Talk:Evangelicalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity Portal Evangelicalism is part of the WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.

B

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Bias

Despite being an atheist, and having a particular dislike for Evangelical Christianity among nearly all religions, sentences like "Today, the term has come to represent a particular brand of christianity that rejects the findings of science and reasonable philisophic inquiry for their own interpretaion of an ancient book of questionable authenticity." are blatantly biased. We should strive to be neutral.

[edit] Support for the Israelis

I believe this article should have a section added which talks about the unconditional support that most evangelicals have for Israel. I think this would be a important section given our current situation in the middle east. I recently read a BBC article which stated, "Two in three evangelicals believe that the establishment of the state of Israel fulfils Biblical prophecy, the survey found". Given our current administration this seems awfully disturbing.

You exaggerate. The support is not unconditional - Israel has committed the occasional rare atrocity. But you say that only 2 in 3 believe Israel's (re-)establishment fulfills prophecy? 100% of informed evangelicals believe this was prophesied. ^rossnixon 10:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And no true Scotsman would disagree with your interpretation of what all evangelicals believe. john k 14:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

100%? Who have you been talking to? Many US evangelicals (even if not a majority) do not believe that the contemporary rise of Israel fulfils biblical prophecy. And if you step outside of the hothouse of the USA, you will find that proportion even less. Unless you want to play the ad hominem argument that anyone who does not believe this is not "informed" (your expression).--Iacobus 01:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1974 book Israel Today : Fulfillment of Prophecy? by Louis A. deCaro, (Philadelphia : Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co.) was a notable exception to the largely evangelical consensus that the modern State of Israel fulfils Biblical prophecy. Now out of print, but available in some libraries. I know of some evangelicals in 2006 who agree with deCaro. DFH 15:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a strongly US perspective. The idea that the modern state of Israel fulfills prophecy might possibly be held by some -possibly dispensationalists -although even they would be arguing that without the temple and worship of Jesus as Messiah and Jesus present this is a move towards fulfillment rather than fulfilment. The trend is often towrds amillenialism and post millenialism and since John Calvin a view that tends towards the Church as replacing Israel/the spiritualising of prophecy/ the idea (see Goldsworthy for example) that Jesus fulfills the prophecies concering Israel, the Kingdom and the temple. Christian Zionism etc is probably a distinct article on its own (Be Dave 22:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism?

In my experience, evangelicals would contrast themselves with fundamentalists, rather than saying that fundamentalists were a subset of evangelicals, or vice versa. One distinction is that where fundamentalists might say that the Bible is completely inerrant in every detail, evangelicals might say it is infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals in the original manuscripts or autographs. Historically, I think the self-labeled fundamentalists in Protestantism have been around at least several decades longer than the self-labeled evangelicals. They might look almost the same from the outside, but not from the inside. --Wesley

Good points. It's probably more accurate to say there's an overlap and/or a spectrum of belief rather than one being a subset. Also, it should be noted that fundamentalists often don't use that label to describe themselves, since it can be considered perjorative. --Eric

User Wesley may be talking about the distinction between fundamentalist and neo-evangelical. Let's define Evangelicalism to include both. Mdmcginn

Can I refer you to a recognised philosopher who loves the Lord on what evangelical is ? Check out the writings of Karl Barth. Do not ever forget we are not describing movements here we are talking about words . "Evangelise" is to preach the gospel this is what the word commands - some "chrisitans" do not advocate doing this - putting on the shoes of the gospel , Fundamental - is a being the basis of , serving in/for/as etc.. are not all who preach the word of God - from the Holy Bible not Evangelical Fundamentalists ? - this is what confuses the world we can't agree - I'd call myself many things - Evangelical,Charismatic,Fundamental etc.. I don't like using the any of these words as they are often misinterpreted. Maybe we should start some new search words like - saved, redeemed, God chasers .. sorry , got carried away.. Dee

I, would call myself both a fundamentalist and an evangelical. In the Christian circles in which I have been, people often use the term "fundamental/evangelical". One might consider fundamentalism a more extreme form of evangelicalism. As Wesley has indicated, evangelicals always regard the Bible as infallible in some sense. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, will probably take a more extreme stance on this. I, as a fundamentalist, will tell you that the autographs are completely infallible - the word-for-word perfect Word of God - in ALL senses. Some evangelicals may reject the authority of the Bible in certain areas, such as history, but a fundamentalist will not. However, a fundamentalist might (and I do) interpret certain parts of the Bible figuratively, depending on the context. I have written a statement defining my personal method of interpretting Scripture and it is on the web at http://writings.kennypearce.net/interpret.html. Also, many irrefutably "mainline" Christian denominations consider themselves "evangelical" - most obviously the "Evangelical Lutheran Church or America" (ELCA) - so I have altered a portion of the article that seemed to imply that the terms "evangelical" and "mainline" were mutually exclusive.

-- Kpearce 04:25 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

The Evangelical movement is just that; a trend within the Christian experience. Historically (and simplistically), the movement was a response by those who felt institutionalized religion had moved away from the true core of Christianity. The religious revivals of the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe and America focused on a more personal and active relationship with one's faith. There is a tendency to confuse the movement with ideologies. The article can describe both, I believe. Let us deal with the historical facts and keep those separate from current religious/social/political descriptions of conservative vs liberal. Those terms are polarizing and do not capture the spirit of the entire movement. If we want an article on Conservative Evangelical Christians, then do one. This article is about that segment of Christian tradition that rose in response to orthodoxy. It is also about how the movement has evolved since its beginnings. It is not about my particular understanding of the current day movement. My experience (while mildly interesting) is not descriptive of the subject. Robbie Giles 13:28, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I understand that evangelical and fundamentalist, when referring to Christianity, used to mean the same thing. 'The Fundamentals' journal published in the early part of last century comprised of articles which were defenses of Biblical Christianity or attacks on liberalism (maybe one and the same thing). I am lead to believe that the designation of some Christians as 'fundamentalists' comes from this journal and, as far as I understand, in this original context, it was interchangeable with Evangelical.

However, fundamentalist now has much more negative connotations (as evangelical used to). In the current era, evangelical is a more positive term than fundamentalist, which I believe is why Christians of that persuasion use the term that they do.

A good reference source on this is the book "Fundamentalism and the Word of God" by J.I. Packer.

