Conservative Judaism is also a very confusing term because, generally speaking, the so-called Conservative branch of Judaism is actually quite liberal. It was named as such only because it was slightly more conservative than Reform Judaism.
Interesting information. That might explain the pretty solid leftwards voting tendency and backing of socially liberal policies by a vast majority of Jews
@@redacted7989 Most Jews in the United States are (more or less) secular and their beliefs correspond to how other European-origin secular populations (such as WASP's) vote like.
I was going to look up a term and Google sent me to to the web page of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland - but the page was closed due to it being Sunday! 😮 "This website is closed today in observance of the Lord’s Day. Please do visit again on any other day of the week." - followed by a short explanatory text of why. Now that is an admirable position to take but admittedly it made me lol a bit. 😄
B&H Photo's website is an example of a (quite large) business that does not accept orders on the Sabbath - in this case, Saturdays, since they are Jewish operated.
Your videos are getting better and better. This one in particular is especially well argued and is much more nuanced than most discussions of the conservative-liberal split.
Generally when I hear people talking about theological liberalism or conservatism they're referring to one's stance on the reliability and authority of the Bible
@@paulallenscards It's still umbrella terms. There is a variety of what that can mean. Among theol. libs the emphasis can still be different. Among theol cons. there can be questions on authority as well. E.g. bible being authoritative testimony or 'final authority'... a statement that does have it's problems in terms of authoritative being a property of something, while authority would be with a person.
I appreciate how detailed this video is with relation to religion and what is often inappropriately attached to religion in various dialogues, thank you for such an amount of truth 😊
"Hello, welcome to Ready to Harvest, where 97% of the videos are amazing deep dives into various denominations of Christianity, and 3% are topics forged and crafted to infuriate everyone but delivered in a smooth, easy tone that somehow disarms all but the most hardened, dedicated crap-heads." On behalf of those hardened, dedicated crap-heads, I apologize - they certainly won't do it themselves. Another great video. You continue to be one of the few Christian-focused YT channels I, and a few of my fellow polytheists, watch, discuss, and thoroughly enjoy! May you find favor in the eyes of your god.
That was really interesting and informative, and you went in a direction I was not expecting. Thanks for your insights and really opening up this topic.
That part about how the discussion of conservatice vs liberal is debated in a very anglocentric way, and those labels would be very different in the context of different cultures needs to be preahced.
True, but it is US/UK centric, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. I wouldn't expect him to know my country's history to understand why Eastern Orthodoxy is an element of our national identity, even for atheists (though they might not realize the influence of religion on them). He can see some stats how we're a very religious country (80%-90% religious), but that might give him a wrong impression how much we actually practice/know about religion. In practice, we're a more secular society than that 80-90% belief in God would suggest. Orthodoxy, given historical circumstances, became a major part of our national identity. Foreign invaders, pressured us into adopting Catholicism and Protestantism as a means to erase our national identity (along with other measures like banning our language in education and civil administration, we also grew protective of our language, "the Latin Island in the Slavic Sea"). And so, we grew protective of Orthodoxy also as a symbol against foreign oppression, not just a religion, and Orthodoxy had to take on a political and cultural mission. It's similar to Northern Ireland where Catholicism vs Protestantism was not just a religious dispute, but a political conflict in the past. It would be unreasonable to expect him to know all this stuff. So, his US/UK centrism is ok.
At least in my European country this is the same term we use for churches that are more traditional than others. "Liberal Theology" is what we use for liberal churches, in my country there was also a Conservative Christian party. People often talk about the differences between liberalism in Europe and USA & get theatrically mad at Americans for conflating both, but here I think it's more similar.
@@octavianpopescu4776 British liberalism isn't the same as American liberalism either. British liberalism is classical liberalism, so aimed at individual liberty and protection of property rights. It is what the Liberal Party stood for - which more or less disappeared: the classical liberals went to the Tories and the social liberals joined Labour or continued in the (often politcally irrelevant) Liberal Democrats.
It's good to know that Conservative Anabaptist denominations, as well as many Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox denominations, continue to teach headcovering as taught in 1 Corinthians 11.
The further a Christianity from the Torah and the jew way of life, it gets confusing. By living according to the Torah is how they kept judiaism, Yashua was teaching from the Tanakh
I think there are different elements. Christian denominations can be closer to secular parties (the British anglicans being the conservative party at prayer etc). Fundamentalism (inerrancy, social roles, belief in miracles) and prioritising of the treatment of people. Attachment to particular denominational structures and forms - all the fuss about unity (i.e. structural uniformity, wearing uniforms) vs innovation in these things. So we can distinguish, religious, structural and secular-political continua (at least) I think.
The C of E has not been the Conservative party at prayer for long time, amongst the clegy anyways. In the 80's at times it was the main opposition to the Conservative government. Nowadays it is more the Liberal Democrats at prayer.
It also complicates things that in many cases it is taken as presumed that calling yourself or being called by others "conservative" creates *by itself* greater value or legitimacy, by connection to the essential timelessness of the faith. Of course there the issue becomes *if* what you are conserving *is* a core element of the faith that must be conserved. And yes, there is as well the element that you mention towards the end, of letting the common *sociopolitical* understanding of conservatism or liberalism, that *are* something that does and *must* change as time moves along, leak into the religious sphere.
In light of all this, the fact that the Catholic church has managed to keep it together doctrinally for nearly 2000 years despite countless judases and wolves in sheeps clothing infiltrating the clergy, is nothing short of a miracle.
What are you talking about? What do you think the Novis Ordo is? What about Pachamama. These people think Pagans and Muslims worship the same god as Christians.
Where I come from the suggestion that democracy is valid is contentious (parliament less so, it's evil, basically everyone Christian or not can get on broad with that) and the support of the supremacy of the monarch is a prerequisite. Republican politics are seen as liberal, which they are, having come from that tradition.
Hey Josh! I’ve enjoyed your videos, especially on denominational studies and I’d love if you could make a video recommending the best books for learning about different denominations. Thanks!
@readytoharvest #suggestion Can you do a video on Christianity on South Korea and the cults that are coming from it, like the New Heaven New Earth (Shincheonji) or World Society Mission (God the mother). They're spreading and growing, and it will be great if you speak about it for many people to be aware of this and keep their faith safe and sound. Thank you, blessings brother!
Thanks Joshua, this was very insightful and something most people (even modern Christians) don't understand. Everyone's so wrapped up in labels... and people like that, they will put a label on themselves to show orthodoxy or, whatever. I just call myself a non-denominational Protestant... even calling yourself a "Conservative Christian" (even though that's what I believe myself to be) these days is liable to come with a boatload of assumptions, and misconceptions in five different directions. But hell, I won't even agree to human creeds, even if I accept every line in the creed. ;-) I suppose I am peculiar. Thanks for the video.
Ahh see I just caught myself... I am Protestant, but many people would take from that certain assumptions that aren't necessarily true! One time I told someone I was "just a Christian." They accused me of either being lukewarm, or part of some particular sect that had the habit of calling their members "just Christian." Good thing I don't care to please anyone when it comes to my faith. Take it or leave it.
And as far as "non-denominational"... well, again, someone may be in total accordance with the denomination of the church they go to, or 80%, or 40%, or whatever. Why they go to that church is their business. Maybe they're planting seeds. Religion is so contentious, it seems the first thing someone you're debating wants to know is "What church do you go to?", so they can attack you by association, instead of just dealing with everyone as a man or woman of God, with beliefs and understandings that may be unique to them. I recognize the desire for humans to go "toe to toe" in religious debates, have some kind of boxing match between Denomination A and Denomination B. And I'm not one to shy away from a debate... but I don't care to label myself, because the heart of man is dark, and most people will use it against someone. Good thing I know they aren't the Judge. 😉
I had a lot of trouble with labels for a while too. Eventually I had to decide not to let others' judgments affect me, but be an example of Christ despite push back. after looking into the beliefs i held, I eventually went full circle and have no problem calling my self Baptist. @@mercster
I always took Conservatism to mean “Taking a literal view of scripture as God’s direct words,” which allows for various interpretations so long as that is the attitude they take, while liberalism either doesn’t view the full cannon as absolute, as written, or leans heavily into things being written for a different time period. I say that mostly because it tends to line up with the attitudes of churches that label themselves as liberal of conservative. Obviously that’s not the origins of the words, but it tends to be the colloquial understanding
@@sadraccamacho2189 Well, there are shades of it, of course. A PCA Presbyterian and a fundamentalist would both say everything I stated, but have different definitions of the words or how they get there. But they both have the general attitude of upholding it as the strict Word of God.
