What is the source of conservativism in Christianity?

[Analytics]

I understand that the Bible can be used to explain why people might oppose homosexual behavior, but why do they tend to push that rule into law and ignore the other ones (tacit allowances for slavery, etc.)? For the LDS church, they can claim continuing revelation, but what about everyone else? WHy do so many religions seem to think God has told them X about abortion when the Bible seems to tacitly make allowances for abortion (somewhere in the Old Testament, you could make your wife eat something and say a curse that would supposedly make her have an abortion if the pregnancy was the result of adultery). If God doesn't exist, what is the source for the seeming near-unity among Christian churches that things such as abortion and stem-cell research are evil and should be illegal? Why don't more simply not take an official position on some issues just as the LDS church has no official position on stem-cell research?

The topic of this thread isn't about the morality of those things, but rather about how Christian churches decide the morality of such without the clear guidance of the scriptures (or without the clear guidance of God if God isn't leading them).

Note, this is not an argument for the existence of God--it is a question about humans and religion.

[_Tarski]

I understand that the Bible can be used to explain why people might oppose homosexual behavior, but why do they tend to push that rule into law and ignore the other ones (tacit allowances for slavery, etc.)? For the LDS church, they can claim continuing revelation, but what about everyone else? WHy do so many religions seem to think God has told them X about abortion when the Bible seems to tacitly make allowances for abortion (somewhere in the Old Testament, you could make your wife eat something and say a curse that would supposedly make her have an abortion if the pregnancy was the result of adultery). If God doesn't exist, what is the source for the seeming near-unity among Christian churches that things such as abortion and stem-cell research are evil and should be illegal? Why don't more simply not take an official position on some issues just as the LDS church has no official position on stem-cell research?

The topic of this thread isn't about the morality of those things, but rather about how Christian churches decide the morality of such without the clear guidance of the scriptures (or without the clear guidance of God if God isn't leading them).

Christ come off as a hippie leftist type to me. Conservatism is imported by brute force into Chrisitanity. It sits very uncomfortable.
Here is a video parody that makes the point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M

[_the road to hana]

Christ come off as a hippie leftist type to me.

I would agree.

I think a lot of it, at least in this country, came in from Puritanism.

[_asbestosman]

I think a lot of it, at least in this country, came in from Puritanism.

Which is also interesting. Where did the Puritans get it from? If the Bible doesn't make it obvious and God isn't making things clear, whence commeth so many of these positions? Somehow I doubt that Puritans were also against stem cell research. Furthermore that wouldn't explain the Catholic position which is often similar to the Protestants on these issues.

[_Moniker]

Ah! Ha! The Supply Side Jesus is awesome! William Bennett Iscariot! :)

Asbestosman, I would think that since there are splits in political ideology between denominations that people just gravitate to those denominations that suit their political ideologies. The South is a bastion for conservatism so it's no wonder that the SBC (radically conservative) is full of congregates here. The Church of Christ is very conservative here, as well. The man is the head of the home just like God is the head of the Church -- the women sit in the back of the Church, women shouldn't work outside the home, etc... Their preachers merely cherry pick what suits them to align with their political philosophy of conservatism. I don't see it as an easy fit, yet, apparently it works out for some.

So, it's NOT God/Jesus leading them. Their political ideologies lead them to cherry pick what they want to take out of the scriptures. I appreciate the denominations that look more towards tolerance, charity, and social justice -- but that's 'cause THAT is what appeals to me. Of course I don't believe in any of the mythology. So, for someone that looks for a Church home they need to find a fit that makes them settle in and they can say, "Hell yah!" and nod in agreement as their preacher/cleric/whatever merely reiterates what they're comfortable with and draws parallels to scripture. It makes them assured that they can then tell you that they're a good person (even if they're a slum lord) 'cause they have Christ in their lives.

Gag!

I too see Jesus as a radical hippie (yet, try not to say that during Easter supper!:) and don't quite grasp how those that claim to be his disciples use his name when espousing social Darwinism, intolerance, and bigotry.

[_the road to hana]

I think a lot of it, at least in this country, came in from Puritanism.

Which is also interesting. Where did the Puritans get it from? If the Bible doesn't make it obvious and God isn't making things clear, whence commeth so many of these positions? Somehow I doubt that Puritans were also against stem cell research. Furthermore that wouldn't explain the Catholic position which is often similar to the Protestants on these issues.

I don't know the answers to all your questions, but here's an interesting article:

America's Puritans Today and the Religious Right

[_beastie]

Could it be that once the Christian religion became a seat of social and political power, it naturally became more conservative in order to conserve the system that endowed it with power?

[_the road to hana]

Could it be that once the Christian religion became a seat of social and political power, it naturally became more conservative in order to conserve the system that endowed it with power?

I think that's a valid point, and that some of it could be attributed to tribalism and boundary protection. That certainly seems to be the case with Mormonism, anyway, and it inherits a lot of that validly from other traditions.

[_Tarski]

Could it be that once the Christian religion became a seat of social and political power, it naturally became more conservative in order to conserve the system that endowed it with power?

Exactly. It's an inevitable process and ironic too.

[_Mister Scratch]

I think a lot of it, at least in this country, came in from Puritanism.

Which is also interesting. Where did the Puritans get it from? If the Bible doesn't make it obvious and God isn't making things clear, whence commeth so many of these positions? Somehow I doubt that Puritans were also against stem cell research. Furthermore that wouldn't explain the Catholic position which is often similar to the Protestants on these issues.

I would imagine that some of this stems from simple power relationships. To a certain extent, Churches need to be "offering" people something, and in most cases, that "something" is salvation, or nirvana, or eternal life, or something of that nature. If you can just obtain that "something" without any effort on your part---i.e., if all you had to do was read the sacred texts and believe in them, then that would make the existence of the church a moot point. So, it seems to me that one of the most natural and logical arenas for churches to "offer" something is in the arena of sex---which, let's face it, is where most of the Conservatism you're describing lies. Many conservative Western churches offer themselves up as "cures" in some way for the human sex drive. From a secular point of view, there is nothing wrong with masturbation. If you are LDS, however, masturbation is a problem, and thus, the LDS Church fulfills a need by offering you the means to overcome this "problem" on the way to salvation.

Of course, if you weren't LDS, then masturbation would never be a problem in the first place. So, I guess my rather cynical .02 is that religious conservatism stems from a basic need on the part of churches to maintain power relationships.