What is the nature of Conservatism

[Ernie]

I'm not so interested in which AI thinks, but rather what people think. Does anyone wish to put forward a theory for the roots and substance of Conservatism.

Political conservatism is simply that, a political stance that prioritizes conserving what we have. Change is resisted, and accepted at only gradual increments.
These days, what is called conservatism is actually much more like Reactionism or Regressivism. Reactionaries/Regressives want to roll back progress in the hope of bringing back a mythical golden age of their civilization. Conservatives often side with regressives because they are more opposed to progress and what they are unfamiliar with, than they are of regress into what they see as somewhat familiar. So conservatism very easily slips into and is overtaken by regressive political movements.

As others have pointed out, political conservatism is theoretically agnostic when it comes to economic or social ideologies. Conservatives at the end of the Soviet Union would be fighting for to conserve that union, while reformers were working towards changes that would eventually cause it to collapse and build something new. Conservatives in America during the 1800s Civil War era could be found among the Democrat party fighting to keep the chattel slave economy, but in the 1900s could be found in the Republican party fighting to keep segregation in public institutions.

Ideological Conservatism is not actually about conserving the status quo. It is an actual ideology with values and commitments and a consistent worldview. It often overlaps with political conservatism. If someone is an ideological conservative, then they are most likely either a political conservative or a reactionary.
Ideological conservatism is mostly based on the philosophy of the 15th-century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who defended the absolute necessity of monarchy over human society in the wake of the English Revolution/English Civil Wars, in which the Parliment went to war and executed the King of England. In the worldview of the ideological conservative, the world of human society is either naturally heirarchical, or must be strictly made to be heirarchical, or else it will perish. Some humans must be brought low and a few must be raised up. These few elites must rule the lessers, as is their right. Otherwise, society falls to chaos, anarchy, destruction... what the conservative calls "leviathan". Anything that seems to be "flattening" society, tumbling heirarchies, is seen as dangerous and destructive to the experiment of human civilization. Anything that is an institutionalized heirarchy is defended in the name of ideological conservatism, until it is finally gone.

Interesting. And helpful, especially the division between two types of Conservatism. I need to think about it before responding.

Where does religious conservatism fit into this?

I tell people that the brand of Christianity that I subscribe to (and that is not original with me) does not really need any updating as far as I can tell, and it is a good brand to keep promoting, living for, and dying for. 50 years from now, I hope my grandchildren are embracing the same thing I embrace, a rock-solid faith, with a rock-solid tradition (with perhaps a few improvements here and there) that serves as an anchor for us but also for people who are weary of all the change and ideas. Just spent the weekend with people from all over the world at a retreat. We took turns singing O Lord My God around a campfire in at least four different languages. Those of us who did not know the language being sung just hummed... Over and over I keep meeting people who are tired of the bombardment of ideas - ideas that aren't producing the sort of fruit they are looking for. They come to us asking in essence... "How in the world do you produce this fruit? Please explain it!"

[Ernie]

Ernie has talked about how different people in plain circles have different temperaments. (Ernie, please correct anything I got wrong.) It would be interesting to add their general political alignment.

• Progressives: For them, change is never happening fast enough. They embrace brand new ideas and want to see them enacted as quickly as possible. In today's environment would vote Democratic, but might vote for fringe third parties. 50 years ago, they would have voted for Republicans.
• Mainstream: They accept changes. They might not really like them, but accept it happening anyway. They don't agree with the conservative's mindset who wants some things to never change, and don't agree with the progressive's mindset that wants everything to change. Generally votes Republican. 50 years ago, they might have voted for Democrats, and would generally vote like their neighbors do.
• Intentionalist: They think we can read principles in the Bible that may feel extreme, but we should try to structure our lives to achieve those principles. This might involve change in some areas, and rejecting change in other areas. Most of these wouldn't vote; if they did, they would probably be independent.
• Radical: (or "Reformer", "Restorationist", etc.) They perceive that things need to return to the way it used to be, with "used to be" some idealized idea of (for example) early Anabaptism, or the 1st century church. Most of these wouldn't vote, but a handful would, and could fall on the far left or far right of things, and more likely might also be seen attending political protests.
• Conservatives: They prefer change to happen slowly, and like the feeling that they are rejecting most changes. Most of these people wouldn't vote, but some do, and if they do, invariantly Republican.
• Old Order: They perceive change as both inevitable, but also perceive change as a bad thing. They consider it their duty to make changes happen as slowly as possible, yet they also have a certain humility that change will happen, and they will not be as good as their ancestors were. Most of these people don't vote, but some do in local elections, and occasionally national ones. Invariantly Republican.

I would add my own new one to the list, a "Pure Church" temperament: some principles are worth dying for, even if you are the last person on earth left that believes in them. They will go and form a church very dedicated to some principle like, e.g., refusing to use LED headlamps. They feel the principles handed down from their ancestors had a value that, with humility, they cannot fully understand the value of. They do not accept outside change. These people would never vote and would go so far as to avoid service on juries, etc. even under the threat of incarceration, such as happened in recent memory in TN.

