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.
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 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.
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!
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.
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.
@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!
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.
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.
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.
Great video. I consider the Exclusive Brethren as "conservative" christians. Believing the Bible as the innerant and inspired word of God is just... mere Christianity.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
@@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).
I grew up Southern Baptist and without a doubt that many who are sitting in the pews on Sunday, were in a boat Saturday fishing & drinking cold beer. The official doctrine of the Baptist is not always the norm. ✌🏼🎚🙏🏼
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Conservative, liberal, the word people really ought to be concerned with is heresy. Is it heresy, or is it not? If it is, then it ought to be avoided. Plain and simple
Now that I think of it I do see conservative nondenominational churches as somewhat liberal because of the lack of tradition, women preachers, heavy life application preaching and non alcoholic communion.
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 think liberals tend to focus on Christ and his teaching on love and forgiveness and conservatives tend to focus on Paul and his more legalistic teachings on sin and the law.
I view Christian conservatives (orthodox) as those holding to the doctrine of scripture and the subordinate standards they profess, (example: 3 forms of unity/Westminster standards), and strive to see every matter through the lens of scripture not norms of society. If the past practice has biblical warrant then it needs to be defended as such not based on tradition or pragmatism.
Christianity and liberalism, do not go together. I don't think the Lord wants us to be brazen or hateful, but i do think when it comes to absolutes of the faith, we must stand. I don't hate anybody, but i cannot and will not agree with anyone who preaches salvation in any other name and way through Jesus Christ.
Salvation? No demonstrable evidence of Jesus or anything else in the Bible! No one needs salvation of make believe! Christianity is not a religion of love. Instead the spread of hate and lies seem to be the Christian way.
Very impressive and eloquent dissertation on chaos and the legacy of Schism and Schismatics. Two terms every believer in Sola Scriptura should hold a Bible Study on and every Roman Catholic should, well I don’t know, it’s probably impossible to unwind any faith that has a 900 page “summary of belief” that doesn’t acknowledge the fundamental fact that their sin of Schism put the chaos in motion. But they sure do have a big Church.
yeah much better to have thousands of different patristic texts, canons, councils, encyclicals, constitutions, etc., all theoretically binding or not depending on who you ask, so that you basically have to be a canon lawyer to even begin to authoritatively sy what is binding in what way, than a "900 page summary of belief"
@@RepublicofE Your reply is contradictory or maybe just confusing and forgive me if I am just confused, because in fact the things you describe, thousands of this’s and that’s are exactly what the 900 page summary, the Roman Catholic Catechism, is summarizing. It’s a “Summary” because the complexity of all that you stated needs one. The True Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church is vastly less complicated and as such doesn’t require a Summary or a Augsberg Confession or Westminster Statement of Faith or “Institutes of the Christian Religion”. In fact, Fr. Josiah Trenham said if you want to know what the Orthodox believe all you have to do is go to one. 90% plus is revealed in word and worship every Sunday just as it has been for 1900 years maybe more. The last 10% or so you can pick up in Holy week leading up to Pascha, “Easter” and a few other special Feast Days. Now even if your doing it right it may take you several Sundays and more Likely the rest of your life to find understanding in a process referred to as theosis. But that’s not a Scholarly journey at all that may or may not be assisted by the examples of the Saints and the Wisdom of the Church Fathers depending but the point is it’s there if you choose to seek it. There is no final exam that must be passed as Gods Grace is availed to all who seek it with fear and trembling.
@@SaltShack Which Orthodox church? There are a basketfull, not all in communion, and sometimes divided over things like which liturgical calendar is used.
@@RepublicofE Again you are wrong. There are arguably only two factions of Orthodoxy. Eastern and Oriental and they are separated by an extremely fine point of Christology that most scholars suggest was the product of mis translation and would have been solved already but for the separation created by Islamic occupation. Regardless they share in essentially everything else dogmatically and ritualistically and even linguistically. Every Greek Orthodox Church I’ve been a member of has served Oriental Orthodox fully so though communion isn’t automatic accommodations are readily applied. The liturgy regardless of the language or the calendar day, each meaningless accidents of geography and ancient practicality, is the same in every meaningful manner and agreed to by each, but more importantly would be familiar to the Saints and Church Fathers like The Apostle John’s Disciple Ignatius of Antioch not to mention the Apostles themselves. When we attend the Serbian Orthodox Church out of state we are on one Callender. When we are at home we are on another Callender even when the Serbian Archbishop is presiding in our Greek Orthodox Church we make fully available to him and his Orthodox community outside of Serbia. Trust me there is no tension or lack of cooperation and fellowship or communion regardless of the ethnicity identified on the sign out front of the Church. Orthodoxy is so compliant and cooperative that we are still waiting for the Bishop of Rome to come back and participate in the Body of Christ.
