I want to talk about liberalism as I see it here at OU, to the best of my ability, from a Christian perspective. This raises a few problems, though.
First, I am not exactly an authority on the Christian worldview, so I hope what I say is faithful to the perspective to which I appeal.
Second, there is not one homogenous “liberalism” upon which to comment. People are liberal in different spheres — economically, socially, morally and theologically — and within these few categories alone exists a plethora of divergent views. That being said, I think there is a sense in which these plates converge in the mind of your average, left-leaning American student.
Third, when this article moves towards critiquing liberalism, I do not want to be mistaken for saying that people should flee liberal land to enter conservative country, as though Republicanism is the Soter for Democrats. That would be foolish. There are other powers at work here, and hard-line conservativism has its own appalling infections.
In a positive sense, liberalism means to have freedom about something. Negatively, it means to not have bounds. These values are manifested in a number of ways. When it comes to charity, I hope we all aspire to give liberally (that is, freely and not holding back). The spirit of liberalism on campus is very much connected to boundless freedom. Students want to be free to do what is right in their own eyes. They do not want to be shackled by moral systems or ideological dogmas.
The liberal spirit rightly recognizes there is danger in dumbly conforming to tradition. Even Jesus hated when people idolized tradition, such as in Mark 7:8.
A difference between his mindset and the liberal mindset, though, is that Jesus hated it when people in authority taught tradition rather than God’s commandments. Liberalism, in its drive to propagate personal freedom and tear down traditional walls, often rejects not only dogma but also often the idea of God, universal standards and truth altogether.
This ruins some of the most beautiful results of the liberal mindset.
For instance, liberalism on our campus and throughout history has effectively tied itself to issues of social justice. There is great concern for many of “the least of these.”
From a Christian perspective, this is something I value. Jesus taught an “upside-down” kingdom: “Whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many,” from Mark 10:44-45. And this idea is carried on in the writings of Paul: “The parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable,” from 1 Corinthians 12:22.
Valuing the weaker members of society has long been a feature of liberalism. I recently returned from a trip to Colorado where I spent time with a family with two special-needs children. The funding they receive to care for their children is a tremendous blessing and exists to a large degree because Colorado is such a blue state. I remember my heart breaking a couple years ago when the Oklahoma legislature struck down Nick’s Law, a bill that would have provided funding for children with autism.
Caring for people with mental handicaps, or for poor immigrants, seem to me beautiful facets of liberalism.
But seeking freedom so much as to throw off the yoke of God, universal morals and truth tarnishes this by allowing one of the most condemnable features of liberalism and conservatism alike: inconsistency.
Students of the left will raise the banner and pour out their blood for the rights of immigrants, sex-trafficking victims, the racially oppressed and the mentally ill. But when it comes to caring for the epitome of the helpless, for crying out for those who in no way can speak for themselves, liberals balk.
I am thinking about concern for the unborn. Pushing to allow the slaughter of 3,000 utterly dependent children every day does not fall in line with the values of the upside-down kingdom.
As I write this, my heart breaks again like it did for those autistic children deprived of much-needed aid.
Please, consider your world view and do not settle for an inconsistency born of truth decay.
Trevor Clark is a professional writing senior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
oudaily99 6 months, 3 weeks ago
"Jesus hated it when people in authority taught tradition rather than God’s commandments" And what if they are one in the same as they theoretically are today? Conservatism is only associated with religion because religion is the tradition being conserved. In the future, conservatism will probably mean conserving liberal values.
HAHAHAHAHA!! I just reached the line about abortion. What a broken record... I don't even care to respond to the article now. This article is garbage. Let's review the reverse of the desirable liberal opinion you cited about abortion.
"Students of the left will raise the banner and pour out their blood for the rights of immigrants, sex-trafficking victims, the racially oppressed and the mentally ill. But when it comes to caring for the epitome of the helpless, for crying out for those who in no way can speak for themselves, liberals balk." Students of the right will raise the banner and pour out their blood for the rights of the unborn. But when it comes to caring for immigrants, sex-trafficking victims, the racially oppressed and the mentally ill, conservatives balk.
Honestly, I'm just mad that such a stupid, GIVEN issue is still being debated. False religions are a serious detriment to improving living conditions, and this exactly the reason why.
