Conservative Church Monikers Honestly Explained

[@kaiserklausmouse]

I'm glad that you pointed out that a lot of traditionalist Catholics don't want anything to do with the sedevecantist types

[@cynthiamurphy3669]

In other words, not all catholics see eye to eye, lol. I love finally hearing a catholic admit this.

[@johnransom9983]

@@cynthiamurphy3669 no Catholic has ever believed that all Catholics see eye to eye.

[@JRBWare1942]

A word I would caution others to be careful about is "Traditionalist." This means one thing in the realm of Christianity, but it's something else altogether in the world of philosophy. I have been tricked by several KZbin channels into thinking they were promoting traditional Christian morality and faith when instead they are really promoting something else altogether and not being upfront about what that is. This kind of "Traditionalism" is a form of Perennialism. Its main thinkers are people such as Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade, and Frithjof Schuon. Traditional Christians need to avoid this like the plague.

[@donguskhan7519]

@@cynthiamurphy3669 sedevacantists are in schism. Obviously Catholics are not some hivemind perfect believers, but this is not the same as the wide berth of belief that is tolerable to Protestants and accepted as being save-able. Catholicism has some things you are permitted to disagree on, but in the vast majority of cases you hear about, someone is in error, as the sedevacantists are.

[@rpierce0419]

You might give the sedevacantists a listen. It's possible you might learn something to strengthen your faith.

[@chrisray9653]

The best way to know what a denomination believes is to look them up on Ready to Harvest.

[@FishermensCorner]

If there's any channel that can be honest about anything, it's definitely this one.

[@KyleMaxwell]

It's also worth pointing out that the term "liberal" has acquired a political tinge, or at least is interpreted as having one, in contexts that aren't necessarily religious or political, as in people misunderstanding what a "liberal arts college" is.

[@EmilySmith-x6j]

Liberalism in Theology and politics are related, as is secularism. It's not a coincidence that most leftist are theologically gay, too, or that liberal congregations are full of Democrats. I still consider Conservatives leftists, though, voting should be illegal, especially for women and poor people.

[@YourLordAnon]

I think that goes both ways now. I have to be really careful about my usage of either liberal or conservative because people immediately think you're talking politically.

[@KyleMaxwell]

@ Fair! That sort of semantic leakage is very frustrating and constraining.

[@liambishop9888]

The whole "liberal arts" thing is particularly weird, cuz the idea of "liberal arts" in Western education significantly predates political liberalism. According to Wikipedia, the first record use of the term is from Cicero; so, it's strange that that should get mixed up with an ideology/approach to political philosophy that originates in the early modern period.

[@michaelwright2986]

@@liambishop9888 Yes, but people think that an Arts degree is in painting and dance and stuff, and would be surprised to learn that, say, Philosophy (including logic) and Mathematics are traditional subjects in a BA.

[@jonathanstensberg]

“I love charts.” - Joshua’s most controversial openly stated viewpoint to date

[@EyeLean5280]

What I find interesting is that about 30% of those who describe themselves as "Evangelical" have never supported Donald Trump. So we really ought to be careful and not make snap judgments about the politics of religious people.

[@Sebman1113]

Yeah, just as a bit over half of the people who are members of the “progressive” ELCA did vote for Donald Trump (not that I did but my politics is moderate and I am ELCA affiliated)

[@leullakew9579]

Evangelical is an international interdenominational (ecumenical) theologically label that most of U.S.-American secular media mistakes for a political ideology due to the Republican Party trying to convince Evangelicals to vote for them in exchange for maintaining socially conservative (cultural conservative) values (which they don’t even do a good job of), convincing non-Christian and non-Evangelical Political Conservatives into erroneously adopting the term “Evangelical” as a synonym for “Right-Wing Conservative,”and Pew Research Center in their survey data nomenclature reinforcing the false Evangelical vs People of Color (POC) dichotomy where they split Evangelicals (who are multicultural/diverse) into Evangelical (erroneously synonymized with White Evangelical), Black Protestant (combing both Black Evangelicals and Black Mainline Protestants into one undifferentiated category making it difficult for the general public/media to compare without access to raw data due to non-matching variables brought about by not providing disaggregated data or survey questions differentiating between Black Evangelicals and Black Mainline Protestants although many of the most prominent Historically and Majority Black denominations being Evangelical in theology), and ignoring other POC Evangelicals or combing them with Pew’s mostly White-Normative defined “Evangelical” category. The thing is it’s mostly White Evangelicals that vote Republican (a good chunk of them being conservative on social and economic issues or are single-issue social conservative voters that believe that economic issues take a back seat over social issues) while Black Evangelicals tend to vote Democratic (although they mostly hold socially conservative values, and theologically conservative beliefs, they tend to be economically progressives because most of them actively feel the effects of being on the lower end of the socioeconomic totem-pole). If Pew splits the data into White Evangelical, Black Evangelical, Other Evangelical, White Mainline, Black Mainline, Other Mainline, and Confessing Movement and then regrouped White, Black, and Other Evangelicals into the Evangelical category, it would drop the prevalence of Evangelicals voting Republican (Political Conservative) down to an extent within their data because it will correct for the missing Black Evangelical data (that was combined with Black Mainline to create the undifferentiated Black Protestant variable) that voted Democrat (Political Liberal/Progressive). A study by Gallup in the article “5 Things to Know About Evangelicals in America” by Frank Newport, disaggregates Black Evangelical from the overall Evangelical and Black Protestant categories and shows 61% of the Black population being Evangelical while 38% of the White population is Evangelical the difference is White Evangelicals get more press/air time than Black Evangelicals in the media thus causing many outsiders to erroneously believe that Evangelicalism is some sort of White American cultural phenomenon or conservative political ideology.

[@nilsalmgren4492]

There are plenty of liberal evangelicals...ELCA stands for Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.

[@nilsalmgren4492]

​@@Sebman1113ELCA embraces the Pride Flag and calls Gay marriage a Godly institution. ELCA is extremely liberal, which is why I walked out on that church in the 80's.

