Talk:Conservative Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy

Contents 1 New article 2 Scholars, Theologians and Writers 3 The name 4 Tag 5 Criticism 6 Citations? 7 Proposed deletion 8 Proposed merge 9 Template 10 Differences between Conservative Christianity and Fundalmentalism 11 Conservative Christianity and Liberal Christianity are not polar opposites 12 PoV 13 Limited geographic scope

[edit] New article

I saw there was a category for liberal Christianity so I saw that a category for conservative Christianity would have some precedence.

I am very weak on some areas of historical knowledge and theology. For example, I could not name a Eastern Orthodox scholar at the present time if my life depended on it. Also, my knowledge of the time between Luther and Wesley is very weak in regards to the Protestants.

Sincerely, the gentleman who created the conservative Christianity category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.191.56 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

-

I think the idea of the article is a good one. As for the suggestion someone made about merging this with "Christian right" - I think that idea is dead wrong. There's a distinct difference between theologically conservative christians, and politically conservative ones (although many people are often both). It's a misunderstanding of the word "conservative" to assume that one who is theologically conservative must therefore be politically conservative, or vice versa.

[edit] Scholars, Theologians and Writers

"Earlier Conservative Protestant scholars/theologians include ..."

Wouldn't they all have been considered mainstream Christians back then? Tcschenks 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That is probably true, Tschenks. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The name

The word "conservative" can mean a lot of things, but using it to refer to the most radical parts of the American protestantism is a very serious abuse. They do not follow traditions of the mainstream Christian denominations, so in what is conservative about them ? If anyone, the Orthodox, the Eastern Churches and the Catholics should be refered to as "conservative Christianity". Taw 05:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see this as adequate grounds for disputing the article. The way Wikipedia defines conservative Christianity is correct in terms of its typical use in the English language. The language is a living breathing thing, so I hope you understand that "conservative Christian" is an abberation, an invention, technically unrealated to "conservative" and therefore possessing a definition of its own. Wikipedia's article adequately matches that definition. In a word: although "fundamentalist Christian" may be a more scientific application of original dictionary words, "conservative Christian" is "street" right now.

Also, I encourage you, as a fellow Christian, to consider that no church accurately "conserves" the original Christianity of Christ our Lord. The early Christian church lived communally And followed a brand of social engineering, so conservative (or liberal in its day) that it is totally foreign to our modern day. The church in the beginning was sheparded by the saints in Jeurusaelem. The early church didn't live its life by the "bible" (or the New testament, we know they used some old testament texts in their worship) but in fact by the directly recieved, or indirectly recieved word of Christ. What happened when the faith spread was that the church found its membership built from people that didn't really understand its beliefs. Oral traditions gradually killed off accuracy, and no printing method existed, so the writings of the early church were only available to the church leaders. This became even worse after the conversion of Constantine, as the people and the powerful of the Roman world rushed to join the faith. Indeed, the original Christianity is totally lost, and what we consider "conservative" Christianity, by the admission, I am sure, of conservative Christians, is an attempt to return to those original principles, not an attempt to conserve them. So I would encourage you not to place the "Orthodox, the Eastern Churches and the Catholics" on quite so high a pedastol in regards to their success in continuing the original Christian tradition with only their age as the basis for your argument. C.C. Powers, Jan 1. 2006

I have frankly very little idea of how the Church looked like in the first two centuries, but the Orthodox, the Eastern Churches, the Catholics and some of the protestants at least try to uphold its traditions, with only some minor changes and corrections. On the other hand, some of the churches reject the tradition as corrupt, and propose a return to the basics, like the Bible, and to the way the first Christians supposedly lived. Whether one sees conserving the church tradition (including whatever impurities that had accumulated in the meantime) or a return to the basics as more true to the teachings of Christ, it should be pretty clean that the former approach is conservative, and the latter is fundamentalist and not conservative at all. (And the third approach that ignores both the bible and the tradition to accept novelties like homosexual priests is neither conservative nor fundamentalist).

I fail to see what's conservative about those churches except for the association with American "conservative" politicians, and it's agains the usual meaning of the word "conservative". So I suggest we move this article to Fundamentalist Christianity or some other name that wouldn't imply them preserving what they reject. Taw 00:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate on what I said:

"no church accurately "conserves" the original Christianity of Christ our Lord."

And this is historically proven. Strictly speaking, we don't even know what the early church was like. We have an idea, through the letters and of the apostles and the book, the acts of the apostles, as well as at least some traditional historical documents. We also make some guesses, based on what is (presumably) the word of Christ Jesus passed down to us through the four (translated, re-translated, edited and altered) gospels, whos authorship and authority can never be confirmed except though our faith in ability and will of the apostles and the servants and scribes of the early church, guided by the holy spirit, to carry out the will of God.

So what I was saying, in a word, was that no church preserves the "original tradition" as passed down to us by Jesus christ, and so no church is truly "conservative". In fact, the Catholic beliefs in scholastic theology are a direct and blameless diversion from that original tradition.

Never the less, I repeat my insistance that "Conservative Christianity" is an accurate title in keeping with the current use of the english language and the mission of Wikipedia. What I mean by this is that when people do a search for "Conservative Christianity" on wikipedia they want to hear about the Christianity that their friends and professors and newscasters tell them about when they are referring to conservative Christianity. Also, if it helps, there is already an article titled "Fundamentalist Christianity" on the Wikipedia Database.

However, after you remove your contest to the accuracy of the article, you could do reasearch to find out if any notable faction in the christian world agrees with your belief that no Christianity is truly conservative, and perhaps add it as a short trailer to the contents of the article.

Thank you for responding so promptly to my response, High Schools and Libraries everywhere in the country are shut down for Christmas Break, I don't really have anyhting better to do with my time. C.C. Powers, Jan 1. 2006

Taw, you are complaining about the lack of understanding of eastern and catholic traditions, yet you are showing little understanding of what fundamentalism is. To squish all the movements of this page into "fundamentalism" would be contrived, inaccurate and POV. While these groups mutually share some elements; other elements of fundamentalism are specifically rejected by non-fundamentalist members. Some of the problem may be that the article tends to be U.S.-centric. At any rate this reflects the general usage of the term "conservative" within the US. The article could be modified a bit to reflect that.

Another aspect is that the term "fundamentalist" is frequently a pejorative term (do I sense some of that in your remarks?) and NPOV requires that we not use the label on anyone who does not self-label accordingly. Pollinator 03:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This page (and perhaps the overall name and purpose of the article) is very US-centric in associating conservative Christianity with conservative politics. One contrary example, British Evangelicals have always been conservative (except during the English Reformation, when there views were often, naturally, considered radical and heretical.) They came to describe themselves as 'conservative evangelicals' in the early 20th century in response to a movement that described itself as 'liberal evangelical'. Though the liberal evangelicals are rarely heard from, the conservative label still appears in statements of faith, and evangelicals still consider themselves conservative. Yet their politics have never been associated with the U.S. Right, and while being anti-abortion, have also been strong supporters of what some in the U.S. call liberal issues, such as welfare, civil and human rights and social justice. While all this is interesting, I don't propose adding it to the article, as it would make it even more confusing for the reader. If the U.S. bias can't be fixed, I would propose deleting the article altogether. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag

I have added the unsourced template. I have serious issues with the titling of this article, because I believe many of the cited 'conservative' thinkers and theologians would not identify as such but as 'orthodox', 'evangelical' or something else. I don't believe 'conservative' Christianity is a theological movement in the same way 'liberalism' is. The term is certainly in common parlace, especially in America, but that does not make it informed or correct. However I'm not a theologian and therefore don't feel comfortable 'fixing it'. Therefore I ask the assertions about 'Conservative Christianity' be sourced. Furthermore, I ask that all contributers to the talk page please sign your posts with four tildes.aliceinlampyland 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Criticism