Protestant hogwash, do not confuse textualism with deriving the actual original meaning of the sacred text which requires a review of the sacred traditions of the church
My dad is 62 and I’m 24 all he does is talk about politics now, and he’s taught me so much. I know if he ever gets sick (god forbid) this will be a lot of his dialogue.. I care about politics cause of him even if I lean more conservative, he’s taught me how to debate and learn about other peoples opinions. I will always lean right due to conservative churches making me know I deserve to be a mother, without the right I don’t think I’d be a successful mother and worker with an amazing man. I fell pregnant at 18 due to making a horrible choice to lay with someone out of wedlock, the man left and the right made me believe in my purpose, I now have an amazing home, man, and I’m so happy those people helped me. All my friends wanted me to abort and run to Vegas… so many amazing women helped me and didn’t make me feel awful for being a single mom in the beginning, they taught me how to effing breast feed (my mom off’d herself the day after I found out I was pregnant) my son never had formula. I have no idea if the left would of done this for me but there are not programs like y’all have. You saved my life, even as a sinner, thank you so much .
I guess the main difference is that liberals don't believe in an overarching "purpose". That a woman's "purpose" is to be a wife and a mother. That's not to say that you can't be supported as such, but that it isn't out forth as the only way forward.
Good! Remember, wealth, gold, all of them are secondary to the primary good of what a spouse ought to seek, which is the health, safety, and wholesome growth of their children and there are defined archetypes that helps people achieve this! it is wise to listen to tradition for it is the voice of the largest cohort of any nation, the cohort of our ancestors.
6:57 There’s a book out since the 1990s called Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe in which the author points out that same-sex union ceremonies go back centuries in pre-modern Europe and is still practiced in the Eastern Orthodox churches. John Boswell is the author.
The only people I ever knew who did head covering were some in the Bill Gothard camp (I was in a church that nearly got taken over by their adherents).
@@reedermh, yeah, I've also seen it in the Gothard camp. It's also quite comon among some Anabaptist groups like Hutterites, Amish, and Mennonites. Some Brethren too.
5:10 I immediately thought of that "Monty Python" skit that had the Vicar negotiating with the Spanish wine distributor over the tanker ships of sherry required for fulfilling the parish's needs.
"The opposite of liberal is stingy. The opposite of radical is superficial. The opposite of conservative is destructive. So I declare that I am a radical conservative liberal. Beware of men who use words to mean their opposites." THE FLAME IS GREEN
The name Celtic Christianity would indicate a syncretic Christian sect that is trying to combine Celtic pagan beliefs with Christian beliefs. Basically a group that the Inquisition would eradicate as heretics.
It was a sort of unofficial rite in catholicism, and was done away with during a synod in the early medieval ages Iirc confession as its done now has origins from Ireland, dont quote me on that
That would be a very difficult conversation because everyone from Lutherans to Catholics to Orthodox to Baptists like to claim the Celtic Church was where their pure version of Christianity was hiding out during times of confusion on the continent.
Thank you for presenting this in such a level headed way! Speaking of Presbyterians vs Baptists, have you ever done a video on Cumberland Presbyterians? That is the denomination I grew up in and my Dad was a minister. When I asked my Dad growing up the difference between a Cumberland Pres. and a normal Pres., he said we were basically Baptists that allowed for infant Baptism and sprinkling. I wonder if you have a more nuanced take than that?
Interesting video. Useful exploration of conservative. Interesting that 'not conservative' was always referred to as liberal. Your experience in USA might be different to mine in Australia, but I would rarely meet anyone who calls themselves as liberal; the self label tends more to be 'progressive'. Maybe these are synonyms, but I suspect the change in identification has meaning, and might be distancing from earlier 'liberal theology' to more a sense of working for change, and that this language is also used in politics as not conservative.
I found this increasing divergence from its supposed roots in the OT started in the 2nd century, the truth is witnessed in the NT by Jesus, Paul and John. Christianity is not only become political, but it is illegitimate as it does not follow the Torah of Abraham, which you will find Jesus, Paul and John preach the faith of Abraham. For my sins, as they say, I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' bringing the truth.
Many secular people in america and the english speaking world use conservative Christianity as a synonym for fascism. Important bit of context missed in the video. While 'conservative christianity' may not be inherently linked to right wing politics, it is in many contexts and most certainly does in America.
I wouldn't say "inherently linked to right-wing politics" so much as "mutually incompatible with left-wing politics". There are plenty of theological conservatives that have significant problems with political conservatism but feel that the political left is implacably hostile to them in a way the right isn't and don't feel they have anywhere else to go.
Just a reminder: these terms r being defined as they apply to religion, NOT political affiliation. A ‘conservative’ Christian or Baptist, etc should not necessarily assume they must vote conservative. Government is about seeking economic expansion. They do this by utilizing guiding principles, these r laid out in their chosen economic philosophy. Today we have 2, Republicans=Reagonomics (a deregulated version of Trickle Down) Democrats=Middle Out economics Both ~in a very limited in scope nutshell~ describe the national economic focus. Reagonomics puts the focus at the top & Middle Out puts that same focus on the middle class. As u can see, who a person votes for within government should b associated with that family’s economic class & NOT where they land within cultural issues. Cultural & political r not the same & should never b confused or simply blended together. Political propaganda will often attempt to do just that in order to pander support for economic policy that is not in ur best interest.
@@johnshelton1141 Ur comment is not clear. A myth as it does not work?? Or that its not a legitimate economic philosophy taught as standard fair in political science? Supply Side is another title for the same.
Nice Job ins misrepresenting politics so completely, the democrats are not for the middle class, in fact, they want to stratefy the classes for the rich to be really rich and the poor to be comfortably poor. the middle class is then hallowed out. They're big cheerleaders for the policies of FDR and LBJ, great society plans that require mass centralization. The republicans also do this but in a different manner, they want to expand the global reach of american markets so they pursued the policy of globalization when the U.S was fighting the USSR, now there is a new brand of republicanism returning, revived by Trump, the brand of theodore roosevelt, one of protectionists policies and domestic decentralization, like fighting against big monopolies, big unions, and sweeping federal government programs.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 Not even close. U need to study political science, basic economics 101 as they pertain to a country, & U.S. History. U can say whatever u prefer, history doesnt lie.
I was a member of the FPCNA for 16 years. That's the Free Presbyterian Church of North America, which began in Ulster, Northern Ireland. Some of the distinctives are: headcoverings; modest dress, which also includes that women wear skirts/dresses; infant baptism, but allows for immersion of those who come to faith later in life and who weren't already baptized as an infant; grape juice rather than fermented wine; KJV of the Scriptures (not the same as KJVO); no female pastors, elders, deacons or women who lead in any way; holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger & Shorter Catechisms; reformed soteriology - ALL five points of Calvinism; singing of psalms but also hymns of the historic Christian faith; Postmillennial in eschatology; covenantal understanding of the Scriptures (old covenant/new covenant distinctions); church discipline and ex-communication where necessary for the unrepentant; they are very loving people and evangelistic. There are some more minor things but that's the gist.
You should note that historically some churches holding what you would term the "conservative" position accepted divorce on the ground of adultery, in accordance with Matthew 13. When the Church of England was discussing it early in the twentieth century, it noted that "There has always been a difference of opinion as to whether Our Lord meant to forbid remarriage to the innocent party in a divorce."
It gets really interesting when you consider movements like the Worldwide Church of God, Quakers, and Mormonism. Quakers especially, as their conservative position by definition is to never be "conservative", but then there's the fact that polygamists are the conservatives in Mormonism.
This was extremely well done. It is also a perfect example of why, having taken religious vows many years ago ( which I still take very seriously), I nonetheless came to reject ALL denominations. The absurd positions some of them hold, the promotion of hate and sexism in others, the greed and idolatry in still others....I now serve Christ without the dubious burden of priests and pastors with feet of clay, and congregations more interested in pushing political agendas than service to Our Lord.
@@prod.mohomid Well, perhaps I worded it poorly. I choose for myself not to identify with any one denomination. There ARE some denominations out there that strive to follow Christ's ACTUAL teachings and mandates. Most of them, however, are Paulists or idolators.
@@prod.mohomid They are what is called a christian chameleon, basically whatever the "current society" deems okay, thats what Jesus wanted and therefore they are christian. Abortion? its liberal and popular and since Jesus is all about being hip and cool, he would be so for abortion! Divorce? Damn, what a great idea! Usury? WELLL... if the jews do it, why shouldn't we do it?