[@leullakew9579]

@ The German term evangelisch more accurately corresponds to the broad English term Protestant and should not be confused with the narrower German term evangelikal, or the term pietistisch (a term etymologically related to the Pietist and Radical Pietist movements), which are used to described Evangelicalism in the sense used in this video. Mainline Protestant denominations with a Lutheran or semi-Lutheran background, like the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of England, who are not evangelical in the evangelikal sense but Protestant in the evangelisch sense, have translated the German term evangelisch (or Protestant) into the English term Evangelical, although the two German words have different meanings.[29] In other parts of the world, especially in the English-speaking world, evangelical (German: evangelikal or pietistisch) is commonly applied to describe the interdenominational Born-Again believing movement. The word evangelical has its etymological roots in the Greek word for 'gospel' or 'good news': εὐαγγέλιον euangelion, from eu 'good', angel- the stem of, among other words, angelos 'messenger, angel', and the neuter suffix -ion. By the English Middle Ages, the term had expanded semantically to include not only the message, but also the New Testament which contained the message as well as more specifically the Gospels, which portray the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

[@RonJohn63]

5:38 What amuses me is that Martin Luther referred to "his" church as "evangelical". After all, "evangelical" means "good news" in Greek, just as "gospel" is Old English for "good story/news".

[@fighterofthenightman1057]

In Europe, “Evangelical” usually just means Protestant. And the vast majority of European Protestants are traditional (infant baptism, liturgical, sacramental, etc.).

[@maxxiong]

Hence the ELCA

[@IamGrimalkin]

​​​@@fighterofthenightman1057 You mean mainland Europe. That's not what it means in Britain and Ireland. Here it's much closer to his initial defintion of evangelical. I think the history of this use of the the term goes back to the evangelical vs anglo-catholic wings of the church of england (which is still used). As anglo-catholics may not neccessarily think of themselves as fully Protestant, that makes sense. Now 'liberal' is understood as a third wing of the church of englad, so it makes sense with the conservative aspects as well. (Although at this point C of E evangelicals are split into Open, Conservative and Charismatic).

[@zbm-2375]

IF you look at Webster's dictionary, there are 7 definitions for Evangelical. 1. is " of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels", 2 is "Protestant", and when you see Lutheran Churches using the word, they're probably referencing one of those, rather than the definitions which refer to low church or born again experiences. Of course, there's also 4A, in reference to the EKD, but that's a proper name referencing meaning 1 and 2. Also not sure why 4b (Low church) and 4c (Fundamentalist) don't get their own numbers, when they're completely unrelated to 4A.

[@johnhouchins3156]

We didn't choose "Lutheran" for ourselves. The preferred name was "Evangelical", as in spreading the Good News of the Gospel. The Term "Lutheran" was first a derogative term.

[@TVHouseHistorian]

Joshua, the objectivity in your delivery is so wonderful to watch. No matter where each of your audience members fall along the spectrum, we all feel so educated by this. As for me, I'm a college-educated "bumpkin" (of sorts) who grew up with two politically moderate parents. I call myself a Conservative Baptist - turned Assemblies of God Pentecostal holy roller - turned Foursquare Pentecostal moderate (Liberal-ish) holy roller - turned rigid, tight-fisted, traditionalist, Bible-believing, ultra-conservative, "Reformed-ish", Fundamentalist, Biblicist, Calvary Chapel attendee. Having attended a liberal public university, as well as a number of liberal-to-moderate Pentecostal churches in recent years, I've found myself having swung so far to the right both politically and theologically I've hit the wall and can go no further (to the right, that is). While I don't enjoy being accused of being rigid, I find myself accepting the accusation anyway in my unwillingness to compromise my position. For me, swinging to the right has meant incredible amounts of freedom and peace in my life both spiritually and socially. All that being said, I try never to argue with anyone who takes an opposing position on these matters. I give everybody grace, and take people where they're at.

[@Metal_Auditor]

And no one can accuse you of just blindly accepting something you’d been taught by your parents or others. It’s obvious that you have re-examined your own beliefs several times. Though I suppose my journey hasn’t been as drastic as yours, I grew up in a very moderate Protestant church (PCUSA which switched to EPC but still has several female elders, including my mom) and attended Catholic school for grades 1-12, and now I’m a confessional Reformed Baptist.

[@christopherflux6254]

If I visited John McArthurs church, I’d probably be labelled a ‘woke liberal’, but if I visited Metropolitan Community Church, they’d probably label me a ‘fundamentalist’.

[@brileywells1628]

Great video! As a PCA Presbyterian who identifies as conservative, confessional, evangelical, and fundamentalist, I found this super interesting!

[@SteveBricker]

I had this problem on my Traditional Worship church locator website. Had to create my own definition for "traditional". Decided on "The worship style ... of our church has not significantly changed from 50 years ago."

[@edwardkuenzi5751]

The fact that words can be used both to make sure everyone understands, but also so that only certain people understand is really just a core part of how human beings use language.

[@Roescoe]

Yeah it's very common in religious sects who want exclusivism, but to a lesser extent it exists in hobbies.

[@baneofbanes]

@@Roescoeit exists basically everywhere that humans form at least partially closed off groups. It’s called jargon. You see it in professions, the military, hobbies as you said, religions, etc etc.

[@Roescoe]

@@baneofbanes Well Jargon doesn't necessarily have the intentionally exclusivist angle, it can just be specific.

[@galaxyn3214]

"Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types: the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob." - G. K. Chesterton

[@Smileyhat]

I'm grateful for this video, as some of these terms have become confusing to me. For example, I generally figured that "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" were more or less synonyms with each other until I looked on youtube and saw someone who described himself as evangelical talk about someone else's fundamentalist views in a way that made it clear that he doesn't share them.