This section really needs an overhaul. For example, what is the basis for concluding Bono is a "liberal Christian"? I know he's a Christian, but I can just as easily associate him with conservative Christianity as with liberal. I think the original contributor was confusing politics and theology. Bono most likely is politically liberal, but that has no bearing on associating him with liberal Christianity. See the recent Rolling Stone interview for some discussion, for example, on his view of the Bible. 71.225.87.127 11:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem with this article. It lumps people of various different theologies together when they ought not to be. Frankly I don't think it should exist at all, because there is no 'conservative' theological movement as such, but rather an evangelical movement, a neo-orthodox movement, a Pentecostal movement, and so forth. aliceinlampyland 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

the problem seems to be in differentiating between conservative christianity and right-wing conservative (if anyone could even agree on what that means). in reference to a conservative christian (conservative theologically not politically) I'd say it means in reference to biblical interpretation. Whether the bible is literally true etc etc Syzergy 19:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Some movements, such as the Evangelical movement and Fundamentalist do not tend to hold conservative views. It's odd infact the fact that especially the Fundamentalist movement was listed. The Fundamentalist movement has funamentalist views not conservative, hence the name.

So I agree this definition most definately needs to be revised.

The problem is though, most people think that Evangelical Christians are conservative, that's probably where the original author of this section got the idea from, however from first hand experience I would say that their views are much more the views of a fundamentalist!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phil2020 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the latest comments of Phil2020 have me leaning even more towards proposing that the entire article be deleted. Liberal Christianity is not anti-conservative, but in response to it many conflicting conservative trands have emerged or been reinvigorated, from ritualism and anglo-catholicism to fundamentalism and the evangelical movement. In fact other progressive elements in society have also created conservative movements in Christianity, that is progressive elements ranging from new forms of Christian worship services, to new reproductive technologies. All these types of 'conservativism' are already quite well covered in Wikipedia, and seem to have nothing in common that could create an interesting encyclopedia article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• This article conflates two distinct topics: conservatism about religion (matters of doctrine, worship, and morals) with conservatism about politics and public policy. This title should become a disambiguation page, and any worthwhile material from here should be relocated to other pages.

As aliceinlumpyland points out, even within the domain of Protestant thought, there is no clear identity to the word "conservative", but various movements that are loosely characterized with the term. (likewise the same comment could describe liberal Christianity Pollinator 16:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Fair point re "liberal Christianity", though FWIW the term "liberal religion" may be worth using to designate non-creedal, anti-authoritarian movements such as American Unitarianism. Chonak 14:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the relocation of all the material about politics of Conservative Christianity to the article about the Christian Right. These are related, but distinct topics.

weslinder 08:07, 07 March 2007

The treatment of "conservative" Catholics is particularly confused. It starts by talking about political conservatism among Catholics, and then cites Opus Dei, although OD has no political line, and in Europe both left- and right-wing politicians can be found as members. Chonak 12:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree very much that the secion on Catholics is wholly confused, talking about American politics as if it were equatiable to religion. Also, the section on criticism just seems way off. I hate not to be specific, but the whole section sounds amaeturish. Some rewrites are in order. Lostcaesar 21:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I also have great reservations about the use of the word "conservative" in this context. It seems to invoke the idea of "right wing traditional values", but has no sense of tradition when it is applied to religion. It may be common parlance, but even in the US it is by no means well defined.