@@Dalekzilla I'm not sure what you mean by Paulist. I believe that Paul's teachings are inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is just as much God and as much part of the Trinity as is Jesus (the Son) and the Father, and as such, they cannot contradict what Christ taught. Yes, they may elaborate on what Christ taught, but they do not contradict. I do not take Paul as some higher authority as our Lord, but I believe He taught Paul and inspired the words he penned are just as much Scripture as the Gospels are. If, on the other hand, you're referring to some in the Catholic tradition who regard their views under the grouping of Paulist, as someone who generally aligns with the major views of the Protestant reformation I would agree that there is much in their tradition that I would disagree with and find unbiblical.
I was surprised you didn't include chronological or historical precedent as a a conservative stance. In that regard, infant baptism is seen as the more conservative stance, because it was only ended with the more radical reformers. Likewise, this view can be applied to things like alcohol. Essentially, breaking away from the traditional view is non-conformist, and thereby liberal. That's how it's often used in regard to social issues as well, but for social issues the term progressive has become more common in English.
I wouldn't distinguish from conservative to liberal. I'd distinguish between conservative, traditionalist, reformist and revivalism. Conservative meaning to conserve some tradition from degradation, traditionalist as to freeze the tradition as it's, reformist as reforming the church to a new environment and revivalist as rekindling a supposed old tradition. A conservative baptist might conserve the rite of communion by making it part of every ministry. A traditionalist would instead refuse to change anything about the rite of communion, including it's usual monthly frequency. A reformist might decide to change the bread to glutenfree cornmeal. And a revivalist might decide to change from staple fermented refined bread to unfermented whole bread as a return to the supposedly lost tradition. See how I used a really uncontroversial topic on purpose, and see how it's framed through particular issues.
It's difficult to tell what people are talking about when they use terms like "conservative" or "liberal" Christian. I'm mostly politically progressive, but tend toward a more conservative faith and worship.
It's not too complicated politically, you get English liberals (basically the founding fathers and most American republicans) who belief that the traditional rights of the English (the constitution largely just codified in one place principals upheld for a long time in English law, though the idea they came from the people forgets that they were instituted by the King in a power struggle with the nobility, undermining demanded privileges by giving them to everyone, also in Britain these right have outright been destroyed by parliament rather than protected) were established by the people and upheld by an elected assembly. The French liberals believe in a fully formed ideology sweeping away the past through an inevitable historical process and ushering in a utopia in which people are totally socially alienated from one another, don't have the concept of property and follow their natural instincts, basically everyone on the left comes from this tradition as do neo-cons and some of the madder elements of the far right. Then you have conservatives, who basically just want what we had yesterday tomorrow. As a result they tend to have issues maintaining values or power as their whole motivation is not the same logic that created it but rather that they liked the results, this is incredibly easy to undermine, and conservatives are often too naive and clueless about the nature of the thing they are protecting to realise the true nature of the conflict. In a religious sense a conservative is fine with how they like things (typically that is whatever they grew up with, but might be some personal element of faith, this is how most political liberals end up theologically conservative, they simply don't view personal and spiritual beliefs to be relevant to one another). The liberal isn't even Christian (though a lot of the time out of ignorance and social conformity more so than anything) but a French liberal ideologue attempting to twist the church to fit the theology of an incompatible religion (French liberalism and traditional Christian theology are oil and water, probably worse as a lot of the morality in inverted). The reactionaries meanwhile are running around trying to actually institute Christian teachings, the problem is that unlike the conservative (who will largely just be mocked as they are to the liberal mind a doomed species) liberals will actively do everything possible to destroy them as they recognise them as the actual threat, also due to the many denominations the people who are serious about their faith are split in the existing deviations and usually devout enough to make cooperation despite disagreement difficult and potentially volatile.
@@vorynrosethorn903I'm a Catholic, i believe that to go against the King is to go against God. That is not to say Kings are Godly being at all! But the Kingship in itself has always been a fundamental part of Christianity, it's in the Bible! Democracy is not of God 🙏
Anyone who “religiously” follows the Ready to Harvest channel, has seen comments chiding me for writing a longer comment than the video. Maybe this comment will be shorter than the video. It seems to me (in the United States at least), some people consider themselves theologically conservative by virtue of subscribing to the traditions that were considered “Christian” in Europe between the sixth and eighteenth centuries. Other people consider themselves conservative by virtue of trying to interpret the Bible “literally” and dispensing with any traditions they don’t consider biblical.
For me, conservative Christianity is a mix of traditional Roman Catholic, conservative Mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals. They are people who think the Bible (and/or pope for the hardcore Catholics) is the absolute word of god without question and you must obey every rule and dogma of the religion or else you will go to hell. That has been my experience and my study of religion as a whole. There is also the Eastern Orthodox, all of them are hardcore conservative and even put the Catholics and Evangelical Protestants to shame. Of course you got tier of Evangelicals such as the majority of what I call moderate/lukewarm/cultural Evangelical Christians: These people are religious to some degree but only on Sunday or when they want to share their love for Jesus or flaunt in your face how they are a Christian and why you should be to. Then you have the hardcore/political Evangelicals. These two might be different in that one might be hardcore and very religious but just shy of fundamentalist's but zealous enough to make them distinct from moderate/lukewarm Evangelicals. There is also the political part in that politics is very important and they espouse Christian Nationalists/Christian Dominionist ideas of wanting to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy in order to appease god. The last of these is the Fundamentalist's Evangelicals: These people are wacky and they will avoid even politics thinking its of the devil and be almost like the Amish and flee from modern society and live in religious communes.
Believing what the Bible says about Satan ruling this world and its politics doesn't make anyone "wacky". It' just means you are hard-headed. How can see what's going on in this world and not see Satan's influence in politics?
For discussions like this I tend to use the terms "orthodox", "heterodox" and "unorthodox" instead of "conservative", "liberal" or something in between. Especially since the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are so politically charged. It takes some explaining, but not nearly as much as using "conservative" or "liberal" in a non-political way
@@anthonyprose4965well I am and we amongst ourselves do, so I don't see why you couldn't use the terms orthodox and heterodox around us. However it would complicate things in the sense that I would argue that all of the differences between for example Catholicism and another denomination are the consequences of heterodoxy on the part of the other denomination. Broadly speaking that is. But the claim would likely be similar the other way around.
@@anthonyprose4965nah we use orthodox, unorthodox and hetrodox. Orthodox with capital o can refer to Eastern Orthodox, but catholic folks use the word orthodox
If speaking about Christianity in general you would have to use a basket of issues and not just one issue and compare the various denominations as a whole.
Wow. Interesting discussion. As an old fart who read The Battle For The Bible as a contemporary analysis, and had respect for Machen, this is an expansion of my normal way of viewing the theological world. Still, in the theological world since Wellhausen, I think that the question "do you subject yourself to the Scripture as given, or do you sit in judgement over it?" is a valid sword by which to divide the faithful (conservative) from the usurpers of God's place (liberal). I disagree with my Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, and other friends on significant doctrines, but we agree on one essential: the Scripture is correct, and I am subject to it. If you convince me that your interpretation is correct, I'm changing my position. I am happy to grant that these friends are "conservative," even though we have significant disagreements.
Great analysis, couldn't have said it better myself. As 2 Timothy 2:15 puts it (KJV) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Thank you for the video. I am a non denominational Christian, more leaning toward Anabaptist. Tell you the truth, the title screen almost look exactly like my church. Most of the women in my church wears a headship veiling.
I think a good example of explaining how difficult it is to measure "conservatism" in Christianity is the Catholic vs Protestant divide over sola scriptura. Conservative Catholics always lament that sola scriptura is super liberal and is to blame for all the Protestant denominations who have officially endorsed same-sex actions, meanwhile conservative Protestants will claim that the Catholic lack of sola scriptura is liberal and is to blame for the various priests and bishops who have made LGBT-friendly remarks, including Pope Francis's sometimes apparent openness to the community. Point being that anything can be liberal depending on who's talking.
Excellent video. How does this also relate to how the Bible is viewed and interpreted? Most denominations claim to hold closer to the Bible than others, and those who do not would be more generally liberal. However, is it the case that those denominations that hold to literalism, inspiration, and eternal truth would be conservative, where any denominations that view the Bible as fallible, having cultural influence, writer bias, or otherwise needing some expert correction are more liberal?
To simplify, I would suggest how a denomination views Scripture as a core distinction. Does it believe God/Creator can speak/communicate to humankind in a way (oral or by human instrumentality) that perfectly preserves the content of God's thoughts/mind? Conservatives say "Yes," and Liberals say "No." Read THE WORD OF GOD AND THE MIND OF MAN: This Crisis of Revealed Truth in Contemporary Theology, Ronald H. Nash, P&R, 1982.
