Evangelical?

[Cam Pence]

I have heard more and more Nazarenes distancing themselves from the title "evangelical". Most speak of being Wesleyan/Arminian/Holiness and how that differs from "evangelical". Do you all think this beef is with evangelicalism itself, or the varied definitions of "evangelical" (I.e. I have met Calvinists that believe that Calvinism is the only theological perspective that equates to "evangelical",much like "reformed")?

[Eric Frey]

I had this discussion with a professor who is an evangelical Anglican. Basically, when I pushed him on it, he concluded that evangelical = theologically orthodox and that it shouldn't be used in controdiction to mainline, or catholic for instance. There is a strong evangelical side to both Catholics and Protestants, Arminians and Calvinists, Mainliners and non-maintliners(?). Anyway, here is my seminaries explanation of what they mean by evangelical.. As you can see, "evangelical" is very broad in this sense: (1) Supremacy of scriptures; (2) Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; (3) lordship of the Holy Spirit; (4) the need for conversion; (5) evangelism as a priority; (6) the importance of the church.

If this is what is meant by evangelical, then most Christians are evangelical. But I suspect the problem is not one of the technical meaning, but the popular usage. Far too often "evangelical" in American discourse is roughly equivalent to "political conservative" the "religious right" etc. I think the prostitution of evangelicals to the politics of the day is the biggest reason so many of what Robert Webber called "Younger Evangelicals" are resistant to the label...

[Billy Cox]

I have heard more and more Nazarenes distancing themselves from the title "evangelical". Most speak of being Wesleyan/Arminian/Holiness and how that differs from "evangelical". Do you all think this beef is with evangelicalism itself, or the varied definitions of "evangelical" (I.e. I have met Calvinists that believe that Calvinism is the only theological perspective that equates to "evangelical",much like "reformed")?

I have not heard anyone try to differentiate Wesleyan/Arminian from evangelical, but I don't blame them for doing so. In common usage, 'evangelical' is becoming shorthand for those who have a so-called 'Biblical worldview' leading naturally to socially conservative political activism, and a nearly lockstep allegiance to the Republican party.

As the Evangelical movement becomes more politically aligned with right wing politics, real Wesleyans (via media, catholic spirit, etc.) will increasingly feel like uninvited guests at the wrong birthday party. In the case of the CotN, maybe it simply jettisons Wesleyan identity and to chase after the wind.

[Peggy Gray]

In some circles with which I am familiar, "evangelical" translates "they're going to shove their religion down my throat".

[Jim Chabot]

I have heard more and more Nazarenes distancing themselves from the title "evangelical". Most speak of being Wesleyan/Arminian/Holiness and how that differs from "evangelical". Do you all think this beef is with evangelicalism itself, or the varied definitions of "evangelical" (I.e. I have met Calvinists that believe that Calvinism is the only theological perspective that equates to "evangelical",much like "reformed")?

At least here, it seems that those who try do distance themselves from or outright bash evangelicals are those who would turn us into just another liberal mainline denomination. Luckily some have already distanced themselves out the door and into denominations where they fit in better.

[Ryan Scott]

As Eric said, Evangelical really describes people who see faith in Christ requiring a specific lifestyle - that the gospel changes people. Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Nazarenes may differ on the specifics of how that plays out, but there exist evangelicals in all of these groups.

I'd say an evangelical is someone who believes faith in Christ necessarily impacts one's ethics, that God created human beings to live a certain way and that everyone should be in the process of figuring out as best they can what that way is - plus attempt to live it.

[Susan Unger]

In some circles with which I am familiar, "evangelical" translates "they're going to shove their religion down my throat".

That's what I am familiar with.

[John Kennedy]

As Eric said, Evangelical really describes people who see faith in Christ requiring a specific lifestyle - that the gospel changes people. Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Nazarenes may differ on the specifics of how that plays out, but there exist evangelicals in all of these groups.

I'd say an evangelical is someone who believes faith in Christ necessarily impacts one's ethics, that God created human beings to live a certain way and that everyone should be in the process of figuring out as best they can what that way is - plus attempt to live it.

Ryan -
If that's being an evangelical, count me in. That's the reason, to the consternation of some on this forum, I am a part of a mainline denomination who considers himself to be thoroughly evangelical.

I still believe, in essence, what I believed 50 years ago. The only evangelicls I would even think of bashing are the ones who are convinced that they, alone, have some sort of pipeline to the Deity.

Fortunately, God has not sub-contracted the job out to some who would purport to speak for Him.

[Eric Frey]

At least here, it seems that those who try do distance themselves from or outright bash evangelicals are those who would turn us into just another liberal mainline denomination.

I think this is a tremendously false dichotomy, that really highlights the importance of Cam's question.

1) This is exactly the kind of oppositional thinking that is so destructive. Where evangelical and mainline are opposite such that evangelical = good (or real Christians) and mainline (or catholic, or whatever other group one might want to marginalize) = bad (not really Christians).