(The above list is in order of how fast vs. how slowly they become assimilated with the outside world; that is, accept changes imposed from the outside.)

This line up is unfamiliar to me.

I think I have always thought of mainstream/mainline (both in Protestantism and Anabaptism) as being liberal/progressive. But in recent years mainstream/mainline has sort of separated into three groups in my mind.
1. Mainstream/Mainline far left. (those who ordain LGBTQ)
2. Mainstream/Mainline middle. (those who are big on social justice and vote Democrat but don't ordain LGBTQ)
3. Mainstream/Mainline conservative (those who are fine with women pastors but vote Republican)

Theological Conservatives are those who are not fine with women pastors.

Intentionalist(s) refers to persons who stand for principle rather than being influenced by the flow, whether that be tradition or some form of modern thinking/practices. When intentionalists do this together as a church, I use the term Renewal Groups. I typically think of these folks as restorationists. They all pick a group or an era in Christian history that they want to be like.

I think of radicals as either those who take very strict interpretations on doctrines and practices, or else those who try to shake things up in a brazen sort of way in whatever group they are part of. The latter are typically reformers. They may or may not be restorationist.

I like your pure church category. But I would not have thought of folks objecting to LED lamps as being in the same category as those objecting to serving on juries. I thought the majority of Plain Anabaptists would rather go to prison then participate in a jury.

[Ernie]

I think I have always thought of mainstream/mainline (both in Protestantism and Anabaptism) as being liberal/progressive. But in recent years mainstream/mainline has sort of separated into three groups in my mind.
1. Mainstream/Mainline far left. (those who ordain LGBTQ)
2. Mainstream/Mainline middle. (those who are big on social justice and vote Democrat but don't ordain LGBTQ)
3. Mainstream/Mainline conservative (those who are fine with women pastors but vote Republican)

Theological Conservatives are those who are not fine with women pastors.

For those familiar with Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists, what are the percentages for numbers 1-3?

[Ken]

I think I have always thought of mainstream/mainline (both in Protestantism and Anabaptism) as being liberal/progressive. But in recent years mainstream/mainline has sort of separated into three groups in my mind.
1. Mainstream/Mainline far left. (those who ordain LGBTQ)
2. Mainstream/Mainline middle. (those who are big on social justice and vote Democrat but don't ordain LGBTQ)
3. Mainstream/Mainline conservative (those who are fine with women pastors but vote Republican)

Theological Conservatives are those who are not fine with women pastors.

For those familiar with Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists, what are the percentages for numbers 1-3?

I don't think how people vote is all that connected to theology, or shouldn't be.

I know people who generally vote Democratic who aren't caught up in social justice campaigns and mostly just care about specific bread and butter issues like healthcare or education. And I know conservatives who are very supportive of LGBT rights. And I know plenty of independent types who vote mostly based on the personality of the candidates and not their party. That is a very big group of people.

I also don't think all that many people in mainstream America really care that much about women pastors. It is kind of non-issue outside of conservative circles and not a reason why one would pick or reject a denomination or congregation.

[JohnH]

I think I have always thought of mainstream/mainline (both in Protestantism and Anabaptism) as being liberal/progressive. But in recent years mainstream/mainline has sort of separated into three groups in my mind.
1. Mainstream/Mainline far left. (those who ordain LGBTQ)
2. Mainstream/Mainline middle. (those who are big on social justice and vote Democrat but don't ordain LGBTQ)
3. Mainstream/Mainline conservative (those who are fine with women pastors but vote Republican)

Theological Conservatives are those who are not fine with women pastors.

These are subgroups of Progressives and Mainstreams (the two non-plain groupings), which I didn’t go into in great detail. My experience with MC USA circles is they mostly vote Republican outside of the most visibly progressive ones. Maybe this changed in the era of Trump but I doubt it. For example I doubt LMC (#2) is voting Democratic.

Intentionalis(s) refers to persons who stand for principle rather than being influenced by the flow, whether that be tradition or some form of modern thinking/practices. When intentionalists do this together as a church, I use the term Renewal Groups. I typically think of these folks as restorationists. They all pick a group or an era in Christian history that they want to be like.

I think of radicals as either those who take very strict interpretations on doctrines and practices, or else those who try to shake things up in a brazen sort of way in whatever group they are part of. The latter are typically reformers. They may or may not be restorationist.

The different types of intentionalists, radicals etc needs further work. For example the intentionalists at the Texas churches like the one Chester Weaver is at (Osceola?) are very different than the Shippensburg type churches.

I like your pure church category. But I would not have thought of folks objecting to LED lamps as being in the same category as those objecting to serving on juries. I thought the majority of Plain Anabaptists would rather go to prison then participate in a jury.