I thought conservative always meant following the Bible but after you said baptizing after a profession of faith is liberal it changed my mind, thanks.
Does anyone know the video where Joshua discusses Christian denominations being on a spectrum, giving examples of high church and low church, and showing a graphic of a spectrum with terms on it? I cannot remember the video for the life of me
Check his "Topics of Interest" playlist. You're probably thinking of the "which denominations are most like Catholics" video. I've suggested the topic of high church vs low church but he hasn't done a specific video on it yet.
You look so good in that red plaid shirt, goes nicely with your red hair. Every time I look at you, all I see is a Monk/Minister. I have been a member of UCC my whole life. I live in the very liberal state of CT.
yep, "conservative" and "liberal" are highly context-relative terms. Sometimes they are not very useful labels, unless the domains to which they are applied are explicitly defined before they enter the conversation.
It is said that some Presbyterian denominations are in the middle and do not hold to all the historic Presbyterian positions listed beforehand. The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland is shown when this is said and I would like to know which of the historic positions listed do they not uphold? From everything a know they would uphold all of those things. The Free Church of Scotland continuing should have 6 churches instead of 4 in the USA soon I believe.
The distinction between theological versus political conservativism/liberalism is very important. Among Catholics, it very often totally disconnected. You can theologically extremely "Liberal" Catholics who are hardcore Republicans, or Traditionalists who are Anarcho-Syndaicalists.
Is it liberal or conservative to oppose Vatican II? Depends on whether the person you asks opposes it. Most Old Catholic churches are liberal both socially and theologically, but there's a strong case to be made that originally they were the most conservative Catholics, opposing the innovations of Vatican I.
@@RepublicofE Most old catholic churches are old, they are not liberal or conservative, they are not "new" socially or theologically, they are just old. And Vatican I was merely just a repudiation of the progressive reforms that Pope IX did himself so ironically, if what you are refering to old being the churches who follow pre Vatican I, they are, as old churches tend to be, "conservative" socially and theologically (ie refuses female pastors, dislikes contraception, forbids disordered unions, forbids the cancellation of marraige vows, etc, etc).
@@RepublicofE there are plenty that have claimed to have risen from the dead and yet there is Zero Demonstrable evidence to back it up. Otherwise you worship the Malevolent war god of Abraham that committed mass genocide, allows murder, rape, incest, etc…. Definitely not a “loving” god that Christians claim. And Jesus was just an ordinary man like all of the rest at that time.
Great video! Interesting for me (as a "conservative" presbyterian) to see the PCA, OPC and RPCNA all on the same "level" so to speak. I clearly see them ordered from liberal to conservative as PCA, OPC, RPCNA (although definitely all more conservative than EPC and less than PRC/FPCS).
I think my gut instinct would be to do the same thing, but I decided that it was too subjective to do that. After all, the most "conservative" one in your list, RPCNA, has women deacons at the same time they have exclusive psalmody. I find the "scale" would put them clearly on the one side of EPC, ECO, etc., but among themselves the distance is much narrower.
@@ReadyToHarvest Yeah definitely similar for sure, would be interesting to see your take on NAPARC (a denominational association they all belong to) and other similar extra-ecclesial structures (if they exist).
From a certain point of view, the Eastern Orthodox Church is the most conservative Christian denomination, due to the lack of innovations in doctrine and practice throughout it's history. Within Orthodoxy, the Greek church tends to be a bit more relaxed or 'liberal' in some aspects (although when some of their hierarchs recently took more explicitly liberal stances, they were met with strong backlash), whereas the ROCOR churches tend to be very traditional or 'conservative', much like the monasteries.
Even the EO tends to acknowledge tho that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is even more conservative. I once heard it described as “spiritual life on hard mode” lmao.
@@jas9friend In some respects it certainly is, maintaining some of the Jewish law, although depending on who you talk to that might be problematic, falling into the heresy of Judaisation (or whatever it's called). I guess that would make it less conservative? idk.
Eastern Orthodoxy: Our faith and practice has remained unchaged since the time of the apostles. Also Eastern Orthodoxy: Don't worry if you can't commune with us due to not being Orthodox, you can still partake in this magic bread we invented out of thin air as a consolation prize.
That's like saying Christians should respect the alphabet community. Did jesus say that all paths lead to him? The name liberal literally goes against the Bible. Scripture is never changing and God is timeless and matter less. He doesn't change nor does his laws.
Looking at the etymology, conservatives try to keep something together ("protect"), while liberals try to open something up ("free"). The baptist/presbyterian divide that was presented in the video can be explained in the following way: Both approaches can be viewed as conservativs because both are trying to protect a certain point of view from being watered down, even if the specific points of view are opposed to each other. A liberal approach would be to combine them/let them coexist (which is what many mainline/big tent denominations do.) Viewed this way many dichotomies can be explained: It's not necessarily conservative to try to maintain liturgical traditions, but what certainly is is to either strongly prefer such traditions (orthodox, catholics, lutherans...) or to completely reject them (certain evangelicals). A "liberal" point of view would be kind of accepting of both a mass and a worship session. Similarly, modern debates can be viewed through this lense, for example how "conservatives" try to maintain the traditional man-woman family structure, while "liberals" open the family term to include homosexual pairs or potentially other options.
The Gospel and Epistles are radical. Acts proves the earliest Christians were downright anti-capitalist, it is impossible to try to hold on to any past while acknowledging the Living God and the Living Christ.
Conservative Judaism is also a very confusing term because, generally speaking, the so-called Conservative branch of Judaism is actually quite liberal. It was named as such only because it was slightly more conservative than Reform Judaism.
Interesting information. That might explain the pretty solid leftwards voting tendency and backing of socially liberal policies by a vast majority of Jews
Conservative Jews are in the middle, between Reformed and Orthodox Judaism.
@@redacted7989 Most Jews in the United States are (more or less) secular and their beliefs correspond to how other European-origin secular populations (such as WASP's) vote like.
@@darkness_before_dawn-kp9rx cope.
All the top donors to both sides are Jewish.
Moreso on the left though.
Ooy nice to see you here @usefulcharts ✌🏾
I was going to look up a term and Google sent me to to the web page of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland - but the page was closed due to it being Sunday! 😮
"This website is closed today in observance of the Lord’s Day. Please do visit again on any other day of the week." - followed by a short explanatory text of why.
Now that is an admirable position to take but admittedly it made me lol a bit. 😄
B&H Photo's website is an example of a (quite large) business that does not accept orders on the Sabbath - in this case, Saturdays, since they are Jewish operated.
@@ReadyToHarvest That is amazing. Never came across that before. Every day is school day I guess, unless it is not.
I came across this as well!
I presume the church itself is open. I wonder what stuff they do and don't consider allowable to "work" on Sunday.
Your videos are getting better and better. This one in particular is especially well argued and is much more nuanced than most discussions of the conservative-liberal split.
Generally when I hear people talking about theological liberalism or conservatism they're referring to one's stance on the reliability and authority of the Bible
That sounds right. And keeping scripture in context.
That is more or less an appropriate dichotomy for a general context
Please keep in mind the Bible is to be rightly divided. Other wise you have chaos, which many churches already have.
@@davidkunze2770 rightly divided?
@@paulallenscards It's still umbrella terms. There is a variety of what that can mean. Among theol. libs the emphasis can still be different. Among theol cons. there can be questions on authority as well. E.g. bible being authoritative testimony or 'final authority'... a statement that does have it's problems in terms of authoritative being a property of something, while authority would be with a person.
Joshua, this was one of your best presentations! Thank you.
I appreciate how detailed this video is with relation to religion and what is often inappropriately attached to religion in various dialogues, thank you for such an amount of truth 😊
"Hello, welcome to Ready to Harvest, where 97% of the videos are amazing deep dives into various denominations of Christianity, and 3% are topics forged and crafted to infuriate everyone but delivered in a smooth, easy tone that somehow disarms all but the most hardened, dedicated crap-heads."
On behalf of those hardened, dedicated crap-heads, I apologize - they certainly won't do it themselves.
Another great video. You continue to be one of the few Christian-focused YT channels I, and a few of my fellow polytheists, watch, discuss, and thoroughly enjoy!
May you find favor in the eyes of your god.
As a former polytheist myself, you'd be shocked to find out that Odin is now worshiping Jesus. I know I was surprised when I found out.
A great example of "judging from a high place" you cannot be trusted because you have no skin in the game, you're a "polytheist"
NEW READY TO HARVEST VIDEO LETS GOOOOOOOO
“And that’s makes some people upset” lol
Enjoyed this video. Really shows diverse interpretations of religious issues.
