What is the #1 issue that divides Moderate Christians from Conservative Christians?

This thread is actually very interesting, considering the numerous responses and differing opinions. It just goes to show that "conservative/moderate/liberal" tends to be a very subjective thing indeed.

If you're talking about moderate and conservative, I'm assuming the difference will be of political stance.

How that influence how that affects how they walk as a Christian can be different. For some, their faith comes before their political views, and for some their political views come before their faith. So quick example, you can have conservative Christians who are for women pastors, or moderate or more liberal christians who wouldn't be for divorce.

steve78 said:

God has little to do with it. God has provided enough for everybody on this world yet selfish and greedy people have more than they actually need.

The conservative types love money and are opposed to anything that might help those in poverty.

Click to expand...

I guess Solomon is in big trouble with God then....Oh, wait...it was God who gave those things to him....So it is all God's fault then.
Oh, forgot about this one:
Mark 14:7

straykat said:

Why would someone who reads the Bible literally be against social justice? Both the OT and NT promote social justice and reading them literally would naturally lead someone to want to stand for justice too.

Click to expand...

That's the irony (especially considering Matthew 25 - the parable of the sheep and the goats - and what it takes to qualify as "righteous").



I think the answer is: because they are told to despise social justice (and they have even assigned a pejorative label to those that care for those in the margins - Social Justice Warriors or SJW).

Which actually makes me think of maybe a better answer as to what divides. Now I'm thinking that the division has more to do with whether a person is courageous enough to break from all the dogmatic beliefs of their church/family/friends that they've surrounded themselves with (usually, for conservatives, it's an isolated bubble) and go off and study for their own - and be willing to risk rejection from all those (or, at least, most of those) in their circle of influence. The other side of that line are those that are too afraid to upset things and stay with the status quo (sharing the same memes on FB, Twitter, and Instagram to keep them in the fold and accepted by the group).

ETA: That's really the definition of liberal = "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."

It seems to me its becoming moral positions which divide Christendom to the point I have a hard time even considering certain liberal Christians Christian. Particularly with regards to Homosexuality, abortion, female clergy and sex before marriage.

Traditionally it was the morality that we all agreed upon as Christians but where we differed was the theology of a certain position. Catholics and Protestants had much the same morality during the reformation, what disagreed upon was certain theological positions. Orthodox and Catholics shared a similar morality and practice but disagreed on theological positions on the Papacy and filioque.

I'm not sure what it means exactly that morality is becoming a dividing issue. Movements which radically departed from the historic Christian norms, like the Cathars or Munster rebellion were condemned by just about everyone. Yet now there seems to be a rough alliance between different Churches on different moral issues even though they dissagree theologically.

We all know where the Catholic, Orthodox and conservative Protestants stand. We all know where the liberal Protestant Churches stand.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I'm not sure what it means exactly that morality is becoming a dividing issue.

Click to expand...

It's not a total answer, but I think in part it goes back to what I mentioned earlier; the question of openness to other knowledge disciplines, besides theology, as sources of truth which need to be integrated with our faith to form a coherent worldview ("liberal" position), or rejected ("conservative" position).

Just to take homosexuality, for example, the shift in the morality is underpinned by a shift in the theology of the human person, informed by scientific input etc.

That doesn't explain every difference, but I think it does go some way to an answer.

But I am not sure how we build a bridge of unity across that divide of integration vs. rejection. I suspect it is important for us to start with respect for one another's integrity and sincerity before God.

Paidiske said:

It's not a total answer, but I think in part it goes back to what I mentioned earlier; the question of openness to other knowledge disciplines, besides theology, as sources of truth which need to be integrated with our faith to form a coherent worldview ("liberal" position), or rejected ("conservative" position).

Just to take homosexuality, for example, the shift in the morality is underpinned by a shift in the theology of the human person, informed by scientific input etc.

That doesn't explain every difference, but I think it does go some way to an answer.

But I am not sure how we build a bridge of unity across that divide of integration vs. rejection. I suspect it is important for us to start with respect for one another's integrity and sincerity before God.

Click to expand...

The modern liberal shift in theology doesn't seem informed by science as much as it is informed by the sort of scientism or belief in science in of itself. Science can hardly inform us of the morality of homosexuality, it can only tell us certain facts about the condition or about human sexual experience. So I would contest that notion.