[@jec1ny]

Good video. Conservatism in religion has lots of flavors and degrees. The term "traditionalist" is not limited to Catholics. Some Protestants groups also use the term. They, like their Catholic counterparts, tend to have an affinity for more old school forms of worship Traditionalist Anglicans tend to be "high church" and often prefer older editions of the Book of Common Prayer such as the 1662 version in Britain and the 1928 BCP here in the US. Traditionalist Catholics generally come in two degrees. Moderate traditionalists who favor the Tridentine Mass, but who recognize the Pope and the legitimacy of the post Vatican II sacramental rites, and the more hardcore versions that you referred to. These are often called Rad Trads and are not in communion with the Pope and generally do not recognize the sacraments of the post-Vatican II Catholic Church. And as you noted, most are sede-vecantist. Somewhere in between these two is a group known as the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Officially they recognize the Pope and mostly accept the validity of post V-II sacraments. But they consider the Catholic Church to be in a state of extreme crisis and maintain administrative independence from the Vatican and local bishops. The exact nature of their relationship with the Roman Catholic Church is somewhat ambiguous and has been the subject of considerable debate. Their bishops are no longer excommunicated, but some have argued that the SSPX and its followers are "material schismatics." The Eastern Orthodox Church has its divisions as well. The terms liberal and conservative are usually indicative of fairly trivial differences within that communion as most Christians would label the Orthodox Church as inherently conservative. That said, there are a number of splinter groups called "old calendarists" who have broken with the main jurisdictions. They generally have two principal objections. The first being the adoption by some Orthodox churches of a modified form of the Roman Catholic (Gregorian) calendar in preference to the Julian Calendar. All old calendarists reject the canonical legitimacy of the "new calendar" and some consider it to be heretical. Old calendarists also strongly object to the participation by the various canonical Orthodox churches in ecumenical dialogue with the non-Orthodox. They typically refer to themselves as "True Orthodox" and the canonical churches as "World Orthodox." They are believed to constitute significantly less than 1% of persons who self identify as Orthodox globally and are somewhat rare outside of Greece and Romania. That said there are dozens of jurisdictions who self identify as True Orthodox. Many have only a handful of parishes and they are typically not in communion with any other jurisdictions, although there are isolated exceptions.

[@JRBWare1942]

In my experience, the differences between liberal and conservative Orthodox Christians in the USA aren't generally what you describe (although I agree that what you describe can certainly be found in some places--predominantly in Eastern Europe). I have encountered many Orthodox who are concerned with orthopraxy as far as liturgy goes, but beyond that, they're pretty indistinguishable from your average American. They vote Democrat because they say we need to help the poor--but they ignore the fact of how the Democrat party promotes abortion and homosexuality--and they ignore the fact that helping the poor is the job of the Church, not the government. I'm also troubled by how many American Orthodox in their 20's & 30's are shacked up, ignoring the Church's teaching on sexual morality in their own lives.

[@rpierce0419]

​@@JRBWare1942That and the whole "filoque" business.

[@MikeV8652]

I subscribe to a KZbinr in Vancouver, British Columbia, who makes his videos while walking to work. He always passes a church with a sign saying "Society of St. Pius X." Knowing little about Catholicism, I didn't know what that was. Now, thanks to your comment, I do!

[@littlefishbigmountain]

As far as I understand it, the term “World Orthodox” (sometimes “Global Orthodox”) was not coined by True Orthodox but within World Orthodoxy itself, for example John Meyendorff

[@UniversalistSon9]

It’s sad that even if a church is apolitical, just using any of these terms makes them political. That must suck for those who don’t want anything to do with the polarization of politics. Anytime I hear that someone’s evangelical or fundamentalist it all just sounds the same to me: a conservative voter and possible bigot-sorry but often this is kinda true. It’s strange to that calling a religious/spiritual person progressive can be different though compared to calling an atheist progressive.

[@CountArtha]

"Just because you're not interested in politics doesn't mean politics isn't interested in you."

[@R32R38]

In Judaism, the Conservative branch is actually the second-most liberal of the four branches (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox and Hasidic).

[@tgleo1]

I appreciate your nuance and precision. Your videos are a pleasure to hear - nothing loose or slipshod in your coverage of slippery stuff such as the topic of this video.

[@ok-lq6tv]

could 'Evangelical' not also mean to do with wanting to Evangelise? At least in terms of self-description. would explain why Orthodox is rather high on those charts

[@litigioussociety4249]

The problem is the definition has become subjective. Many people associate it with evangelism, but in media it's taken on a sense of someone who is aggressive and in your face when it comes to their beliefs.

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

The Evangelical Orthodox Church is not in communion with the Orthodox Church though many of its founders and earliest parishioners subsequently joined the Orthodox Church when they discovered it still exists.

[@acekoala457]

​@@Ggdivhjkjl I currently attend a formerly Evangelical Orthodox Parish.

[@Sebman1113]

Yeah, I’m an ELCA Lutheran, but I also really want to evangelize and bring people the good news of Christ so I’m also an evangelical at the same time in that sense.

[@leullakew9579]

What you’re describing is “Evangelistic” as opposed to “Evangelical.”

[@alisonk3148]

Excellent video. I’ve been thinking about the term evangelical a lot lately, as I’ve always considered myself an evangelical (following the traditional definition) but have heard so many strange stereotypes about evangelicals lately (e.g. fog machines, watered down gospel). It never occurred to me that it has meaning outside of Christian churches.

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

What about "primative", as in the Primitive Baptists?

[@thebestthingbeforeslicedbr8562]

Also “continuing” as in the continuing Anglican Church

[@maxxiong]

"Primitive baptist" is a specific type of baptist, and the word doesn't have wider applications.

[@yecksd]

it means they believe the neolithic age and its consequences have been a disaster and want to return to a hunter gatherer society

[@loriloristuff]

Excellent explanation on Traditionalists!!!!!

[@JRBWare1942]

A word I would caution others to be careful about is "Traditionalist." This means one thing in the realm of Christianity, but it's something else altogether in the world of philosophy. I have been tricked by several KZbin channels into thinking they were promoting traditional Christian morality and faith when instead they are really promoting something else altogether and not being upfront about what that is. This kind of "Traditionalism" is a form of Perennialism. Its main thinkers are people such as Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade, and Frithjof Schuon. Traditional Christians need to avoid this like the plague.