That was really interesting and informative, and you went in a direction I was not expecting. Thanks for your insights and really opening up this topic.
Thank you, Bruce!
That part about how the discussion of conservatice vs liberal is debated in a very anglocentric way, and those labels would be very different in the context of different cultures needs to be preahced.
True, but it is US/UK centric, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. I wouldn't expect him to know my country's history to understand why Eastern Orthodoxy is an element of our national identity, even for atheists (though they might not realize the influence of religion on them). He can see some stats how we're a very religious country (80%-90% religious), but that might give him a wrong impression how much we actually practice/know about religion. In practice, we're a more secular society than that 80-90% belief in God would suggest. Orthodoxy, given historical circumstances, became a major part of our national identity. Foreign invaders, pressured us into adopting Catholicism and Protestantism as a means to erase our national identity (along with other measures like banning our language in education and civil administration, we also grew protective of our language, "the Latin Island in the Slavic Sea"). And so, we grew protective of Orthodoxy also as a symbol against foreign oppression, not just a religion, and Orthodoxy had to take on a political and cultural mission. It's similar to Northern Ireland where Catholicism vs Protestantism was not just a religious dispute, but a political conflict in the past. It would be unreasonable to expect him to know all this stuff. So, his US/UK centrism is ok.
At least in my European country this is the same term we use for churches that are more traditional than others. "Liberal Theology" is what we use for liberal churches, in my country there was also a Conservative Christian party. People often talk about the differences between liberalism in Europe and USA & get theatrically mad at Americans for conflating both, but here I think it's more similar.
@@octavianpopescu4776 British liberalism isn't the same as American liberalism either. British liberalism is classical liberalism, so aimed at individual liberty and protection of property rights. It is what the Liberal Party stood for - which more or less disappeared: the classical liberals went to the Tories and the social liberals joined Labour or continued in the (often politcally irrelevant) Liberal Democrats.
Why would a discussion of English words not be anglocentric?
This kind of thing isn't a perfect science. lol
Your way of approaching the question leads as well in Germany to valuable results und insights. Thank You.
Your videos are a like a cup of black coffee. Strong, uncompromising, and smooth.
This was incredibly helpful -- thank you for exploring the different meanings of "conserving" in this video.
It's good to know that Conservative Anabaptist denominations, as well as many Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox denominations, continue to teach headcovering as taught in 1 Corinthians 11.
The further a Christianity from the Torah and the jew way of life, it gets confusing. By living according to the Torah is how they kept judiaism, Yashua was teaching from the Tanakh
I think there are different elements. Christian denominations can be closer to secular parties (the British anglicans being the conservative party at prayer etc). Fundamentalism (inerrancy, social roles, belief in miracles) and prioritising of the treatment of people. Attachment to particular denominational structures and forms - all the fuss about unity (i.e. structural uniformity, wearing uniforms) vs innovation in these things. So we can distinguish, religious, structural and secular-political continua (at least) I think.
The C of E has not been the Conservative party at prayer for long time, amongst the clegy anyways. In the 80's at times it was the main opposition to the Conservative government. Nowadays it is more the Liberal Democrats at prayer.
Most interesting, as per usual.
It also complicates things that in many cases it is taken as presumed that calling yourself or being called by others "conservative" creates *by itself* greater value or legitimacy, by connection to the essential timelessness of the faith. Of course there the issue becomes *if* what you are conserving *is* a core element of the faith that must be conserved.
And yes, there is as well the element that you mention towards the end, of letting the common *sociopolitical* understanding of conservatism or liberalism, that *are* something that does and *must* change as time moves along, leak into the religious sphere.
In light of all this, the fact that the Catholic church has managed to keep it together doctrinally for nearly 2000 years despite countless judases and wolves in sheeps clothing infiltrating the clergy, is nothing short of a miracle.
What are you talking about? What do you think the Novis Ordo is? What about Pachamama. These people think Pagans and Muslims worship the same god as Christians.
I've noticed personally many Christian fundamentalist view conservative Republicanism to be a requirement for a true faith in Christ.
That is dumb
Both sides advocate for baby murder. America has never been a Christian Nation.
Where I come from the suggestion that democracy is valid is contentious (parliament less so, it's evil, basically everyone Christian or not can get on broad with that) and the support of the supremacy of the monarch is a prerequisite. Republican politics are seen as liberal, which they are, having come from that tradition.
But the Monarchy has no longer any real authority of the church. Sounds more liberal to me.
Your confused : some conservative Republican values R more inline with their Christian values !
Thanks again for a very informative video. You perform a great service to the body of Christ.
Jesus was a criminal that got a spear rammed up his ass and was buried in a mass grave. And you worship that?
Hey Josh! I’ve enjoyed your videos, especially on denominational studies and I’d love if you could make a video recommending the best books for learning about different denominations. Thanks!
@readytoharvest #suggestion
Can you do a video on Christianity on South Korea and the cults that are coming from it, like the New Heaven New Earth (Shincheonji) or World Society Mission (God the mother). They're spreading and growing, and it will be great if you speak about it for many people to be aware of this and keep their faith safe and sound. Thank you, blessings brother!
Thanks Joshua, this was very insightful and something most people (even modern Christians) don't understand. Everyone's so wrapped up in labels... and people like that, they will put a label on themselves to show orthodoxy or, whatever. I just call myself a non-denominational Protestant... even calling yourself a "Conservative Christian" (even though that's what I believe myself to be) these days is liable to come with a boatload of assumptions, and misconceptions in five different directions. But hell, I won't even agree to human creeds, even if I accept every line in the creed. ;-) I suppose I am peculiar. Thanks for the video.
Ahh see I just caught myself... I am Protestant, but many people would take from that certain assumptions that aren't necessarily true! One time I told someone I was "just a Christian." They accused me of either being lukewarm, or part of some particular sect that had the habit of calling their members "just Christian." Good thing I don't care to please anyone when it comes to my faith. Take it or leave it.
And as far as "non-denominational"... well, again, someone may be in total accordance with the denomination of the church they go to, or 80%, or 40%, or whatever. Why they go to that church is their business. Maybe they're planting seeds. Religion is so contentious, it seems the first thing someone you're debating wants to know is "What church do you go to?", so they can attack you by association, instead of just dealing with everyone as a man or woman of God, with beliefs and understandings that may be unique to them.
I recognize the desire for humans to go "toe to toe" in religious debates, have some kind of boxing match between Denomination A and Denomination B. And I'm not one to shy away from a debate... but I don't care to label myself, because the heart of man is dark, and most people will use it against someone. Good thing I know they aren't the Judge. 😉
I had a lot of trouble with labels for a while too. Eventually I had to decide not to let others' judgments affect me, but be an example of Christ despite push back. after looking into the beliefs i held, I eventually went full circle and have no problem calling my self Baptist. @@mercster
Well said! I’m in your camp!😁
a facinating, well organized, and well made video as always
I always took Conservatism to mean “Taking a literal view of scripture as God’s direct words,” which allows for various interpretations so long as that is the attitude they take, while liberalism either doesn’t view the full cannon as absolute, as written, or leans heavily into things being written for a different time period.
I say that mostly because it tends to line up with the attitudes of churches that label themselves as liberal of conservative.
Obviously that’s not the origins of the words, but it tends to be the colloquial understanding
That seems more like fundamentalism. You can, for example, be “conservative” Catholic without holding to that.
@@sadraccamacho2189 Well, there are shades of it, of course. A PCA Presbyterian and a fundamentalist would both say everything I stated, but have different definitions of the words or how they get there. But they both have the general attitude of upholding it as the strict Word of God.
This is right. See my comment above.
@@sadraccamacho2189 Fundamentalism is very different from a comprehensive belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture.
Protestant hogwash, do not confuse textualism with deriving the actual original meaning of the sacred text which requires a review of the sacred traditions of the church
My dad is 62 and I’m 24 all he does is talk about politics now, and he’s taught me so much. I know if he ever gets sick (god forbid) this will be a lot of his dialogue.. I care about politics cause of him even if I lean more conservative, he’s taught me how to debate and learn about other peoples opinions. I will always lean right due to conservative churches making me know I deserve to be a mother, without the right I don’t think I’d be a successful mother and worker with an amazing man. I fell pregnant at 18 due to making a horrible choice to lay with someone out of wedlock, the man left and the right made me believe in my purpose, I now have an amazing home, man, and I’m so happy those people helped me. All my friends wanted me to abort and run to Vegas… so many amazing women helped me and didn’t make me feel awful for being a single mom in the beginning, they taught me how to effing breast feed (my mom off’d herself the day after I found out I was pregnant) my son never had formula. I have no idea if the left would of done this for me but there are not programs like y’all have. You saved my life, even as a sinner, thank you so much .