@@SaltShack There are at least a solid five main groupings of "Orthodoxy": The churches of mainline Eastern Orthodoxy that are and are not in communion with Constantinople, Old Believers, and Old Calendarists, plus the Oriental Orthodox. Not to mention the recent schism over the Ukraine war. And even within Orthodox churches that have full communion, there is not uniform agreement on doctrine and practice. There is a whole monastic community that has vowed to defy their patriarch if communion is ever established with the Oriental Orthodox. The question of whether reunification with Rome can be entertained is similarly divisive. Neither is your liturgical practice that of the apostles. The apostles did not have magic bread to give to people not in their communion as a consolation prize for peopel who couldn't be admitted to the eucharist due to doctrinal differences.
They split somewhere around 1844 with the northern branch being for abolition, but taking a more holiness stance generally, while the southern branch opposed abolition, but was more liberal by not being as strict in expecting personal morality.
@@TWolfe777 I don't have any numbers, but it would be reasonable to suspect that some were, some were not, and most kept quiet and tried to avoid controversy.
I'm learning more about my Presbyterian Church from you than from my church. My church the Presbyterian Church of India doesn't teach Presbyterianism but polity wise is Presbyterian. Other than that it is not. It is becoming more and more liberal these days.
Perhaps the terms "conservative," "moderate," and "liberal" should be in reference to the current society's beliefs and not the history of the church. This would aid non-Christians when they are looking for a church. If I'm telling a co-worker that I attend a conservative Baptist church, for example, then he would have a basic idea of the culture of my church because of his cultural experiences. He wouldn't give a flip about infant baptism or grape juice during communion.
5:02 those Baptists are just wrong historically speaking as all Baptists used to use wine for the Lords Supper and allowed drinking in moderation (Bourbon was invented by a Baptist Pastor and his Bourbon still bears his name) up until prohibition which was a liberal idea at the time by definition. As an example from my own life My great grandfather was a Baptist pastor and he opposed "Those liberals trying to take wine out of the Lords Supper" His church made it's own wine through prohibition. Today they require you abstain from alcohol to be a member. Baptists drank wine for ~300 years and have been teetotalers for ~100 year. How long must a new "liberal" idea be held to be then considered "conservative"?
From a Catholic perspective, not a single denomination of Protestantism is conservative, since all of them throw out Catholic tradition to some extent.
The new lord's prayer for evangelical Christian conservative nationalists: Our Lord who is in Mar-a-Lago. Stupendous is your name. Your empire comes. Your will be done, in Washington as it was in Manhattan. Give us a repeal of Roe vs. Wade and we will ignore any of your past wrong doings and give us retribution for those who have wronged you. Lead us not in to wokeness and deliver us from democracy. For yours is the presidentsey, the power and glory of Tump, for as many terms as you want. Amen.
Liberal christians who don't celebrate the repealment of Roe v Wade, I question their christianity, what is more christian than a victory against the wholesale murder of children by their own mothers? a victory against the current prevailing disorder that is pitting women against their own children?
@@jncon8013 Some Christians are putting trump above Christ. That is how it is, sorry to have to say. This is the danger of mixing politics with religion. Because of the issue of abortion and an irrational fear of socialism (especially for things that aren't even really socialist), so many Christians have aligned themselves with some of the most unchristian political values. White evangelical Christians in the US have adopted the politics of greed, cruelty and fear. What's even more unsettling is the growing movement of Trump as the son of man, which views Trump as the literal incarnation of Jesus. Even more prevalent are the Christians that are willing to reject the teachings of the Gospels for the cult of Trumpism. I chalenge you to read the Sermon on the Mount and compare those teachings with the words and actions of Trump. Trump is in so many ways the opposite of Christ in nature and I wish there was some kind of ecumenical Latin word that I could use to really drive that point in. The truth is, there is no way to support the cult of Trump that is the modern Republican Party and still be a real Christian. Seriously, I chalenge you to read the teachings of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and come to any other conclusion. If anything, just take a little time out of your day and read the Book of Matthew and then meditate on it.
