Which of course if consistently followed is itself an ideology.
Ideology is an inescapable category. One can not escape having an ideology and living in terms of that ideology. One may not be self-conscious in their ideology but they will live by one all the same.
Perhaps Kirk was going for the idea here that Conservatism is just a matter concerning the way one leans into life but even here the reason that any of us lean into life the way we do is because of what we believe and what we believe when teased out is our ideology/theology.
I really think Kirk swung and missed on this one.
In keeping with the theme of Russell Kirk I offer a brief peek at his listing of the necessary elements that must be present in order to claim the mantle of “Conservative.” Kirk has 10 offerings. They are all listed in bold. My response is in the italics.
“First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.”
As long as we insist that the only person who can consistently speak this way is the Biblical Christian I couldn’t agree more. However, I would add that by this definition no one outside of Christ — no one who does not confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior can possibly be a consistent conservative. This is due to the fact that the existence of this enduring moral order is the God of the Bible’s enduring moral order and as such only those who have been reconciled to God in Christ can consistently advocate for this enduring moral order or live in harmony with this enduring moral order.
A small quibble here would be to note that the enduring moral order is made for God before it is made for man.
Human nature is a constant as long as we concede that the human nature in question if sinful apart from Christ and at the same time sinful and saint once in Christ.
We conclude therefore that only the Biblical Christian can be both consistent and conservative at the same time.
Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.
Again, we must presuppose Biblical Christianity here and so insert the word “Biblical” as an adjective describing custom, convention, and continuity. The reason we must do so is that the Biblical Christian does not embrace custom, convention, and continuity for the sake of custom, convention, and continuity. Indeed, for the Biblical Christian custom, convention, and continuity are only to be esteemed as they rest upon and are reinforced by Biblical warrant. If custom, convention, and continuity do not have biblical warrant then they must be jettisoned for a new custom, a new convention, and a new continuity.
Custom, convention and continuity must always be measured by God’s authoritative word. To appeal to the idea that “We’ve always done it this way,” would be an end to the idea of “Semper Reformanda.”
We need to balance Kirk’s offering here with an observation by Dr. R. J. Rushdoony on this score;
“The ‘experience, traditions, and customs’ of a people are simply not enough to provide an epistemological basis for social order. Experience, tradition, and custom, must themselves be anchored in Biblical Christianity. If experience, tradition, and custom cannot be anchored in Biblical Christianity then they must be replaced by that which is seen as new but is yet rooted in Scripture.”
In 1988 after 70 years of Soviet rule in the Soviet Union would it have been proper to join with Kirk saying that custom, convention, and continuity are signs of being a conservative in the then existing Soviet regime? I don’t think any right minded person would think that a worthy description of conservatism when custom, convention, and continuity can be leveraged in the name of a long-standing and established wicked custom, convention, and continuity.
Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.
Kirk’s thought here is that we should prefer the long established wisdom of our forebears as handed down generation by generation over and above our novelty of insight leading to a comparative instant demand for change.
Again, this is true only as in relation to the Biblical Christian as that Biblical Christian has had the blessing of being in a line of Biblical Christians for generations.
However, this principle of prescription would be of little good to an individual whose generations prior were of non-Christians. We know this because of what God’s word teaches in I Peter 1:18;
“knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,”
It does no good whatsoever for the non-Christian to follow Kirk’s principle of prescription if the principle of prescription means they keep on embracing the futile ways inherited from their forefathers.
Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.
What Kirk is getting at here is that conservatives are careful about sudden and rash social order change. Following Chesterton’s advice Conservatives are slow to tear down fences until they first know why our father’s built the fence to begin with.
Revolutionaries are always in a hurry and their desire is for instant social order change. Revolutionaries thus are not prudent. They desire to cut down the mighty oak of an established social order and plant a new acorn and then see it age instantly overnight. Conservatives are slow and methodical when it comes to social order change trusting that their Christian forebears knew what they were doing.
Prudence, has perhaps never been more important when one realizes that in our epoch those who tout themselves as “conservative” are more often than not merely holding down the right side of the left and are therefore not conservative in the least.
Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.
Here Kirk is inveighing against egalitarianism. Kirk understands that modern notions of egalitarianism and equality destroy variety and genuine diversity. The conservative understands that equality means uniformity and that uniformity is the very definition of Hell’s own social order. This principle of variety is in point of fact a plea for liberty in the sense that God is a God who causes men to differ;
We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. Romans 12:6
It is the great Revolutionary sin to pursue equality and it is the great virtue of the conservative to acknowledge a liberty that allows men to differ according to their abilities, talents, and gifts.
