Labels are both handy and hated.  In economics, we teach that branding and labels are ways to economize on the costs of information search.  So, for example, I go into the voting booth and on many lower-level candidates, I may not have much, if any, information on their positions.  But if I see a “D” or an “R” label, that conveys some information–in the absence of any information it is enough to distinguish between the two because I have some understanding of what a typical Republican or Democrat is like.  As handy as labels are for a shorthand way to convey things, e.g., “he’s a flaming liberal,” or “he’s a staunch conservative,” yet most people don’t like to be pigeon-holed themselves.  I certainly don’t want to be called a Republican because there are many characteristics of general Republicans that I disagree with.  I’d like to believe that my political preferences fall out from my religious faith, but I’m not naive enough to believe that is 100% true.

This leads to a need to clarify what we as Bereans believe; to say we are conservative, for example, will necessarily lead to a false view of our beliefs, since we are both much more and much less.  More appropriate, we are Christians first, which is the only all-encompassing label that we choose to bear.  How that Christian faith manifests itself in questions of political economy can be conservative, liberal and progressive.   For us to say simply that we are conservative Christians (which is correct in the sense that it is usually offered–i.e., that we believe the Bible to be literally the word of God, inerrant, and authoritative in all aspects of faith and practice), may send a false signal to those who may be misled by cultural definitions of the same word.  For example, most cultural beliefs on conservatism would suggest that conservatives are “defenders of the status quo,” or that they are “resistant to any change.”  That is patently not a descriptor of our beliefs–in many aspects of politics and culture we are active change agents, whereas progressives are defenders of the status quo.  Abortion is one area, crony capitalism another, public education system yet another.  As Ronald Reagan famously said, “we are the change!” Yet we are conservative even in these in that our fight for change is to fight for values that are universal across time because those values come, we believe, from a transcendent God. A more accurate definition of conservatism would say not that conservatives don’t want change, but rather that we are unwillingly to change unless we fully understand the ramifications of change.  We understand that we are where we are not simply because the world is fallen and that people are always malevolent, but rather any current state may be the best that can be accomplished given the inherent tradeoffs in a fallen world.  So I would assert that we are conservative, but we are not conservatives.

Likewise I want to proudly call myself liberal, but not a liberal.  In the classic sense of the word, liberalism was a value system that arose after feudalism that in essence, wanted to extend the blessings of liberty to all humankind.  Prior to liberalism’s emergence, only the elites had full rights and privileges–liberalism wanted to extend the same rights to all people.  There were both government and cultural restrictions that precluded the liberty of all, but cultural restrictions were not necessarily opposed unless they were enforced by the coercive power of the state.  In the classical liberal pursuit of equality, equality was clearly defined as a process, not an outcome. Further, classic liberalism did not necessarily mean complete liberty (especially on social issues)–rather it focused on equal treatment (obviously there were divergent strands in any movement, J.S. Mill would argue for more liberty from social constraints).  Yet the modern liberal has corrupted this vision, wanting to make equality of outcome the goal of policy, and argue that no cultural restrictions on any form of licentiousness may be made, even if equally applied to all.  So I clearly wouldn’t like the label “liberal” applied to me, notwithstanding my enthusiastic support that everyone should be treated equally.

Finally, I am progressive, but not a progressive.  Some readers may note that I don’t usually succumb to labeling the left-wing perspective as liberal, preferring progressive, because however fruitless such a pursuit is, I would like to recapture the label liberal from those that have so corrupted its original meaning and intent. Yet I also am progressive, because I have a firm belief that history is progressing–progressing toward an ultimate outcome where Jesus’ rule will be universally acknowledged. So my progressive belief is founded solely on the knowledge of a sovereign and providential God working through history.  And this progressiveness does not believe that earthly conditions necessarily always improve; in fact most Bereans think things will get worse before the end.  Modern progressives, however, think things are always going to get better as mankind and culture continue to evolve to higher states.

So you might say, “Haymond, you’re fighting a semantic battle on the last two that you cannot win–the war has already been lost.”  And since with some acknowledged warts, shouldn’t we just try to redeem the view of what being a conservative is?  My fear is that when the institutions of culture want to paint all conservatives as Neanderthals, there is an especial risk of being identified only as a conservative.  While I disagree with some of what F.A. Hayek wrote on this issue, I think he is correct on one the implications (my emphasis below):

Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place.

As young people, especially our college students, emerge from the cocoon of childhood and are exposed to the fallenness of this world, they are looking to make the world a better place, and they correctly understand that much of the world is not what it should be.  If we allow ourselves to be caricatured as defenders of the status quo, we lose.

We have a positive agenda:  a progressive agenda to have “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven;” a liberal agenda to extend the blessings of God-given liberty to all people impartially with no favoritism; a conservative agenda to preserve that which is good in our world, that which is consistent with God’s divine order.  In short, we have a Christian agenda.  Perhaps not 100% Christian, but that is certainly our goal and target.