What is a Conservative Evangelical?

[Lisa Robinson]

Seems like a pretty basic straightforward question, right? But where exactly is that line that once you cross it, you are no longer considered conservative? What are the distinguishing criteria?

How do you differentiate between a conservative non-evangelical and a conservative evangelical?

[H]

I just want to preface this by saying that I don't care how anyone defines me - I define myself, and like most people, I don't fit into a neat pigeon-hole-type category. I don't label other people for this reason; labels limited in their usefulness.

From what I have seen, conservative Christians who engage in this sort of thing often measure whether one is a "good" conservative by how closely they adhere to the principles of the American political right, regardless of whether the individual is an evangelical or non-evangelical. The American political right has its own agenda, and it isn't the Kingdom of God; so, speaking for myself, I make up my own mind about the issues instead of swearing POG/GOP/right wing allegiance, and where I break with them, I break with them, whether on policy, methodology, anything else, etc. In the eyes of some, that's enough to make me suspect and most likely a liberal, if not a Marxist or worse. LOL Too funny.

One of the marks of a liberal Christian (according to conservatives) is one who takes the Scriptures concerning the care of creation seriously and believes that Jesus died to reconcile all of it to God (Col. 1:19 & 20) - and tries to figure out what that means in practical terms. Mention the word "sustainable" in some quarters and watch what happens (talk about conspiracy theories). Another characteristic is to have any ambiguity at all about the "pro-life" political agenda, even if you know something is rotten in the state of Denmark and can sense the disconnect.

[Rey Reynoso]

Conservative Evangelical I categorize by (1) adherence to the historic and Biblically recorded Gospel, (2) the historicity of the Biblical events in regards to Christ including the miraculous, (3) a belief that Scriptures do teach propositional truth, and (4) an understanding that Scripture trumps.

I consider a person non-evangelical when they start denying aspects of the Gospel, or moving away from the centrality of the Gospel.

I consider a person no longer conservative when they have embraced the opposite of above and still maintain a belief in the centrality of the Gospel, even if it doesn't technically emphasize what history and the Scriptures have emphasized in regards to Christ.

[Lisa Robinson]

What about doctrine? You mentioned that this is a liberal

"One of the marks of a liberal Christian (according to conservatives) is one who takes the Scriptures concerning the care of creation seriously and believes that Jesus died to reconcile all of it to God (Col. 1:19 & 20) - and tries to figure out what that means in practical terms."

I can see how this would draw some liberal labels but I'm not sure in and of itself, this would classify someone as a liberal. Perhaps if this was cited as the primary purpose of our Christian existence? I think one could be conservative in their doctrine and still take stewardship of natural resources serious.

Also, I noticed that alot of the rest of the definition is hinged upon political affiliation. But should that criteria be the arbiter of what makes an evangelical conservative or not? I think waters are muddied (and have been muddied) when we do this.

I also am not trying to put labels on people. But it seems to me that we throw out the term "conservative" a whole lot but not necessarily having any definition to what exactly that is.



H said:

I just want to preface this by saying that I don't care how anyone defines me - I define myself, and like most people, I don't fit into a neat pigeon-hole-type category. I don't label other people for this reason; labels limited in their usefulness.

From what I have seen, conservative Christians who engage in this sort of thing often measure whether one is a "good" conservative by how closely they adhere to the principles of the American political right, regardless of whether the individual is an evangelical or non-evangelical. The American political right has its own agenda, and it isn't the Kingdom of God; so, speaking for myself, I make up my own mind about the issues instead of swearing POG/GOP/right wing allegiance, and where I break with them, I break with them, whether on policy, methodology, anything else, etc. In the eyes of some, that's enough to make me suspect and most likely a liberal, if not a Marxist or worse. LOL Too funny.