Further more, outside the US, the word "conservative" is more aligned to "unchanging traditions", and would refer to the Eastern Orothodox church, RC and so forth. The title is truly confusing and misleading, and is definitely not clear enough for an encyclopedia. Trishm 12:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is there not a "Criticism" section on the "Liberal Christianity" page? If this were truly balanced, I think there would be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.0.112.99 (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

i'm just here to say i removed the following paragraph from the section as it ends up being irrelevant to the article, is extremely biased-sounding and not even an actual reply to criticism, and doesn't have an ounce of factuality:

"Many conservative Christians respond to these charges by pointing out that Jesus helped the poor and the sick personally, just as they do. He did not raise the money from taxes and then have government deliver the aid. They may also call liberals hypocrites for talking about separation of church and state, until some bible reference seems to help in their leftist political ideology, even if that reading of helping your neighbour mentions nothing about government programs. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.206.97.34 (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Citations?

The citations are all about interpretations of the bible. There is nothing there that talks about "Conservative Christianity".

Is this article purely a reaction to the article on "Liberal Christianity", whatever that is? Because from where I sit (outside the US), this article has no legs to stand on. Trishm 02:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion

I have proposed the article for deletion, based pretty much on the discussions above. Trishm 12:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed PROD, AFD if you want, but needs discussion before possible deletion. Paul foord 22:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, on the basis of the discussion it would have seemed to me a good reason NOT to send for deletion.DGG 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The lack of citations was what led me to believe this was an article without much substance, but I would be equally happy to help bring the article up to scratch.

In my view, there are two sections to the article. One is the counter to Liberal Christianity, which is given the label here of Conservative Christianity, but would be more recognizable as Fundamentalism.

The second is about the Christian Right, e.g. Opus Dei and so forth. Where did the list of scholars come from? Is it the authors selection?

Hroðulf proposed a merge with Christian Right a while back. What are the thoughts? Would merges be beneficial? What merges would be considered? Do we have reliable sources to support the article?Trishm 13:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalism is in no way the opposite of liberal Christianity today. Just as liberal Christianity has a number of different streams, so does conservative Christianity, and Fundamentalism is only one of them. You are mixing groups and subgroups. Pollinator 02:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for constructive comments, giving a summary of the discussion as I see it; I don't claim to be an expert on notions of what liberal and conservative refer to when applied to the religious sphere. In fact, my main issue with this article is that the notion of conservative Christianity is ill-defined to the point that this article would be a candidate for deletion. I think the proper process is AfD? However, I'm not on a crusade. If you can provide some non-original definition to Conservative Christianity that is more than a handwaving reference to the political usage in the US and UK, then that would make all the difference.Trishm 06:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

Conservative Christian redirects to Christian Right, and Hroðulf previously suggested this merge. Any thoughts from anyone?Trishm 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Definite NO. Not all conservative Christians are part of the Christian Right. Please stop trying to squish everything into boxes whether they fit or not. Pollinator 03:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm frustrating you - I'm not from your part of town. I actually think that the term "conservative christian" is trying to create a box that doesn't really fit when applied to religions. I can't figure out for the life of me what conservative Christian is meant to mean, even with this article. Outside the US, the word "conservative" in religion means traditional, as in orthodox or RC. Personally, I don't see how fundamentalist churches which developed in the last century can be considered traditional. If the word has been borrowed from US politics, then the meaning is even vaguer. If it doesn't mean either of those, then what does it mean?

But more to the point, can this article cite a source that defines "conservative christianity?"Trishm 10:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose not the same thiong - Note the redirect at "Conservative Christian" has been to here since 25 December 2006, not Christian right. Paul foord 04:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry? Everytime I try it, including just now, I get to "Christian Right".Trishm 10:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've figured it out: lower case "christian" gets to "Christian right", upper case "Christian" to here.Trishm 10:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

NO Trishm, to me the Christian Right is more of a political group then a religious one. I am an orthodox (traditional) Anglican, and would be considered a member of the conservative Christianity. Conservative Christians are those who believe in the traditional doctrines, morals, and teachings of Christianity...not some political agenda. --Lord Balin 11:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

YES I would actually argue that Christian Right should merged into Conservative Christianity. In sociological terms (and I'm solely addressing the US context here) the Christian Right is a part of Conservative Christianity. I can't site anything off hand right now, but that's how sociologists figure things in my understanding. "Conservative Christianity" is the level of analysis just under "Christianity in the US" and the heading "Christian Right" would fall under the auspices of Conservative Christianity. Soulful scholar (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong No, the Christian Right is a political movement, and Conservative Christianity is a theological position, there is no connection other than many that consider themselves part of the Christian Right would also consider themselves Conservative Christians theologically. To put it another way this would be similar to saying that Wealthy American is synonymous to Republican.--N0nr3s (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I can't get rid of the Christian template appearing twice on the right hand side. Can anyone fix it? It would be nice if we didn't have so much forced white space between some sections.

A word of encouragement: this is an extremely important article and deserves our best efforts. Let's get behind it and get those two Wiki criticisms ready to be removed. Afaprof01 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between Conservative Christianity and Fundalmentalism

Christian Fundamentalism is not Conservative Christianity it is a reaction to liberal theology. When Fundamentalist in the US call themselves Conservatives they mean politically conservative. This article probably needs to explain that fundamentalism is a relatively new theological movement (less than 200 years old) and is distinct from Conservative Christianity. Maybe we should note examples of where Fundamentalist find themselves at variance with conservative/orthodox beliefs.--Riferimento 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative Christianity and Liberal Christianity are not polar opposites

“It is often said that Conservative Christianity and Liberal Christianity are polar opposites,” this may be said but it is completely false. Fundamentalism and Liberal Christianity are polar opposites not Conservative Christianity. It should also be noted in this article that some traditional beliefs and practices are sometimes rejected by fundamentalist because they believe that they cannot be supported by literal interpretation. For example infant baptism is regularly rejected by fundamentalist but is a traditional conservative practice.--Riferimento 23:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PoV

This article has massive POV issues, such as the 'Engagement in Society' section and is almost completely unreferenced. Shoddy work for such a controversial topic. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the 'Engagement in Society' having POV issues, but other sections might. For instance, much of the 'Criticisms of Conservative Christiany' section portrays Jesus Christ's teachings as those of tolerance and social justice. I would argue that a good amount of Christians, myself included, would see Jesus Christ as teaching love and forgiveness, but not tolerance for sins. Besides which, social justice was not Christ's central message by any stretch of the imagination; most churches would teach that his message was something along the lines of, "You are sinners and will go to Hell for it, but I will die for you to have eternal life even though I haven't sinned." Even though the section seems quite biased, if citations are given for some of the less credible statements, it could stay as it is. Bonjour123 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think you'd be content with a listing or of websites of the thousands of parachurch and denominational agencies that feed the hungry, heal the sick, provide water systems, etc. What kind of referencing do you seek? Why not provide it yourself? And what is POV about stating that Conservative Christians are highly involved in such services? There's nothing POV about facts. Pollinator 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The social liberals accused the politically conservative in the US of being “ uncaring for the needs of society,” but neither are Christian groups. The politically conservative who happen to be Christian do in fact give extremely generously to non-profit organizations, possibly because they feel that while it is not governments responsibility to take care of the poor it is a Christian responsibility. In general all Christians give generously to the poor. This is a horrible paragraph that just reinforces the confusion between being a political conservative who happens to be a Christian as opposed to being religiously conservative. In addition with the possible exception of anecdotal evidence, I believe that it would be impossible to document any statement in that paragraph. --Riferimento 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

yo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.119.73 (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Also, Christian lobby groups were, and are, involved in the anti drugs lobby. While the legislation of "controlled" substances would, as studies show, decrease drug related violence and crime. However, most governments around the world (such as Holland) are succumbing to the lobby of Christians to ban drugs from social life." The seems awfully POV, esp. the words "succumbing to the lobby of Christians"; also, the second sentence is pretty much incoherent, and what's with the scare quotes? Langelgjm 13:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limited geographic scope

Are there no conservative Christians outside the United States? Fishal (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)