Is it true that Evangelical Churches (for example, Baptist and Pentecostal) are becoming more conservative?

[Kiril]

Is it true that Evangelical Churches (for example, Baptist and Pentecostal) are becoming more conservative and fundamentalist due to the accession of conservatives to these Evangelical Churches, including from other Churches? While the mainstream Churches are becoming more liberal.

I myself would like to join some conservative and stable Church, so I ask.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Is it true that Evangelical Churches (for example, Baptist and Pentecostal) are becoming more conservative and fundamentalist due to the accession of conservatives to these Evangelical Churches, including from other Churches? While the mainstream Churches are becoming more liberal.

I myself would like to join some conservative and stable Church, so I ask.

It would be way more complicated than that. So generally no. Some will be becoming more conservative, some more liberal, some about the same.

There is something like the California Migration Effect where people fleeing California for other states being with them their political baggage to their new state. They left because of the political mess that is California, leaving to live in some saner state. But then some of these people tend to want to recreate some of that same California politics in their new state.

There are Evangelicals that are moving to acceptance of the whole LGBT thing for example. Others making no changes. A mixed bag. So don’t make presumptions but check them out individually for stability and for adherence to traditional moral and doctrinal teaching.

 

[The Liturgist]

So don’t make presumptions but check them out individually for stability and for adherence to traditional moral and doctrinal teaching.

Is that in the context of RCiA?

 

[eleos1954]

Is it true that Evangelical Churches (for example, Baptist and Pentecostal) are becoming more conservative and fundamentalist due to the accession of conservatives to these Evangelical Churches, including from other Churches? While the mainstream Churches are becoming more liberal.

I myself would like to join some conservative and stable Church, so I ask.

Some are worse than others in compromising ... many ... most are compromised one way or another.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Since Baptists were mentioned in the OP, I will touch briefly on them. There are many Baptist denominations. The only thing that actually unites all of them is the belief in believer's baptism. Even within an individual Baptist denomination such as the Southern Baptist Convention, you will find a multitude of varying beliefs. There are some SBC churches which are quite Reformed in their theology and there are many which are equally Arminian. Even the members of individual Baptist churches hold personal views which may, or may not, align with either the denomination's stated beliefs or the beliefs of their own pastor.

It is quite impossible to track trends in either the Baptist churches or the Pentecostal churches, especially based on the members they are recruiting.

 

[The Liturgist]

Is it true that Evangelical Churches (for example, Baptist and Pentecostal) are becoming more conservative and fundamentalist due to the accession of conservatives to these Evangelical Churches, including from other Churches? While the mainstream Churches are becoming more liberal.

I myself would like to join some conservative and stable Church, so I ask.

Out of curiosity do you live in Ukraine or in the diaspora? Because based on that I might be able to offer some suggestions.

 

[9Rock9]

Well, I think it depends.

I'm Southern Baptist, so I'll be using my denomination as an example.

I think it's simultaneously become more conservative and more more moderate. The SBC used to be fairly liberal until the Conservative Resurgence. Now, it takes considervative stances on many important issues like women's ordination and homosexuality. The SBC technically prohibits women's ordination, but it's not yet binding, so there's supposed to be a vote next month to make it a constitutional amendment, and it is facing pusback, so I can see the vote going either way.

However, I suspect there's a growing recognition that the denomination has become too politically tied to the Republican Party. So, a lot of us want to move away from that while still maintaining conservative convictions. We're still ardently pro-life, for instance. We want to distance ourselves from the parts of conservativism that are more controversial and alienating, while also trying not to fall into the same trap as the mainline denominations.

From my own experience though, most Southern Baptists don't seem that different from your average American regarding politics until abortion is brought up. Many do hold to your standard conservative platform: lower taxes, smaller government and laissez faire capitalism, but Christian democracy and populism seem to be gaining in popularity. And then there are those who willing to pay lip service to Reagan-esque conservativism if it means advancing the pro life cause.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, I think it depends.

I'm Southern Baptist, so I'll be using my denomination as an example.