One of the marks of a liberal Christian (according to conservatives) is one who takes the Scriptures concerning the care of creation seriously and believes that Jesus died to reconcile all of it to God (Col. 1:19 & 20) - and tries to figure out what that means in practical terms. Mention the word "sustainable" in some quarters and watch what happens (talk about conspiracy theories). Another characteristic is to have any ambiguity at all about the "pro-life" political agenda, even if you know something is rotten in the state of Denmark and can sense the disconnect.

[H]

It is for a lot of American Christians. Would you say that it isn't? If you want to discuss doctrine, then you can be conservative in your stance on the utter importance of the truth of Scripture and the centrality of the life, death and resurrection of Christ and STILL be thought of as a non-conservative by conservative Christians based purely on your political views. It has come to this. It muddies the waters, sure, but tell me that you don't see it happen all the time. And again, this is a peculiar brand of American Christianity that divides along political lines, despite the fact that many on both "sides" hold to Biblical truth, though how they live (and preach) that truth may take different forms. And that shapes the basis for yet another debate.

It's frustrating to hold to the historic faith for 30+ years and find that political views are, to a large extent, what define you as a Christian; so then you get to a point where you refuse to play along. So, what do you do?

Sorry, though, if this is a doctrine - only discussion. It would be nice if the term "conservative" evangelical had more to do with doctrine than politics but the church is so polluted with politics... just watch the next election cycle, which is around the corner. See what "conservative" and "non-conservative" mean then.

Pet peeve, you might say. It actually pisses me off.





Lisa Robinson said:

What about doctrine? You mentioned that this is a liberal
"One of the marks of a liberal Christian (according to conservatives) is one who takes the Scriptures concerning the care of creation seriously and believes that Jesus died to reconcile all of it to God (Col. 1:19 & 20) - and tries to figure out what that means in practical terms."
I can see how this would draw some liberal labels but I'm not sure in and of itself, this would classify someone as a liberal. Perhaps if this was cited as the primary purpose of our Christian existence? I think one could be conservative in their doctrine and still take stewardship of natural resources serious.

Also, I noticed that alot of the rest of the definition is hinged upon political affiliation. But should that criteria be the arbiter of what makes an evangelical conservative or not? I think waters are muddied (and have been muddied) when we do this.

I also am not trying to put labels on people. But it seems to me that we throw out the term "conservative" a whole lot but not necessarily having any definition to what exactly that is.



H said:

I just want to preface this by saying that I don't care how anyone defines me - I define myself, and like most people, I don't fit into a neat pigeon-hole-type category. I don't label other people for this reason; labels limited in their usefulness.

From what I have seen, conservative Christians who engage in this sort of thing often measure whether one is a "good" conservative by how closely they adhere to the principles of the American political right, regardless of whether the individual is an evangelical or non-evangelical. The American political right has its own agenda, and it isn't the Kingdom of God; so, speaking for myself, I make up my own mind about the issues instead of swearing POG/GOP/right wing allegiance, and where I break with them, I break with them, whether on policy, methodology, anything else, etc. In the eyes of some, that's enough to make me suspect and most likely a liberal, if not a Marxist or worse. LOL Too funny. One of the marks of a liberal Christian (according to conservatives) is one who takes the Scriptures concerning the care of creation seriously and believes that Jesus died to reconcile all of it to God (Col. 1:19 & 20) - and tries to figure out what that means in practical terms. Mention the word "sustainable" in some quarters and watch what happens (talk about conspiracy theories). Another characteristic is to have any ambiguity at all about the "pro-life" political agenda, even if you know something is rotten in the state of Denmark and can sense the disconnect.

[Lisa Robinson]

Holly, I think you raise a good point and one that I too find troubling. Conservative evangelicalism should be defined by key points of Christian doctrine not political affiliations. It is altogether possible to be a conservative and politically liberal, I think.

[Craig Falvo]

Yes, it is very possible. I tend to think of myself as politically liberal and somewhat more conservative when it comes to Scripture, doctrine, and the confessions. That is a self-perception though (maybe delusion?).

