Conservatism and Christianity: Isomorphic?

This is a deep and serious issue in the American culture. I have pondered it a lot in many ways. I chose to use the concept of "isomorphic" as a means to blog my thoughts. This helps lighten up the issue a bit and throw everybody off some so quick biases don't block further pondering by folks like you.

First, what is meant by "isomorphic." morph means to transform, to move smoothly from one form to another. iso means simply equal. Thus, two objects are isomorphic if as you move from one to the other, you are in the same place. Two things are isomorphic if they are identical in every way. The term was first used in mathematics to account for two sets, seemingly distinct, that were in fact identical.

My first experience in graduate mathematics was proving what it meant for two sets to be isomorphic. Years later the term had morphed into my studies in psychology. We wanted to know - are concepts such as motivation, self efficacy, personality, etc. isomorphic at the individual and group level? In other words, does motivation for a person mean exactly the same as motivation of a team? If so, we could transfer all the learning we had about individual motivation to team motivation.

Motivation happens to not be isomorphic at the individual and group level, just in case you wanted to know.

We hear often questions like, can a Democrat be a Christian? John Kasich, former Republican candidate for President, claimed he can no longer be a Republican because conservative views on immigration are not Christian. Evangelicals are often assumed to be Republican. Pundits want to know how Christians can support Trump? Yet, we accept all Republicans are not assumed to be evangelicals. This "assumed" isomorphic relationship between political party and religious faith is causing a lot of confusion and unproductive narratives, especially for the millennial and younger.

Here is my point. I am a Christian and I am politically conservative, but these positions are not identical in any way, shape, or form. I did not become (morph into) a conservative because I was a Christian and vice versa. I am a Christian because I trust God has made a way for me, invited me and adopted me to a fellowship with Him forever, including but not limited to my time here in this world. I am politically conservative because I believe the civil system of limited government, free markets, the rule of law, and individual freedom from government interference established by our founding fathers provides the most prosperous and virtuous society known to mankind.

I encourage Christians to willfully and competently live out and explain to others their faith independent of politics. I encourage conservatives to be able to have a convincing reason for trusting the ideas of the Constitution independent of their Christian faith. Evangelicals must be able to discuss positions on economics, taxes, marriage, abortion, civil rights, etc. because the conservative rationale provides the most prosperous and virtuous society. Evangelicals cannot be convincing in the public discourse when they mix their support for conservatism with their relationship with Christ. There is plenty of reason for conservative policy to be preferred based own its own merit. To confuse the two reduces the effectiveness of each.

Conservative Christians may be shocked to realize that the Constitution and the Bible are NOT ISOMORPHIC. While all truth is God's truth, public discourse on government policy must not be overtly associated with the Bible and public discourse about the Bible must be void of public policy. This does NOT mean Christians should not engage the culture and politics. Each should play out God's call on their life wherever it leads. However, there is plenty of sound logic to support conservatism on its own. Christians should develop public policy skills and arguments independent of their theology.

At least this is worth some pondering  .......

P.S  After some more pondering of my own on this topic, I have concluded that one of the reasons young people who grow up in evangelical families abandon their faith in early adulthood (surveys show nearly half do) is this: the natural process of questioning and even rejecting their conservative political heritage (the influence of idealism and cultural appropriateness) is now viewed as synonymous with challenging their Christian faith. The Christian youth of today have not been trained to know or see the difference. This is the collateral damage done by evangelicals seeing their politics as an outgrowth of their Christian faith and vice versa (isomorphism) . They feel they must support both to support either or reject their faith if they reject their parents politics.

A logic path to finding 'self'

One of the most demanding questions people must answer about themselves is "why am I here?" That is why "The Purpose Driven Life" was such a popular book and course of study. However, even before this, the human condition must answer the question, "who am I?" Obviously we usually know certain facts about ourselves, such as our name, where we were born, who are our parents and ancestors. If this information is lacking, it is likely there is a psychological void that must be filled. Orphans and adopted people seek answers to settle any anguish about their identity. Businesses have sprung up recently to benefit from the human need to know more about their identity from their heritage. Cultural movements that make it normal to change one's sexual identity are growing and being challenged. You might say there is a growing confusion around identity. It is a mainstream topic in the study of human psychology.

At the very heart of how any person answers questions about their identity is the core assumption that biases each person's view of their identity. Here is a diagram that depicts the options a person has concerning their core assumption about their identity.

Let's follow each path and see what we can learn.