I think it's simultaneously become more conservative and more more moderate. The SBC used to be fairly liberal until the Conservative Resurgence. Now, it takes considervative stances on many important issues like women's ordination and homosexuality. The SBC technically prohibits women's ordination, but it's not yet binding, so there's supposed to be a vote next month to make it a constitutional amendment, and it is facing pusback, so I can see the vote going either way.

However, I suspect there's a growing recognition that the denomination has become too politically tied to the Republican Party. So, a lot of us want to move away from that while still maintaining conservative convictions. We're still ardently pro-life, for instance. We want to distance ourselves from the parts of conservativism that are more controversial and alienating, while also trying not to fall into the same trap as the mainline denominations.

From my own experience though, most Southern Baptists don't seem that different from your average American regarding politics until abortion is brought up. Many do hold to your standard conservative platform: lower taxes, smaller government and laissez faire capitalism, but Christian democracy and populism seem to be gaining in popularity. And then there are those who willing to pay lip service to Reagan-esque conservativism if it means advancing the pro life cause.

What you posted seems to be correct from my perspective regarding social and political conservatism in the SBC. Theologically, things are not nearly as distinct. For example, many SBC churches, especially in the north of the country, are quite Reformed in their theological orientation, but there are multitudes, especially in the south, which are ardently Arminian. If Reformed theology is conservative, then the SBC is becoming more conservative. However, if Arminianism, which has been the primary theological orientation of the SBC, especially in the south, is conservative, then the SBC is becoming more liberal.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What you posted seems to be correct from my perspective regarding social and political conservatism in the SBC. Theologically, things are not nearly as distinct. For example, many SBC churches, especially in the north of the country, are quite Reformed in their theological orientation, but there are multitudes, especially in the south, which are ardently Arminian. If Reformed theology is conservative, then the SBC is becoming more conservative. However, if Arminianism, which has been the primary theological orientation of the SBC, especially in the south, is conservative, then the SBC is becoming more liberal.

Is the Arminian/Calvinist spectrum the same as the liberal/conservative spectrum?

 

[9Rock9]

Is the Arminian/Calvinist spectrum the same as the liberal/conservative spectrum?

Not necessarily. I don't think Calvinism nor Arminianism really tell you anything about how conservative or liberal a denomination is.

The UMC is Arminian. The PCUSA is Calvinist. Both are quite liberal.

The OPC is Calvinist and Assembly of God are both conservatives despite being polar opposites when it comes to the Calvinism-Arminianism debate.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Is the Arminian/Calvinist spectrum the same as the liberal/conservative spectrum?

Not at all. It is not unlike the Catholic/Orthodox spectrum.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Not at all.

OK. Good, because I just couldn't see that. But then I don't do Arminian or Calvinist.

It is not unlike the Catholic/Orthodox spectrum.

OK. You have to unpack that a bit for me. Please.

 

[bbbbbbb]

OK. Good, because I just couldn't see that. But then I don't do Arminian or Calvinist.

OK. You have to unpack that a bit for me. Please.

From my perspective there is not a lot of difference between Catholic and Orthodox theology, nor are there really a lot of differences between Calvinist and Arminian theology. However, one can place these theologies on a spectrum. In the case of the Catholic and Orthodox spectrum one can place various Orthodox churches along the spectrum in their relationship to the Catholic Church. Thus, you will find a few Orthodox churches which are in full communion with Rome, but not Catholic in their core identity. At the other end of the spectrum you might find some of the Orthodox bodies which did not participate in all of the recognized ecumenical councils.

Now, if you are Catholic and want to correlate this with conservative (good) and liberal (bad) then you could say that the Orthodox bodies which are closest to the Catholic church on the spectrum are the most conservative (good) and the ones at the other end of the spectrum are more liberal (bad).

The reality, of course, is that this is a purely useless and ultimately meaningless methodology.