Mistertim 05:12 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This is reasonably, but not perfectly, accurate. Curtis Lee Laws, a conservative Baptist who was responsible for editing one of the later editions of 'The Fundamentals' coined the term fundamentalist in 1920, to refer to those Baptists who held to the fundamentals of the faith as outlined in the book, as opposed to the liberal Baptists. As you can see in the article neo-evangelicalism, the term "Evangelical" had already been around for some hundred years when the fundamentalist movement began. Neo-evangelicalism (which is what most Christians mean when they say "Evangelical", although the ELCA is still refering to the old Evangelicalism) is a movement that split from the fundamentalists in the 1940s because they thought that the fundamentalists had become too insular and thus were not having any effect on the world. I would venture to say that modern fundamentalists such as myself are rebelling against certain supposed Neo-evangelicals who are rejecting certain portions of Scripture or allowing false teachings within their church. For instance, I came to consider myself a fundamentalist in part because objected to the inter- (not non-)denominational (but supposedly Evangelical) church I was a member of allowing a woman who did not believe in the virgin birth or the inerrancy of Scripture, and at one point admitted to being uncertain that the historical person Jesus of Nazareth ever lived, to teach an adult Sunday school class. (Just to be doubly clear, the critical issue here was not that she was a woman but that she was a heretic) Since then, I have also been in debate with some members of the American Baptist Church over their practice of ordaining women (of course, this has been going on since before the dawn of the original fundamentalist movement). Religious fundamentalism is by definition a backlash against liberal theology. In Christianity, it has historically been a backlash against liberalization of the two historical "Evangelical" movements, and thus it is closely related to evangelicalism, and fundamentalists often choose to oppose this liberalization from within Evangelical churches, but fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are not interchangeable terms. One might say, as I have said before, that a fundamentalist is a more extreme Evangelical who calls other Evangelicals back to their roots.

kpearce 17:32 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I can't see how a lack of belief in the virgin birth, the historical Jesus, etc is compatible with evangelicalism. In my experience, evangelical has always been used to mean: literally - of the gospel, and practically, one who believes that Christ was crucified, is risen from the dead, has been made both Lord and saviour, and who takes the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and life (and thus uses the Bible to interpret itself).

I'm not sure where to go with what you've written. It seems a very American-centric view of evangelicalism, which is (of course) a world-wide phenomenon. I'm in Australia, and my experience of evangelicalism is not quite what you describe as fundamentalism, but certainly more than what you describe as neo-evangelicalism. Perhaps we should expand the scope of these articles to acknowledge these differences. What do you think?

Mistertim 23:57 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Mistertim. Evangelicalism has constructed its own peculiar, non-ecclesiastical way of policing the movement, which would certainly exclude those who deny the virgin birth and the historical Jesus. While there is no "official" evangelicalism, the evangelical community has a specific core of beliefs which express a shared identity within a very broad, very loose coalition. Mkmcconn \

While some of those who are on the long evangelical lists of "cults" would call themselves Evangelical, their defense of themselves is consistent in resorting to the safe-sanctuary of the "fundamentals" as proof of their Evangelical credentials. Aberrations multiply at the edges of these "fundamentals" - especially in ecclesiology, doctrines concerning worship, and their understanding of prophecy, healing and other spiritual gifts - but cannot easily touch on the central issues of the Gospel without generating backlash from the community as a whole. Mkmcconn \

There are exceptions. There is no evident consensus concerning Clark Pinnock and other writers of the "Openness of God" (Open Theism, Process Theology movement, for example - in part because of the masterful firsthand and scholarly understanding of the evangelical mind possessed by these writers. However, watching the development of that controversy is an interesting example of how the Evangelical movement watches over itself. Mkmcconn 02:45 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I find this page rather problematic. The majority of evangelical Christians live outwith the United States. The majority of evangelical missionaries are non-American. The historical backgorund of teh evangelical movement is only partially American. But not very much of this is mentioned. None of the parachurch movements described have a role beyond the local (American) context. I would like to do some editing in this respect. Is there agreement ? Refdoc 22:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Evangelical Non-denominational organizations

I have cut out the forllowing organisation as they are purely American and pretty much unknown outwith the USA. I enclose the links here to make it easier to resolve disputes.

Promise Keepers A renewal movement for men

Samaritan's Purse Interdemoninational disaster relief aid

Heifer Project International Agricultural mission help for third world countries

Habitat For Humanity Helping poor families build homes; President Jimmy Carter has worked extensively with them.

Focus on the Family Resources for Christian families, singles, and various age groups, professions

I'm not so sure of the first two, but the latter three are definitely worldwide in scope. Focus on the Family is especially widespread. Habitat for Humanity is spreading fast, possibly in part because of Carter's popularity. Pollinator 23:33, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think there should be a clear distinction between American movements and worldwide movements. An American movement which, based on having (too much) money is spreading outwith the USA is a completely different thing to an organisation which is international from top to toe. It is a question of ownership, style and control. So I would leave the separation as it stands now.Refdoc 23:41, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I cut Intervarsity Christian Fellowship as this is just a small movement within a much larger international movement : IFES . Latter is inserted. I suggest to put an article on ICF into an IFES article or link from there.

It is a curious decision. I cannot at all support it. Whether these organizations are known outside of the United States is not at all relevant to their importance, or their significance in describing and understanding Evangelicalism. Please provide a better reason for removing them; otherwise, clearly, your action ought to be reverted. Mkmcconn 22:53, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What you have done now is much better in my eyes. But I think my explanation is quite sufficient. Organisation which are virtually unknown outwith American evangelical circles can not easily illustrate to the worldwide readership of this encyclopaedia what evangelicalism is about. Further they re-inforce the common prejudice that Christianity is Western and American and Evangelicalism is even more so (which is both manifestly untrue) Refdoc 23:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If it helps to satisfy your concern to add that such-and-such a view, institution, or controversy is primarily an American thing, then I agree with you that it is appropriate to insert this qualification, for the reasons you've given. I would only caution that, it cannot be a criterion of value, neutrality, or importance. If it is important in the US, then it is important to en.wikipedia.org, Mkmcconn 23:24, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That is clearly not right. English is the language of the internet as a whole. While the USA is a pretty big country militarily and economically, it is of minor importance within the worldwide Christian church and evangelical community. It is also only a small part of the worldwide English speaking community. The presence of the servers in Florida gives Americans no ownership over the project.Wikipedia is planned to be a worldwide ressource and not just an American thing. Interstingly one of the mainpages says exactly this. I will try and dig out the reference if you need forther convincing. But as I said, I am happy with the current paragraph. I will though have a look at the "personalities" paragraph, if you do not mind. My argument applies there too. Refdoc 23:41, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am not at all opposed to any effort to incorporate all other-than-US views. I am only against deleting material, based upon whether it is equally available to all people regardless of where they live or what language they speak. There is no need to remove US material in order to acheive an international view. Wiki is only accidentally an experiment in social engineering, not by design an instrument of collectivism, internationalism, or anti-Americanism. Mkmcconn 23:49, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure where you got the "Anti-Americanism" from. I just do not think America is very important in the big picture. But you are right. Addition is always better than deletion. Nevertheless, editing is a dynamic process and deletion creates space and forces to think. I was at a loss how to reformulate things - I cut and put them onto the talk page and - hey presto - 10 min later someone had rearranged things to general satisfaction.Refdoc 00:05, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm glad that the issue appears settled for you (I didn't intend to make any accusations about "anti-americanism"); I meant only to say that it shouldn't matter much where the contributions come from, or how far beyond the horizon of their own culture contributors are able to see. Anyway, I for one don't expect people to know more than they know. If the world as depicted here is smaller than it ought to be, to be accurate, we can always widen it. The intention isn't to exclude perspectives (including american), but to aim toward the widest credible inclusion. Mkmcconn 07:23, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The issue could easily be resolved by simply creating a page on Evangelicalism in the US. Palefire

