Talk:Conservative Christianity

message: "Earlier Conservative Protestant scholars/theologians include ..."
Wouldn't they all have been considered mainstream Christians back then? Tcschenks 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholars, Theologians and Writers 

message: I have added the unsourced template.  I have serious issues with the titling of this article, because I believe many of the cited 'conservative' thinkers and theologians would not identify as such but as 'orthodox', 'evangelical' or something else.  I don't believe 'conservative' Christianity is a theological movement in the same way 'liberalism' is.  The term is certainly in common parlace, especially in America, but that does not make it informed or correct.  However I'm not a theologian and therefore don't feel comfortable 'fixing it'.  Therefore I ask the assertions about 'Conservative Christianity' be sourced.  Furthermore, I ask that all contributers to the talk page please sign your posts with four tildes.aliceinlampyland 17:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: The citations are all about interpretations of the bible.  There is nothing there that talks about "Conservative Christianity". 
Is this article purely a reaction to the article on "Liberal Christianity", whatever that is?  Because from where I sit (outside the US), this article has no legs to stand on.  Trishm 02:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations? 

message: I can't get rid of the Christian template appearing twice on the right hand side. Can anyone fix it? It would be nice if we didn't have so much forced white space between some sections.
A word of encouragement: this is an extremely important article and deserves our best efforts. Let's get behind it and get those two Wiki criticisms ready to be removed.
Afaprof01 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: Christian Fundamentalism is not Conservative Christianity it is a reaction to liberal theology. When Fundamentalist in the US call themselves Conservatives they mean politically conservative. This article probably needs to explain that fundamentalism is a relatively new theological movement (less than 200 years old) and is distinct from Conservative Christianity.  Maybe we should note examples of where Fundamentalist find themselves at variance with conservative/orthodox beliefs.--Riferimento 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian orthodoxy is liberal and fundamentalist; Roman Catholicism is liberal and not fundamentalist; Anglicanism is liberal and not fundamentalist (high church); Calvinism is conservative and not fundamentalist; Christian evangelicalism is conservative and fundamentalist. 67.183.157.148 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between Conservative Christianity and Fundalmentalism 

message: “It is often said that Conservative Christianity and Liberal Christianity are polar opposites,” this may be said but it is completely false. Fundamentalism and Liberal Christianity are polar opposites not Conservative Christianity. It should also be noted in this article that some traditional beliefs and practices are sometimes rejected by fundamentalist because they believe that they cannot be supported by literal interpretation. For example infant baptism is regularly rejected by fundamentalist but is a traditional conservative practice.--Riferimento 23:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative Christianity and Liberal Christianity are not polar opposites

message: This article has massive POV issues, such as the 'Engagement in Society' section and is almost completely unreferenced. Shoddy work for such a controversial topic. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with the 'Engagement in Society' having POV issues, but other sections might. For instance, much of the 'Criticisms of Conservative Christiany' section portrays Jesus Christ's teachings as those of tolerance and social justice. I would argue that a good amount of Christians, myself included, would see Jesus Christ as teaching love and forgiveness, but not tolerance for sins. Besides which, social justice was not Christ's central message by any stretch of the imagination; most churches would teach that his message was something along the lines of, "You are sinners and will go to Hell for it, but I will die for you to have eternal life even though I haven't sinned." Even though the section seems quite biased, if citations are given for some of the less credible statements, it could stay as it is. Bonjour123 04:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Somehow I don't think you'd be content with a listing or of websites of the thousands of parachurch and denominational agencies that feed the hungry, heal the sick, provide water systems, etc. What kind of referencing do you seek? Why not provide it yourself?  And what is POV about stating that Conservative Christians are highly involved in such services? There's nothing POV about facts. Pollinator 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The social liberals accused the politically conservative in the US of being “ uncaring for the needs of society,” but neither are Christian groups. The politically conservative who happen to be Christian do in fact give extremely generously to non-profit organizations, possibly because they feel that while it is not governments responsibility to take care of the poor it is a Christian responsibility. In general all Christians give generously to the poor. This is a horrible paragraph that just reinforces the confusion between being a political conservative who happens to be a Christian as opposed to being religiously conservative. In addition with the possible exception of anecdotal evidence, I believe that it would be impossible to document any statement in that paragraph. --Riferimento 21:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV 

message: Belief in the Trinity and in the literal resurrection of Jesus (listed in the "General Beliefs" section) are standard Christian teachings, held by Christians across the political spectrum, not just conservatives. Also, Roman Catholics do not reject Biblical infallibility (although it might not be commonly referred to as such). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General beliefs 

message: Are there no conservative Christians outside the United States?  Fishal (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside the United States we have a completely different definition of "conservative". Which pretty much prevents this article from ever achieving worldwide NPOV. Leushenko (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Conservative Christianity is very common outside of the States, what do you want? Do you assume that what is called traditional outside of the States differs significantly from what is considered traditional inside the States? If you believe there is significant differences in conservative theology try to find a citation, I think that what you will find is there is little information on the differences between what is considered conservative theology in the States and what is considered conservative in Europe, South America, Africa, or the Middle East. The reason this article is short is because it is really not that complex a subject. Please remember that Fundamentalism is not conservative theology nor traditional and is only slightly over 100 years old (in the Church a hundred years is a fad).N0nr3s (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Limited geographic scope

message: I cleaned up general beliefs a little bit (for example it was confusing trinity with hypostatic union).  But... I still think the general direction of the section is wrong because the article makes these core beliefs of both conservative protestantism and conservative Catholicism.  Really that entire development is fully protestant See for example Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy.  
To give an important distinction catholic conservatism isn't joined with economic conservatism.  Their poverty of Christ battles happened during the middle ages.  Moreover they certainly wouldn't assert inerrancy as understood by a common reader (i.e. Sola scriptura).  So frankly I think the section needs a much more substantial overhaul.  jbolden1517Talk 16:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  General beliefs 

message: The Roman Catholic church is not conservative, but liberal. Traditionalism is social conservatism, and while religion is social this must be written from a secular social perspective. The Roman Catholic church is socially conservative but theologically liberal--even progressive. The Puritan movement sought to reform (cut the rough progressive edges) the Roman Catholic church. From this movement we now have Lutheranism. The Puritan movement sought also to reform the Anglican church in a Calvinist manner--a theologically conservative & fundamentalist manner. 67.183.157.148 (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic 

message: See above #Limited geographic scope
This article is very American centric. For example in the Church of England evangelical is linked to low church and has been for centuries, they are more likely to be in favour of, women bishops and disestablishment and as such are definitely not conservative or Conservative. The high church of the Church of England that tends to be the conservative branch indeed some of them are so conservative that they have a tendency to want to return the Church of England to the church of Rome. -- PBS (talk) 04:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps such a move would make sense, but what does that make the Roman Catholic Church in America? Is it not conservative? Perhaps a better idea is either to rename in to some other descriptive name that does not use the term Conservative (which after all has a Tory copyright) or delete the mongrel.  -- PBS (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise 

message: I just wanted to post about the aftermath of the articles for deletion. Most of the discussion happened at pages other than this one:
===Discussion with closing administrator===
Note: the following was copied from User talk:Kudpung. I copied this because otherwise it will be lost in the user's talk page archives.
You closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Christianity by saying keep as a disambiguation page. In my opinion, this was not a consensus at all. While many suggested disambiguation, it was far from everyone, and the correct closing should have been either keep (as is) or no consensus.
When I saw the disambiguation page, I was not aware of the AfD and was disambiguating links. There are a ton of links to Conservative Christianity and having a DAB page there is a big disambiguation problem. So I thought that changing it to an article was one of many items on the Wikipedia to-do list.
I bring this up since this was discussed at Talk:Christian conservatism where most users agreed that disambiguation didn't make sense, and a redirect might work better. I then tried to do the redirect and wound up in an edit war with another user. This other user disagreed with the disambig idea but was reverting to enforce you incorrect AfD close.
Please respond. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The result  was 'keep' (as a DAB page). As this means the article/page has not  been deleted, editors are free  to  carry out whatever action  they  feel necessary if it  is reached by  consensus decision  on  the article talk  page. Edit  warring  is not  a solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially, you're saying that the disambiguation page is not to be considered a binding requirement and we can change it if we like? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is clearly what I said. Any additional comment by the closing admin is generally a recommendation only. Any AfD closure that is not 'delete' leaves the article free to be redirected, moved, edited, changed to/from a dab page, at will by any editor, preferably with a consensus on the article's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

text: There is certainly no consensus to redirect - it's rather disingenuous to say that this was "decided" at Talk:Christian conservatism. I won't revert at this stage, since I'm already at 3 reverts, but I don't think you're doing the right thing here. StAnselm (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath of Articles for Deletion 

message: Note: the following was copied from User talk:Kudpung. I copied this because otherwise it will be lost in the user's talk page archives.
You closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative Christianity by saying keep as a disambiguation page. In my opinion, this was not a consensus at all. While many suggested disambiguation, it was far from everyone, and the correct closing should have been either keep (as is) or no consensus.
When I saw the disambiguation page, I was not aware of the AfD and was disambiguating links. There are a ton of links to Conservative Christianity and having a DAB page there is a big disambiguation problem. So I thought that changing it to an article was one of many items on the Wikipedia to-do list.
I bring this up since this was discussed at Talk:Christian conservatism where most users agreed that disambiguation didn't make sense, and a redirect might work better. I then tried to do the redirect and wound up in an edit war with another user. This other user disagreed with the disambig idea but was reverting to enforce you incorrect AfD close.
Please respond. Thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The result  was 'keep' (as a DAB page). As this means the article/page has not  been deleted, editors are free  to  carry out whatever action  they  feel necessary if it  is reached by  consensus decision  on  the article talk  page. Edit  warring  is not  a solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Essentially, you're saying that the disambiguation page is not to be considered a binding requirement and we can change it if we like? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That is clearly what I said. Any additional comment by the closing admin is generally a recommendation only. Any AfD closure that is not 'delete' leaves the article free to be redirected, moved, edited, changed to/from a dab page, at will by any editor, preferably with a consensus on the article's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion with closing administrator

message: There was also discussion at Talk:Christian conservatism about this page, and pages with titles that mean the same thing. There it was decided that a redirect to Christian fundamentalism was acceptable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at Christian conservatism

message: Therefore, I'm redirecting this page to Christian fundamentalism. Feel free to continue discussion below. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is certainly no consensus to redirect - it's rather disingenuous to say that this was "decided" at Talk:Christian conservatism. I won't revert at this stage, since I'm already at 3 reverts, but I don't think you're doing the right thing here. StAnselm (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: The result of the discussion was to Leave as disambiguation page. StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fate of this page 

message: An editor in the above section suggested writing one or two sentences clarifying the distinctions between these various concepts. If you can explain this to a layperson (one who knows little about any of these practices), be my guest, propose it below. I don't see how one or two sentences could possibly clarify anything. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is still confusing to most readers 

message: this page may have been a dab 11 years ago, but it's certainly not one now. I'm marking it as C-class, if the page should be re-made into a dab and the content moved elsewhere we should probably discuss again, but I don't have much of an opinion either way at this time.  - car chasm (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  not a dab