Active Users:1093 Time:01/11/2024 12:55:48 AM
Fine as far as it goes, but the exclusive use made of it today is something more. - Edit 4

Before modification by Joel at 27/01/2012 10:58:04 AM

Before you get all hot and bothered over the name "Evangelical", I would like to remind you that the encyclicals sent by Roman (pagan) emperors to their governors, to be read to the people, were ευαγγελια. The Christians co-opted the term from them, so as I see it, turnabout is fair play. Fundies are frequently Evangelicals (though not all Fundies are Evangelicals, all Evangelicals are Fundies).

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

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

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

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

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

Romney, like so many Mormons before and since, traveled to places his religion was unknown, and taught it, often to people who had never even heard of it. I would not call teaching error "evangelism," but telling people 2+2=5 is still closer to education than just shouting, "PI HATES RATIONAL NUMBERS!" at their loved ones funerals. In that respect, Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses are usually a lot more evangelical than "evangelicals," but they value conversion above condemnation.
Christopher Hitchens on "Romneys Mormon Problem"

Return to message