Active Users:587 Time:31/10/2024 10:36:40 PM
Fine as far as it goes, but the exclusive use made of it today is something more. Joel Send a noteboard - 27/01/2012 10:49:42 AM
Before you get all hot and bothered over the name "Evangelical", I would like to remind you that the encyclicals sent by Roman (pagan) emperors to their governors, to be read to the people, were ευαγγελια. The Christians co-opted the term from them, so as I see it, turnabout is fair play. Fundies are frequently Evangelicals (though not all Fundies are Evangelicals, all Evangelicals are Fundies).

The early Church did not typically monopolize the term or use it to distinguish themselves even from other Christians. They certainly did not make it the implicit rebuke of others that modern fundamentalist Christians do, as if their entire belief system is Christianitys catechism and rejecting any part of it is heresy.

While the Great Commission remains incumbent on all Christians, fundamentalists now extend "evangelism" to encompass much more. Thus they identify with the adjective "evangelical" rather than the noun "evangelist" that has been around centuries. It is not about merely bringing the gospel to people unaware of it (which the vast majority of "evangelicals" never even attempt) but imposing a much broader philosophy that often contradicts it.

Ironically, disseminating the gospels basics is unnecessary in most of the modern world, but those proudly wearing the "evangelical" label largely lack what IS needed. Knowledge of the basic gospel is fairly widespread. UNDERSTANDING is less common, and the superficial grasp of most fundamentalists only reduces it.

I dispute that all evangelicals are fundamentalists; I do not consider myself fundamentalist, but do consider myself evangelical. I simply feel things like Romans 12:1 (et al.) argue lives are more convincing witnesses than words are, and that when most people know who Jesus is (or think they do) increasing understanding and decreasing misconceptions is more effective than holding a "John 3:16" sign in front of people who long ago memorized it. There are many others like me, but we are less noticeable because we do not try to legislate our faith for whole nations; it does not work, and would violate central articles of faith even if it did.

Few people today are wholly ignorant of the gospel, but ignorance, intolerance, hypocrisy and fundamentalism have given it a bad reputation with many. So much so that Christopher Hitchens drew negative parallels between fundamentalism and Romneys Mormon beliefs (assuming Romney truly BELIEVES rather than merely (for now) endorses them.) Yet, in a way, the Pro Choice anti-gun governors missionary work is a better claim to evangelism than most self proclaimed "evangelicals" have.

Romney, like so many Mormons before and since, traveled to places his religion was unknown, and taught it, often to people who had never even heard of it. I would not call teaching error "evangelism," but telling people 2+2=5 is still closer to education than just shouting, "PI HATES RATIONAL NUMBERS!" at their loved ones funerals. In that respect, Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses are usually a lot more evangelical than "evangelicals," but they value conversion above condemnation.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Christopher Hitchens on "Romneys Mormon Problem"
This message last edited by Joel on 27/01/2012 at 10:58:04 AM
Reply to message
/politics. And I STILL don't get the Evangelical Right. - 26/01/2012 04:49:54 PM 632 Views
I cannot speak for them, but it seems like Gingrichs infidelity is old news. - 26/01/2012 05:31:01 PM 460 Views
Roman emperors routinely sent out ευαγγελια. - 26/01/2012 10:30:30 PM 294 Views
Fine as far as it goes, but the exclusive use made of it today is something more. - 27/01/2012 10:49:42 AM 467 Views
"Evangelist" can only be used with respect to the writers of the Gospels. - 27/01/2012 02:24:44 PM 303 Views
Why? - 27/01/2012 04:15:28 PM 406 Views
Apparently I no longer know how to post. *NM* - 27/01/2012 10:55:10 AM 98 Views
Maybe they think the other options are worse? - 26/01/2012 07:42:22 PM 275 Views
Because he's a loudmouth. - 26/01/2012 09:03:35 PM 451 Views
Does it ever make you wonder if your model for conseratives is flawed? *NM* - 26/01/2012 09:15:37 PM 122 Views
He admitted precisely that. *NM* - 26/01/2012 09:49:30 PM 101 Views
not really - 26/01/2012 10:04:27 PM 392 Views
I study religion in the south. - 27/01/2012 12:24:11 AM 452 Views
But most of the South is probably not as religious as the people you work with - 27/01/2012 02:12:28 PM 389 Views
Gingrich has stated that he "asked the Lord for forgiveness" on that matter. - 26/01/2012 10:25:04 PM 290 Views
So did Clinton. - 27/01/2012 12:27:40 AM 416 Views
Clinton didn't get in trouble for the BJ he got in trouble for the perjury - 27/01/2012 03:14:19 PM 271 Views
Clinton got in trouble for being president. - 27/01/2012 05:15:50 PM 449 Views
So you agree he was charged with pejury but you continue to act like you don't - 27/01/2012 06:25:09 PM 276 Views
Many people are charged with but acquitted of many things. - 27/01/2012 07:43:49 PM 404 Views

Reply to Message