What defines you as conservative?

[Soloist]

Soloist, it is hard to tell if you’re trying to be ironically funny or if your verbal jabs at others are coming from an effort to be unkind. Some perceive your jabs as unkindness.

Max, this thread was in the Anabaptist forum which an Anabaptist is someone who disputes infant baptism as a valid mode of baptism. This thread was made more specifically for Anabaptists and not Catholics. So unless you disavow infant baptism which I would welcome to hear... you were not included in the question. While I don't mind seeing you post in response to things, this question was set up to eliminate Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox. I'll admit I should have foreseen the issue and included specific things such as believer's baptism and defined that so that this was not a conflict.

[MaxPC]

I agree that your OP should have set clear parameters, especially when considering that new topics pop up and their specific forums do not always appear in the browser. I am glad you are clarifying. Yet you have been taking jabs at people including Anabaptists in other forums too. Your affiliation says “wanderer” in Greek. Are you not affiliated with a fellowship?

[MaxPC]

Soloist, it is hard to tell if you’re trying to be ironically funny or if your verbal jabs at others are coming from an effort to be unkind. Some perceive your jabs as unkindness.

Max, this thread was in the Anabaptist forum which an Anabaptist is someone who disputes infant baptism as a valid mode of baptism. This thread was made more specifically for Anabaptists and not Catholics. So unless you disavow infant baptism which I would welcome to hear... you were not included in the question. While I don't mind seeing you post in response to things, this question was set up to eliminate Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox. I'll admit I should have foreseen the issue and included specific things such as believer's baptism and defined that so that this was not a conflict.

Soloist, I agree that had your OP set clear parameters it would have achieved your purpose more effectively, especially when considering that new topics pop up and their specific forums do not always appear in the browser. I am glad you are clarifying. Yet you have been taking jabs at people including Anabaptists in other forums too. Your affiliation says “wanderer” in Greek. Are you not affiliated with a fellowship?

[steve-in-kville]

I have to ask, what makes "conservative" better than everybody else?

So you drive a black vehicle? All of a sudden I have to worship the ground you walk on?? Yeak, okay. Good luck with that.

Your wife wears a cape dress? Great. Tell me again how you are better than mine.

You wear long sleeve shirts 12 months out of the year? O for the love that is anything holy... you must be a saint by now!!

Does anyone else see where this thread is going??

[Neto]

Biblicism. Accepting the Scripture as my authority for all matters of faith & practice.

To flesh this out a bit more, it means not accepting theories found in Systematic Theology that attempt to explain the things that God in his wisdom did not choose to explain in Scripture. Same for later Christians whose writings are not a part of the Scriptures, whether they lived/live in the 2nd or 21 centuries. It means that I accept the word of Scripture over the theories of scientists, whose conclusions change due to new "discoveries". Specifically in regards to science, I believe that if knowledge is sought with a heart open to Truth, and should the Lord wait long enough before his return, it will eventually come into complete harmony with the teachings of Scripture. (I'm not holding my breath, however, because that condition of openness is rare, and considering the evil power of unbelief over humanity, will probably never come.)

[Ernie]

Okay, this question is for those of you who consider yourself conservative. At a minimum this is a question for those who claim a two kingdom affiliation, head covering for women at the very least while praying or prophesying, permanence of marriage, modesty of dress as defined by the church in some way, not swearing of oaths, and non-resistant.

Why do you consider yourself conservative Christian? What is defining between you and liberal Christians? is it the bare minimum displayed above? or is there more specifics?

For me it is simply a hesitancy to change beliefs or eliminate practices that many believers/churches have kept historically - all the way back to the beginning.

My conservatism has very little to do with "Republican/Augustinian conservatism". My conservatism sometimes looks similar to the values of Republicans, Democrats, Communists, or Libertarians, even if my conservatism is world's apart from them in terms of motivation and essence. e.g. The Bible encourages us to not take advantage of the weak (including the unborn) R, care about refugees D, share our wealth with the needy C, and promote freedom and volunteerism L.

And then there are parts of my conservatism that don't fit any of these. e.g. The historical practice of followers of Jesus to refrain from political rites in which a winning segment of the population seeks to use coercion and force to impose its values and beliefs on another segment of society.

[PetrChelcicky]

Well, I appreciate "conservative Anabaptists" as an outsider. What I share with them, is a critical view on "progress" which often means nothings more than "fashion". (Of a "progress", I demand that it is a step further to a common human goal, and in most cases it isn't.)
On the other hand I suppose that the attempt to eternalize a whole culture - like Christianity at the times of Paul - is bound to fail. It normally ends with "token conservatism" - clinging to certain tokens only. And "token conservatism" can be more dangerous than "no conservatism" because (a) it shifts attention from important to rather unimportant thing (like buttons or zippers) and (b) it breeds resentment with the group who is overregulated (women's clothes have been much more regulated than men's).

[RZehr]

I don’t know what defines me as a conservative. In some circles I’m am not. I do think of myself as pretty conservative in some areas. But it is not good to be conservative in other areas.
I guess I’m somewhat content to leave it up to others to decide what category I fit in.
My focus needs to be on what is the best decision for each matter. As part of the decision making process, I do try to weigh history and also try to consider any current aspects that may be different. Not so much asking what is the conservative or liberal thing to do would be, but what is the right or best thing. Yet when the right thing is not clear, or in dispute, I do find it easy and simple to not make changes - particularly if the stakes are high.

[Soloist]

Yet you have been taking jabs at people including Anabaptists in other forums too. Your affiliation says “wanderer” in Greek. Are you not affiliated with a fellowship?

Feel free to private message me any rebukes containing specifics, otherwise I'm at a loss for where my occasional quips crossed a line. I'll admit I can miss how I'm perceived sometimes, but generally speaking, I'm not intentionally jabbing.
I am affiliated but the Greek affiliates me better for who I am and where I am. I belong to one of the Conservative Mennonite fellowship's, the same that RZehr is in.

I have to ask, what makes "conservative" better than everybody else?

Does anyone else see where this thread is going??

Well by my definition, they could be included and as Mayberry posted, some of us have tighter views but I simply asked what defined you as conservative if you held to the above. If simply following my guidance from the descriptive OP I would argue someone choosing not to follow that isn't following Jesus and His teaching but that would bunny train the thread.

[barnhart]

What about those who quality according to the opening post, but do not claim a conservative identity.

I would be curious why you would not claim a conservative identity? what do you define conservative as to desire to distance yourself from it?

There could be many reasons for distance, but first is it accurate. I can get on board with Ernie's definition of slowness to abandon belief and practice of the early church, but that will not always be perceived as conserving or stabilizing society. In many cases it has been rejected as radical and destabilizing. This is true even today, if you hold up Jesus teaching on enemy love or economics, a sizable portion of society will oppose you as a radical.