Here is a better example of pure-church thinking: the state passes a law requiring LEDs on buggies, mostly due to corrupt Old Order Amish businessmen dishonestly lobbying the state legislature that “the Amish as a whole want this law”. Some groups think they should never use a car battery, LED lights, etc on a buggy.

They are harassed endlessly by local police, and show up in court by the dozens, pleading guilty that yes they did not have the LEDs and paying the fines. This happens over and over. They feel they can’t lie so even if they plead not guilty. They say they don’t use the LEDs.

They trust God to intervene. Installing electric lights is unthinkable.

It turns out the law is unconstitutional and eventually a Harvard based legal team intervenes on their behalf. However, it takes a lot of explanation and discussion to even convince the Swartzentrubers that it’s okay for them to file an appellate suit against the government, as they feel they need to stand firm not to file lawsuits. The lawyers ultimately persuade them that they are simply asking for a petition to be heard.

[Ernie]

Ok. Thanks for the feedback.

I will reword the categories this way.

1. Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists. Those who vote Democrat, are ok with women pastors, and are also ok with Christians practicing a LGBTQ lifestyle.
2. Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists. Those who vote Democrat, are ok with women pastors, but are not ok with Christians practicing a LGBTQ lifestyle.
4. 3. Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists. Those who vote Republican, are ok with women pastors, and are also ok with Christians practicing a LGBTQ lifestyle.
4. Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists. Those who vote Republican, are ok with women pastors, but not ok with Christians practicing a LGBTQ lifestyle.

For those familiar with Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists, what are the approximate percentages for each of the above categories?

[JohnH]

I guess there’s a 5th category for #4’s who aren’t ok with women pastors?

I don’t think a congregation of mainliners will be exclusively Democratic or Republican. But I think one would predominate.

Based on the Ohio Conference’s recent votes about 55% are #2/#4 and 45% 1 or 3.

There is an additional nuance in #2/4: some would expect to withdraw from a fellowship of 1’s and 2’s. (At a large Ohio congregation this was 5% of a congregational vote.) Others are not OK and will withdraw. The latter is represented by LMC, Southeast Conference and so forth.

[Ernie]

I guess there’s a 5th category for #4’s who aren’t ok with women pastors?

I think of them as Theological Conservatives rather than Mainstream/Mainline.

[JohnH]

I guess there’s a 5th category for #4’s who aren’t ok with women pastors?

I think of them as Theological Conservatives rather than Mainstream/Mainline.

Overall I would "clump" them together with the rest of the Progressive/Mainstream/Mainline. The chief characteristic they share is "not plain", but they end up with many other things in common as well:

- Typically have paid pastors
- Are open to larger church buildings (500+ seating capacity) with the budgets and staff those require
- Often have a paid part time church secretary
- May have things like a youth pastor, etc.

The list could go on.

[Ken]

Ok. Thanks for the feedback.

I will reword the categories this way.

1. Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists. Those who vote Democrat, are ok with women pastors, and are also ok with Christians practicing a LGBTQ lifestyle.
2. Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists. Those who vote Democrat, are ok with women pastors, but are not ok with Christians practicing a LGBTQ lifestyle.
4. Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists. Those who vote Republican, are ok with women pastors, and are also ok with Christians practicing a LGBTQ lifestyle.
4. Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists. Those who vote Republican, are ok with women pastors, but not ok with Christians practicing a LGBTQ lifestyle.

For those familiar with Mainstream/Mainline Anabaptists, what are the approximate percentages for each of the above categories?

Judging from my own very large extended family which is mostly MCUSA and CMC I would guestimate that 60% are Republican leaning, 15% are Democratic leaning, and 25% are apolitical/independent and not particularly engaged in politics. And if they do vote it is more on personality than party. The divisions are more around urban/rural lines rather than politics. My urban cousins tend to be more white collar and liberal. My rural cousins tend to be more blue collar and conservative.

As for women pastors and LGBT people? I think those are only big issues for a minority and not that big of a deal for the rest. For example, I have lots of cousins who attend CMC churches and I suspect the majority of them (especially the younger ones) would be perfectly fine with women pastors even though their conference doesn't allow it. It just isn't a big enough deal to change congregations from the one your family has been attending for a century. And they also wouldn't have much issue with gay members if they weren't too flamboyant or pushy about it. Likewise, I probably have older uncles and cousins who attend MCUSA churches who aren't thrilled by women pastors or LGBT members but it isn't a big enough issue to part ways over.

At the same time, I do have extended relatives who have parted ways with MCUSA over LGBT issues but not by joining more conservative Anabaptist groups. Rather, they left the Anabaptist fold and joined more conservative Evangelical groups that were more attuned to their politics. Mostly conservative non-denominational "community" churches of a vaguely Baptist flavor.

The point is that church attendance and membership for a whole lot of people has a lot more to do with things like family and community ties and history and less about specific points of doctrine.