What makes someone an evangelical? Why?

[The Greater Fool]

Off the Wall rant about the vast difference between -ism and -ical.

So your hanging your hat on ISM vs ICAL? You do grasp that -ism describes the belief system, or as some call it, the ideology, and -ic and -ical about the person / people with beliefs / ideology described by the -ism? I know I've been lectured about -ism somewhere before, maybe you can find it.

On the other hand, evangelical is very different from Evangelical. Nowhere in the original post will you find Evangelical, either. English lesson: evangelical is to evangelism as Evangelical is to ____ ? That's right, Evangelism, ical is one believing an ideology, -ism is the ideology.

And, in your rush to... whatever that was... I already said I was probably off base, that you may have purposely went away from the OP question. Wow.

 

[bruto]

My golly, this thread is doing a very good job of simulating a religious schism. When I use a word I mean this! Well, when I use that word I mean that! You're wrong. No, you're wrong. It's the same word. No, it's not, because I said it differently. But Saint Whosis used it the way I do. Well, to hell with Saint Whosis, he's a heretic. You're interpreting. No I'm not, we say it the way it is, we never interpret. You're wrong. No, you're wrong.

So now all that remains is to identify which people here are evangelists about Evangelists, and which are Evangelists about evangelists. Get a big bucket of popcorn.

 

[The Greater Fool]

My golly, this thread is doing a very good job of simulating a religious schism. When I use a word I mean this! Well, when I use that word I mean that! You're wrong. No, you're wrong. It's the same word. No, it's not, because I said it differently. But Saint Whosis used it the way I do. Well, to hell with Saint Whosis, he's a heretic. You're interpreting. No I'm not, we say it the way it is, we never interpret. You're wrong. No, you're wrong.

So now all that remains is to identify which people here are evangelists about Evangelists, and which are Evangelists about evangelists. Get a big bucket of popcorn.

These are the cards I've been dealt. Please don't take 'stupid internet arguments' away from me! It gives me a reason to wake up in the morning, and allows me to sleep at night knowing I've done my part to fix the internet.

 

[Leumas]

My golly, this thread is doing a very good job of simulating a religious schism. When I use a word I mean this! Well, when I use that word I mean that! You're wrong. No, you're wrong. It's the same word. No, it's not, because I said it differently. But Saint Whosis used it the way I do. Well, to hell with Saint Whosis, he's a heretic. You're interpreting. No I'm not, we say it the way it is, we never interpret. You're wrong. No, you're wrong.

So now all that remains is to identify which people here are evangelists about Evangelists, and which are Evangelists about evangelists. Get a big bucket of popcorn.

It is more of a schism between

people who live in a world based upon wishful thinking, delusions, hallucinations and belief systems emanating out of gastrointestinal movements​

on the one side, and

people who can read and can correctly deploy their brains to iteratively approach perceiving reality as it really is by utilizing a continuously self-adjusting science based upon evidence and rational reasoning​

on the other side.

 

[Stee]

If I might address the opening post a little (I think),

I think that this change is something we can get used too when we have a long seperated church and state and no real guidance about the can and cannot do's with regards to doctrine etc.

Religion seems to be shifting towards individualism more and more and this means that anyone can start a new church and reign it under the banner of Christianity of some description and have some followers for whom it 'speaks' to in some way. And then as you say, if you suddenly don't like it, well you move on to the enxt one and see if you like that instead, there will be no burning at the stake!

 

[Minoosh]

Maybe it's similar to "Democratic" being included in certain country names?

Happy Birthday. I have a sentimental attachment to the UK, partly because of names like "Ankh Morpork."

But wait - have I been had? Is there really an "Ankh Morpork"?

ETA: How about "Nether Wallop"?

ETA2: Definitely a real place - I might have driven through it on the way to Salisbury. Cornwall interests me as well.

 

[Pixel42]

But wait - have I been had? Is there really an "Ankh Morpork"?

The real town of Wincanton is twinned with Ankh Morpork.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wincanton#Culture

Wincanton is unusual in that it was twinned in 2002 with a town which can only be found in fiction. As well as Gennes / Les Rosiers in France and Lahnau in Germany, Wincanton is twinned with Ankh-Morpork,[5] a fictional city state near the Circle Sea on Terry Pratchett's Discworld.[41] On 5 April 2009, a number of roads were retitled with names taken from Ankh-Morpork, such as Peach Pie Street and Treacle Mine Road,[42] after a short-list was voted upon by fans.[43] There are shops in the town selling Discworld-related goods.[44] In 2015 the Uncle Tom's Cabin pub unveiled a sign by Discworld illustrator Richard Kingston referencing the The Mended Drum. Pratchett and Kingston were regulars.[45]

 

[Rincewind]

The real town of Wincanton is twinned with Ankh Morpork.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wincanton#Culture

That's brilliant!

I'll have to see if they need an ambassador...

 

[Minoosh]

That's brilliant!

I'll have to see if they need an ambassador...

Two things: I love the UK in June. Wish I was there. My travel points only work in November or February.

And: A talk-radio show host called Dave Ramsey, who self-identifies as an "evangelical Christian," took a call from a woman considering going into debt for a 2nd baby conceived in vitro.

While he gave his financial advice, which was to avoid debt, he did not say anything about the IVF process in general.

IVF seems to be a case of "don't ask, don't tell" among the evangelical community. One blog post I noted came from a UK (not Church of England) minister who said something like, here are my concerns, I can't judge you, I just offer up the following for your consideration.

I may be seriously naive but I thought evangelical Christians would have come down harder on a process that results in "spare" embryos. The theological nattering about the topic often seemed like an "elephant in the living room" scenario: We will talk about how IVF pertains to such things as the "one flesh" bits of the NT; we will ignore the whole issues of surplus embryos, because if a couple is right with God, surely they will be guided by His will, to be discerned by much earnest prayer and contemplation.

Meanwhile National Health says, "Right, if you are under 40 we will fund 3 cycles," which I - living in a red state in the States - find to be a very down-to-earth, pragmatic approach.

If evangelical Christianity co-exists with pragmatism, I'm glad. In casual searching (of Google, not my soul), I have found substantial equivocation on the "life begins at conception" doctrine when it comes to IVF. Which is a good thing IMO because of the promise of stem cell research. It is a way to give meaning to the lives and deaths of innocent zygotes.

But it leaves me more confused than ever about who is an "evangelical." If it means, "Don't judge anyone because everyone has a unique relationship to God," OK then. But at least in the U.S., it doesn't. "Right to life" tends to be framed in black and white: Either life begins at conception, or it doesn't; IVF without severe restrictions is murder.

IMO the waffling is a good thing - but it also tends to undermine the belief (on the left) that evangelicals are a monolithic voting bloc. If someone came along and said, "We honor these nascent humans, who by their conception are contributing greatly to lifesaving knowledge, while mourning the unrealized potential to become functioning human beings," it might satisfy the non-Catholic contingent. But the, Catholics are not considered "evangelicals."

I came away from a Google search thinking that as long as you love Jesus, sacrificing a million surplus zygotes isn't such a big deal. Any retreat from full-on ideological insanity is considered a victory by some in the U.S.

 

[Breckmin]

7 points about evangelicals

If it really is that simple, what drives so many pastors to form their own churches/congregations? If they disagree with, say, Baptists, or Southern Baptists, does that imply each new, unique congregation is getting it right while others get it wrong?

1. They want to reach more people in new communities (they start out small and grow).

2. Baptists, Southern Baptists, Conservative Baptists, General Baptist Conference and a thousand and one other baptists "are" actually evangelicals.
Generally that is.

3. A distinction has to be made between denominations and individual relationships with the Creator/God. Often in theology this distinction is between the physical church (all Christian denominations including Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopal/Anglican, Protestants, evangelicals within protestant denominations, etc) and the invisible church (the body and "bride" of Christ made up of all of the true born-again Christians throughout those denominations... or not necessarily attending church but believe).

4. "Any two people who think exactly alike on everything... one of them isn't thinking..." (-Walter Martin) Christians are all at different stages of learning so there is variance in peripheral theology. Christians that think alike often like to fellowship with one another.

5. Evangelicals will often reject others who "want to be called" evangelicals. Most evangelicals consider open theism and universal reconciliation to be outside of evangelical basic doctrine whereas an open theist would consider him or herself to be an evangelical. Most evangelicals would be tolerant of annihilationalism as being a misguided theology but would reject universal reconciliation as heresy. The deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the bodily
Resurrection of Jesus Christ, salvation by grace through faith, some form
of trinity, biblical authority are all pretty much part of conservative evangelicalism.

6. Almost all Christian fundamentalist are evangelicals but NOT all
evangelicals are fundamentalists. Some evangelicals reject biblical
inerrancy (LIKE ME), but still uphold the prophets and the apostles
as having authority in representing and communicating divine
revelation in some form. Fundamentalists generally believe in
biblical inerrancy or at least a literal interpretation of most all of
scripture.

An example of a fundamentalist church which would be rejected
by all evangelical churches would be the Westboro Baptist Cult
in Kansas started by Fred Phelps. They are a hate group rejected
by evangelicals as a hate cult group. While some evangelicals
may grant that they could be very misled and deceived Christians,
their hyper-Calvinism is so extreme that even other hyper-Calvinists
would call them heretical. They are an embarrassment to the
hyper/extreme Calvinistic interpretation and considered a religious
cult by pretty much everyone. Truly, a hate group in some ways
worst than the Christian Identity (racist) cult.

7. The classifications of "born-again Christians" "Jesus Followers"
and "evangelicals" are pretty much synonymous with each other.
Most reject the No True Scotsman fallacy as being applicable to
defining people based on spiritual regeneration.... where such NTS
fallacy is a corruption in human logic because it fails to categorize
people properly according to certain Orthodox beliefs and behaviors.
A believer who is "walking in the spirit" would never do such and such
is a true statement within biblical Christianity... but seldom understood
by those who hurl accusations of the No True Scotsman fallacy.