A Typology: Part One

In the wake of any terrorist attack, some of the first things we hear are the insistent voices that cry out: "This is not what Islam is about!"  To which I am sympathetic, because as a Christian, I find myself sometimes classified in broad strokes, and lumped in with people I would rather not call brothers (though on my better days, I work within my soul to do just that).  I am aware that, within Islam, there is great diversity, there are people who love peace and believe that Allah calls them to be beacons of hope and light, and there are people who want to destroy the infidel and believe that Allah calls them to do just that, and there are people on pretty much every stop between those two extremes.
I don't know Islam or Muslims as well as I probably should, given that we share an ancestry, but I do know the Church and Christians, specifically I know the American Church and American Christians.  I found myself humming an old Sesame Street song as I got ready for work this morning, Who are the people in your neighborhood. And it gave me an idea for a series of blog posts, I'm going to do some generalizing and sorting and write a series of character sketches of general types of people that populate the pulpits and pews of the American Church.  I'm going to specifically try and not have any of these be character assassinations, and I'm not going to ever pick on one person.  If I find myself writing about a type that has only one representative in my mind, I'm going to stop and zoom out and start over.
So this, I guess, is the disclaimer: none of these are about you, at least not you specifically.  Each person, in reality, is more unique than any categorical descriptions could really do justice.  Also, I'm going to try and be funny, at least funny in my own sense of the word, because in addition to recognizing the diversity of any body of people, we also need to be able to laugh at ourselves.  The more serious the business, the more important good humor is.  As I mentioned before, people with no sense of humor are dangerous types who like to shoot cartoonists for being offensive.
To get off on the right foot, instead of skewering some type of person I really don't like very much, I'm going to start with a type of Christian that I actually like:
The Old School Liberal
If I was going to have a dinner party, I would want lots of these folks around.  They are liberals from an age where liberal meant something besides MSNBC's audience, and in fact had very little to do with a political affiliation.  Reinhold Neibuhr and C.S. Lewis are OSL, and they have been embraced by many, who in this day and age consider themselves dyed in the wool conservatives.  This type of liberal might also be considered an enlightenment or modern thinker, meaning that they value rationality and the work that we call apologetics, reconciling Christian faith with scientific truth and social movements.  Old School liberals might be unabashed adherents to the social gospel and have no trouble whatsoever with theological discourse taking place in the ivory towers of academia, so long as the work of the Church was still done among the poor and the disenfranchised.
In fact, the thing that makes them "Old School" is the assumption that, in fact, the work of theology, the rather difficult and obtuse arguments that happen within the bounds of Christian Orthodoxy, are best left to those educated and conversant with the long dialogue of faith.  One does not engage a neophyte Christian believer in a conversation about the soteriological implications of the monophysite controversy, however, one might read and struggle to understand those implications for the history of the church and the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity, to which one subscribes, but which one knows must not be held too tightly.
You usually feel more intelligent, and rather more faithful after a good conversation with an OSL, because they are generally Socratic teachers, and most of them (at this juncture in history) have been around the block a dozen times.  They will ask you questions and lead you into the truth (or at least to their point of view of the truth), so that you feel like you've made the journey yourself, and in some sense you have.
Can they be arrogant?  Yes.
Cant they be condescending? Definitely.
Will they use words you have to go look up later?  You can be pretty sure of that.
But the thing is, in my experience, which is certainly colored by the fact that most of my real world exemplars of OSLs are all old enough to be my grandfather or grandmother, it often comes across as gentle advice from a wise elder rather than a harsh critique from an authority figure.
How does one distinguish a really top shelf Old School Liberal from say, your garden variety Old Blowhard (a non-church specific type)?
I would offer that it is probably the presence of questions, some of which may not be entirely Socratic in nature.  The best of Liberal-ness is generally found in the willingness to question and examine one's most deeply held assumptions and convictions.  Liberals who fail to do this, or lose the ability to do this can become as rigid and fundamentalist (in a bad way) as any conservative.  One gets the feeling with a true OSL, that the dialogue is truly a two way communication.  They may be more experienced and more educated than you, their perspective and understanding might seem daunting, but they will be listening and watching to see if there is something they might learn from the eyes of youth, this sort of practice has become part of their nature.
They may challenge you on your own assumptions about things, and if that bothers you, or you cannot accept it from that particular person for reasons of personality conflict, you probably will not enjoy your time with them, but in my opinion, that will be your loss.