• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dissention in the Evangelical ranks

Bikewer

Penultimate Amazing
Bikewer
Joined
Sep 12, 2003
Messages
13,242
Location
St. Louis, Mo.
Interesting Talk Of The Nation segment today:

http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=140710361&m=140710353

Over recent declarations by some Evangelical thinkers that maybe, just maybe, the strict biblical-literacy thing might have to be abandoned in light of modern science.

Folks like Francis Collins (human genome project) say that given our understanding of genetics, a single pair of original humans would be essentially impossible.

On the other side, there are still plenty of authorities in the Evangelical ranks who demand belief in a literally-true bible, Genesis and all.

The discussion between a more forward-thinking university-professor Evangelical type and the "by the book" Baptist was interesting... And pretty testy. The Baptist essentially saying that if you threw out Genesis then you wouldn't have any reason to believe in The Fall and Jesus and the Resurrection and all that... (Duh...)
The university guy got in a telling blow... "If the Old Testament Genesis stories were so important, how come Jesus never mentioned them?"
The Baptist had no ready reply....
 
This group has been alive and well for 20 years since I was in seminary. Numerous scholars like Collins and de Chardin are just drowned out in the noise. The term "evangelical" has been co-opted by a power-hungry mob whose insane ramblings get all the press. Their sole purpose is to drum up fear in the ignorant to maintain economic and political control.

There are scores of organizations out there moving to reclaim the term "evangelical" from the power-brokers. A new Christianity is emerging and all that needs to happen is to wait for some of these twits to die off.
 
stamenflicker said:
This group has been alive and well for 20 years since I was in seminary. Numerous scholars like Collins and de Chardin are just drowned out in the noise. The term "evangelical" has been co-opted by a power-hungry mob whose insane ramblings get all the press. Their sole purpose is to drum up fear in the ignorant to maintain economic and political control.

There are scores of organizations out there moving to reclaim the term "evangelical" from the power-brokers. A new Christianity is emerging and all that needs to happen is to wait for some of these twits to die off.
Click to expand...

What "evangelical ranks"? I've asked repeatedly. It seems "they" are primarily a leftist-imagined and convenient boogeyman.

Or name some of the "evangelical""twits" that are of members of the "power-hungry mob whose insane ramblings get all the press" that "need to die off."

Name these "power-brokers."
 
Last edited:
JudeBrando said:
What "evangelical ranks"? I've asked repeatedly. It seems "they" are primarily a leftist-imagined and convenient boogeyman.

Or name some of the "evangelical""twits" that are of members of the "power-hungry mob whose insane ramblings get all the press" that "need to die off."

Name these "power-brokers."
Click to expand...

Billy Graham
Franklin Graham
D. James Kennedy
Ted Haggard
Jerry Falwell
Pat Robertson
Ralph Reed
Kent Hovind

Like that. Chaucerian frauds as Hitchens called them.
 
stamenflicker said:
There are scores of organizations out there moving to reclaim the term "evangelical" from the power-brokers. A new Christianity is emerging and all that needs to happen is to wait for some of these twits to die off.
Click to expand...

The term "evangelical" has become at best stale with overuse. A few years ago, as an editor, I questioned a reporter's use of it. He thought I was crazy for wanting to define it in a news story. It was awkward to write "support from evangelicals - socially conservative Christians who tend toward a literal reading of the Bible - is considered key for Republican candidates" but I felt it was more informative than assuming everyone knew we were talking about a certain voting bloc.

I know a lot of people on these boards believe all Christians are equally deluded. Well, OK, but they don't all share the same world view. There is a Christian left. There is even a Christian right that accepts the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Who knew?

I'm not a Christian and am allergic to certain strains of it after attempts to have me "saved" failed. Yet certain themes in Christianity resonate deeply with me. It helps that, except for a brief period, no dogma was shoved down my throat.

Kudos to NPR for putting this in context and facilitating a fairly nuanced discussion. I wish there had been time to take more calls. If all Christians were uniformly superstitious it would make sense to lump them all together as a uniform threat against reason and science. The evidence of "dissension in the ranks" shouldn't come as a surprise. Those of a skeptical bent would be wise to pay attention to the differences between the two theologians. Painting all believers as "Christian crazies" obscures the practical differences between those who treat science with respect and even reverence - as a jewel in the crown in God's creation - and those who will keep saying, "OK, as long as you admit it started 6,000 years ago with a man and a woman and a talking snake."