I guess the main difference is that liberals don't believe in an overarching "purpose".
That a woman's "purpose" is to be a wife and a mother. That's not to say that you can't be supported as such, but that it isn't out forth as the only way forward.
Thank you for the warm likes it makes me cry
Good! Remember, wealth, gold, all of them are secondary to the primary good of what a spouse ought to seek, which is the health, safety, and wholesome growth of their children and there are defined archetypes that helps people achieve this! it is wise to listen to tradition for it is the voice of the largest cohort of any nation, the cohort of our ancestors.
6:57 There’s a book out since the 1990s called Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe in which the author points out that same-sex union ceremonies go back centuries in pre-modern Europe and is still practiced in the Eastern Orthodox churches. John Boswell is the author.
I had no idea how widely preached head covering for women were by various thinkers. Kind of interesting.
Deez nuts ( no offense)
The only people I ever knew who did head covering were some in the Bill Gothard camp (I was in a church that nearly got taken over by their adherents).
@@reedermh, yeah, I've also seen it in the Gothard camp. It's also quite comon among some Anabaptist groups like Hutterites, Amish, and Mennonites. Some Brethren too.
Pretty much all branches of Christianity taught it up until the feminist movement. Even as late as the late 1960's the majority did.
Well, headcovering with a veil is preached in conservative churches because it is taught in the Bible, in 1 Corinthians 11.
5:10 I immediately thought of that "Monty Python" skit that had the Vicar negotiating with the Spanish wine distributor over the tanker ships of sherry required for fulfilling the parish's needs.
"The opposite of liberal is stingy. The opposite of radical is superficial. The opposite of conservative is destructive. So I declare that I am a radical conservative liberal. Beware of men who use words to mean their opposites." THE FLAME IS GREEN
Another great video
Another interesting well thought out program. Makes sense. Thanks.
I just appreciate you soooo so much!!! You are so helpful and needed. Thank you!
I also suggest doing a video about the Maronite Church.
Topical Idea: What is Celtic Christian and how is it found in our denomination today?
The name Celtic Christianity would indicate a syncretic Christian sect that is trying to combine Celtic pagan beliefs with Christian beliefs.
Basically a group that the Inquisition would eradicate as heretics.
It was a sort of unofficial rite in catholicism, and was done away with during a synod in the early medieval ages
Iirc confession as its done now has origins from Ireland, dont quote me on that
That would be a very difficult conversation because everyone from Lutherans to Catholics to Orthodox to Baptists like to claim the Celtic Church was where their pure version of Christianity was hiding out during times of confusion on the continent.
@@RepublicofE not really since both Orthodox and Catholics were still a united Church when it existed.
Thank you for presenting this in such a level headed way! Speaking of Presbyterians vs Baptists, have you ever done a video on Cumberland Presbyterians? That is the denomination I grew up in and my Dad was a minister. When I asked my Dad growing up the difference between a Cumberland Pres. and a normal Pres., he said we were basically Baptists that allowed for infant Baptism and sprinkling. I wonder if you have a more nuanced take than that?
I don't think he has, though he may have mentioned them in videos discussing multiple denominations.
I do have one on them out now, if you didn't see it.
Interesting video. Useful exploration of conservative. Interesting that 'not conservative' was always referred to as liberal. Your experience in USA might be different to mine in Australia, but I would rarely meet anyone who calls themselves as liberal; the self label tends more to be 'progressive'. Maybe these are synonyms, but I suspect the change in identification has meaning, and might be distancing from earlier 'liberal theology' to more a sense of working for change, and that this language is also used in politics as not conservative.
Forgive me if this video has already been made, but I would love to see a video similarly going over the meaning of "Mainline". Great video as always!
The biggest issue right now between conservative and liberal churches is LGBTQ / gay marriage.
as always, a fair and unbiased analysis of an important question. thanks for your great content!
Very good, as always. What I found interesting is that the underlying assumption is that this is normal.
I found this increasing divergence from its supposed roots in the OT started in the 2nd century, the truth is witnessed in the NT by Jesus, Paul and John.
Christianity is not only become political, but it is illegitimate as it does not follow the Torah of Abraham, which you will find Jesus, Paul and John preach the faith of Abraham.
For my sins, as they say, I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity' bringing the truth.
An alternative definition of liberal is to be willing to conform to the world, where then conservative means to resist conforming to the world.
Hohum. Another demonstration of excellence in your presentation. It seems that you are attempting to conserve that quality!
Many secular people in america and the english speaking world use conservative Christianity as a synonym for fascism. Important bit of context missed in the video. While 'conservative christianity' may not be inherently linked to right wing politics, it is in many contexts and most certainly does in America.
I wouldn't say "inherently linked to right-wing politics" so much as "mutually incompatible with left-wing politics". There are plenty of theological conservatives that have significant problems with political conservatism but feel that the political left is implacably hostile to them in a way the right isn't and don't feel they have anywhere else to go.
Just a reminder: these terms r being defined as they apply to religion, NOT political affiliation. A ‘conservative’ Christian or Baptist, etc should not necessarily assume they must vote conservative. Government is about seeking economic expansion. They do this by utilizing guiding principles, these r laid out in their chosen economic philosophy.
Today we have 2, Republicans=Reagonomics (a deregulated version of Trickle Down)
Democrats=Middle Out economics
Both ~in a very limited in scope nutshell~
describe the national economic focus.
Reagonomics puts the focus at the top & Middle Out puts that same focus on the middle class.
As u can see, who a person votes for within government should b associated with that family’s economic class & NOT where they land within cultural issues. Cultural & political r not the same & should never b confused or simply blended together. Political propaganda will often attempt to do just that in order to pander support for economic policy that is not in ur best interest.
The term "Trickle Down" is a myth.
@@johnshelton1141 Ur comment is not clear. A myth as it does not work?? Or that its not a legitimate economic philosophy taught as standard fair in political science? Supply Side is another title for the same.
Nice Job ins misrepresenting politics so completely, the democrats are not for the middle class, in fact, they want to stratefy the classes for the rich to be really rich and the poor to be comfortably poor. the middle class is then hallowed out. They're big cheerleaders for the policies of FDR and LBJ, great society plans that require mass centralization.
The republicans also do this but in a different manner, they want to expand the global reach of american markets so they pursued the policy of globalization when the U.S was fighting the USSR, now there is a new brand of republicanism returning, revived by Trump, the brand of theodore roosevelt, one of protectionists policies and domestic decentralization, like fighting against big monopolies, big unions, and sweeping federal government programs.
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 Excellent!
@@johnisaacfelipe6357 Not even close. U need to study political science, basic economics 101 as they pertain to a country, & U.S. History.
U can say whatever u prefer, history doesnt lie.
I was a member of the FPCNA for 16 years. That's the Free Presbyterian Church of North America, which began in Ulster, Northern Ireland. Some of the distinctives are: headcoverings; modest dress, which also includes that women wear skirts/dresses; infant baptism, but allows for immersion of those who come to faith later in life and who weren't already baptized as an infant; grape juice rather than fermented wine; KJV of the Scriptures (not the same as KJVO); no female pastors, elders, deacons or women who lead in any way; holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger & Shorter Catechisms; reformed soteriology - ALL five points of Calvinism; singing of psalms but also hymns of the historic Christian faith; Postmillennial in eschatology; covenantal understanding of the Scriptures (old covenant/new covenant distinctions); church discipline and ex-communication where necessary for the unrepentant; they are very loving people and evangelistic. There are some more minor things but that's the gist.
You should note that historically some churches holding what you would term the "conservative" position accepted divorce on the ground of adultery, in accordance with Matthew 13.
When the Church of England was discussing it early in the twentieth century, it noted that "There has always been a difference of opinion as to whether Our Lord meant to forbid remarriage to the innocent party in a divorce."
It gets really interesting when you consider movements like the Worldwide Church of God, Quakers, and Mormonism. Quakers especially, as their conservative position by definition is to never be "conservative", but then there's the fact that polygamists are the conservatives in Mormonism.
Insightful and thought-provoking - thank you
Can we please have a whole video in headcovering within the church?