Evangelicalism's greatest strength in the world is probably in South America, but unfortunately we don't have a lot of editors to add information. Perhaps I can find enough to make a start, but it will have to wait a bit, until we are finished moving our home... Pollinator 23:33, 13 Dec 2003

I have written a stub on IFES with a link to Intervarsity. Please feel free to expand on either. Refdoc 23:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Historical

I read this article for the first time today. I agree with its general thrust, but I think it lacks an adequate historical perspective on the semantic changes which have occurred in the last 150 or so years over the word "fundamentalist" and, then, later, when the word "evangelical" came into use. I am not at all aware, for instance, that the founder of one of the schools I graduated from, D.L. Moody, would have considered himself an "evangelical." I don't think the label evangelical was in use during Moody's time. Instead, Moody was a devout fundamentalist, holding to the tenets promoted with The Fundamentals articles. In time, however, the label "fundamentalist" experienced some semantic changes (accelerated in the early to mid 1950's) which caused a number of "historical fundamentalists" (that is, those who would continue to devoutly hold to all of The Fundamentals) to be embarrassed by association with some of the social baggage which had become semantically attached to the label fundamentalist. These historical fundamentlists continued to hold to a high view of Scripture and all the basic historical fundamentalist doctrines, but they did not necessarily accept all of the social semantic coloring which had occurred with the meaning of the word "fundamentalist." I'm not sure how useful it is to label D.L. Moody and others like him who ministered before the mid-1900's as "evangelicals." This is categorizing in retrospect, which is accurate from the viewpoint of current semantics of labels, but not accurate from the point of view of what people were labeled by themselves and others at the time they were ministering. This, of course, is a dilemma for categorization which refers to a range of time wider than we can justifiably use for a fairly constant meaning of some category label. My own suggestion would be to delete reference to Moody and those of his contemporaries as "evangelicals" and, instead, create a different Wikipedia article, if need be, which refers to those who held to the original Fundamentals, and leave it at that, without trying to stretch the category labels too far over time, at least beyond the time during which the labels had their original meanings. I am a lexicographer so I am keenly interested in word meanings and how words change meaning over time. The label "Evangelical" arose relatively recently (within my lifetime, anyway!) out of a sense of a need for some new term to refer to those who continued to be fundamentalist in doctrine, but who did not hold to all of the social positions which came to be associated with many fundamentalists (issues such as opposition to the Civil Rights movement, or opposition to allowing non-Caucasian Bible school students to overnight in the homes of Caucasian Christians when Bible schools would send tour groups to some areas of the U.S., definitions of spirituality consisting of reference to specific kinds of dress or grooming for men and women, such as specific length of sideburns for men, and specific dress lengths for women, and sometimes negative stances toward any version of the English Bible other than the KJV). wleman 02:25, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's only somewhat of an anachronism to call Moody a "fundamentalist"; and it is much less controversial, to label him an "evangelical". It takes very little searching to find his name attached to both terms. In fact, he is considered by some to be in a sense the father of the evangelical movement as it is presented today.

Reading the following piece from Wheaton College's Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals, you would be surprised if Moody were not mentioned (he is mentioned rather prominently). http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html Mkmcconn — 22:40, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wheaton link. It's an interesting read. Of course, it's not surprising to find the Wheaton article as widely encompassing as it is, since Wheaton has been one of the pillars of the Evangelical movement (along with Moody Bible Institute). I did not read every word, but I have not yet found in it D.L. Moody actually labeled an "Evangelical", at least according to one of the senses of the term in the section in which the label is defined as it is/was used in the 21st century. The article does call D.L. Moody an evanglist and part of the great evangelism movement of his time. I do agree that, in some sense, Moody could be considered a father of the current Evangelical movement, but I do not believe that he would feel comfortable with current senses of the terms Fundamentalist and Evangelical, where Evangelical is, to a large extent, a reaction to the meaning changes which have occurred with the label Fundamentalist. I think Moody would have been perfectly comfortable being called a Fundamentalist, according to how the term was used in his day. I have not yet seen documentation that the term "Evangelical" was used in Moody's time. I would like to see such documentation. My own sense is that the label "Evangelical" is largely a mid 21st century phenomenon, and a reaction to the changes in meaning of the label Fundamentalist. Thanks again. wleman 23:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The word "evangelical" is not the new word, that "fundamentalist" is. All protestants are evangelicals in the old sense, that would have been current in Moody's day. And, he was not a "modernist" as that name was coming to be used among evangelicals (protestants). As a matter of fact, Moody Church was originally founded as an Evangelical Church (the denomination).Mkmcconn — 22:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Given the importance of the evangelical vote in the elections in the United States, I strongly encourage adding further information regarding the US political context of evangelicalism. I came to this Wikipedia article after reading accounts in major US papers (such as the NY Times) that talked about the potential size of the evangelical vote, and that distinguished between evangelical voters and born again voters. I was mystified about how these two groups were different from each other. This Wikipedia article has not made it any clearer. Since one group was considered much more likely to vote than the other, it seems like a relevant difference that should be explored (unless the NY Times et al. didn't get their facts straight).

My suspicion is that the NY Times is equating evangelical with fundamentalist, or with "Bible-believing Chrisian who holds conservative values" or "right-wing believing Christian" - something like that. Newspapers in Australia also tend to use the word in ways that this article wouldn't help you understand. Part of the problem is that it is a word that carries different connotations depending on who is using it. Mistertim 06:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For a lexicographer keenly interested in the history of words, : [leman|wleman] needs to do some checks. I can't comment on the rest of the material, but the statement that "Evangelical" is a modern word is wrong. For example, the UK Evangelical Alliance was founded in 1846.