Lisa Robinson said:

Holly, I think you raise a good point and one that I too find troubling. Conservative evangelicalism should be defined by key points of Christian doctrine not political affiliations. It is altogether possible to be a conservative and politically liberal, I think.

[Leslie Jebaraj]

When I read the OP, I wanted to put down what Rey had already written!!

[xulon]

I agree with this. I was going to point it out earlier, but I did not want to hijack the thread from its theological emphasis. I am liberal in politics, but conservative theologically. The rarity of this makes for me pretty much not fitting in wherever I am.

Lisa Robinson said:

Holly, I think you raise a good point and one that I too find troubling. Conservative evangelicalism should be defined by key points of Christian doctrine not political affiliations. It is altogether possible to be a conservative and politically liberal, I think.

[Damian]

Good topic Lisa,

A person is not theologically liberal or conservative based on their interpretation of various passages of scripture although the base you start from will effect your interpretation. So questions about the end times, 6 day creation, baptism, etc, do not make a person liberal or conservative.

What does is their view of the Subject - Object question. By this we are not referring to "subjectivism" in the modern sense of "moral relativism" but rather more in a scientific sense. Whatever is "outside" of yourself is the "object" and "you" (the examiner) are the "subject".

So we want to study God. God is the object and humanity is the subject. The conservative will always have it in that order. God is the object, we are the subject. During the so-called "Enlightenment" after Emmanuel Kant, liberal Protestantism was born due to a shift in epistemology called the "Turn to the Subject". Schleiermacher was one of the first to do this. His point was that there is an impenetrable ontological and epistemology divide between God and man that can not be crossed. So you can only know God not by "studying" him as an object but by turning inward and studying the faith experience of the individual. Only those things that can be verified through science are to be believed, thus all miracles, the bodily resurrection of Christ, etc, are not to be believed because they are not verifiable. Thus you get the Thomas Jefferson bible where he crosses out everything that can't be explained or observed (sounds like the Jesus Seminar doesn't it?). Schleiermacher and others bases Christianity solely on the internal experience of man... what does Christ mean TO YOU. Thus Christianity is based purely on faith (today we would say "blind faith") He also introduces the "personal testimony" into the church because that is something that can be "felt" and stirs people on an emotional level. Christianity becomes about personal ethics, Jesus becomes a "guru" who teaches us how to live a moral life. I know I'm jumping around here but this is a BIG subject. Liberalism leads to colonialism, manifest destiny, white mans burden, liberation theology, et al. The founding of America is based on liberal protestant ideas.

This turn to the subject - knowing God by looking inward - is the hallmark of liberal Christianity. It was the main view of Protestantism for most of the 18th and 19th century. It was characterized by an optimism about the human condition (the exact opposite of the Reform view) and its downfall was WWI. But it started to fall apart after the publication of a book written by Feuerbach (an atheist) who hit the nail on the head in describing liberal Christianity as nothing more than "self projection" - if you start with the subject (us) God becomes a projection of our own human anxieties. So you've learned nothing about God but instead you've learned about yourself. This leads to Freud, Marxism, and then the ultimate expression, Nietzsche (religion is just a fantasy, do away with it all together. Reality is meaningless).

Barth was deeply effected by Feuerbach's "Essence of Christianity" and concludes the liberal Protestantism is "humanity speaking loudly". In other words liberal theology is simply anthropology.

The conservative however says it IS possible to cross the ontological and epistemology divide between God and man because God has condescended and taken the initiative to do so. How? Not just with General Revelation but through the Special Revelation that is the Word of God - God's speech and acts - especially in Jesus Christ. So it IS possible for man to have true "objective" knowledge of God because of the INCARNATION.

Okay long post, sorry, I'll stop here but LOTS more could be said :-)

Damian

[Raquel]

I've understood an evangelical to be someone who's more concerned with evangelizing than say... a non-evangelical.

[Jason]

You sound like a fundamentalist (historical, not extreme fundamentalist).

Rey Reynoso said:

Conservative Evangelical I categorize by (1) adherence to the historic and Biblically recorded Gospel, (2) the historicity of the Biblical events in regards to Christ including the miraculous, (3) a belief that Scriptures do teach propositional truth, and (4) an understanding that Scripture trumps.

I consider a person non-evangelical when they start denying aspects of the Gospel, or moving away from the centrality of the Gospel.

I consider a person no longer conservative when they have embraced the opposite of above and still maintain a belief in the centrality of the Gospel, even if it doesn't technically emphasize what history and the Scriptures have emphasized in regards to Christ.

[Lisa Robinson]

Great response, Damien. You also seem to be making an argument for propositional truth being the foundation for conservatism. The way you define it here is that conservative is relative to historic orthodoxy AND propositional truth. But I think, and I can be mistaken, that common usage is more grounded in relativism. Conservatism is defined based on a moving target. But I could be wrong about that. Perhaps the conservative/liberal terminology is off and deserves more refined labels.

Damian said:

Good topic Lisa,

A person is not theologically liberal or conservative based on their interpretation of various passages of scripture although the base you start from will effect your interpretation. So questions about the end times, 6 day creation, baptism, etc, do not make a person liberal or conservative.

What does is their view of the Subject - Object question. By this we are not referring to "subjectivism" in the modern sense of "moral relativism" but rather more in a scientific sense. Whatever is "outside" of yourself is the "object" and "you" (the examiner) are the "subject".

So we want to study God. God is the object and humanity is the subject. The conservative will always have it in that order. God is the object, we are the subject. During the so-called "Enlightenment" after Emmanuel Kant, liberal Protestantism was born due to a shift in epistemology called the "Turn to the Subject". Schleiermacher was one of the first to do this. His point was that there is an impenetrable ontological and epistemology divide between God and man that can not be crossed. So you can only know God not by "studying" him as an object but by turning inward and studying the faith experience of the individual. Only those things that can be verified through science are to be believed, thus all miracles, the bodily resurrection of Christ, etc, are not to be believed because they are not verifiable. Thus you get the Thomas Jefferson bible where he crosses out everything that can't be explained or observed (sounds like the Jesus Seminar doesn't it?). Schleiermacher and others bases Christianity solely on the internal experience of man... what does Christ mean TO YOU. Thus Christianity is based purely on faith (today we would say "blind faith") He also introduces the "personal testimony" into the church because that is something that can be "felt" and stirs people on an emotional level. Christianity becomes about personal ethics, Jesus becomes a "guru" who teaches us how to live a moral life. I know I'm jumping around here but this is a BIG subject. Liberalism leads to colonialism, manifest destiny, white mans burden, liberation theology, et al. The founding of America is based on liberal protestant ideas.

This turn to the subject - knowing God by looking inward - is the hallmark of liberal Christianity. It was the main view of Protestantism for most of the 18th and 19th century. It was characterized by an optimism about the human condition (the exact opposite of the Reform view) and its downfall was WWI. But it started to fall apart after the publication of a book written by Feuerbach (an atheist) who hit the nail on the head in describing liberal Christianity as nothing more than "self projection" - if you start with the subject (us) God becomes a projection of our own human anxieties. So you've learned nothing about God but instead you've learned about yourself. This leads to Freud, Marxism, and then the ultimate expression, Nietzsche (religion is just a fantasy, do away with it all together. Reality is meaningless).

Barth was deeply effected by Feuerbach's "Essence of Christianity" and concludes the liberal Protestantism is "humanity speaking loudly". In other words liberal theology is simply anthropology.

The conservative however says it IS possible to cross the ontological and epistemology divide between God and man because God has condescended and taken the initiative to do so. How? Not just with General Revelation but through the Special Revelation that is the Word of God - God's speech and acts - especially in Jesus Christ. So it IS possible for man to have true "objective" knowledge of God because of the INCARNATION.

Okay long post, sorry, I'll stop here but LOTS more could be said :-)

Damian