The impetus behind modern liberal acceptance of homosexuality does not seem to me scientific but empathetic. The liberal looks at the state of the homosexual unable to control his/her urges and believes God could not possibly limit them to a life of celibacy. Whereas the conservative looks at the homosexual but their mind is taken to numerous examples of scripture, of historical Church practice and they must say with some indifference that the feelings of the homosexual do not trump these sources of faith.

When it comes to bridging things I don't think there can be any sort of unity. The split is not only now on theological grounds between Churches it is on both moral and theological grounds. That's a chasm that can't be mended.

I am not speaking of formal unity, but of the sort of unity which allows us at least to be civil to one another and build such relationships as we can.

I think, though, that your characterisation of the liberal position is shallow and does not do justice to it.

And I'm not even here to particularly argue for that position because I find it somewhat problematic, at least in its most extreme expressions, but I think if we're going to talk to one another we at least need to understand what the other's position actually is.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Whereas the conservative looks at the homosexual but their mind is taken to numerous examples of scripture

Click to expand...

In my experience, the conservative looks at the homosexual and their mind goes not to scripture but instead goes to picturing the act in their heads, and then lashes out at the homosexual for the icky feelings picturing the act gives them, even though those pictures and feelings are solely creations made INSIDE the head, and solely the responsibility of the Conservative who is picturing them.

The random Homosexual passing by that the conservative is "looking at" has nothing to do with it.

The Liberal, on the other hand, sees the Homosexual passing by and either ignores him/her, or maybe asks for directions, comments on the weather, or simply smiles and says hello.

The liberal is not obsessed in their heads with picturing the act the way the conservative seems to be, in my experience.

Paidiske said:

I am not speaking of formal unity, but of the sort of unity which allows us at least to be civil to one another and build such relationships as we can.

I think, though, that your characterisation of the liberal position is shallow and does not do justice to it.

And I'm not even here to particularly argue for that position because I find it somewhat problematic, at least in its most extreme expressions, but I think if we're going to talk to one another we at least need to understand what the other's position actually is.

Click to expand...

I can only speak from my perception of liberal Christian arguments for homosexuality. Personally I don't think it shallow at all and it might be the most powerful argument the liberal can make since it cuts to the heart of everyone's sexual experience. To deny that of someone can seem cruel and an impossible burden, hence the desire to open up sexual expression on the Christian left.

Still if there's more depth, a larger basis upon which liberalism draws please share it. I explained why I don't think it can be science, at least on this issue.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

Still if there's more depth, a larger basis upon which liberalism draws please share it.

Click to expand...

I don't think I can, on this forum, as it would be seen as "promotion" of homosexuality; which is against CF's rules.

parousia70 said:

In my experience, the conservative looks at the homosexual and their mind goes not to scripture but instead goes to picturing the act in their heads, and then lashes out at the homosexual for the icky feelings picturing the act gives them, even though those pictures and feelings are solely creations made INSIDE the head, and solely the responsibility of the Conservative who is picturing them.

The random Homosexual passing by that the conservative is "looking at" has nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

Well our feelings towards the act itself seem inconsequential to the beliefs themselves. A man who is against homosexuality may be disgusted by two men having relations but not so much with two women. Likewise a man who is supportive of homosexuality might be disgusted by two men having relations but continues to support it. Feelings then seem to not matter much when it comes to our positions on this topic, unless we're average Joe who doesn't care to think it out.

When I bring up my perception of the liberal argument I did not intend a deliberately weak position but I consider it a very strong position. Human sexuality is an almost indispensable part of peoples daily lives. We all have desires and want them to be fulfilled, it's literally built into us. How then do we deny that of someone? Tell them that part of themselves must remain unfulfilled? This is a powerful empathetic argument and if not for the fact that I am a Christian I might accept it.

Paidiske said:

I don't think I can, on this forum, as it would be seen as "promotion" of homosexuality; which is against CF's rules.

Click to expand...

Feel free to pm me if you want.

In reading through my FB feed this morning, I came upon this, a post from Jenn Hatmaker written two years ago. This is another way to explain the division - but I still believe this is the result of the difference between those that are willing to break rank with their entire circle of influence in order to embrace a new theology and those that are too afraid of being different:

Is this discussion only about Christians in America, or are we considering the global, supranational Body of Christ?

Well, I'm in the conversation, and I'm not in America...