That sounds modern to me.

[edit] Getting this discussion into the article

As the article currently reads, it is somewhat confusing. These two sentences appeared to me to be, on surface, contradictory:

The use of the Bible as the primary source of God's revelation to man, and therefore the ultimate religious authority. (as a defining characteristic) and

Many fundamentalists can also be defined as evangelicals, although not all evangelicals are fundamentalists, because they may not hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Reading the discussion has clarified this question for me. Perhaps we could get a clarifying sentence in there to sum up the discussion, e.g.:

Many fundamentalists can also be defined as evangelicals, although not all evangelicals are fundamentalists: fundamentalism holds to a literal interpretation of the Bible, while evangelicalism may see the bible as theologically or morally infallible without believing in its literal truth.

...Or something. But is my version even fair, or true? I will leave the edit to somebody who treads this terrain better than me, since I am not religious or knowledgeable particularly about evangelicals, and don't feel I can write with authority.

[edit] Historical structure

I am starting the 'spine' for historical breakdown of Evangelicalism. There is already an article on Neo-evangelicalism. I will be working on early information in the Americas, but want to bring in the European information also. Do we have any early-church experts about?

Anyone else interested? Join right in.

Robbie Giles 03:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Plain and Extended Unicode for Greek

Some people use browsers that are unable to show the "Extend Greek" Unicode, and others do. So what should be done? I am proposing that for the time being Greek words (or words in other languages) be represented in both simple Greek Unicode as well as "Extended Greek" Unicode (which shows all the breathing marks, accents, and iota subscripts).

Writing Greek words in Unicode should be a simple task. However, it has come to my attention that (as best as I can see) no Microsoft product (Word, IE, Excel, etc.) is fully Unicode compatible, only partially Unicode compatible. Therefore, for those of us who use other browsers that are fully compatible with Unicode (such as Safari and Firefox), we can see the "Extended Greek" Unicode (which has all the accents and breathing marks and iota subscripts) as well as the standard Greek Unicode characters; while many people using Internet Explore complain that the "Extended Greek" Unicode displays in their browsers as simply little boxes or weird characters. For example, the Greek for "the gospel" is given in basic Unicode as "το ευαγγελιον" but in "Extended Greek Unicode" as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. (If you don't see an upsilon with a smooth breathing mark in the second character of the second word, as well as an epsilon with a accent after the double gammas, then you do not have a browser that is fully unicode compliant, or you do not have a font that is capable of fully displaying the "Extend Greek" character set.)

So, since some of us can see the full character set and want to see the Greek written properly, I propose that we allow the "Extended Greek" Unicode to be placed in parentheses after the plain Unicode word.

[edit] Campus Crusade

(Largest missionary organization in the world.) - Where is the source backing this statement? Unless they counted every student who ever signed up with them as a missionary... Refdoc 00:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The article on Neo-evangelicalism is similar regarding claims of people and organisations associated with that movement.

Should these be sorted out? Paul foord 08:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Neo-evangelicalism ought to be merged with this "main" article, and a redirect placed on the "Neo-" page. KHM03 11:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Neo-evangelicalism is an term for a specific historical segment of Evangelicalism. This article is well written and is nicely linked to the parent article. I suggest it stays. Robbie Giles 13:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Have clearly referenced to funda and Neo articles Paul foord 14:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JC Green cited in Wash Post - should ref be to original article that the Post used?

and cited in sources Paul foord 00:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too American in focus

characteristics and doctrine need to be expanded to reflect diversity & European perspective on Evangelicalism Paul foord 14:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea...isn't contemporary evangelicalism primarily an American phenomenon, though? It has, of course, non-American aspects and variations, etc., but isn't it primarily an American response to liberalism? I would say that the Reformation is primarily a European response to the state of Catholicism in the late middle ages, Methodism primarily a British response to the 18th century Anglican scene, and evangelicalism primarily an American response to liberal theology. Is that a fair assessment? Given that, we would need to place "international evangelicalism" (with fine theologians such as C.S. Lewis, Thomas Torrance, Alister McGrath, etc.) in a proper context. Anyone who knows more about "international evangelicalism" is welcome to correct me or add to this! KHM03 19:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I cannot let this assertion stand. There is certainly a US stream of evangelicalism with its own history and expressions. But there is, for example, a long tradition of evangelicalism in Great Britain, which also influenced the former British Empire. Figures such as John Stott and Martyn Lloyd Jones are every as bit as evangelical as Billy Graham or Christianity Today, but arose out of an independent evangelical tradition within the Church of England and other British churches, and nurtured in no small degree by the international missionary movement. As an example, evangelicals at Cambridge have kept an unbroken evangelical heritage from the Wesleyan Revival to the 20th century (witness Charles Simeon, the Jesus Lane movement, the CICCU and the resulting UCCF). To some degree the British and US experiences parallel each other, and there has been encouragment and cross-fertilisation, which in many ways has led to the rise of an international evangelical movement. But, please, let's not think that US evangelicals constitute the primary expression of contemporary evangelicalism.--Iacobus 01:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We are definitely missing an historical and non-US focus. Many seem to describe only the characteristics of current US conservative Christians. They gloss over the rest of the world and use descriptions of the current usage. Unfortunately our main stream weekly magazines have only reinforced the idea of the definition of an "evangelical." --**SIGH**-- Many confuse fundamentalism with Evangelicalism. While all Fundamentalists are Evangelicals, not all Evangelicals are Fundamentalists. One of these years I will get some more historical (European and American) information up. The Barna survey cited erroneously listed the questions asked of the respondents as the characteristics. Sorta like loading the question. I will look for other surveys as well. Robbie Giles 16:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

This phrase has always struck me as rather odd and questionable Many fundamentalists can also be defined as evangelicals, although not all evangelicals are fundamentalists, because they may not hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible. I brought it here for reflection and comment. Pollinator 00:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germany

The statement about "Evangelical" in Germany meaning all protestants seems to me to be not merely misleading, but completely wrong. Prior to the union of all the protestant churches, "Evangelical" meant Lutheran, and "Reformed" meant calvinist. That the united church of both groups is called "Evangelical" does not mean that this is the original meaning of the term. john k 17:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm German, and I want to add that the German word "evangelisch" does not mean "evangelical" - there is the traditional term "pietistisch" and the borrowing "evangelikal" to cover that meaning. "Evangelisch" is a synonym of "protestantisch", both meaning "protestant", although there are protestants that see a slight difference in meaning. But what this difference is exactly like, opinions differ.

