Right out of the gate, one of the problems with applying ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ labels to Paul, and then trying to map these terms to modern day definitions, is whether the terms would have had the same meaning then as they do now. Using the modern-day, dictionary definitions, ‘conservative’ means to hold to traditional values, while ‘liberal’ centers around having individual rights and freedoms.
Keeping these definitions in mind, do either of the terms aptly describe Paul’s fundamental beliefs and missionary work? From his letters, Paul is an evangelist and pastor who not only believes he has a duty to share the Gospel, but also, as an apocalyptic Jew who also believes he is living in a time of transition between cosmic ages, he is preparing believers for Christ’s presumedly imminent return (Soards 200; 1 Cor 15; 1 Thess 4:13-5:11).
In addition, and as part of directing the Gospel primarily to the Gentiles and their relationship with Judaism (Rom 9 – 11), Paul abrogates Jewish ritualistic laws such as circumcision (Gal 5:6,11), emphatically preaches about living as a ‘new creation’ (2 Cor 5:17), stresses the importance of cooperating with God’s grace (1 Cor 3:6-17; Phil 2:12), and admonishes believers not to get trapped into sinful acts (Gal 5:19-21; 1 Cor 6:9-10).
Aside from the kind of ‘liberal’ move to negate circumcision — which clearly did not go over well with Jewish Christians — Paul, contrary to Soard’s claim that Paul’s ethics are not inherently conservative (203), is actually arguably quite conservative. Granted, along with circumcision, Paul is also a bit lax about the need to marry (1 Cor 7:8); and, overall, he projects himself as marching to the beat of his own drum — even being considered a “dangerously liberal non-traditionalist” (Soards 201).
However, there is a semantics problem here with how the word ‘liberal’ is being used. Yes, based on his own writings and Acts 15, Paul is a revolutionary type of figure when it comes to Jewish ritualistic law. Yet, as Soards explains that excluding Paul’s apocalyptic world view leads to the modern-day conclusion that Paul must have been conservative, the ‘Paul as dangerously liberal’ perspective overlooks (even if unintentionally) that Paul also held steadfast to *moral* law and living a right-ordered life. It could even be argued that his various musings about Jewish practices were a secondary point to his preparing converts for Christ’s return.
In other words, if Paul is already on a high-speed, eschatological mission to get people to live a morally strong life, and he repeatedly explains why good works must support faith (Rom 2:6-7; Gal 6:9-10; Colossians 1:10), this does not necessarily scream a liberal who, in the modern sense, just wants his own rights and privileges and to live in a purely democratic society.
Rather, Paul, whose ethics are rooted in both Judaism and Stoicism, and who does give some degree of directives, including his “catalog of virtues and vices” (Soards 201), is simply not applying ‘halakah’ in a strictly rabbinic sense.
Still, Paul certainly cares that believers are ‘conversative’ against immorality while living as a koinonia that stays true to their faith (Phil 2:1-5; 1 Cor: 1:9). Lastly, in 1 Thess 2:15, Paul even tells believers to “stand firm and hold to traditions taught” to them. That sounds pretty conservative in the grand scheme of things, despite the eschatological messaging and rebellion against circumcision.
Works Cited
Soards, Marion L. The Apostle Paul: An Introduction to his Writings and Teaching. Paulist Press, 1986.