[@NeilTheCatholic]

For a Catholic trying to understand Protestantism - this is GOLD. Thank you so much. Protestantism is a maze. Maybe no longer.

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

As a convert, keep the Faith brother!

[@JeeWeeD]

Just do keep in mind that the translation of the words into other languages does NOT mean they mean the same thing. As a Dutch Protestant I am always very surprised by the American definitions 😛

[@NeilTheCatholic]

@@JeeWeeD So we don't merely have Protestantism but ProtestantismS? Lol

[@fighterofthenightman1057]

Protestant should honestly be restricted to those that hold to the beliefs of the actual Protestant reformers, who upheld infant baptism, actual sacraments and respect for church tradition. Lutheran, Anglican, Moravian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Dutch Reformed, Congregationalist, etc. The other groups are too different and lead to the confusion.

[@NeilTheCatholic]

@fighterofthenightman1057 Scripture alone and faith alone is what makes a Protestant. The groups you think are so far out would complain that you have too much catholicity still in you. Perspectives brother/sister in Christ :)

[@Zenas521]

Being from a non-denominational church I find this channel fascinating. We have community in our name. Our doctrine is evangelical in most respects. I half jokingly add, we also have a Mennonite work ethic and Baptist apatite.

[@zachhawkins2698]

Your comment has brought such a delightful smile to my face. I feel like I can relate a ton!

[@wendyleeconnelly2939]

I looked up apatite and it is a gemstone. ??

[@Zenas521]

@@wendyleeconnelly2939 Oh, thank you for the correction, I meant to say appetite.

[@stephanottawa7890]

1:08 We went to a conservative Mennonite church and we thought at the time that all the things you listed were normal and very Mennonite. Did I ever get a surprise when I moved to the city and saw the Mennonite church with a rainbow flag on the front wall and the woman preacher with purple hair. Needless to say, they were not conservative.

[@oshea2300]

That is sad.

[@JRBWare1942]

I understand what Joshua is saying about how the word "Fundamentalist" went from being a description of a certain type of Protestant to now being used for adherents of many religions--especially Muslims. I'm surprised that the word "Evangelical" is following down that same path. A word I would caution others to be careful about is "Traditionalist." This means one thing in the realm of Christianity, but it's something else altogether in the world of philosophy. I have been tricked by several KZbin channels into thinking they were promoting traditional Christian morality and faith when instead they are really promoting something else altogether and not being upfront about what that is. This kind of "Traditionalism" is a form of Perennialism. Its main thinkers are people such as Rene Guenon, Julius Evola, Mircea Eliade, and Frithjof Schuon. Traditional Christians need to avoid this like the plague.

[@maxxiong]

The funny thing is that what evangelical means today is basically the original meaning of fundamentist. But yeah it's strange because "evangelical", unlike "fundamentalist", has a Christian etymology, so I'd at least expect competing religions to not use it.

[@zachmoney7952]

Amazing video! Thank you for pointing these differences out. It’s very difficult to know were churches stand on certain issues.

[@stevepoling]

Discussion of Fundamentalism should at least make some mention of R. A. Torrey's compilation book The Fundamentals and the guys like Gresham Machen who ardently opposed theological Modernism a century ago.

[@maxxiong]

Honestly I hear "conservative" used a lot more in talking about issues that all/most denominations historically agreed on rather than dennominational distinctives. Probably because the mainstream denominations these days are either too broad (baptist and pentacostal/charismatic) or use confessions.

[@mikehart5619]

I'm more puzzled by the churches that have these vague meaningless names like, "Declaration Church", "Skybreak Church", "Encourager Church", "Life Church" or "Central Church". I assume they aren't part of some denomination and are likely evangelical or charismatic but why hide what you are behind a name like this and how on earth did they come up with these names?

[@stefanwalicord2512]

I suspect it's branding. When you run an church that's not associated (at least formally) with a denomination and are trying to portray yourself as appealing and non structural, a brand name is easier than an actual descriptive name. I personally also dislike it, because if the box doesn't say what they believe, I distrust what's inside.

[@CountArtha]

Those are non-demoninational churches. I suspect the names are basically whatever sounded good to the pastor(s) who planted them.

[@leullakew9579]

Not all of those are non-denominational churches. Life Church is part of the Evangelical Covenant Church (ECC) - a Radical Pietist denomination with origins in Lutheranism (its some sort of half-way-point between Lutheran and Baptist) and Elevation Church is part the Southern Baptist Convention, a Baptist denomination.

[@carlscamino5844]

Ready to Harvest did a video a little while ago on how these churches with these "non-traditional" names (define that however you would like to) are associated with some kind of a "denomination" or organization, and you can find this out if you dig far enough.

[@Snommelp]

When I was in college, I went through a phase where I self-identified as a "dissenting fundamentalist." My logic was that the strict definition of the word described me; I held (and still hold) certain fundamentals to be necessary for a person to identify as Christian, e.g. believing in the divinity of Jesus. The "dissenting" part of the self-identification was because I stridently disagreed with actual fundamentalists I knew about what some of those fundamentals were.

[@d.k.barker9465]

Hi Joshua, What is a "Covenant" church? Thanks!

[@ReadyToHarvest]

When I have heard this term used, it's nearly always referring to a church part of this denomination: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aoDOqWh_lqp-oMk Occasionally though a reformed church will have "Covenant" in their name, since the concept of covenant is important to them.

[@Dilley_G45]

Moderate aka "lukewarm" 😆

[@francescocantoni5665]

Yes, finally a video about the Conservative Confessional Moderate Traditional Evangelical Bible-believing Fundamentalist Church founded in 1848 by Charles Monik (aka the "Conservative Church" or "Monikers").

[@darklotus5309]

Have you ever talked about infallibility vs inerrancy?