 

[chevyontheriver]

From my perspective there is not a lot of difference between Catholic and Orthodox theology, nor are there really a lot of differences between Calvinist and Arminian theology. However, one can place these theologies on a spectrum. In the case of the Catholic and Orthodox spectrum one can place various Orthodox churches along the spectrum in their relationship to the Catholic Church. Thus, you will find a few Orthodox churches which are in full communion with Rome, but not Catholic in their core identity. At the other end of the spectrum you might find some of the Orthodox bodies which did not participate in all of the recognized ecumenical councils.

Now, if you are Catholic and want to correlate this with conservative (good) and liberal (bad) then you could say that the Orthodox bodies which are closest to the Catholic church on the spectrum are the most conservative (good) and the ones at the other end of the spectrum are more liberal (bad).

The reality, of course, is that this is a purely useless and ultimately meaningless methodology.

OK. We do have Byzantine Rite Catholics, and there are Orthodox who are somewhat friendly to Catholics and others who are hostile. But even the most hostile Orthodox generally accept all of the early ecumenical councils. And as far as liberal and conservative go, at least for Catholics we are politically liberal on some things and politically conservative on others. Of course there are some Catholics who are sold out liberals and others are sold out conservatives who put their politics ahead of their religion. And theologically conservative until pope Francis took over.

Which means that not all spectrum correlate, do they? As I expected.

 

[bbbbbbb]

OK. We do have Byzantine Rite Catholics, and there are Orthodox who are somewhat friendly to Catholics and others who are hostile. But even the most hostile Orthodox generally accept all of the early ecumenical councils. And as far as liberal and conservative go, at least for Catholics we are politically liberal on some things and politically conservative on others. Of course there are some Catholics who are sold out liberals and others are sold out conservatives who put their politics ahead of their religion. And theologically conservative until pope Francis took over.

Which means that not all spectrum correlate, do they? As I expected.

Agreed.

 

[The Liturgist]

At the other end of the spectrum you might find some of the Orthodox bodies which did not participate in all of the recognized ecumenical councils.

Here I think you are confusing the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East with the Eastern Orthodox, although the Oriental Orthodox had their own ecumenical councils, and their doctrine is extremely close to Eastern Orthodoxy, indeed, the Oriental Orthodox St. Severus of Antioch had an enormous influence on Eastern Orthodox theology by stressing theopaschitism and communicatio idiomatum, and his hymn Ho Monogenes is included in every Eastern Orthodox divine liturgy. In antiquity the lines between these churches were often blurred, a point further stressed by the scholarship of Sebastian Brock showing that the much-loved monastic theologian St. Isaac the Syrian was in fact a member of the Church of the East.

Also in the 19th century the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox churches of Alexandria attempted to unite, which would have at the time also included what are now the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox (unless they broke away in a schism, which is possible, and that could have been disastrous for Ethiopia), but the Albanian Muslim Khedive, the ruler of Egypt who was nominally a liegeman of the Ottoman Sultan, but in reality enjoyed sovereignty and de facto independence from the Sublime Porte. However, now we have a new ecumenical arrangement, since around the year 2000, between the two Alexandrian Orthodox churches, which has many of the benefits of a full merger, without the risks or logistics headaches.

Unfortunately, a vocal minority of Eastern Orthodox are extremely hostile to the Oriental Orthodox, and on the flip side, some Ethiopian monks reportedly continue to regard the Eastern Orthodox as Nestorian.

The Church of the East has problems, like the continued schism between the Assyrian Church of the East and the much smaller Ancient Church of the East, but it does agree with the two Orthodox communions on several issues. For example, it rejects the Filioque and follows the same model of Apostolic Succession and Episcopal Polity (since 1974, when the last of the uncanonical hereditary Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East was unfortunately the victim of an assassination, like so many others around that time; while I disagree with mich of what Mar Shimun XXIII Eshai, memory eternal, did, and proposed to do, his assasination was a tragedy, and probably resulted from his desire to get married, which ordinarily I would oppose for an Orthodox bishop, however, in the case of Mar Shimun XXIII, he never asked to be the Catholicos of the East, but inherited it from his uncle (the younger son of the older brother of each Catholicos would become the new Catholicos). This arrangement was a violation both of the ancient canons shared by all of the ancient churches, whether Orthodox, Catholic or Assyrian, as well as the specific canons of the Church of the East, and this led to the schism when Mar Shimun XXIII introduced the Gregorian Calendar, which was enough for the Indian bishop who discovered the canonical impropriety and other traditionalists to break away, crowning Mar Addai II as Catholicos of the Ancient Church of the East.*