I changed the text so that it does describe the name of the German church correctly (but see below). I feel the text needs further editing, or maybe the reference to the German church could be dropped completely - provided it will not reinserted by someone who does not know that "evangelisch" isn't evangelical.

Another point is that there are several Unions that may be easily confused by an outsider:

Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland (EKD "Protestant Church in Germany") - all 23 protestant "state churches"

Union Evangelischer Kirchen (UEK "Union of protestant churches") - a group of 13 "state churches", mostly "united", i.e. neither lutheran nor calvinist [the word protestant was a freudian typing error! -Weidner-Kim]. Some of them are calvinist, maybe there are one or two lutheran member churches, but the majority of lutheran churches belong to the lutheran VELKD group.

Until 2003, there was a "Evangelische Kirche der Union" (EKU "Protestant church of the union"), most of the members then joined with other churches to found the UEK.

The article takes the name of the UEK but describes the EKD.

Weidner-Kim@bigfoot.com, 141.20.21.142 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future trends

This section reads as if the religious right and paleo-orthodoxy are closely related. While there are obvious overlaps, they aren't really connected. Anyone else bothered by how this paragraph reads? KHM03 5 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

I love the term "paleo-orthodoxy". In answer to your question, yes, it is a constant irritation that the terms "evangelical", "conservative Christian", "fundamentalist" have become so misleadingly identified in the popular mind with the Religious Right. It betrays a lack of real familiarity with all of these terms, I'm afraid - or even a subtext of hostility; as after all it's a laughable exaggeration to say that this religious movement uniformly produces a voting block, or that all members of that voting block are of the same theological stripe. Mkmcconn (Talk) 5 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Yes...paleo-orthodoxy is not fundamentalism; in fact, much of fundamentalism is completely counter to the paleo-orthodox movement. How the should the paragraph in question be edited? Simply by deleting "paleo-orthodoxy"? KHM03 5 July 2005 19:53 (UTC)

[edit] Merged Evangelicalism and Neo-evangelicalism articles

There is room for improvement but they meshed reasonably well Paul foord 6 July 2005 11:04 (UTC)

• Good work. The article is coming along nicely. Putting the two together shows the diversity of beliefs within the evangelical movement.Robbie Giles July 6, 2005 16:51 (UTC)

[edit] Just what IS evangelicalism?

"Evangelicalism in the United States was prominently active in political movements which are now popularly considered to be important social advancements, such as Women's Rights and Suffrage, and Abolitionism."

^ are you serious with this? Sufferage and abolitionism?!? come on now.

I'm serious about it, whether the original author was or not. As far as evangelical abolitionism goes, I give you at least two names to deal with: William Wilberforce and Charles Finney. A large part of the suffragist constituency was also prohibitionist and certainly evangelical. As has been pointed out innumerable times, doctrinal conservatism doesn't always equate with political conservatism. Please check your contemporary biases at the homepage. 128.158.14.42 20:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not directly related to abolitionism, but a third name: William Jennings Bryan. Certainly Evangelical, even "Fundamentalist" (e.g., his role in the so-called "Monkey Trial") but also a populist politician ("Cross of Gold" speech) and Presidential candidate. --Midnite Critic 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mdmcginn made some edits & comments, which I did not revert or anything, but did want to address and discuss. If I am incorrect here, please forgive me and correct me. Mdmcginn seems to differentiate in his edit between what he calls "Conservative Evangelicalism" and "Reformed Evangelicalism".

First of all, many would argue (including Liberal Christians) that evangelicalism is by definition conservative. I don't agree wholeheartedly with that, as there is such a thing as the Evangelical left and one would be hard pressed to call folks like Stanley Hauerwas and Tony Campolo conservatives. But it is generally a conservative movement, reacting to liberalism and modernism.

Second, I have heard it argued that Evangelicalism is synonymous with Reformed Evangelicalism (the Theopedia wiki makes precisely that claim, erroneously, I believe). Obviously, Mdmcginn disagrees. He's absolutely correct, in my view.

Evangelicalism is, I believe, a broad category containing those who affirm "traditional" Christian doctrine...the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Atonement, the Parousia, Biblical authority, the importance of missions & evangelism...and maybe a few other points. Thus, one can be a Reformed/Calvinist Evangelical, or a Wesleyan/Methodist Evangelical, or a Luthern Evangelical, or even a Catholic Evangelcial.

Given that, is it necessary to point out that Evangelical is not equal with Reformed? I'd love to hear your thoughts. KHM03 8 July 2005 14:56 (UTC)

Evangelical not equal Reformed may have particular reference to the Reformation and the European situation. May not be so relevant to USA. There had been some discussion on this earlier (or elsewhere) Paul foord 8 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)

I don't know what Reformed Evangelicalism is, but it sounds as though it would be the same as plain evangelicalism. Evangelicalism is a subset of protestant theology - you can't be an Catholic Evangelical, or a Penetecostal Evangelical - at least as far I see the term most commonly used. I feel that it's associated with reformed theology because it traces its roots to the reformation; I see evangelicals as trying to start a neo-reformation of sorts - calling the church (the world?) back to the key doctrines of the reformation - Christ alone, faith alone, grace alone, scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. I also get the impression that the term evangelical is used to distinguish it from the political trappings that usually acomapny the word 'fundamentalist' or the connotations of a highly structured and severe approach to church itself that often accompany reformed theology. In other words, 'evangelical' is primarily a doctrinal or theological distinctive, rather than one of denomination, poltics, style of worship, etc.

As I'm writing this, I think part of the problems lies in the way evangelicals describe themselves and the way others use the term. That is, evangelicals use the term to distinguish themselves from other groups (i.e. using it as an exclusive term, in the literal sense of that word), whereas the media and others might use the term more broadly. That is certainly the case in Australia, anyway. Mistertim 04:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Part of the problem is that the article began as Evangelical Christianity or Christian Evangelicalism. (I can't remember which exactly.) I believe the focus of the article should be global and span the historical process. To label the entire concept as traditional or conservative is narrowing and limits the discussion to only a portion of the tradition or philosophy. In the very recent past, the movement has been identified with ultra conservative Christians in the United States. Fine, but there are many who consider themselves part of the tradition outside of the United States. If the intention is to inform, let us state facts with a minimum amount of interpretation. Leave it to the reader to interpret the article. I have been in contact with the principle researcher of the The American Religious Landscape and Political Attitudes: a Baseline for 2004 survey which is quoted in the article. I hope to incorporate some of the major statistical information about numbers and core beliefs for US Evangelicals. I believe the statement in the article currently is too simplistic. If a similar survey has been conducted in other countries, we can include that as well. I suggest we keep the focus broad in order to inform the reader and not try to interpret on a narrow contemporary segment of the tradition. Robbie Giles July 9, 2005 12:52 (UTC)