[@zachhawkins2698]

Being a member does have its perks! It feels like I listened to this episode eeeeons ago! 😄😂 … great content, very helpful explanations on these relative terms as I am about to return to be with my Bible church that’s apart of the IFCA International. I love the people in this church, for through them the Lord gave me a foundation like none other in His word. Hey Joshua! I know this is not usually seen as a denomination (at least from within as we call ourselves nondenominational), and I’m sure you get requests or suggestions all the time for video denomination topics so I hope I’m not seen as being inconsiderate here or oblivious to the fact that you do a TON of research and have video projects and tentative topics already in line and are probably stacked already on the to-do list, but I just wanted to share that it would be very interesting seeing a video done by you on perhaps various fundamental and/or nondenominational groups of churches. The church I grew up in, and am hoping to go back to in due time, and went to school at and was baptized in is a Bible church apart of the IFCA International. I have begun researching their history, apparently there’s a good book called “For Such a Time as This” that covers the formation of the IFCA+ from someone living at the very time of the movement. Maybe you might find it to be an interesting subject to research as well. I find there are some really fascinating parallels between churches of the IFCA+ and apostolic churches like the Roman Catholic, Easter Orthodox, Oriental…. For when you read through the organization’s documents (which they conveniently provide all of on their website) they make statements and pronouncements that are so similar to apostolic church anathemas that are often directed towards those outside the specific fellowship (the IFCA+ makes it a point to give one example, namely the Roman Catholic Church. They specifically use the term “apostate churches.” Within the denomination we oftentimes have a hard time seeing ourselves as apart of the empirically historical church. A video like this that touches on nondenominational groups such as the IFCA+ could perhaps help others within these “nondenominational denominations” to see ourselves within a larger framework and the story of the historical church & Christianity. If you have read this far Joshua I thank you, and I hope this comment is used information to you on what maybe some (or at least one 😆) of your listeners are interested in. Christ bless you brother and I’m looking forward to the day that hat comes in the mail!😉

[@woodtier-gv8he]

For me the confessions were a good thing altogether. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. And a confession won't change that.

[@lexisotelo8010]

I feel like the landscape of "evangelical" churches within Christendom, (what they are like, core values, etc) has really shifted in recent years. I wonder if how we define it ( like the core definition you used) will change in 5-10 years. And also if the Christians who identified as evangelical previously, will be less inclined to do so. It will be interesting to see.

[@vanordman]

The term evangelical may be interpreted by Hindus, Jews and Muslims as involved in promoting their religions beliefs as in evangelism. If so, and I don't' know if it is, then they are probably more conservative in their moral beliefs also and might vote more conservatively as a result.

[@toferg.8264]

The survey that was about identifying as “Evangelical” ought to have asked them to describe the difference between “Evangelical” & “evangelistic”.

[@hglundahl]

9:30 Conclavist here. There have been valid Popes after 1958, beginning again with the emergency conclave of 1990, electing Pope Michael I. I'm under Pope Michael II.

[@slinkycrane]

Thanks so much for this video! I appreciate your work!

[@askme9606]

I am surprised you didn't hit on the Lutheran caveat for Evangelical--and I don't say that lightly; I barely feel competent enough to offer any correction to any of your amazing material--we define it as being gospel centered based on the Greek meaning. So in both WELS (a conservative confessional Lutheran denomination) and ELCA (a liberal progressive Lutheran denomination), the word is used. It is basically at odds with the contemporary definition of evangelical which is roughly equivalent to conservative. I like to think it is because we Lutherans are typically known to be a bit of a cantankerous group...of course, those of us who are conservative confessional Lutherans would argue that ELCA is not using the words Evangelical OR Lutheran correctly....but I am being redundant in my personal thought process there :D

[@TurtleMarcus]

In Scandinavia and Germany, we use two different words "Evangelic" (evangelisch/evangelisk) and "Evangelical" (evangelikal/evangelikalsk). The former means Lutheran or Protestant more generally, the latter is imported from English in the American sense of the word.

[@TheRflynn]

Question, how many contemporary churches are ‘Old Testament-arian’ as opposed to Christian? They all point to Jesus, but the message is often not in tone with the forgiveness/do not judge/two great commandments message. I recognise that this channel is primarily (and very good at) identifying groupings, perhaps less interested in matching denominations to testaments.

[@Metal_Auditor]

Most people either affirm both testaments or neither. Those who would try to affirm one but not the other end up rejecting the teachings of both, since the overall message of both is the same.

[@TheRflynn]

@ ​​⁠I’m nor sure it is. The OT is more prescriptive and harsher. There are severe punishments issued. God is more active & pretty tough. Also the old has a mix of social and religious guidelines and modern readers have to pick & choose, sometimes arbitrarily. NT is more…make your own choices and God will deal with you later. Vengeful god vs Merciful god.

[@Metal_Auditor]

@@TheRflynn the differences you perceive have to do with the fact that, in the Old Testament, God was establishing and governing a physical national, while in the New Testament, the emphasis is on a transnational spiritual kingdom (hence the physical punishments for sin in the Old Testament while the New Testament emphasizes the coming final judgment). Also, since Jesus is the final sacrifice, all the sacrifices and ceremonies of the Old Testament cease in the new. But the overall salvation message and moral precepts are still the same.

[@TheRflynn]

@ I hadn’t heard that approach previously. It’s a more theocratic approach, god as administrator and law enforcer. As an omnipotent god he failed at establishing and maintaining a physical nation. And then the (aspiration to a) physical kingdom is wound up and the next (this) stage is preparatory. My reading was that the law had a major shift (with a mix of administrative and social rules dropped), you would see it more as a clarification or change of emphasis?

[@Metal_Auditor]

@@TheRflynn he didn’t fail to. The physical nation was only ever meant to last until the Messiah came.

[@harisa-esquiredtoread7367]

Hah! I go to an ELCA church that definitely considers itself a confessional Lutheran church. Thanks for mentioning that

[@WallDoc]

If by fundamentalist, you mean that there are certain core doctrines you must believe in order to be a saved, then I would be a fundamentalist. The problem with Fundamentalists, is that they add an entire list of doctrines and practices which are not essential core beliefs and either reject other Christians as believers at all or consider them second class citizens.