The fellow who thought God would invent something that looked like it was billions of years old just because it was cool and awesome - I had never heard that expressed before. Thanks to the OP for an interesting link.
 
Last edited:
JudeBrando said:
What "evangelical ranks"? I've asked repeatedly. It seems "they" are primarily a leftist-imagined and convenient boogeyman.
Click to expand...

Evangelicals exist. I used to be one. A Fundamentalist Charismatic Evangelical.

Wiki said:
Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s[1] and gained popularity in the United States during the series of Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th century.
Its key commitments are:
The need for personal conversion (or being "born again");
A high regard for biblical authority, especially biblical inerrancy;
An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ;[2]
Actively expressing and sharing the gospel.
David Bebbington has termed these four distinctive aspects conversionism, biblicism, crucicentrism, and activism noting, "Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism."[3]
Click to expand...

So you can stop asking repeatedly now. You've been answered.

Or name some of the "evangelical""twits" that are of members of the "power-hungry mob whose insane ramblings get all the press" that "need to die off."

Name these "power-brokers."
Click to expand...

A partial list has already been provided for you.
 
Bikewer said:
The university guy got in a telling blow... "If the Old Testament Genesis stories were so important, how come Jesus never mentioned them?"
The Baptist had no ready reply....
Click to expand...
Not a very well read baptist, is he?

Jesus mentions several OT stories as well as quoting from OT prophets. He quotes them literally enough to make it clear that anybody who believes in Jesus should also believe in the OT.
 
psionl0 said:
Not a very well read baptist, is he?

Jesus mentions several OT stories as well as quoting from OT prophets. He quotes them literally enough to make it clear that anybody who believes in Jesus should also believe in the OT.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Matthew Ch 24:
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Did he (or more properly,was he alleged to...) mention Genesis? That was the brunt of the discussion.
 
Resume said:
Billy Graham
Franklin Graham
D. James Kennedy
Ted Haggard
Jerry Falwell
Pat Robertson
Ralph Reed
Kent Hovind
Click to expand...

FTFY, we don't have to worry about the dead ones, just their followers.

And allow me add...

David Barton
Rick Warren
William Lane Craig
 
Kenneth Copeland
The remaining family of Oral Roberts
Peter Popoff

Edited to add this list, gotten from Wikipedia, listing Evangelical leaders involved in scandals over the years. Some of these have already been mentioned, and some of them are dead:

1 List of Christian evangelists involved in scandals
1.1 Aimee Semple McPherson, 1920s–40s
1.2 Lonnie Frisbee, 1970s–1980s
1.3 Marjoe Gortner, early 1970s
1.4 Billy James Hargis, early 1970s
1.5 Jimmy Swaggart, Marvin Gorman, and Jim & Tammy Bakker, 1986 and 1991
1.6 Peter Popoff, 1987
1.7 Morris Cerullo, 1990s
1.8 Mike Warnke, 1991
1.9 Robert Tilton, 1991
1.10 W. V. Grant, 1996 and 2003
1.11 Bob Moorehead, 1998
1.12 Roy Clements, 1999
1.13 John Paulk, 2000
1.14 Paul Crouch, 2004
1.15 Douglas Goodman, 2004
1.16 Kent Hovind, 2006
1.17 Ted Haggard, 2006
1.18 Paul Barnes, 2006
1.19 Lonnie Latham, 2006
1.20 Gilbert Deya, 2006
1.21 Richard Roberts, 2007
1.22 Earl Paulk, 2007
1.23 Coy Privette, 2007
1.24 Thomas Wesley Weeks, III, 2007
1.25 Michael Reid, 2008
1.26 Joe Barron, 2008
1.27 Todd Bentley, 2008
1.28 Ergun Caner, 2010
1.29 George Alan Rekers, 2010
1.30 Eddie L. Long, 2010
1.31 Marcus Lamb, 2010
1.32 Vaughn Reeves, 2010
1.33 Stephen Green, 2011
1.34 Albert Odulele, 2011
 