First, we must assume the source of our identity. Do WE determine for ourselves who we are or not? If we assume we determine our own identity we must be able to answer questions like, "how can I determine me before there is a me?" and "what role did  play in selecting the sperm and egg that united to make me me?" and "did I get to pick my parents or where and when I was born?" The answer to these are obviously 'no.' So, if I assume I determine my identity, then I must assume it is malleable, or socially constructed. I must assume my identity is formed throughout my life and has nothing to do with my birth.

If I assume my identity does flow from my birth, then I either assume there is a creator behind all this or there is not. If there is not a creator, then the creative force that brought me into existence is random or unidentifiable. While parents participate in my creation, are they the creators? After all, they basically just engaged in procreative sex. Everything about the source of my identity is unknown and forever will be.

If I assume there is a creator, then there must be some identifiable creative source that beckoned me into existence. This creative force acted to determine everything about me at birth that identifies me distinctive from everyone else.

The remaining question is whether this creator was intentional at all about my purpose, a key component of identity. If not, I can then rely on my social setting to help me determine my purpose. I can somewhat morph into what makes the most sense to me because the creative force had no say in and doesn't care how I think, feel, and act.

Alas, if there is a distinct creator of me and this creative force has set within me their purpose for me, then no aspect of my identity is up to me to determine. My biological attributes were determined for me and my soul's reason for being was also. Instead of working on determining my identity, I must work on discovering what the creative force and what was determined about me.

Answering the questions about my identity flows from the assumption or bias I have about identity. This is a psychological problem to solve. The issue of identity becomes theological when I consider where God fits in my assumptions about identity.

Whereas many theologians and pastors wish to start with theology, I think it is a better process to see the psychological logic paths we must understand and then place on that conclusion our view of God, which may be no view.

At least this approach to pondering identity does not require a theology to get started, making the process open to all regardless of religious persuasion ....

Using the exploration of core assumptions is very exciting. You can do a lot of this in my recent book

https://www.amazon.com/b4Worldview-there-are-ONLY-TWO/dp/1719372462/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1529795241&sr=8-1&keywords=b4worldview%20caldwell

our crux and our crucible

I was sitting here this morning reading social media and listening to the so-called media, and I became increasingly frustrated. This growing incivility with the Supreme Court nomination is a lot of noise that is missing the point. All of a sudden, out of nowhere, the words "crux" and "crucible" came into my mind. I don't know why and from where. I wasn't even sure I knew what these words meant.

So I pulled out my trusty 1828 Webster Dictionary app and did my search. I was amazed at what I found. 


Here's my story about the crux and the crucible.




What we are witnessing in our civil discourse in recent times is a fundamental fight (war) over abortion. The willingness to subvert age old practices of "due process" and to weaponize "shaming" to get one's way must be coming from somewhere. Everyone thinks they are logical and have evidence to support their truth, but all of this screaming "racism" and "sexism" and pointing fingers is just the fruit of bias.

The problem around abortion and its associated public policy is further advanced by an inherent  human flaw. At the core of the human condition is

the unfailing tendency to use reason and observable evidence to support what we already believe while pretending to use reason and observable evidence to determine what we believe.

What we have is a core bias by some that women have absolute control of their body and that their unborn baby can be an unwanted circumstance. In this case, it is only fair (Constitutional right) that the woman can eliminate the unborn child. After all, they deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. On the other hand, others have a core assumption that an unborn child is a person who also has Constitutional rights. They too deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A person either interprets the Constitution through their lens of culture or interpret culture through their lens of the Constitution.

So, you see, anything that threatens one's view and interpretation of the Constitution is central to civil war. Anything that challenges our rights or what we deserve is viewed as worth fighting over.

It has been documented and well researched that since the beginning of time the greatest virtue for all humans is justice. But, justice is impossible to resolve because each person's position is sourced in conflicting biases. A bias is an endearing belief that is never questioned but used to judge everything else.  A 'crux' is anything that puzzles or vexes. Among many issues of justice, abortion is clearly perplexing to our society.

Biases are built features of human nature (our earthly existence).   A 'crucible' is something made of earth that can endure extreme heat without faltering. Well, guess what, human bias is formed out of an earthly existence that can endure the greatest challenges. Human biases are "crucibles."

Where does this leave us? The short answer is futility. This is no surprise. The result of Adam and Eve's desire to determine what is right for themselves and enact justice on others is an inherited nature that guarantees disorder and incivility. 

Practically speaking, we must stop thinking we have a corner on justice and can determine what is right. We must start discussing who or what we are going to trust for our thoughts, feelings and actions. In the case of justice, one either trusts the culture or trusts the founding fathers.

The proper target of trust can take care or both our crux and our crucible. By the way, the issue of trust has even bigger implications than we can imagine.

Don't dismiss this message. At least give it pondering consideration ....