I've been musing lately on a certain sociological phenomenon, that humanity (at least in the cultures with which I'm familiar) can be divided into three distinct categories. Now, whilst the categories are distinct, it's also a phenomenon that many people, and groups, can be placed into one category for one issue, and into yet another on a completely different issue, and that these positions can change over a generation, and over a lifetime. Now, the distinctions all relate to how people view change. Liberals embrace change, believing it by nature to be good; on the other end of the spectrum, traditionalist reject change, believing it by nature to be bad; and, in between, conservatives are reluctant to change, but do not resist it per se, realizing that it may result in an improvement, just not assuming so without testing it first. A conservative came up with these categories, so those in the other two camps may not agree that they even exist as described; being probably too close to the question to further describe one of the categories objectively, I'll just focus my detached objectivity on the others.
Liberals tend to confuse the other two categories, as the people within both categories will often line up on the opposite sides of an issue, and seem to be the same. But traditionalists will likewise confuse liberals with conservatives, as those two groups will often appear to line up on the opposite side, all depending in either case on whether the change in question has passed the testing and found the approval of the conservatives.
The labels themselves can also be problematic: traditionalists don't call themselves by that title, and even liberals often prefer a label like 'progressive'. So it's one thing to label the categories, and yet another to get people to accept the label that describes them best.
Another interesting thing is the instability seemingly inherent in two of these categories. One would think perhaps that traditionalists, who hold that no improvement is possible over the old ways, would have passed on that belief from ancient times. But it turns out that in many cases, today's traditionalists are less than a handful of generations removed from liberal who got tired of stridently proclaiming that every new thing was by its very nature an improvement over the old, decided to give the pendulum a nudge back toward the other side of the spectrum, and didn't know when or how to stop its momentum. And many liberals are but one or two generations removed from traditionalists who had made a similar decision, just in the other direction. Apparently few can long endure a residence on either edge of the spectrum; excepting those few, and of course the many for whom the pendulum has happily found rest at the bottom of the arc, all are on the move, across any given generation, in one direction or the other.
I have seen this happen over the past generation with the licensing of homosexual relationships, which has become official government policy in the USA, and indeed throughout most of the world, only within the past decade. For a long time before that it was becoming more widely acceptable to liberals, at least in theory, being part of the preference for change which their category demands. But once the public policy debate was over, and it actually began to happen, many liberal Christians found that they didn't really want to be that liberal after all—that here was one issue on which they did align more with the conservatives and traditionalists. Thus a split began between those liberals holding tight to that end of the spectrum, and those liberals (for now) who wanted to nudge things back in the other direction, and that division continues to this day among the large denominations in America. One may be tempted to think by this that some sort of revival is afoot, but it's more likely just revealing a sociological axiom at work.
