To be a faithful pastor in our day while trying to reconcile political movements/ideologies is impossible. One cannot seek the reconciliation of both and be successful. This is one of several reasons I coined the term ecclesial conservatism.
When I speak about ecclesial conservatism, I argue for a political dogma that dictates political coherence at a congregational level. Congregations cannot operate on the eclectic side of the political spectrum. An ecclesial ministry will consistently produce either a liberalized or a conservative ethos. But the two cannot function–in our day–harmoniously. The issues are too substantively contrasted in every sphere of thought, and platforms are well-defined worldviews that lead to distinct conclusions.
We are no longer operating where common assumptions are shared at a broad level. There are defined visions of the world which each party and movement wish to implement. Therefore, as Kuyper would argue, we must function as agents of the antithesis. The Church must navigate with clarity on what it opposes. She is not merely a theological voice affirming the common good but a theological voice challenging the opposing team in matters that threaten the preservation of the Church.
Much of that opposition is not only without but, in many cases, within. While social systems outside the church threaten her culturally, various systems within also threaten her status. Thus, a theology of the antithesis must be clear about what it opposes and create a long-term system of self-authenticating orthodoxy and conservative principles both in church and society.