I meant conservative in a theological sense, not a political sense. And I didn't mean to distinguish between "Conservative Evangelicalism" and "Reformed Evangelicalism", but rather to point out that a Northern European Evangelical state church is not necessarily part of the movement we call Evangelicalism. Like most of my Wikipedia edits, my goal was to somewhat improve the article while not necessarily eliminating all content that I would not have included. Yes, let's not define Evangelicalism as merely a 19th/20th century phenomenon in the US and the UK. I was just following the previous editors. Yes, the article would be improved (would have more mental focus) if our definition of Evangelicalism could include the kind of mainline Protestants and Catholics who help with Billy Graham crusades and such. I wouldn't define it simply as those who believe "traditional" Christian doctrine, though. Of course, that depends on how you define traditional Christian doctrine. Someone can believe in the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Resurrection, without believing in the importance of missions and evangelism, or the need for conversion. Biblical authority is also a key element.

My main concern was that the article currently begins with several paragraphs implying that Evangelical really ought to just mean Protestant or Reformed. But this is an article about people who disagree with that position, so we had to use the title Evangelicalism, somewhat arbitrarily, to distinguish them. I think the opening paragraphs would fit better in the Evangelical article, or at least not as the first paragraphs of this one. This is an article called Evangelicalism not Evangelical - there are people and churches who identify with Evangelicalism because they feel the term Protestant doesn't describe them adequately. There are people in Northern European state churches who don't feel the term Evangelical describes them adequately, as defined in Northern Europe.

I got involved in this article through the Disambiguation project, so my primary motivation is that articles about Paul Tillich and Billy Graham shouldn't have to link to the same Evangelical article. Mdmcginn 13:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pietism and Wesleyan roots

I am concerned that the article overstates the foundational role of Pietism, and especially of Wesley. The Baptists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists of that time were not Wesleyans, but they were Evangelicals. It was the pietistic wings of these churches, that were swept up in the Awakenings, who were more suspicious of doctrinal strictness than of excesses of enthusiasm; but those who opposed these pietists were still "Evangelicals". Do you think that perhaps that section goes just a tad over-board in ascribing credit to Wesley for "launching the modern Evangelical movement" with his Aldersgate experience? Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

"You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the XXXX else are you talkin' to? You talkin' to me? Well, I'm the only one here. Who do you think you're talking to? Oh yeah? Huh? OK."

Well, truth be told, I agree. Contemporary evangelicalism is a hybrid (in my view) of the Reformed emphasis on orthodoxy and the Pietist emphasis on the heart, with Luther's reforming inspiration as a key...which, actually, is what John Wesley was aiming for (and, likely, Calvin, Luther, et al...probably even the vastly underrated Thomas Cranmer). I'd suggest you try re-wording it a bit to read something like, "Wesley's Aldersgate experience was a crucial moment in the development of contemporary evangelicalism", or something like that. I'll leave it you so that I resist any hagiographic impulses.

It's certainly one of the most important events in evangelical history, right up there with Luther's posting of the 95 Theses and Calvin's burning of Servetus Institutes; it needs to stay in as a key moment...but, frankly, Charles Wesley's hymns and Francis Asbury's leadership in America are almost as important. KHM03 18:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd trust you to say all that in the article ;-) Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous Evangelical Christians

I began a separate article for listing people separate from the Evangelicalism article. It had gotten long enough to warrant its own article. I used the two categories of HISTORICAL and CONTEMPORARY. Now I have added EVANGELICAL SCHOLARS & THEOLOGIANS, EVANGELICAL AUTHORS, and EVANGELICAL/CONSERVATIVE BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGISTS from lists populated by User:Kdbuffalo. Robbie Giles 00:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Vandalism?

It appears as if a user by the name of FDuffy vandelized the list of famous Evangelical Christians. He added Jimmy Dunn as a theologian and there apppears to be no theologian by that name although there is a comic by that name.

Here is the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_Evangelical_Christians

Might mean James Dunn??? (Be Dave 22:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Wesleyan or Reformed?

One of the issues that every person who attempts to define evangelicalism struggles with is paradigms. Timothy Weber stated "Defining evangelicalism has become the most difficult task in American Religious historiography." Do we use a Reformed paradigm or a Wesleyan one? Donald Dayton, for instance, calls it the Presbyterian Paradigm versus the Pentecostal Paradigm. By choosing, "either," "or," the writer invariably plays up one set of historical persons over another. For example, a Reformed historian is likely to trace the roots of American evangelicalism straight back to Luther then to Calvin, the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham, right on up to Falwell and the others. A Wesleyan scholar will object saying that concurrent with Luther were others who were challenging dead orthodoxy, Anabaptists for example who later influenced Continental Pietists from Spener and Francke to the Puritans. In their paradigm Puritans were one group among many Pietists who influenced American evangelicalism. The movement was directly influenced by the Wesleys. Certainly, they would say, without the Wesley revivals, which included George Whitefield, there would not have been the breadth of movement in North America. They would name Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Asbury and the circuit riders, Charles Finney and the abolitionists, William Seymour and the Pentecostals, and proclaim that the Scopes Monkey Trial divided evangelcalism between fundamentalists and liberals.

I find that a few things are always missing in these discussions. First, African Americans. I included William Seymour because his name will sometimes appear, but more often we find Charles Parham mentioned as the founder of Pentecostalism. But every American Historian knows that African Americans became Christians as a result of evangelical revivalism and 60% of African Americans, though they do not self-identify as evangelicals, bear the title "born-again."

Another helpful issue is recognizing that Jonathan Edwards is commonly referred to as the "Last Puritan and the First Evangelical." Puritans are not usually called "evangelicals." Rather, they are Pietists. This is why understanding Pietism is so important. Evangelicalism would not exist without it. Puritans were English Protestants interested in purging the Anglican church from its Catholic practices and removing forces that mediated the gospel to the individual. Pietist all over Europe were interested in doing the same thing within their respective traditions. F. Ernest Stoeffler is the best person to read on this subject both the Rise of Evangelical Pietism or Continental Pietism and Early American Christianity. Puritans weren't the only Pietists.

Finally, I think it is helpful to note that in the 18th and 19th centuries, the two largest Christian movements were Methodist and Baptist, not Presbyterian or Congregational. So we really should be talking about the folks that influenced these movements.