[@susantownsend8397]

I have always identified as evangelical but I no longer use that term because people have attached new meanings to it. I now call myself Orthodox and let people wonder what I mean by that.

[@jonathanstensberg]

Joshua has strong slide game. Respect.

[@stephenspackman5573]

Another word whose meaning has apparently changed is “catholic”. If traditionalist Catholics consider other Catholics to be un-Catholic, that seems intensely un-catholic.

[@unit2394]

Could you do a video on the Alliance of Independent Methodists?

[@GalenCurrah]

Our new denominational monikers include "Loving, Faithful, Obedient Bible Gatherings".

[@annelarrybrunelle3570]

Have to compliment you on generally good reportage. As one with a longstanding Bible church background (after being raised Catholic with a susequent excursion to agnosticism), I note that a) these days, ya gotta watch out what a church means by calling itself a "Bible church", and b) I (with some others) still identify the words "fundamental" and "fundamentalist" with their proper English meanings - of those holding to the orthodox fundamentals of this set of beliefs or that. Thus I find it perfectly consistent to see a Christian church holding to inerrancy of Scripture in the autographs, the simultaneous full deity and full humanity of Christ, salvation by faith alone in Christ alone, according to the Bilble, with a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic, as fundamental/fundamentalist, as well as so to label a Muslim group similarly taking the Quran to heart, including jihad. In the one case, "fundamental" signifies desirable characteristics, where in the other, it's more the reverse. English has many words carrying more or less inherent connotations, but it is unfortunate to see connotations imposed where they do not inhere, but impair accuracy of a word's proper use. Of course, your study in this video exactly explores just how this group or that connotes certain words in their respective contexts.

[@fnjesusfreak]

I see "Bible" in the name of a church and I think they're probably Ruckmanite.

[@Metal_Auditor]

@@fnjesusfreak that’s probably not accurate. At least in Mississippi where I live, “Bible church” usually means evangelical Calvinistic Baptist church with dispensational leanings, so more MacArthur than Ruckman. Some may be KJV churches, but many are not.

[@JasonBlake-o1u]

Here in the uk there seems to be confusion as to what evangelical actually encompasses. Its not as well defined as Catholicism or EO or anglicanian for example. I am sure josh has unravelled it somewhere so must search his videos .

[@Lavonne1]

Lol you kicking a beehive

[@jeannine1739]

He does that a lot. :)

[@jenningsrountree458]

You left out "Continuing" as in "Continuing Anglican." This term is usually used for groups using the "old" (1928) prayerbook and such.

[@HerveyShmervy]

I've have the same thoughts about the term Evangelical. It became a political term, so now when I tell people I'm part of an evangelical church (EFCA) and they immediately stereotype me. It has become synonymous with "fundimentalist bible basher who burns incense to Donald Trump"

[@lexisotelo8010]

This is great

[@zachhawkins2698]

Yup!

[@jojanv]

KJV, the most pro-episcopal and royalist version😂

[@brucealanwilson4121]

Traditionalist Anglicans, like the ACNA, the Anglican Orthodox Church, etc.

[@MikeV8652]

I belong to a smaller traditional conservative evangelical Bible-believing fundamentalist denomination (which nevertheless has not escaped episode-length treatment on this channel). Since it's name wouldn't ring any bells to most people, I usually just tell them that I'm an evangelical protestant. Lately, though, "evangelical" has been appropriated by some who aren't (such as ELCA, which has taken it and run with it, as far to the religious left as is humanly possible). This has dismayed me and has left me without a good term. 😕

[@rodrigodepierola]

Great video.

[@Sebman1113]

I would say I’m best defined as Moderate and Evangelical on here, though I’m ELCA affiliate and probably going to seminary a few years down the road. I am somehow both mainline but I also find agreement with those 4 points of evangelicalism.

[@anadiess]

Mennonite Church Canada/USA have the Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective, and are thus technically confessional, but would not be described as theologically conservative. So there is no guarantee of confessional=conservative.

[@hglundahl]

// some 3:25 subscribe to the confessions _because_ 3:27 they agree with the Bible while others 3:29 subscribe to the confessions _insofar __3:32__ as_ they agree with the Bible // As an ex-Lutheran, I find this funny. I heard about this controversy dating back to the 17th. C only after I actually converted to Catholicism. If you subscribe to the Confession _because_ it agrees with the Bible, how is that not ecclesial infallibility? If you subscribe to the Confession _insofar as_ it agrees with the Bible, how is the Bible totally perspicuous?

[@Metal_Auditor]

Confessionalism isn’t ecclesiastical infallibility because scriptures are still the basis and judge of the confession. A confession is just a church saying, “here is a summary of the important teachings of scripture as we understand them.” It’s the same with any extra-biblical theology text. If I read a theology book and say, “I believe this is an accurate interpretation of scripture,” I am affirming the book but not suggesting that its author is an infallible ecclesiastical authority.

[@CountArtha]

Conservative = "We don't play fast and loose with the rules; especially the Bible." Confessional = "All that stuff in the back of the prayer book? It's NOT just for decoration, it's all correct, and yes, we do believe it." Moderate = "Don't be afraid to come and worship with us. Our church welcomes you." Evangelical = "We are trying to convert people and save souls, and we are willing to do all the work that comes with that." Traditionalist = "We are keeping the unique rituals and traditions of our ancestors alive and preserving them for our children." Bible-believing = "We aren't heretics." Fundamentalist = "Not only does the Bible not contain any errors, but every word and passage is to be interpreted literally. Also, your science teacher lied to you."

[@gusloader123]

95% of state-school science teachers ARE liars.

[@lavieestlenfer]

​@@gusloader123Someone got triggered by evolution.

[@woody1320]

Conservative to me means orthodox, scripture is inerrant, infallible, inspired, and sufficient to all of faith and life, etc, not related to politics. Now, it is true that the Bible should shape our worldview, politics included so not surprising that many are also politically conservative, myself included.

[@Dilley_G45]

Evangelical ? The (confessional) Lutherans are the true evenagelicals

[@davidneil6206]

In Lutheranism, "Evangelical" is synonymous with "Lutheran" and has nothing to do with American Evangelicalism.

[@aliengoboom-t9k]

I’m non institutional Church of Christ. We use liberal/conservative to mean how strictly and literally someone reads the Bible. I’ve heard many refer to the “liberal church” ranging from people who do the exact same as us but eat in their building to churches more like the United Church of Christ

[@thatrandomoshawott3427]

The non-institutional churches of Christ are intriguing to me as someone who has been in the mainstream churches of Christ all his life. We have a similar situation regarding the meaning of “liberal,” ranging from UCC-type denominations to churches of Christ with “praise teams”

[@KennethKlein-lc2mk]

PLEASE 🤔 , A POST ON "OPEN THEIST". Not certain I got the label right.

[@FeedLips]

As a Missouri synod lutheran, we don't talk about those other people.

[@TheFranchiseCA]

One of my favorite short stories is about a community meeting with several people debating the proper relationship between religion, specifically Lutheranism, and their local government. The last person to speak is Missouri Synod, and he surprises everyone by saying the two need to be strictly separated, because government has to make compromises and he doesn't want that to infect the Church.

[@crw662]

I struggle to see how anyone can care for the Words of Christ and His glory, and somehow become a liberal Christian.

[@byrondickens]

I struggle with how anyone can be otherwise. Unless my Bible is missing a page, the Great Commandment doesn't come with any terms or conditions.

[@crw662]

@ I fully agree that it doesn’t come with terms and conditions, but I also fail to see how that leads to a liberal theology. Taking the Word and its teachings serious shiuld lead you to away from liberal theology, not towards it.

[@carlscamino5844]

@@byrondickens Agree wholeheartedly.

[@byrondickens]

@@crw662 How you figure?

[@crw662]

@@byrondickens Liberal theology rejects the inerrant word of God.

[@brucealanwilson4121]

There is or was a denominational calling itself "Evangelical Catholic".

[@TurtleMarcus]

For a hot minute "Evangelical Catholic" was how Lutherans described themselves.

[@jasonharris2291]

I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. The most faithful expression of this is the Augsburg Confession.

[@steveng.clinard1766]

The only good Traditionalists was Devo's 1981 "New Traditionalists". #throughbeingcool

[@brabalans348]

Only in america… 🙄 Defining different denominations has only managed to cause problems by creating division between people who believe in God by either politicising God or monetising Him… Luckily there are still a few people out there who don’t care about denominations but instead choose to follow Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit and who actually do read the Bible and don’t just follow religious leaders. One might wonder who it really is that loves dividing religious grouping so much… 🤔

[@troychampion]

so basically there are as many religions as there are people, A quick and easy way to help ensure that nobody wants to go to any of them. smh.

[@sallyoakes7709]

I disagree with the term "allow" in the context of women pastors. Rather than being allowed to be a pastor (by whose authority is it allowed?), I believe that some traditions we label as moderate or liberal simply recognize that God calls men and women into the ordained pastorate. You're astute, so I'm sure you can fill in the background and foreground and you know the semantical implicatios of the word, "alow." 😉

[@ReadyToHarvest]

I think "allow" is a suitable and neutral term as well as "permit." Churches allow or disallow various people from being ministers or pastors. They may allow or disallow divorced and remarried individuals, allow or disallow women, allow or disallow people under a certain age, allow or disallow people without a certain level of education, allow or disallow those ordained from another denomination, and many other factors. Certainly, the terminology of recognition is used some of the time, but a universally valid and neutral term is one that just gives the information on the basic up-or-down allowance of the practice.

[@sallyoakes7709]

@@ReadyToHarvest I get what you're saying and it's only been recently that it hit me differently. I still don't like "allow" unless it's applied to men. (and, for that matter, others, but that raises another topic)

[@sallyoakes7709]

@@ReadyToHarvest fooey. I wrote a well-reasoned response and only the first two sentences posted. too pooped tonight to rewrite it. but there's more to it. but thanks for your channel - it really suits one or more topics I'm pretty nerdy about! 😜

[@Schultz777]

5:57 We agree on the core definition of "Evangelical" but allow for minor disagreement in its definition.

[@byrondickens]

The problem I have with "evangelical" and "Bible-believing" is their having been coopted by certain groups as a separatist identity marker. All Christians are supposed to evangelize (which is not the same thing as shoving your beliefs in people's faces) and all Christians "believe in the Bible." Just what these things look like is of course the subject of much debate but they are universal features across the theological spectrum.

[@American_West]

I agree, specifically with the “Bible-believing” terminology. It reads as condescending to me as it implies that there are enough Christian churches that don’t believe in the Bible to necessitate clarification. I understand this might not be the intention, but it has always rubbed me the wrong way. With only a few very rare exceptions, if a church self-describes as Christian, they believe in the Bible. There’s obviously a huge variety of interpretation to the Bible among churches, but if you go to almost any Christian church and ask if they believe in the Bible, you’ll get a “yes”.

[@stan1027]

In broad terms, people who actually do go to church on a regular basis do so because that's where their friends and family also go. It's much more of a social group than anything to do with the doctrines of the church.

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

In some places that's true but not everywhere.

[@ScrunchBug22]

This was definitely true for me growing up as I attended a Methodist church. But then once the LGBT discussions started, my parents split and took us out. But even though we left, we didn’t really land anywhere else.

[@mikehart5619]

It often is but being part of a group that believes the same as you do is comforting.

[@stan1027]

@@mikehart5619 It's easy to think that everyone who attends the same church has all the same beliefs about everything and that those beliefs all align with that church's doctrine, because nobody ever questions them. But if you start asking things like "how old do you think the earth is?", or "do you think Noah's flood really happened?" or "Do you think every word in the Bible is literally true and inerrant", you often start hearing a lot of different opinions.

[@beagalulu2]

Some of the hardest working and faithful "church" goers are unbelievers - especially in the old lady mainline churches.

[@AML-FRL]

👍👍👍

[@coleymoke6709]

Joshua, where would I find a listing of Independent Baptist churches that are not King James Only? Thanks.

