How can one group of Christians, more liberal in their focus, be convinced that their theological perspective is the correct one? How can another group, with more conservative leanings, be just as steadfastly certain that its theology is more inherently correct? These questions often burn in the hearts of those who struggle to live in harmony as the body of Christ in a world of conflicting ideals and theologies. Misunderstandings and hurt feelings abound as committed Christians find themselves in seemingly entrenched conflict with one another. Efforts to enter into meaningful, constructive dialogue often end in frustration, as feelings of "not being heard" proliferate.

The fact is, we are not hearing one another, not because we don't genuinely try, but because we are operating out of two very different world views, according to George Lakoff in his book, Moral Politics. He posits that political conservatives and liberals simply see the world differently and that both have difficulty understanding accurately the other's world view. These two differing views can lead to conflicting moral systems which undergird much current political discourse.

Because modern American politics has adopted religious language as its own, the boundaries between political and religious discourse have become blurred. As a result, rather than standing over against secular political rhetoric, the church today often mirrors it.

What are the two world views articulated by Lakoff?

He contends that "deeply embedded in conservative and liberal politics are different models of the family. Conservatism . . . is based on a Strict Father Model, while liberalism is centered around a Nurturant Parent Model."

Strict Father Morality presupposes a traditional nuclear family with the father having primary authority. A person's character is believed to be developed in childhood and to last a lifetime. As a result, people are judged to be inherently reliable or unreliable and moral judgments are easily made. Retribution, rather than restitution, is sought for violating this moral authority.

"Immoral action is seen as motion outside of the permissible range . . . but 'deviant' actions are even more threatening . . . (these) acts call into question traditional moral values." Those who deviate from the "normal" in this model, such as feminists and gays, are seen as a threat to community. Immoral people are spoken of as being sick or having a diseased mind. "Since diseases can spread through contact . . . immoral people must be kept away from moral people, lest they become immoral too."

In the Nurturant Parent Model, a fulfilling life is assumed to be a nurturant life. "Where the Strict Father model stressed discipline, authority, order, boundaries, homogeneity, purity, and self-interest, the Nurturant Parent Model stresses empathy, nurturance, self-nurturance, social ties, fairness, and happiness." Character is defined as possessing the virtues of social responsibility, generosity, respect for the values of others, and sensitivity to feelings. Restitution is favored over retribution. Those who stray from these values can be restored and are not, therefore, viewed as inherently morally defective.

What is the relevance of these two political models for the life of the church?

First, they can provide a framework for increased understanding among those with divergent viewpoints. One of the greatest challenges facing our church today is whether or not we can live into the gospel message, at the deepest spiritual level, with those who hold theological or personal positions that are at variance with our own. If not, we must be clear about the ultimate cost to us all.

Attempting to win someone over to our own deeply held convictions within a limited framework of time is not the answer, as world views evolve slowly through life experiences. It is on respective world views that we bring to the theological and personal positions which matter to us most profoundly and about which we debate most fervently. Holding this reality up to the light through Lakoff's lenses could bring us to a deeper understanding and acceptance of one another that, at times, seems to lie just beyond our reach

In doing so, we must never forget that while Lakoff's models can help us define who we are today as individuals, they do not limit who we may become tomorrow through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Genuine acceptance of one another, at the most profound level, always precedes lasting change. Perhaps, as a church, we need to revisit this aspect of our life together, as we struggle with what it means to live in unity as the body of Christ.

In addition, Lakoff's models can provide us with a benchmark against which to measure current debate in the church. Of note are the long-standing and complicated issues in the Diocese of New Jersey which have become focused on the personhood and character of Bishop Joe Morris Doss. Surprisingly, much of the current debate over the future of his episcopacy bears a strong resemblance to the secular political models outlined by Lakoff, even though differences of opinion go beyond a division over conservative and liberal theologies.

For example, discussions of Bishop Doss's character as indelible and therefore unchangeable have been woven into a sickness model in which it is stressed that the "diseased one" must be removed so the body can be made whole. Retribution, rather than restitution, it is argued, is the only way forward for the diocese.

The secular press has played a pivotal role in the debate, at times setting the agenda and establishing the parameters of the discussion. As the language of religion and secular politics commingle, it can be difficult to determine where one ends and the other begins. As a result, committed Christians on all sides of this issue can find themselves caught up in secular political rhetoric that is more familiar, and therefore more comfortable, than that of traditional theological debate. Therein lies the danger. While this secular model is operative, the church is seemingly unaware of its presence.

To be the church in the world today, we must learn to separate the rhetoric of society from the radical, disturbing, yet profoundly liberating message of the gospel. Failure to do so robs us of the rich tradition of substantive theological debate which is ours in the Anglican communion.

As we seek to live in unity as the body of Christ and to be the church in the world today, Lakoff's models can provide us with a rich resource. As we apply them to these two aspects of our life together, perhaps we will experience on a more profound level the unity that is already ours through baptism. o

The Rev. Elizabeth Rankin Geitz is the author of Soul Satisfaction: Drawing Strength From Our Biblical Mothers and Sisters, published by Morehouse Publishing. She resides in Metuchen, N.J.