The link to the academic article concluding that religion is a detriment to improving living conditions can be found in the following article: Dysfunctional Countries Depend on Religion http://loveatheism.com/?p=844
cacremin 6 months, 3 weeks ago
our argument is invalid because it rests entirely on inaccurate assumptions. Contrary to your implications (and I can see why you didn't just come out and say this) there isn't anything inconsistent whatsoever about liberals opposing attempts to outlaw abortion.
For one, you're assuming that a blastocyst (which is what form an embryo takes during the first trimester) is a human being. Without the assumption that the soul is formed at conception (an entirely modern, and in no way Biblical idea -- as if that matters to those of us who believe in religious freedom) there is no reason to make that leap. Are sperm and ova human beings?
More importantly, you're assuming that there are two options: either abortion will be legal and people will do it, or it will be illegal and people will stop doing it. That's wrong. There is almost no difference between the rate of abortion in countries where it is illegal vs countries where it is legal. In fact, the rate of abortion did not rise considerably in the U.S. after Roe vs Wade. These facts are well documented.
So what results does abortion prohibition have in the real world? Death. Women die from unregulated, unsanitary practices. This fact is also well documented. These are lives that liberals, Christians, and anybody else who cares about social justice should agree are worth protecting.
What it comes down to is this: liberals believe in personal freedom and personal freedom necessarily encompasses the right to choose what one does with one's own body. If you want to outlaw abortion you must necessarily believe that it is okay to force a woman to give birth against her will. Regulating behavior through coercion is, after all, what it means to outlaw something. There is absolutely no logical way one could frame this policy of forced birth as a liberal position.
King4 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Only in Oklahoma guys: only here would ridiculous opinion columns like this appear in a university newspaper. Let's move beyond these asinine religiously-driven arguments and stick to actual facts. Even better: let's discuss issues that are more relevant and pressing to the average American and leave the Bible thumping at home where it belongs.
kagou 6 months, 3 weeks ago
"I am thinking about concern for the unborn. Pushing to allow the slaughter of 3,000 utterly dependent children every day does not fall in line with the values of the upside-down kingdom."
Pushing to allow the slaughter? Seriously? The abortion rate won't change whether or not it's legal. The fact is that by allowing abortion to occur legally, we are giving the mother a greater chance for survival because she would have had an abortion anyway. In that regard, legalized abortions save lives. The single largest cause of death in young women in Latin America is ILLEGAL abortion.
Want to prevent abortion? Support free birth control and sex education because the truth is people will have sex and the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy is through resources and education. Reducing the rate of unwanted pregnancies will in turn reduce the rate of abortions. It's simple logic. It doesn't take a Christian to figure that one out.
04PhiDelt 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Mr. Clark,
Your article is well written and brings strong ideals to the table. The referencing of Biblical Scripture is both passionate and compels readers from differing religious or non-religious faiths to see the softer side of Christianity and Christs repeated calls to put those least fortunate at the head of societal concern. However, I am quite concerned that you use Biblical reference and assumed knowledge of Christs intent to speak out against abortion. Abortion, in its modern form was obviously not around during the time of Christ but the use of Gods commandments to push social issues were. I would like to refresh you, and your readers with the following Scripture from a different perspective:
"Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matthew 5:5-12)
You see Mr. Clark, using Scripture to rebuke and condemn the laws of our country, and other humans whose actions are appalling and immoral to your senses will in fact, according to Scripture, bring about the same judgement as you have passed on others. Would Jesus Christ himself not show forgiveness, love and humility to the young woman who elects to have an abortion? Would he spend his time speaking out in public to shame her, distance her from God's love and remove her from the community? Would he damn her hell for what you, Mr. Clark have deemed to be a "sin"? I challenge you Mr. Clark, as a fellow person of Faith and an OU Alumnus to speak less on these issues and act more in acceptance and love towards others. After all, was it not Jesus Christ who kept a relationship with a woman who was an outcast of her own society?
baconbits 6 months, 1 week ago
Embrace science. If we as man have evolved to the point where we can safely remove an unwanted pregnancy, why not? It's not harming the mother, and the child could grow up unwanted, which would not victoriously save it as suggested by so many, but most possibly condemn it to a painful life of negligence. Not to mention the child may grow up to be an atheist. GASP! So start early, kill those little buggers before they grow up to disobey you and your archaic religion.