Conservative Theology Defined

One often hears the term conservative or liberal attached as a label to describe a person's politics, economic views, or social moorings. Many times the labels are adequate as those three features are generally inter-related, meaning that if you lean liberal or conservative in one area, you are generally going to do so in the other areas as well.  However, this is not always the case.

In the current cultural climate the terms are often thrown about as blanket descriptions and fail to be helpful labels.  A nuanced view of an issue from a person who believes himself to be conservative can be seen by another conservative to be "liberal."  This can also be the case in theology.  A conservative Arminian might be seen as a liberal by a Calvinist.  Or to really get into some nitty-gritty, a Dispensationalist might see a Reformed A-Millennial view as not taking the Bible literally, and therefore, is liberal.

There are numerous examples of what could be said to be liberal theology or conservative theology. Liberal Theology tends to view the personality of God in his immanence while conservative theology tends to view the personality of God in his transcendence. But it is important to define our terms. What does each group mean by "immanent" and "transcendent"? Does one group say God is one and not the other? How is each group using the Bible, theology, church history, exegesis, etc? (For that matter, what do we mean by "literal"?)

For my part I believe there are too many problems with Liberal Theology as it has developed over the past 200-300 years, especially when God's personality and character seem to take on more impersonal characteristics. It does not require changing, but a radical transformation.  The problems with some Conservative Theology can be solved with some solid nuancing.  I believe the Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck provides that nuance. [Since we are defining terms, Bavinck does not provide all nuance, just a nuance.]

In a eulogy to Dr. Bavinck in the Princeton Theological Review after his death in 1921 (subsequently published in Essays on Religion, Science, and Society), Henry Dosker quotes him on what it means to be conservative in theology:

Theology is truly conservative; it accepts the inheritance of the past generations, yet not to scatter it but to hand it over, if possible increased and still more "reformed," to the generations that follow. Theology receives these acquired treasures, not to cast them again and again into the melting pot of criticism, but to hand them over to us to see whether we also, as mightily as in former days, may experience their truth and beauty in our own souls. It is a mere illusion always to try to find something new in the field of theology.

The glittering results of nature studies may have led many theologians to try to find novelties in the theological field, but disappointment has always punished such curiosity. But at the same time theology is a progressive science. Reverencing the past, theology builds upward on the foundations that are laid, till theology itself is complete and has attained its final object. Theology does not rest at Chalcedon or Dordt. Theology holds the conviction that it will please God to cast ever more light on the Holy Scriptures in days to come, on what till now was dark or nebulous in them. Till then theology has not completed its task or attained its object.

Dosker then exclaimes, "Such was the theology of Dr. Bavinck!" May we be an imitator of this humble Christian thinker.

* Note: Fellow RTS-Orlando alum and all-around good Canadian Jake Belder beat me to the punch, writing about this very thing back in 2010. Please be sure to check it out.