*The title Catholicos is a title used by several presiding bishops of Asian churches who were at one time vice-Patriarchs to the Patriarch of Antioch, and in many churches such as Georgia and the Church of the East is used interchangeably with Patriarch. In the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, it was replaced with Maphrian, so that the vice-Patriarch in charge of the church in modern day Iraq would not be confused with his counterpart from the Church of the East. The independent, many feel schismatic, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church in India revived the title for its presiding bishop. Finally, the two worldwide Armenian communions are the Catholicosate of Holy Etchmiadzin and All Armenia, and the Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia, dating back to the time when the Armenians ruled the Kingdom of Cilicia in addition to the Kingdom of Armenia. The latter received renewed relevance after the Soviet Union invaded and annexed Armenia in the 1920s, with many anti-Soviet Armenians joiming new parishes set up under Cilicia, but the two churches were reconciled adter the downfall of the Soviet Union. The two overlapping hierarchies persist as a legacy, but are no longer in schism with each other. There are also two independent Patriarchates, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, which exclusively operate in their canonical territory and are respected by both Catholicoi.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Here I think you are confusing the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian/Ancient Church of the East with the Eastern Orthodox, although the Oriental Orthodox had their own ecumenical councils, and their doctrine is extremely close to Eastern Orthodoxy, indeed, the Oriental Orthodox St. Severus of Antioch had an enormous influence on Eastern Orthodox theology by stressing theopaschitism and communicatio idiomatum, and his hymn Ho Monogenes is included in every Eastern Orthodox divine liturgy. In antiquity the lines between these churches were often blurred, a point further stressed by the scholarship of Sebastian Brock showing that the much-loved monastic theologian St. Isaac the Syrian was in fact a member of the Church of the East.

Also in the 19th century the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox churches of Alexandria attempted to unite, which would have at the time also included what are now the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox (unless they broke away in a schism, which is possible, and that could have been disastrous for Ethiopia), but the Albanian Muslim Khedive, the ruler of Egypt who was nominally a liegeman of the Ottoman Sultan, but in reality enjoyed sovereignty and de facto independence from the Sublime Porte. However, now we have a new ecumenical arrangement, since around the year 2000, between the two Alexandrian Orthodox churches, which has many of the benefits of a full merger, without the risks or logistics headaches.

Unfortunately, a vocal minority of Eastern Orthodox are extremely hostile to the Oriental Orthodox, and on the flip side, some Ethiopian monks reportedly continue to regard the Eastern Orthodox as Nestorian.

The Church of the East has problems, like the continued schism between the Assyrian Church of the East and the much smaller Ancient Church of the East, but it does agree with the two Orthodox communions on several issues. For example, it rejects the Filioque and follows the same model of Apostolic Succession and Episcopal Polity (since 1974, when the last of the uncanonical hereditary Patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East was unfortunately the victim of an assassination, like so many others around that time; while I disagree with mich of what Mar Shimun XXIII Eshai, memory eternal, did, and proposed to do, his assasination was a tragedy, and probably resulted from his desire to get married, which ordinarily I would oppose for an Orthodox bishop, however, in the case of Mar Shimun XXIII, he never asked to be the Catholicos of the East, but inherited it from his uncle (the younger son of the older brother of each Catholicos would become the new Catholicos). This arrangement was a violation both of the ancient canons shared by all of the ancient churches, whether Orthodox, Catholic or Assyrian, as well as the specific canons of the Church of the East, and this led to the schism when Mar Shimun XXIII introduced the Gregorian Calendar, which was enough for the Indian bishop who discovered the canonical impropriety and other traditionalists to break away, crowning Mar Addai II as Catholicos of the Ancient Church of the East.*