One of the unique things about American Evangelicalism is that it was very American. The Democratization of American Christianity is helpful on this topic. A key component was a reaction against authority. Thus identifying single solitary individuals is not as helpful, in my opinion, as identifying the major events and communities that set evangelicalism in motion. In conclusion, I would recommend that evangelicalism be defined less by personalities and more by movements witnessed through major revivals, moves that touched every denomination sometimes creating new ones. I would begin with the Great Awakening of the 18th century, followed by the Second Great Awakening of the 19th Century, and talk about events leading up to the Asuza Street Revival (among others) of the 20th century. Given that trajectory the world wide explosion of Christianity and its connection to evangelicalism is not as curious. Evangelicalism is experiential protestantism rooted in the biblical narrative that permeates denominational, national, and political distinctions. Put simply- it is a way of being Christian and vast in its scope.

leastsaint

There's a lot to agree with in your long comment. You are right that the account is incomplete, and gives too little attention to the Baptists and the Holiness movement.

I disagree with some of your statements, though. It's controversial and anachronistic to speak of Puritanism as Pietism. Many pit the two against one another, "Puritanism vs. Pietism", and many others (mostly Lutherans) speak of Pietism as "crypto-calvinism", tracing the rise of the Pietist movement back to Puritan writers. Others try to show that Pietism in almost all of its chief characteristics is exemplified in the early Moravian Brethren, so that the re-founding of the Brethren by Count Zinzendorf, and the Wesleyan movement, was the fruit of a long process of permeation by pre-Reformation attitudes and ideas that mixed with, rather than originated in, the Reformed and Lutheran churches. Others hold responsible the rationalistic approach to doctrine and sacraments among the Anabaptists, for sundering the connection between spiritual and mundane matters, producing mystical piety and irrational or moralistic approaches to social ethics. So, there appear to be many ways to tell the story of Pietism, comparing or contrasting it with Puritanism.

Of course, the Puritan movement originated as much as a hundred years before Spener and Francke, and if the end of the Puritan era is marked by the Restoration, it was "dead" (1660) before Pietism was born (Pia Desideria 1679).

Secondly, it's a mistake to reject the name "evangelical" for the Puritans. As far as I can tell, the Reformationists called themselves the "Evangelical party" even before they were called "puritans". It was out of the Evangelical party (that name has no precise reference, really) that Wesleyanism arose long after the Puritan era had ended. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My own view is that Reformed orthodoxy and Wesleyan pietism need each other. Without pietism, the Reformed school has often veered toward becoming pharisaic (some modern fundamentalism is a prime example, I think). Without the Reformed emphasis on doctrinal orthodoxy, pietism often becomes too experiential and "feel good" (some modern pentecostalism, I think). Keeping these two in balance is what makes contemporary evangelicalism so vital; both Calvin and Wesley had the balance themselves, but their followers often left the main road for side trips. One man's opinion. KHM03 21:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive versus leftist or liberal

Before the change in mid November the article had used the term progressive. To address the idea of the opposite of conservative being leftist, I restored progressive. I believe this captures the idea that conservatism (not ultra idealogue beliefs) is countered by progressivism rather than liberalism. While some may see this as POV, I see it as descriptive. The vast majority of faithful religious people fall on either side of the centrist position. The ultra radical on both ends of the spectrum is statistically a small population of the US group recognized as religious people. Check out the latest survey sponsored by the Pew Trust at http://pewforum.org/publications/surveys/green-full.pdf

My intent is to be descriptive and not to further polarize a very complex subject. -- Robbie Giles 03:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but "progressive" is too POV as used in the article, because quite simply it assumes that one side of the issue is "progress", while the other is opposed to "progress". You should credit your reader with being a little more intelligent than that. ፈቃደ 03:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. And "liberal" is too variable a term as well. A study just released shows that the "red" states are far more liberal in charitable giving than the "blue" states. "Leftist" is perfect, because it stands in contrast to what has already been described as the "right." Pollinator 06:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I would favor the term "liberal", which is now an historic term for the movement, much the same as referring to a pietist as a "pietist" or a Calvinist as "condemned" a "Calvinist". KHM03 15:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "progressive" is POV, despite its popular technical meaning, and "leftist" connotes extremism to me. Maybe "politically liberal" or "liberal" (linked like that to American liberalism) to clarify that we're using a technical meaning of the word, rather than its dictionary definition (as seems to be the motivation of Pollinator's objection). Staecker 18:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be OK to call one side "right", and at the same time consider reference to "left" to be extremist? Pollinator 19:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not the "left", but the "ist" which connotes extremism to me. But maybe that's just me. Staecker 20:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The article was edited on July 26, 2005 to include the reference to progressive social ideals. Why are we changing it when that phrase is descriptive of some of the differences in socio/political religious thought in the United States at this time? There is simply nothing wrong with the term Progressive. It is neither perjorative nor does it imply one view is good and the other is bad. Check out Progressive Christianity or Liberal Christianity before espousing a personal view on the meaning of the word.

Leftist is not the word originally used and I am reverting to progressive. Once a thoughtful argument is put forward to change it we can. Making the article more divisive and strident brings nothin to Wikipedia. Just because you can say (or edit) something doesn't mean you have to. I would also like to see a little more civility on the part of some people in this discussion. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you need to be sarcastic and rude.

Robbie Giles 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I notice that it now says "conservative Christianity" near the top. While most American evnagelicals do identify as conservative there are many who do not.

[edit] Protected?

What gives with the page protection? I see the "true faith" vandals, but there's only two of them in two days. This page has only been edited 13 times this month. At Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy I see:

Semi-protection is only applied if the page in question is facing a serious vandalism problem

and

semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page

Activity here hardly seems to fit that description... Staecker 22:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that there was little vandalism here. The problem is that there was a lot of vandalism at Christianity. Or maybe trolling would be a better word. Someone was repeatedly inserting something like "it's the true religion" into the article. He was blocked for 3RR. Then a newly-created username started to do the same thing, then another, then another, then another. I've lost count at this stage. But both last night and tonight, when Christianity was semi-protected, the sockpuppet (obviously the same user) moved here instead. If you'd like me to unprotect, I will. But the "justification" for the protection can be found at Christianity, rather than here. This article is simply the vandal's second choice. But based on what happened at Christianity, I have no doubt that the sockpuppets and genuine editors would have been reverting each other dozens of times if I hadn't semi-protected. AnnH ^(talk) 00:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, WP:SPP also says pretty clearly that this shouldn't be used to preemptively block articles because we think that they might be vandalized. I won't make a big deal about it, but you can consider me opposed to this protection. I'd prefer you unprotect, see how bad it gets, and then protect again once we have probable cause. Staecker 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't quite a case of protecting because I thought it might be vandalized. Both last night and tonight, the sockpuppet came here as soon as Christianity had been semiprotected. The sockpuppet was a very disruptive one, and took up a lot of editors' time. At your request I have unprotected, but I'm going to bed now, so I won't be around to revert or to re-protect. By the way, I should have explained my reason for semiprotection here before you queried it, and I apologize for not doing so. AnnH ^(talk) 01:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we both see now what happened. Thanks for humoring me, at least- Staecker 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias against Fundamentalist Institutions?