Last edited:
slingblade said:
Kenneth Copeland
The remaining family of Oral Roberts
Peter Popoff

Edited to add this list, gotten from Wikipedia, listing Evangelical leaders involved in scandals over the years. Some of these have already been mentioned, and some of them are dead:

1 List of Christian evangelists involved in scandals
1.1 Aimee Semple McPherson, 1920s–40s
1.2 Lonnie Frisbee, 1970s–1980s
1.3 Marjoe Gortner, early 1970s
1.4 Billy James Hargis, early 1970s
1.5 Jimmy Swaggart, Marvin Gorman, and Jim & Tammy Bakker, 1986 and 1991
1.6 Peter Popoff, 1987
1.7 Morris Cerullo, 1990s
1.8 Mike Warnke, 1991
1.9 Robert Tilton, 1991
1.10 W. V. Grant, 1996 and 2003
1.11 Bob Moorehead, 1998
1.12 Roy Clements, 1999
1.13 John Paulk, 2000
1.14 Paul Crouch, 2004
1.15 Douglas Goodman, 2004
1.16 Kent Hovind, 2006
1.17 Ted Haggard, 2006
1.18 Paul Barnes, 2006
1.19 Lonnie Latham, 2006
1.20 Gilbert Deya, 2006
1.21 Richard Roberts, 2007
1.22 Earl Paulk, 2007
1.23 Coy Privette, 2007
1.24 Thomas Wesley Weeks, III, 2007
1.25 Michael Reid, 2008
1.26 Joe Barron, 2008
1.27 Todd Bentley, 2008
1.28 Ergun Caner, 2010
1.29 George Alan Rekers, 2010
1.30 Eddie L. Long, 2010
1.31 Marcus Lamb, 2010
1.32 Vaughn Reeves, 2010
1.33 Stephen Green, 2011
1.34 Albert Odulele, 2011
Click to expand...

Yes but think of how much worse they'd have been if they didn't have Jesus.:p
 
strict biblical-literacy thing might have to be abandoned in light of modern science.
Click to expand...
Well, they'd have to catch up eventually or become Amish.
 
slingblade said:
So you can stop asking repeatedly now. You've been answered.
Click to expand...

That's part of the problem right there. The term "evangelical" is often totally married to the movement of Evangelicalism. But the term was utilized for 1500 years prior to the movement in all kind of different ways -- including full chasity by Catholic priests prior to the Reformation. Wonder how many "evangelicals" accept that version of the definition.

The word itself simply means "good news." http://concordances.org/greek/2098.htm

Since the word is used in the New Testament long before a formal "canon" was even approved, many of us reject the "sola scripture" attachment that gets placed on it 2,000 years later. In fact, even after the canon was approved there were still numerous early church father who favored an allegorical approach to biblical narratives.
 
psionl0 said:
Jesus mentions several OT stories as well as quoting from OT prophets. He quotes them literally enough to make it clear that anybody who believes in Jesus should also believe in the OT.
Click to expand...

Jesus also took a whole bunch of things out of context in the Old Testament as well in order to make whatever point he was driving at. The he took direct commands like "an eye for an eye" that are in the Old Testament and totally debunked them or re-wrote them to suit his message.

Jesus' use of scripture was creative, open, and dynamic. Modern day conservative evangelicals have a closed, static, and conformist approach to it.
 
stamenflicker said:
That's part of the problem right there. The term "evangelical" is often totally married to the movement of Evangelicalism. But the term was utilized for 1500 years prior to the movement in all kind of different ways -- including full chasity by Catholic priests prior to the Reformation. Wonder how many "evangelicals" accept that version of the definition.

The word itself simply means "good news." http://concordances.org/greek/2098.htm

Since the word is used in the New Testament long before a formal "canon" was even approved, many of us reject the "sola scripture" attachment that gets placed on it 2,000 years later. In fact, even after the canon was approved there were still numerous early church father who favored an allegorical approach to biblical narratives.
Click to expand...

I accept your evidence that it's an old word, and the application of it has changed. But the old application isn't applicable here. Evangelicals are a distinct sect of Christianity, at least in the U.S. Hell, the church magazine in the Assemblies of God is called "The Evangel."

http://pe.ag.org/


(produced by the Evangelical Press.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom