Note: I apologize in advance for the dissertation. Even though I don't like the labels and feel that they are largely a political ploy and unnecessarily divisive, in a theological sense I do believe that there is something to them. We see the manifestation of the differences in these various practices, but what underlies them?
I think that conservative churches and believers are fundamentally dedicated to keeping faithfully the Christian doctrine (orthodoxy) and life practice (orthpraxy) that has been handed down through the centuries. I'm not going to say "sola scriptura" because that particular phrase is reflective of a specific doctrine held by some protestant denominations, but which doesn't really encompass the entirety of the Christian tradition. We know the Christian faith through the Scripture, the creeds formulated by the early church, and the life and witness of all believers throughout the ages. Conservative churches seek to remain faithful to those things. The good about this is that it keeps us walking in line with the faith that's been handed down to us.
The bad thing is that in particular cultural contexts (like the U.S., for example), people find it difficult to separate traditions of the world and flesh from traditions that are truly reflective of the Gospel's truth. And if Christians have not been exposed to other denominations, cultures and Christian beliefs, we can start to assume that the way our pastor always taught it is the way that it must be, we can forget that no one ever comes to Scripture with unfiltered eyes and that just because it seems obvious to us that the Scripture is "plainly" saying "x," there are other genuine believers who believe that it is "plainly" saying "y."
So I think that for "conservative Christians" the trick is to familiarize themselves with the breadth and depth of the Christian tradition, historically and geographically, to have a whole picture of the teachings that have been handed down, and to know the difference between "essentials" of the faith and "non-essentials." We only have to agree on the essentials. And of course, being "traditional" is absolutely no guarantee that someone has Christ in their heart. You can still be wrong.
As for the "liberal Christians," I believe that they basically take the view that Scripture is a sacred text, but that its contents are inseparable from the humans who authored it and their personal viewpoints, and so Scripture then is viewed as a positive source of inspiration, but not a book to be absolutely obeyed necessarily. That's why you couldn't find the gospel if you tried in most of the churches of the liberal denominations that Poohbear listed. With both Scripture and the Christian tradition viewed as essentially man-made, liberal churches and Christians focus on ridding the faith of all those things that they deem to have repressed people spiritually, economically, politically, etc.
Social justice issues are emphasized as a way of attempting to evolve the faith beyond what they believe to have been the narrow-mindedness of the age. So, when Paul says that the husband is the head of the wife, the liberal church would say that that was because of the patriarchy of Paul's time. When homosexuality is condemned, it was homophobia...or that failing, is an instance of "progressive revelation" in which God did not reveal until later that the practice of biblical times was wrong, using something like slavery as an example.
The liberal Christian faith will make much of the phrase: "God is love, Love is God," meaning that whatever can be seen as a loving act, or a loving attitude is reflective of God. Love, then, would be what makes people feel positive about themselves and their lives. And some liberal theologians will take it far enough to say that there is no difference between the phrases, "God is love," and the phrase "Love is God," saying that when we love, that act itself is God.
The liberal Christian faith provides something where the conservative faith does not in its attentiveness to the separation of the Gospel from the practices of the world and culture around us and their push for justice in the world's systems. They are not "so heavenly minded as to be of no earthly good." But the damning thing about this perspective is that Jesus was explicitly clear that to know and love God is to obey His commandments. And you can't set yourself to obey his commandments and to grow in the knowledge of Him if you are constantly undermining the source and legitimacy of His revelation of Himself and His will through the Scripture and the witness of all believers.
I don't think that everything that departs from a previous tradition is "liberal." We as Christians are called to constantly examine ourselves, our attitudes, practices, etc. to see if they need changing. To make a change isn't "liberal" or "conservative," but is discernment. I feel that one's attitude toward Scripture, obedience, and other Christians more determines whether someone is "liberal" or "conservative". We still don't need the labels though. We just need to continuously seek to obey Christ and to know Him more.
and the only thing I disagree with here. I compare what I am learning against what the Church teaches. I believe it's guided by Christ who sent the Holy Spirit, as He said. It's set in stone for me. Otherwise, you get lots of judging from others. Well, even there, sometimes, but I've learned to spot who the religiously snooty folks are. Thank G-d! It gives me relief that I'm no longer under their thumbs. I'm under G-d's. Be careful tho. That's sometimes like an open invitation for people to throw you under a bus. That has happened a few times to me from so-called "elders." LOL.
This is what God wants from us. I just wish others would operate the same way. It would make things so much better. 