Some fundamentalist seminaries were added to the list recently, and then removed claiming they were not evangelical. According to any dictionary definition and the definition given by this article, fundamentalist seminaries fall under evangelicalism. This is regardless of the fact that certain evangelicals and their institutions consider them non-evangelical. Many fundamentalist schools fall under the title evangelical better than some of so-called evangelical schools today (a few). (posted by User:158.158.240.230)

Wikipedia maintains, according to the respective articles (and scholars agree), that there is a difference between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. They are related, of course, but not identical. The bias is toward accuracy. KHM03 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protestant vs. Reformed

I will have to obtain independent corroboration for what I am about to say here, however this is how it was explained to me in Church History class:

There were two separate and distinct movements, one religious and the other political, that influenced the breaking away of certain European Christians from the Roman Catholic Church. The religious (or doctrinal) movement was called The Reformation; the political movement was called The Protest. Reformers and their followers (Reform or Reformed Christians) differed with the Roman Church on points of Biblical or extraBiblical doctrine. Jan Hus, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Luther and Jean (the original spelling; he was French Swiss) Calvin were reformers. Protestants, on the other hand, were certain crowned heads in the then-newly-organized Holy Roman Empire who objected to the Pope's appointing a peer (Karel de Groot, a.k.a. "Charlemagne") over them as Emperor. They ruled, they argued, by divine right. Elsewhere in Europe (e.g., England), certain monarchs (e.g., Henry VIII of England) objected to the Roman bishop's imposition of Canon Law on them and their subjects. In Henry's case, he wanted to divorce and the Pope wouldn't let him.

Jean Calvin's disciple, John Knox, helped to found the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. As a modern American Presbyterian, I eschew the label, "protestant" as inaccurate and pejorative. I am a Reform Christian. I hold that the Holy Spirit indwelling me--and not the Bishop of Rome--is the source of revealed truth and that the Holy Bible is the only standard by which said truth can be confirmed. Protestants, in contrast, looked to neither the Spirit nor the Bible for confirmation but to themselves. They were a throwback to the days of the Judges, when "each man did as was right in his own eyes".

Firstly, this distinction is post hoc and inaccurate. The "Protestants" were the German princes who in 1530 (or 1529...I can't remember which) protested against the religious policies of Emperor Charles V (not Charlemagne, who had died hundreds of years before). These German Princes were all followers of Luther, and indeed the Lutheran movement only survived through the support of princes like John the Steadfast of Saxony and Philip the Magnanimous of Hesse. You are creating a false dichotomy where none actually existed, and are being rather unfair to the men whose protection of Luther made your religion possible (and who, in many cases, seem to have genuinely believed in the cause of religious reform).

Beyond this, the use of the term "Reformed" to refer to Christian churches is pretty much wholly restricted to churches in the Lutheran tradition - German and Dutch Reformed, Presbyterian, and so forth (see Reformed churches). The term explicitly does not refer to Anglicans, or Lutherans, or Baptists, or Methodists, or any other type of Protestant. Your Church History class, to put it simply, was deeply misleading. john k 07:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert Error

I seemed to have made a mistake while attempting to revert vandalism on article. Anon user User:66.155.197.3 seems to commit minor vandalism and then revert him/her self. I accidentially reverted the clean version. I don't know if the anon is just experimenting or what. Sorry for any trouble. Edivorce 20:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] phrase questioned

Not sure what is meant by "In Europe the term is often used for a conservative movement in the United States." Have not to my knowledge heard Evangelicalism ever used to describe an American conservative movement. (Be Dave 13:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Post Evangelicals

Have started work on making this less POV. Needs more work -I used to have Tomlinson's book but haven't got it available so if someone can add citations great. Have removed a paragrpah making claims on behalf of P-Es I don't think given the level of influence of P-Es that a lot of text is justified. (Be Dave 18:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Deletion review for Melissa Scott (pastor)

Interested editors may wish to vote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 March 22. Badagnani 06:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Important and Common Mistake

This article, particularly at the beginning, makes a common mistake when descrbing Evangelicals. The mistake is based on thinking that the words "evangelical" and "evangelistic" have similar meaning. They don't. Both words are rooted in the Greek word translated "gospel." So, evangelism is spreading the gospel while and evangelical is one who genuinely believes the gospel (according to THEM). They both are related to the word "gospel" but in different ways: spreading the gospel vs. believing the true form of the gospel (according to them). Evangelicals see themselves as believing the true, orthodox, and traditional gospel (evangel) message. They see themselves as true Christians i.e. true gospel believers.

So, while Evangelicals do believe in and practice evangelism, the essence of what it means to be an Evangelical has nothing to to with the practice of evangelism and everything to do with having a certain view of what the gospel really is and seeing this view as the true, orthodox, traditional, classical, etc. form of Christianity (whether Evangelicals claims to "true Christianity" are correct is a different issue). So, I will change this opening paragraph to reflect this unless I hear otherwise.--GFrege 00:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That Evangelicals are conversionist and therefore place a strong emphasis on evangelism is an agreed and observable characteristic trait. The article is not making the mistake of saying that evanglicalism and evangelistic are the same or similar things -rather that this is one of the observable traits along with a number of others that has been historically associated with the movement. So I would recommend that the reference is kept in. The overall wroding in the opening paragraph is however a bit lose and probably not as NPOV as wikipedians would like -so might benefit from a re-write. (Be Dave 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Demographics

I added two separate academic surveys showing the relative numbers of Evangelicals in the United States. An unregistered editor [1] has now removed the sourced information twice to give numbers of US Catholics compared to Evangelicals. I believe the individual is referring to the following study which is referenced in the 2007 Statistical Abstract of the United States. American Religious Identification Survey (see pg 11). The individual is only looking at the Evangelical Church figures and not adding in the numbers of the other denominations listed separately (Baptists for example) that fit the definition of Evangelical Christian. I listed the study numbers and accompanying citations to add some verifiable information, not to disrespect or dismiss the Catholic population of the US. I am hoping the anonymous editor will join a dialog about this before deleting the citations again. The person is certainly welcome to add the sourced information to the Catholic article, just leave it in this article. --Robbie Giles 13:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)