*The title Catholicos is a title used by several presiding bishops of Asian churches who were at one time vice-Patriarchs to the Patriarch of Antioch, and in many churches such as Georgia and the Church of the East is used interchangeably with Patriarch. In the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, it was replaced with Maphrian, so that the vice-Patriarch in charge of the church in modern day Iraq would not be confused with his counterpart from the Church of the East. The independent, many feel schismatic, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church in India revived the title for its presiding bishop. Finally, the two worldwide Armenian communions are the Catholicosate of Holy Etchmiadzin and All Armenia, and the Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia, dating back to the time when the Armenians ruled the Kingdom of Cilicia in addition to the Kingdom of Armenia. The latter received renewed relevance after the Soviet Union invaded and annexed Armenia in the 1920s, with many anti-Soviet Armenians joiming new parishes set up under Cilicia, but the two churches were reconciled adter the downfall of the Soviet Union. The two overlapping hierarchies persist as a legacy, but are no longer in schism with each other. There are also two independent Patriarchates, the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, which exclusively operate in their canonical territory and are respected by both Catholicoi.

Yes, I was using "Orthodox" in a very broad sense to include not merely the Eastern Orthodox bodies, but also the other Christian bodies which self-identify as "Orthodox". One can construct a spectrum placing the Roman Church at one end and these various Orthodox bodies at varying points along the spectrum.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, I was using "Orthodox" in a very broad sense to include not merely the Eastern Orthodox bodies, but also the other Christian bodies which self-identify as "Orthodox". One can construct a spectrum placing the Roman Church at one end and these various Orthodox bodies at varying points along the spectrum.

That’s not really the case; there is no smooth gradient between Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches, which despite historical differences, are much closer to each other than to Rome. Roman Catholicism is more like a hard detent on a throttle, whereas the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, Eastern Orthodoxy, Old Calendarist Eastern Orthodoxy, Russian Old Rite Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy would be a gradient.

As far as the Eastern Catholic churches go, these were largely established through political action, exploiting tribal differences and other vectors to get parts of the Eastern churches into communion with Rome. For example, the Chaldeans are one of the Assyrian-speaking tribes, albeit one which predominantly speaks Arabic, unlike the others, and which tends to be more urban than the Assyrians, and so it was easy enough for the RCC to create a Chaldean Catholic Church and get most Chaldeans to join. In the case of the Maronites, they had a schism with the Oriental Orthodox and also disliked the Eastern Orthodox, probably due to a belief in monothelitism, and thus became the only group of Eastern Christians that formed a good relationship with the Crusaders. The Crusaders I would note were in less of a position to pillage the Maronites, because very wise Maronite leaders secure land in the defensible mountains of Lebanon (along with the Druze; both ethnoreligious groups owe their survival to those mountains).

Increasingly since Vatican II, however, the Eastern Catholic churches have been encouraged to recover their traditional theology and worship, and this happened everywhere except the Maronite Church, where the beautiful, ornate prayers they held in common with the Syriac Orthodox underwent the same kind of minimalistic reductionist rewriting as the Roman Rite mass. Indeed some Maronite churches have borderline Lebanese popular music replacing the traditional hymns. Others remain more traditional. But overall, the changes are unfortunate, although they could have been much worse; if Rome had made a point to preserve the traditional Maronite liturgy like they did with the traditional pre-conciliar Ambrosian Rite in Milan, and also to a large extent with the Mozarabic Rite, I would have less to complain about, since at least the Maronite missal ensures that six of their 45 Anaphoras (Eucharistic prayers) are used every year, which is more than what we see in some Syriac Orthodox churches in the diaspora.

As far as the Byzantine Rite churches are concerned, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Russian Greek Catholics, Italo Albanian Greek Catholics, and so on, these tend to be very close to Orthodoxy; the only rites where there are minor problems with the liturgy, which have to do with the translations used more than anything, are the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church (whose modern translation is very similiar to one used by the American Carpatho Rusyn Orthodox Diocese; fortunately most of the Carpatho-Rusyn Ruthenian people who became Orthodox joined the OCA, and ACROD mainly captured the remainder who were uncomfortable joining the OCA’s predecessor, the Metropolia, owing to the uncertainty caused among the Russian churches by the Communist takeover of that country, which I think more than anything else is responsible for overlapping jurisdictions in the US, just as it was with the Armenians, which I also mentioned.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, I was using "Orthodox" in a very broad sense to include not merely the Eastern Orthodox bodies, but also the other Christian bodies which self-identify as "Orthodox". One can construct a spectrum placing the Roman Church at one end and these various Orthodox bodies at varying points along the spectrum.

I wouldn’t say there is such a spectrum, or at least if there is one it would be exceedingly hard to construct on paper.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That’s not really the case; there is no smooth gradient between Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian churches, which despite historical differences, are much closer to each other than to Rome. Roman Catholicism is more like a hard detent on a throttle, whereas the Assyrian Church of the East, the Ancient Church of the East, Eastern Orthodoxy, Old Calendarist Eastern Orthodoxy, Russian Old Rite Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodoxy would be a gradient.

As far as the Eastern Catholic churches go, these were largely established through political action, exploiting tribal differences and other vectors to get parts of the Eastern churches into communion with Rome. For example, the Chaldeans are one of the Assyrian-speaking tribes, albeit one which predominantly speaks Arabic, unlike the others, and which tends to be more urban than the Assyrians, and so it was easy enough for the RCC to create a Chaldean Catholic Church and get most Chaldeans to join. In the case of the Maronites, they had a schism with the Oriental Orthodox and also disliked the Eastern Orthodox, probably due to a belief in monothelitism, and thus became the only group of Eastern Christians that formed a good relationship with the Crusaders. The Crusaders I would note were in less of a position to pillage the Maronites, because very wise Maronite leaders secure land in the defensible mountains of Lebanon (along with the Druze; both ethnoreligious groups owe their survival to those mountains).

Increasingly since Vatican II, however, the Eastern Catholic churches have been encouraged to recover their traditional theology and worship, and this happened everywhere except the Maronite Church, where the beautiful, ornate prayers they held in common with the Syriac Orthodox underwent the same kind of minimalistic reductionist rewriting as the Roman Rite mass. Indeed some Maronite churches have borderline Lebanese popular music replacing the traditional hymns. Others remain more traditional. But overall, the changes are unfortunate, although they could have been much worse; if Rome had made a point to preserve the traditional Maronite liturgy like they did with the traditional pre-conciliar Ambrosian Rite in Milan, and also to a large extent with the Mozarabic Rite, I would have less to complain about, since at least the Maronite missal ensures that six of their 45 Anaphoras (Eucharistic prayers) are used every year, which is more than what we see in some Syriac Orthodox churches in the diaspora.

As far as the Byzantine Rite churches are concerned, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Russian Greek Catholics, Italo Albanian Greek Catholics, and so on, these tend to be very close to Orthodoxy; the only rites where there are minor problems with the liturgy, which have to do with the translations used more than anything, are the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church (whose modern translation is very similiar to one used by the American Carpatho Rusyn Orthodox Diocese; fortunately most of the Carpatho-Rusyn Ruthenian people who became Orthodox joined the OCA, and ACROD mainly captured the remainder who were uncomfortable joining the OCA’s predecessor, the Metropolia, owing to the uncertainty caused among the Russian churches by the Communist takeover of that country, which I think more than anything else is responsible for overlapping jurisdictions in the US, just as it was with the Armenians, which I also mentioned.

As always, thank you for the excellent information. If one uses liturgy as the basis for a spectrum, then your model holds quite true. As you know, liturgy is very much foundational in the identity of the various Traditional Churches. Other issues, such as those discussed earlier in this thread such as politics and popular culture are of much less significance, I think.