This was extremely well done. It is also a perfect example of why, having taken religious vows many years ago ( which I still take very seriously), I nonetheless came to reject ALL denominations. The absurd positions some of them hold, the promotion of hate and sexism in others, the greed and idolatry in still others....I now serve Christ without the dubious burden of priests and pastors with feet of clay, and congregations more interested in pushing political agendas than service to Our Lord.
you reject all denominations?
@@prod.mohomid Well, perhaps I worded it poorly. I choose for myself not to identify with any one denomination. There ARE some denominations out there that strive to follow Christ's ACTUAL teachings and mandates. Most of them, however, are Paulists or idolators.
@@prod.mohomid They are what is called a christian chameleon, basically whatever the "current society" deems okay, thats what Jesus wanted and therefore they are christian. Abortion? its liberal and popular and since Jesus is all about being hip and cool, he would be so for abortion! Divorce? Damn, what a great idea! Usury? WELLL... if the jews do it, why shouldn't we do it?
@@Dalekzilla I'm not sure what you mean by Paulist. I believe that Paul's teachings are inspired by the Holy Spirit, who is just as much God and as much part of the Trinity as is Jesus (the Son) and the Father, and as such, they cannot contradict what Christ taught. Yes, they may elaborate on what Christ taught, but they do not contradict. I do not take Paul as some higher authority as our Lord, but I believe He taught Paul and inspired the words he penned are just as much Scripture as the Gospels are. If, on the other hand, you're referring to some in the Catholic tradition who regard their views under the grouping of Paulist, as someone who generally aligns with the major views of the Protestant reformation I would agree that there is much in their tradition that I would disagree with and find unbiblical.
I was surprised you didn't include chronological or historical precedent as a a conservative stance. In that regard, infant baptism is seen as the more conservative stance, because it was only ended with the more radical reformers. Likewise, this view can be applied to things like alcohol.
Essentially, breaking away from the traditional view is non-conformist, and thereby liberal. That's how it's often used in regard to social issues as well, but for social issues the term progressive has become more common in English.
It's a given that the founders of America's mainline denominations are spinning in their graves over the current state of their legacies.
Some good points I never thought about.
I wouldn't distinguish from conservative to liberal.
I'd distinguish between conservative, traditionalist, reformist and revivalism.
Conservative meaning to conserve some tradition from degradation, traditionalist as to freeze the tradition as it's, reformist as reforming the church to a new environment and revivalist as rekindling a supposed old tradition.
A conservative baptist might conserve the rite of communion by making it part of every ministry.
A traditionalist would instead refuse to change anything about the rite of communion, including it's usual monthly frequency.
A reformist might decide to change the bread to glutenfree cornmeal.
And a revivalist might decide to change from staple fermented refined bread to unfermented whole bread as a return to the supposedly lost tradition.
See how I used a really uncontroversial topic on purpose, and see how it's framed through particular issues.
Yeah, it's arguable that past the "conservative" category on the spectrum should be a third category of "RETVRN"
It's difficult to tell what people are talking about when they use terms like "conservative" or "liberal" Christian. I'm mostly politically progressive, but tend toward a more conservative faith and worship.
People use the terms liberal and conservative recklessly. Those terms do not make any sense unless you know their common focal point.
It's not too complicated politically, you get English liberals (basically the founding fathers and most American republicans) who belief that the traditional rights of the English (the constitution largely just codified in one place principals upheld for a long time in English law, though the idea they came from the people forgets that they were instituted by the King in a power struggle with the nobility, undermining demanded privileges by giving them to everyone, also in Britain these right have outright been destroyed by parliament rather than protected) were established by the people and upheld by an elected assembly. The French liberals believe in a fully formed ideology sweeping away the past through an inevitable historical process and ushering in a utopia in which people are totally socially alienated from one another, don't have the concept of property and follow their natural instincts, basically everyone on the left comes from this tradition as do neo-cons and some of the madder elements of the far right.
Then you have conservatives, who basically just want what we had yesterday tomorrow. As a result they tend to have issues maintaining values or power as their whole motivation is not the same logic that created it but rather that they liked the results, this is incredibly easy to undermine, and conservatives are often too naive and clueless about the nature of the thing they are protecting to realise the true nature of the conflict.
In a religious sense a conservative is fine with how they like things (typically that is whatever they grew up with, but might be some personal element of faith, this is how most political liberals end up theologically conservative, they simply don't view personal and spiritual beliefs to be relevant to one another). The liberal isn't even Christian (though a lot of the time out of ignorance and social conformity more so than anything) but a French liberal ideologue attempting to twist the church to fit the theology of an incompatible religion (French liberalism and traditional Christian theology are oil and water, probably worse as a lot of the morality in inverted). The reactionaries meanwhile are running around trying to actually institute Christian teachings, the problem is that unlike the conservative (who will largely just be mocked as they are to the liberal mind a doomed species) liberals will actively do everything possible to destroy them as they recognise them as the actual threat, also due to the many denominations the people who are serious about their faith are split in the existing deviations and usually devout enough to make cooperation despite disagreement difficult and potentially volatile.
@@vorynrosethorn903fascinating information. Thx
@@vorynrosethorn903I'm a Catholic, i believe that to go against the King is to go against God. That is not to say Kings are Godly being at all! But the Kingship in itself has always been a fundamental part of Christianity, it's in the Bible! Democracy is not of God 🙏
My brethren, turn away from sin and give your life to Christ✝
Anyone who “religiously” follows the Ready to Harvest channel, has seen comments chiding me for writing a longer comment than the video. Maybe this comment will be shorter than the video.
It seems to me (in the United States at least), some people consider themselves theologically conservative by virtue of subscribing to the traditions that were considered “Christian” in Europe between the sixth and eighteenth centuries.
Other people consider themselves conservative by virtue of trying to interpret the Bible “literally” and dispensing with any traditions they don’t consider biblical.
For me, conservative Christianity is a mix of traditional Roman Catholic, conservative Mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals. They are people who think the Bible (and/or pope for the hardcore Catholics) is the absolute word of god without question and you must obey every rule and dogma of the religion or else you will go to hell. That has been my experience and my study of religion as a whole. There is also the Eastern Orthodox, all of them are hardcore conservative and even put the Catholics and Evangelical Protestants to shame. Of course you got tier of Evangelicals such as the majority of what I call moderate/lukewarm/cultural Evangelical Christians: These people are religious to some degree but only on Sunday or when they want to share their love for Jesus or flaunt in your face how they are a Christian and why you should be to. Then you have the hardcore/political Evangelicals. These two might be different in that one might be hardcore and very religious but just shy of fundamentalist's but zealous enough to make them distinct from moderate/lukewarm Evangelicals. There is also the political part in that politics is very important and they espouse Christian Nationalists/Christian Dominionist ideas of wanting to turn the USA into a Christian theocracy in order to appease god. The last of these is the Fundamentalist's Evangelicals: These people are wacky and they will avoid even politics thinking its of the devil and be almost like the Amish and flee from modern society and live in religious communes.
Believing what the Bible says about Satan ruling this world and its politics doesn't make anyone "wacky". It' just means you are hard-headed. How can see what's going on in this world and not see Satan's influence in politics?
For discussions like this I tend to use the terms "orthodox", "heterodox" and "unorthodox" instead of "conservative", "liberal" or something in between. Especially since the terms "conservative" and "liberal" are so politically charged. It takes some explaining, but not nearly as much as using "conservative" or "liberal" in a non-political way
@@anthonyprose4965well I am and we amongst ourselves do, so I don't see why you couldn't use the terms orthodox and heterodox around us. However it would complicate things in the sense that I would argue that all of the differences between for example Catholicism and another denomination are the consequences of heterodoxy on the part of the other denomination. Broadly speaking that is. But the claim would likely be similar the other way around.
@@anthonyprose4965nah we use orthodox, unorthodox and hetrodox. Orthodox with capital o can refer to Eastern Orthodox, but catholic folks use the word orthodox
If speaking about Christianity in general you would have to use a basket of issues and not just one issue and compare the various denominations as a whole.
Wow. Interesting discussion. As an old fart who read The Battle For The Bible as a contemporary analysis, and had respect for Machen, this is an expansion of my normal way of viewing the theological world.
Still, in the theological world since Wellhausen, I think that the question "do you subject yourself to the Scripture as given, or do you sit in judgement over it?" is a valid sword by which to divide the faithful (conservative) from the usurpers of God's place (liberal).
I disagree with my Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, and other friends on significant doctrines, but we agree on one essential: the Scripture is correct, and I am subject to it. If you convince me that your interpretation is correct, I'm changing my position. I am happy to grant that these friends are "conservative," even though we have significant disagreements.
Great analysis, couldn't have said it better myself. As 2 Timothy 2:15 puts it (KJV) "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."