[@Metal_Auditor]

That just sounds like any conservative nondenominational church.

[@AML-FRL]

🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄

[@patriciajohn8196]

❤

[@zbm-2375]

The exception to Evangelical is Lutheran denominations, where they're using it in the sense of "of, relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels" or simply "Protestant" - or at least that was the intent when the name was picked. Also, quatenus (insofar as) subscription to a confessional document isn't worth a whole lot - an Easter Orthodox could say that he has a quatenus subscription to the Book of Concord with a straight face, because he'd just say that everything he disagrees with isn't in accordance with scripture - and churches with quia (because) subscriptions are right to gatekeep, particularly the term confessional, but also the denominational labels.

[@Guguchina]

Thank you! So useful as these terms are confusing, especially evangelical. Bible believing especially bothers me. Any christian is bible believing. But what they really mean 9/10 is conservative or fundamentalist. No problem against these beliefs. But then the issue is then by using that term, it is implied that anything that isn't their specific interpretation of the bible isn't bible believing

[@stephanottawa7890]

7:00 You forgot to mention the strange title evangelical with regards to Lutherans, for instance, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America or in Canada, two of the most unevangelical and the most liberal churches that you can imagine. Possibly they are simply imitating their German mother churches which also use evangelical but are also very liberal to the point of being almost anti-christian.

[@joshuakarr-BibleMan]

Thanks, Joshua.

[@stephanottawa7890]

I am finding that we are adjusting terms to suit gen-zens who do not know anything about anything. For instance, Fundamentalism just comes from a movement that said, hey, let's get back to the fundamentals. What can be so bad about that?

[@TheFranchiseCA]

The problem is interpretation. Are the founders of the group declaring things to be "fundamental" when they are actually ancillary, or even outright incorrect from another point of view?

[@stephanottawa7890]

@@TheFranchiseCA I cannot speak for every person in the original movement, but I get the impression that at least at the very beginning there was a desire to get back to the core of Christianity. For instance to the question who is Jesus Christ? How are we to be saved? What is the destiny of humanity? The liberalism that had already invaded most academic institutions was indifferent to these basic questions and the response of the original fundamentalists was that we should return to basic understandings such as Jesus Christ is true man and true God; that we are saved by grace and Jesus is coming again to judge the world. These are not something that they invented, but they simply wanted to return to something that had been taken for granted in some places and all most disappeared in others. Of course, the late development might have strayed somewhat from the actual fundamentals and wandered into other fields such as politics. I think of Billy Graham telling the world that there was religious freedom in the Soviet Union. Obviously he was fooled by the Kremlin and needed to get back to the fundamentals.

[@OceanusHelios]

As an atheist, I have a demand. Get yourselves and your books and which of the bibles and your lives sorted out before you come knocking on our doors. Your religion prescribes to you what you should do and shouldn't do, but not what we should do or shouldn't do. We are running out of softly worded letters as our replies.

[@clivejungle6999]

Knocking on your door? Mormons and JWs aren't Christians. Also you are free to accept or reject Christianity as you see fit. We dont live in State Atheist regimes like China or North Korea.

[@Metal_Auditor]

Biblical morality is not limited to Christians. It’s universal to the human race, and all human individuals and societies are better off the more closely they conform to it. However, until you turn to Christ for salvation, the moral commands of God are of no spiritual benefit to you, but only condemn you.

[@jamesupton4996]

​@Metal_Auditor Morality is a function of our rationality. Ethics does not need a God concept; it is intrinsic to our being rational creatures. That's where its universality comes from, that Reason which is the capacity that separates us from the other animals, and which we all share. Each one of us asks - what is living well, or what is the good life for human beings? by virtue of the type of creature we are. Ethics comes from answering that.

[@Metal_Auditor]

@@jamesupton4996 our rationality itself is the result of us being made in the image of God. Yes, that’s true even of those who don’t believe in God, and even they have God’s moral requirements revealed to them by means of their conscience (Rom. 2:14,15), but sinful man suppresses this revelation because it is contrary to our natural desires (Rom. 1:18-32). And since God’s law requires perfect obedience which no man other than Jesus has ever achieved, the only way for someone to be considered righteous is to have the righteous of Jesus which comes through faith. Apart from that, even the best of men are not good enough.

[@Metal_Auditor]

@@jamesupton4996 I don’t know why, the reply I posted yesterday only appears if you set comments to “newest first.”

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Like gawd is not the author of confusion, right ? And we have this presentation because the number of sects is an index of how how completely confused people are ! Humans, in general, are pretty dumb in general.

[@Metal_Auditor]

So humans being factious and sectarian somehow makes God the author of confusion?

[@fixpontt]

im a conservative atheist

[@davidfrischknecht8261]

Fundamentalist Muslims are actually holding to the fundamentals of their faith. So, calling them that is still using the original meaning of the term. BTW, I was raised as a Fundamentalist Baptist.

[@lavieestlenfer]

The Taliban.

[@royhumphrey49]

Boring!

[@zachhawkins2698]

What?! I perhaps can understand that this material may seem to be addressing less-so tangible things and more-so abstract concepts of words and terminology, but I thought it was a very helpful presentation that is tremendously lacking in the many Christian circles. A fresh glance like this video offers could greatly help Christians and I’m sure even non-Christians engaging with Christians to just have a better understanding of these terms and how they are fluid and change and how understanding all this can help us understand one other as we talk and engage in dialogues like this. Videos like this can help followers of Jesus in our day better understand one another in conversation… and that is very tangible and practical. Also, I don’t mean to come across in my tone of writing or by my words as angry with or condemning you for commenting the word “boring.” I just hope and pray that perhaps you might see how someone else might not find this video not boring but helpful for practical Christian engagement and living. I hope you are doing well on this fine Lord’s Day! Christ bless you my friend!

[@TheFranchiseCA]

Joshua is about as good a person as there is to describe different parts of Christianity on their own terms. But I suppose that doesn't need to be a topic that is of interest to every single person.