.
5. No, a conservative movement that has a proper Orthodox/Conservative theology will last and oppose the relativism that permeates today’s Liberalism. I think Machen had it right by arguing that Liberalism is a false religion that stands in total antithesis to biblical Christianity.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact