The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What Christlike qualities does conservatism have? (corrected link)


What Christlike qualities does conservatism have?

I posted the wrong link previously. I talk about it in the link below:


Yes, I too perceive that those who most want to ‘conserve’ a system, or again become great as they perceive they had been, are those who felt privileged by the status quo. Thus they experience a sense of loss in the changes that prophetic voices such as Jesus’ advocate. They naturally fight back.

1 Like

This might be a bit biased, but overall, this is the Liberal party we’ve seen the past 20 years or so. So - maybe M will want to run this on his Reddit page? (which is a good page that I enjoy).

Just a few short decades ago a church-going man who publicly supported the right to life, backed laws protecting marriage, and spoke freely of Christ’s love for fallen man, would be universally recognized as a fine and upstanding citizen. He would be welcomed anywhere, including at the highest levels of power. But things have changed. In today’s America, the “progressive” left actively endeavors to destroy such a man. Modern American leftists start by vilifying Christians. They then begin scheming, quite often with success, to get Christians terminated from employment and forever marked with a scarlet “C” to inhibit any future prospects for employment. Next, they simultaneously attack their family and work to tear it apart, at once sending a warning shot over the bow of other Christians and pushing them to the fringes of society. The ultimate goal? Conform to their pagan demands, or face incarceration. American progressives have co-opted every elite institution: schools, government, the media, Hollywood and the arts; even, at an increasing rate, many conservative organizations. What’s worse is that progressivism has, like a deadly cancer, fully metastasized into what passes for the Church in America. There is a great falling away afoot, and apostasy reigns supreme. The secular left doesn’t merely have a disagreement with Christianity. These are not people with whom one may reason, compromise or even disagree. They are dedicated to evil. They demand nothing less than the abolition of the biblical worldview, and the destruction of Christ’s followers right along with it. Now is the time to fight back. If you are someone, Christian or not, who refuses to see Christianity wiped out (like it ever could be) and your children indoctrinated into pure evil, then sitting on the sidelines is no longer an option. In Hating Jesus Matt Barber first documents how successful the American left has been in its War on Christianity and then concludes by providing both hope and a simple plan on how the body of Christ can fight back against the enemies of God. We live in dire times. But, with Christ, it’s never too late to turn the tide!


That didn’t really answer the question of what Christlike qualities conservatism has.


No it didn’t. Because I don’t think either ‘side’ has Christlike qualities - some people on each ‘side’ do. But I noticed that you picked on conservatives - which is your right, it’s your page. A little fair and balanced would be nice though - are you going to post my entry?


The subreddit I created is about cruciform theology which is not liberal or conservative. You may be surprised that one of my favourite theologians who sends me his books to review prior to release is a Trump supporter (Jeremy Myers). Clearly since Myers espouses cruciform ideas, he doesn’t see cruciform theology as being incompatible with his political beliefs.

Sometimes I ask questions on the site on things for which I don’t know or don’t have an adequate answer such as the Christlike qualities of conservatism. Fortunately there are some good answers to my question on the subreddit. I copy one below.

" A quick, coffee break reply here.

Good question. For me, religious conservatism definitely has beneficial sides. Establishing good, sound theology and doctrine, good governance of churches, accountability when it comes to money, healthy leadership with proper oversight - those things generally tend to go better in a more stable situation. For me, this relates to what Paul says in Ephesians 4, when he talks about " …infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. " Stability, which is a feature of conservatism, is beneficial in that it can protect against these waves and winds of teaching. Of course, overdoing it and clinging to tradition for traditions’ sake has the opposite result (suffocating healthy debate, entrenching dysfunctional leadership, allowing them to mess with money, power or sex; etc etc) It’s a difficult line to tread, sometimes. I see new, charismatic churches that seem to lose all rudder and they are susceptible to sectarianism and every weird thing under the sun (grave sucking anyone?) Give me a healthy measure of conservatism over that, any day :slight_smile:

In politics, it is mainly socialisms’ view of mankind that makes it difficult to accept for me. Is mankind inherently good or not? Socialism teaches that crime is a result from economic inequality; solve that and you solve crime. The Bolsheviks even brought it into practice in the early 1920s, releasing scores of criminals after Soviet communism was established, thinking these people would turn into good socialist citizens in the new, fair, communist paradise. Of course it didn’t work, those criminals didn’t magically reform overnight - because (fallen) mankind is not inherently good, as the Bible teaches. On that score alone, socialism fails a litmus test for me, even though the political outcomes of socialism often seem in line with what many Christians would want.

In The Netherlands, we have the luxury of voting for political parties and candidates that are neither socialist, liberal or conservative, but Christian, meaning they sometimes vote with the left, sometimes with the right, depending on the issue at hand. I do not envy my brothers and sisters in other countries who do not have this privilege and have to deal with very black and white ‘either/or’ discussions."


Thanks for that! Very enlightening, and you have a good thing going there.


Conservatism affirms the Christian stance on sexual morality, however, its economic ideology
runs counter to Christianity’s. I care more about economics than social issues, so I vote across the board Democrat.


No matter WHO runs for the Dems?
The republicans raise up the economy, and a high tide raises all ships, as they say. The poor are way better off in a republican, capitalist society.


Can you expound on that?


Conservative economics basically says justice is attained when everyone keeps the value of what he’s responsible for producing, minus the value needed to pay for the system that protects his ability to acquire value. Christianity says justice is attained when everyone is treated with love.


The problem is that what do you think that justice is when people are dealt a different treatment of love?


Mindless love does no good. Wise love can maybe work. You and others give capitalism a hard time, compared to socialist experiments in the 20th century that were responsible for 150 million+ deaths. Centralized power in socialism or democracy is a very dangerous and unstable thing.
The profit motive - a person being able to work, save and actually EARN their way through life is the most motivating and flourishing idea in the world. That is not greed; that is recognizing God’s gifts and doing one’s best to make use of them.
WE ALL WANT everyone to have health care. That’s a given. You dems are NOT more loving than anyone else, ok? What we are arguing here are realistic means and methods to get that done. Realistic. Not deranged Bernie or Beto (my god) or Fauxahontas or any current dem candidate, going way left for votes and promising any damn thing for free in order to get into office and start living like a King.
They truly will ruin America for their own gain, and their most powerful tool is the false illusion of single-payer health care. There has to be another way.

1 Like

There’s a huge difference between socialism and Communism and what you describe as socialism is Communism. Communism often ends up as an authoritarian ideology similar to fascism.

“The most fundamental difference is that under Communism individuals are provided for or compensated based on their needs, in effect meaning that in a true communist system you wouldn’t have money and you’d simply be given what the government thinks you need in terms of food, clothing, accommodation, etc. Central to socialism is that individuals are compensated for based on their individual contribution, so people that work harder or smarter would receive more than those that don’t contribute.” (

1 Like

There’s nothing mindless about wanting the system I vote to impose on my neighbors to provide them with a sufficient share of the distributable goods necessary to have a decent chance at a good quality of life.

Our economy is mixed, like virtually every “capitalist” economy in the world. I don’t give capitalism a hard time. My problem is with the brand of capitalism that tells its subjects to enjoy the fruit of their labor without enabling them to.


Agreed. But who will decide who gets what? Who do you trust? And why do you think people don’t have a decent chance at a good quality of life?


Yes, of course, the THEORY is wonderful, so wonderful that countries have tried it, and ended up in massacres. Marxism is extremely attractive as to its vision - but love for the vision leads to - well, you have to break a lot of eggs to make an omelette, right? A few million dead in order to achieve Utopia is no big deal.
Socialism is a theory, and it does not work, never has.
I think people here want a little bit of socialism, but still staying fat on the goods capitalism brings.


Atlas Shrugged. People begging for what they need from a collective is so degrading as to be almost inhuman.


I won’t claim to speak for conservatives, but the libertarian viewpoint on this is that helping others is something that should be done by individuals with their own money, not by governments with money forcibly taken from others.

1 Like

This point could use some explanation. Which brand of capitalism are you talking about, and how does it prevent its subjects from enjoying the fruit of their labor?