Have to follow the Torah like jew do thats what our favorite jew yashua was teaching about, he was teaching about the jew way of life, the pagan free life Its judeo Christianty messianic judaism Christians perfectly Orthodox is doing their best and much better keeping good culture alive
Interesting perspective, but respectfully disagree on what is being conserved. While many faithful would say they are conserving the teachings of the apostles, i think the better perspective is considering whats is being conserved historically. Using baptism again, as a PCA Presbyterian, I can say i hold to a conservative position but not the most conservative position, that would go either RCC or Eastern
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.
Joshua, this was one of your best presentations! Thank you.
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.
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.
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"
Your way of approaching the question leads as well in Germany to valuable results und insights. Thank You.
Most interesting, as per usual.
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.
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?
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
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!
I just appreciate you soooo so much!!! You are so helpful and needed. Thank you!
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.
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.
@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!
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.
Another interesting well thought out program. Makes sense. Thanks.
as always, a fair and unbiased analysis of an important question. thanks for your great content!
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.
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.
I also suggest doing a video about the Maronite Church.
Great video. I consider the Exclusive Brethren as "conservative" christians. Believing the Bible as the innerant and inspired word of God is just... mere Christianity.
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.
Some good points I never thought about.
Can we please have a whole video in headcovering within the church?
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.
The biggest issue right now between conservative and liberal churches is LGBTQ / gay marriage.
An alternative definition of liberal is to be willing to conform to the world, where then conservative means to resist conforming to the world.
I enjoyed this thorough breakdown!
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!
Hohum. Another demonstration of excellence in your presentation. It seems that you are attempting to conserve that quality!
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.
Excellent!
"I remember when 'conservative' and 'mother' were clean words." Goldwater
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.
It's a given that the founders of America's mainline denominations are spinning in their graves over the current state of their legacies.
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."
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.
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.
Thank you for this video, and your 2nd video on the United Methodist split
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?
Thank you,Joshua🌹⭐🌹⭐🌹
So basically, everything is relative…
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"
I totally get this and agree with what you said i just finished the book reading the bible with western eyes.
Well done!
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.
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.
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.
6:26 Wisdom indeed
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
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.
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.
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.
Just people that are truly scared of change
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.
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).
Sad that so many Christians don't understand that God didn't design it to be this complicated
I grew up Southern Baptist and without a doubt that many who are sitting in the pews on Sunday, were in a boat Saturday fishing & drinking cold beer. The official doctrine of the Baptist is not always the norm. ✌🏼🎚🙏🏼
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.
And its doubly ambiguous b/c most people who are theologically conservative are also often politically and socially conservative/reactionary
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).
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.
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.
Conservatives do not believe in freedom for others other than themselves.
Excellent
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.
Great video!
My take away.
To be a conservative Christian doesn't necessarily mean you are conservative politically.
Good breakdown
Conservative, liberal, the word people really ought to be concerned with is heresy. Is it heresy, or is it not? If it is, then it ought to be avoided. Plain and simple
Now that I think of it I do see conservative nondenominational churches as somewhat liberal because of the lack of tradition, women preachers, heavy life application preaching and non alcoholic communion.
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.
Well done well said
I think liberals tend to focus on Christ and his teaching on love and forgiveness and conservatives tend to focus on Paul and his more legalistic teachings on sin and the law.
I view Christian conservatives (orthodox) as those holding to the doctrine of scripture and the subordinate standards they profess, (example: 3 forms of unity/Westminster standards), and strive to see every matter through the lens of scripture not norms of society. If the past practice has biblical warrant then it needs to be defended as such not based on tradition or pragmatism.
Pretty much all of them.
It's a trope.
Christianity and liberalism, do not go together. I don't think the Lord wants us to be brazen or hateful, but i do think when it comes to absolutes of the faith, we must stand. I don't hate anybody, but i cannot and will not agree with anyone who preaches salvation in any other name and way through Jesus Christ.
Salvation? No demonstrable evidence of Jesus or anything else in the Bible! No one needs salvation of make believe! Christianity is not a religion of love. Instead the spread of hate and lies seem to be the Christian way.
This is conservative Christianity, 2 Timothy 3:13-17.
✅
Very impressive and eloquent dissertation on chaos and the legacy of Schism and Schismatics. Two terms every believer in Sola Scriptura should hold a Bible Study on and every Roman Catholic should, well I don’t know, it’s probably impossible to unwind any faith that has a 900 page “summary of belief” that doesn’t acknowledge the fundamental fact that their sin of Schism put the chaos in motion. But they sure do have a big Church.
yeah much better to have thousands of different patristic texts, canons, councils, encyclicals, constitutions, etc., all theoretically binding or not depending on who you ask, so that you basically have to be a canon lawyer to even begin to authoritatively sy what is binding in what way, than a "900 page summary of belief"
@@RepublicofE Your reply is contradictory or maybe just confusing and forgive me if I am just confused, because in fact the things you describe, thousands of this’s and that’s are exactly what the 900 page summary, the Roman Catholic Catechism, is summarizing. It’s a “Summary” because the complexity of all that you stated needs one. The True Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Orthodox Church is vastly less complicated and as such doesn’t require a Summary or a Augsberg Confession or Westminster Statement of Faith or “Institutes of the Christian Religion”. In fact, Fr. Josiah Trenham said if you want to know what the Orthodox believe all you have to do is go to one. 90% plus is revealed in word and worship every Sunday just as it has been for 1900 years maybe more. The last 10% or so you can pick up in Holy week leading up to Pascha, “Easter” and a few other special Feast Days.
Now even if your doing it right it may take you several Sundays and more Likely the rest of your life to find understanding in a process referred to as theosis. But that’s not a Scholarly journey at all that may or may not be assisted by the examples of the Saints and the Wisdom of the Church Fathers depending but the point is it’s there if you choose to seek it. There is no final exam that must be passed as Gods Grace is availed to all who seek it with fear and trembling.
@@SaltShack Which Orthodox church? There are a basketfull, not all in communion, and sometimes divided over things like which liturgical calendar is used.
@@RepublicofE Again you are wrong. There are arguably only two factions of Orthodoxy. Eastern and Oriental and they are separated by an extremely fine point of Christology that most scholars suggest was the product of mis translation and would have been solved already but for the separation created by Islamic occupation. Regardless they share in essentially everything else dogmatically and ritualistically and even linguistically. Every Greek Orthodox Church I’ve been a member of has served Oriental Orthodox fully so though communion isn’t automatic accommodations are readily applied. The liturgy regardless of the language or the calendar day, each meaningless accidents of geography and ancient practicality, is the same in every meaningful manner and agreed to by each, but more importantly would be familiar to the Saints and Church Fathers like The Apostle John’s Disciple Ignatius of Antioch not to mention the Apostles themselves.
When we attend the Serbian Orthodox Church out of state we are on one Callender. When we are at home we are on another Callender even when the Serbian Archbishop is presiding in our Greek Orthodox Church we make fully available to him and his Orthodox community outside of Serbia. Trust me there is no tension or lack of cooperation and fellowship or communion regardless of the ethnicity identified on the sign out front of the Church. Orthodoxy is so compliant and cooperative that we are still waiting for the Bishop of Rome to come back and participate in the Body of Christ.
@@SaltShack There are at least a solid five main groupings of "Orthodoxy": The churches of mainline Eastern Orthodoxy that are and are not in communion with Constantinople, Old Believers, and Old Calendarists, plus the Oriental Orthodox. Not to mention the recent schism over the Ukraine war.
And even within Orthodox churches that have full communion, there is not uniform agreement on doctrine and practice. There is a whole monastic community that has vowed to defy their patriarch if communion is ever established with the Oriental Orthodox. The question of whether reunification with Rome can be entertained is similarly divisive.
Neither is your liturgical practice that of the apostles. The apostles did not have magic bread to give to people not in their communion as a consolation prize for peopel who couldn't be admitted to the eucharist due to doctrinal differences.
What was MEC's stance on abolition?
They split somewhere around 1844 with the northern branch being for abolition, but taking a more holiness stance generally, while the southern branch opposed abolition, but was more liberal by not being as strict in expecting personal morality.
@@edwardpearce1138 So they were pro-slavery?
@@TWolfe777 MEC, no. MEC,South, yes.
@@edwardpearce1138 MEC south may have been KKK members?
@@TWolfe777 I don't have any numbers, but it would be reasonable to suspect that some were, some were not, and most kept quiet and tried to avoid controversy.
What I find funny is that Catholicism, this gets used even for orthodox Catholics who might just be more concerned about the poor or marginalized.
I'm learning more about my Presbyterian Church from you than from my church.
My church the Presbyterian Church of India doesn't teach Presbyterianism but polity wise is Presbyterian. Other than that it is not. It is becoming more and more liberal these days.
Perhaps the terms "conservative," "moderate," and "liberal" should be in reference to the current society's beliefs and not the history of the church. This would aid non-Christians when they are looking for a church. If I'm telling a co-worker that I attend a conservative Baptist church, for example, then he would have a basic idea of the culture of my church because of his cultural experiences. He wouldn't give a flip about infant baptism or grape juice during communion.
Conservative Christianity is Orthodoxy. Simple as.
In recent years “conservative Christianity” has become an oxymoron.
What is God ordained and what is man ordained.
What gives to God and what takes from God.
5:02 those Baptists are just wrong historically speaking as all Baptists used to use wine for the Lords Supper and allowed drinking in moderation (Bourbon was invented by a Baptist Pastor and his Bourbon still bears his name) up until prohibition which was a liberal idea at the time by definition. As an example from my own life My great grandfather was a Baptist pastor and he opposed "Those liberals trying to take wine out of the Lords Supper" His church made it's own wine through prohibition. Today they require you abstain from alcohol to be a member.
Baptists drank wine for ~300 years and have been teetotalers for ~100 year. How long must a new "liberal" idea be held to be then considered "conservative"?
From a Catholic perspective, not a single denomination of Protestantism is conservative, since all of them throw out Catholic tradition to some extent.
from a protestant perspective, Catholicism isn't conservative either since it allows for doctrinal accretions
The new lord's prayer for evangelical Christian conservative nationalists:
Our Lord who is in Mar-a-Lago. Stupendous is your name. Your empire comes. Your will be done, in Washington as it was in Manhattan. Give us a repeal of Roe vs. Wade and we will ignore any of your past wrong doings and give us retribution for those who have wronged you. Lead us not in to wokeness and deliver us from democracy. For yours is the presidentsey, the power and glory of Tump, for as many terms as you want. Amen.
Liberal christians who don't celebrate the repealment of Roe v Wade, I question their christianity, what is more christian than a victory against the wholesale murder of children by their own mothers? a victory against the current prevailing disorder that is pitting women against their own children?
sorry but voting for someone doesn't mean you view that candidate as a god
@@jncon8013 Some Christians are putting trump above Christ. That is how it is, sorry to have to say. This is the danger of mixing politics with religion. Because of the issue of abortion and an irrational fear of socialism (especially for things that aren't even really socialist), so many Christians have aligned themselves with some of the most unchristian political values. White evangelical Christians in the US have adopted the politics of greed, cruelty and fear. What's even more unsettling is the growing movement of Trump as the son of man, which views Trump as the literal incarnation of Jesus. Even more prevalent are the Christians that are willing to reject the teachings of the Gospels for the cult of Trumpism. I chalenge you to read the Sermon on the Mount and compare those teachings with the words and actions of Trump. Trump is in so many ways the opposite of Christ in nature and I wish there was some kind of ecumenical Latin word that I could use to really drive that point in. The truth is, there is no way to support the cult of Trump that is the modern Republican Party and still be a real Christian. Seriously, I chalenge you to read the teachings of Jesus Christ of Nazareth and come to any other conclusion. If anything, just take a little time out of your day and read the Book of Matthew and then meditate on it.
Have to follow the Torah like jew do thats what our favorite jew yashua was teaching about, he was teaching about the jew way of life, the pagan free life
Its judeo Christianty
messianic judaism Christians perfectly
Orthodox is doing their best and much better keeping good culture alive
At the end of the day
What is written in the holy bible matter
The only conservatism that matters is our loyalty to inerrant Word of God. Our loyalty to Fundamentals of the Evangelical Faith.
Interesting perspective, but respectfully disagree on what is being conserved. While many faithful would say they are conserving the teachings of the apostles, i think the better perspective is considering whats is being conserved historically. Using baptism again, as a PCA Presbyterian, I can say i hold to a conservative position but not the most conservative position, that would go either RCC or Eastern