Thank you for the video. I am a non denominational Christian, more leaning toward Anabaptist. Tell you the truth, the title screen almost look exactly like my church. Most of the women in my church wears a headship veiling.
I'm a conservative Christian and I am not confused.
Me too
I enjoyed this thorough breakdown!
I think a good example of explaining how difficult it is to measure "conservatism" in Christianity is the Catholic vs Protestant divide over sola scriptura. Conservative Catholics always lament that sola scriptura is super liberal and is to blame for all the Protestant denominations who have officially endorsed same-sex actions, meanwhile conservative Protestants will claim that the Catholic lack of sola scriptura is liberal and is to blame for the various priests and bishops who have made LGBT-friendly remarks, including Pope Francis's sometimes apparent openness to the community. Point being that anything can be liberal depending on who's talking.
Excellent video. How does this also relate to how the Bible is viewed and interpreted? Most denominations claim to hold closer to the Bible than others, and those who do not would be more generally liberal. However, is it the case that those denominations that hold to literalism, inspiration, and eternal truth would be conservative, where any denominations that view the Bible as fallible, having cultural influence, writer bias, or otherwise needing some expert correction are more liberal?
Conservative Christianity is the mixture of religion and state
as it always has been. This Huguenot belief is eventual anathema to a good christian life.
To simplify, I would suggest how a denomination views Scripture as a core distinction. Does it believe God/Creator can speak/communicate to humankind in a way (oral or by human instrumentality) that perfectly preserves the content of God's thoughts/mind? Conservatives say "Yes," and Liberals say "No." Read THE WORD OF GOD AND THE MIND OF MAN: This Crisis of Revealed Truth in Contemporary Theology, Ronald H. Nash, P&R, 1982.
I thought conservative always meant following the Bible but after you said baptizing after a profession of faith is liberal it changed my mind, thanks.
"I remember when 'conservative' and 'mother' were clean words." Goldwater
Does anyone know the video where Joshua discusses Christian denominations being on a spectrum, giving examples of high church and low church, and showing a graphic of a spectrum with terms on it?
I cannot remember the video for the life of me
I think it is called "which denominations are the most catholic" or someting like that
I wanna see it too now
Check his "Topics of Interest" playlist.
You're probably thinking of the "which denominations are most like Catholics" video.
I've suggested the topic of high church vs low church but he hasn't done a specific video on it yet.
I totally get this and agree with what you said i just finished the book reading the bible with western eyes.
Thanks for explaining this so clearly
Thank you for this video, and your 2nd video on the United Methodist split
Excellent Video - Bottom line is that conservative and liberal are variable terms!
All of these look incredibly liberal to my Catholic sensibilities.
You look so good in that red plaid shirt, goes nicely with your red hair. Every time I look at you, all I see is a Monk/Minister. I have been a member of UCC my whole life. I live in the very liberal state of CT.
yep, "conservative" and "liberal" are highly context-relative terms. Sometimes they are not very useful labels, unless the domains to which they are applied are explicitly defined before they enter the conversation.
Conservative Christians worship Republican Jesus. Liberal Christians worship Socialist hippy Jesus. 😂
Well done!
It is said that some Presbyterian denominations are in the middle and do not hold to all the historic Presbyterian positions listed beforehand. The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland is shown when this is said and I would like to know which of the historic positions listed do they not uphold? From everything a know they would uphold all of those things.
The Free Church of Scotland continuing should have 6 churches instead of 4 in the USA soon I believe.
And its doubly ambiguous b/c most people who are theologically conservative are also often politically and socially conservative/reactionary
So basically, everything is relative…
You've done a great job in avoiding a minefield.
There's no such thing as Conservative or Liberal Christianity. A thing is either Christian or it isnt
Excellent!
The distinction between theological versus political conservativism/liberalism is very important. Among Catholics, it very often totally disconnected. You can theologically extremely "Liberal" Catholics who are hardcore Republicans, or Traditionalists who are Anarcho-Syndaicalists.
Is it liberal or conservative to oppose Vatican II? Depends on whether the person you asks opposes it.
Most Old Catholic churches are liberal both socially and theologically, but there's a strong case to be made that originally they were the most conservative Catholics, opposing the innovations of Vatican I.
@@RepublicofE I'm only even talking about within bounds, not going to the extremes.
@@RepublicofE Most old catholic churches are old, they are not liberal or conservative, they are not "new" socially or theologically, they are just old. And Vatican I was merely just a repudiation of the progressive reforms that Pope IX did himself so ironically, if what you are refering to old being the churches who follow pre Vatican I, they are, as old churches tend to be, "conservative" socially and theologically (ie refuses female pastors, dislikes contraception, forbids disordered unions, forbids the cancellation of marraige vows, etc, etc).
This is such a good video!!!!
These days it means "Whatever I dislike".
I commend the clarity of this breakdown of chaos 😵💫 Thank God for the peace of Christ ☦️
Which god?
@@Ex_christian The one that rose from the dead.
@@RepublicofE there are plenty that have claimed to have risen from the dead and yet there is Zero Demonstrable evidence to back it up.
Otherwise you worship the Malevolent war god of Abraham that committed mass genocide, allows murder, rape, incest, etc…. Definitely not a “loving” god that Christians claim. And Jesus was just an ordinary man like all of the rest at that time.
There is NO peace under Christianity! Look at the hate continually spread by Christian’s today.
Great video! Interesting for me (as a "conservative" presbyterian) to see the PCA, OPC and RPCNA all on the same "level" so to speak. I clearly see them ordered from liberal to conservative as PCA, OPC, RPCNA (although definitely all more conservative than EPC and less than PRC/FPCS).
I think my gut instinct would be to do the same thing, but I decided that it was too subjective to do that. After all, the most "conservative" one in your list, RPCNA, has women deacons at the same time they have exclusive psalmody. I find the "scale" would put them clearly on the one side of EPC, ECO, etc., but among themselves the distance is much narrower.
@@ReadyToHarvest Yeah definitely similar for sure, would be interesting to see your take on NAPARC (a denominational association they all belong to) and other similar extra-ecclesial structures (if they exist).
Thank you,Joshua🌹⭐🌹⭐🌹
From a certain point of view, the Eastern Orthodox Church is the most conservative Christian denomination, due to the lack of innovations in doctrine and practice throughout it's history. Within Orthodoxy, the Greek church tends to be a bit more relaxed or 'liberal' in some aspects (although when some of their hierarchs recently took more explicitly liberal stances, they were met with strong backlash), whereas the ROCOR churches tend to be very traditional or 'conservative', much like the monasteries.
Even the EO tends to acknowledge tho that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is even more conservative. I once heard it described as “spiritual life on hard mode” lmao.
@@jas9friend In some respects it certainly is, maintaining some of the Jewish law, although depending on who you talk to that might be problematic, falling into the heresy of Judaisation (or whatever it's called). I guess that would make it less conservative? idk.
Eastern Orthodoxy: Our faith and practice has remained unchaged since the time of the apostles.
Also Eastern Orthodoxy: Don't worry if you can't commune with us due to not being Orthodox, you can still partake in this magic bread we invented out of thin air as a consolation prize.
I wish liberals and conservatives Christian’s could just get along and be respectful of each other.
That's like saying Christians should respect the alphabet community.
Did jesus say that all paths lead to him?
The name liberal literally goes against the Bible. Scripture is never changing and God is timeless and matter less. He doesn't change nor does his laws.
Looking at the etymology, conservatives try to keep something together ("protect"), while liberals try to open something up ("free"). The baptist/presbyterian divide that was presented in the video can be explained in the following way: Both approaches can be viewed as conservativs because both are trying to protect a certain point of view from being watered down, even if the specific points of view are opposed to each other. A liberal approach would be to combine them/let them coexist (which is what many mainline/big tent denominations do.)
Viewed this way many dichotomies can be explained: It's not necessarily conservative to try to maintain liturgical traditions, but what certainly is is to either strongly prefer such traditions (orthodox, catholics, lutherans...) or to completely reject them (certain evangelicals). A "liberal" point of view would be kind of accepting of both a mass and a worship session. Similarly, modern debates can be viewed through this lense, for example how "conservatives" try to maintain the traditional man-woman family structure, while "liberals" open the family term to include homosexual pairs or potentially other options.
Revelation 14:12
King James Version
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
The Gospel and Epistles are radical. Acts proves the earliest Christians were downright anti-capitalist, it is impossible to try to hold on to any past while acknowledging the Living God and the Living Christ.
Fantastic concise video
Sad that so many Christians don't understand that God didn't design it to be this complicated