2) I haven't seen anyone on here bash evangelicals. In fact, I suspect that everyone on the forum is an evangelical. I can't think of a single poster I've encountered that I thought didn't meet the 6 points listed above. I have seen many who passionate object to the politics of the "religious right" or the suggestion that to be Christian (or evangelical) requires one to hold particular (usually Republican) political opinions. And interestingly, I think those at the far end of the theological spectrum are most at risk of not being evangelical. Extreme liberals seem to really have a hard time with #2 (Christology), and extreme conservatives seem to really have a hard time with #6 (ecclesiology). If I'm really honest, I've never seen anyone on here remotely close to having an unorthodoxy Christology, but I've seen several posts that suggest an unothodoxy ecclesiology.

[Cam Pence]

So what I am ccatching is that evangelical seems to carry with it major political underpinnings from "ultra conservative" to simply "not liberal/mainlinel". So do you all think that "evangelical" will always be destined as a point of contention between us(whoever we are) and them (whoever they are) or is there hope for a common ground that ALL Christians can share within evangelicalism?

[James Diggs]

I always associated evangelicalism with the movement to reach out with the message for people to be "born again" and/or "saved". I think in some ways this generously crossed some denominational lines but in other ways it still drew lines as it was clearly protestant (though not mainline) and sometimes focused on how other groups where not really "born again" and/or "saved". I think historically Wesleyans and Nazarenes were caught in the middle, but clearly road the evangelical wave. I remember hearing a lot of talk back in the 70's and 80's about how we don't want to be like the "Methodist" whom we thought lost their way. The focus we identified with in the evangelical wave seemed to be in having a particular experience of confession or prayer combined with assurance that you were "in"-"born again" and/or "saved". In time "evangelical" took on a political meaning with the rise of the "moral majority" within evangelicalism. Now it seems to be almost a cultural term as people have lived in these realities together for a while as "evangelicals".

For me I can never completely throw the term away because I think in the late 70 and early 80s when I was a young child I first heard the gospel in a very personal way that got me started my Christian journey. I think there is still a lot of good in the idea of being an evangelist as a lifestyle of an "evangelical" and inviting people to embrace Jesus who cares about them personally. Yea, as I grew I reached back for some deeper Christian roots too, but I still keep a foot planted in the best of evangelicalism.

[Jim Chabot]

I think this is a tremendously false dichotomy, that really highlights the importance of Cam's question.

1) This is exactly the kind of oppositional thinking that is so destructive. Where evangelical and mainline are opposite such that evangelical = good (or real Christians) and mainline (or catholic, or whatever other group one might want to marginalize) = bad (not really Christians).

2) I haven't seen anyone on here bash evangelicals. In fact, I suspect that everyone on the forum is an evangelical. I can't think of a single poster I've encountered that I thought didn't meet the 6 points listed above. I have seen many who passionate object to the politics of the "religious right" or the suggestion that to be Christian (or evangelical) requires one to hold particular (usually Republican) political opinions. And interestingly, I think those at the far end of the theological spectrum are most at risk of not being evangelical. Extreme liberals seem to really have a hard time with #2 (Christology), and extreme conservatives seem to really have a hard time with #6 (ecclesiology). If I'm really honest, I've never seen anyone on here remotely close to having an unorthodoxy Christology, but I've seen several posts that suggest an unothodoxy ecclesiology.

I'm thinking that we have problems with standardized definition here, but yeah there has definitely been plenty of evangelical bashing around here. Perhaps Dale can chime in, he was pretty vocal about this as recently as last week. Myself, I'm remembering getting bashed for saying some kind words about Jerry Falwell right after he passed. Apparently to say that Jerry was a dear man of God is anathema here, even while he was assuming room temperature. And hey, how about that Piper guy, and remember the thread on TV Evangelists where they were used almost exclusively for sport. Why we just bashed Pat Robertson clear back to the loony bin last week, didn't we? Evangelicals, so called, are fair game around here.

My "oppositional thinking" here was descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm just calling it like I see it.

[John Reilly]

YES! Technically Nazarenes identify ourselves in several other ways before we engage evangelical. The problem with the evangelical label is the negative connotation and its promotion of fundamentalism. Nazarenes are moderates. Our primary identity is Holiness and an ethical Christlike lifestyle is essential as our primary witness.

[Eric Frey]

I'm thinking that we have problems with standardized definition here, but yeah there has definitely been plenty of evangelical bashing around here. Perhaps Dale can chime in, he was pretty vocal about this as recently as last week. Myself, I'm remembering getting bashed for saying some kind words about Jerry Falwell right after he passed. Apparently to say that Jerry was a dear man of God is anathema here, even while he was assuming room temperature. And hey, how about that Piper guy, and remember the thread on TV Evangelists where they were used almost exclusively for sport. Why we just bashed Pat Robertson clear back to the loony bin last week, didn't we? Evangelicals, so called, are fair game around here.

My "oppositional thinking" here was descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm just calling it like I see it.

I don't know the exact threads you are talking about, but I suspect the criticism of such persons had nothing to do with them being evangelical. It likely had more to do with more specific points of theology. Are you really suggesting that these guys were bashed because they view Scripture as the supreme authority, or because they have too high a view of the unique person and work of Christ, or because the put too much emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit, or because they understand the importance of conversion, evangelism and the church? Or were they criticized for other issues, points of doctrine, interpretation of scripture, etc? I am not attempting to be combative, but rather to understand the criticisms since I have not seen them.

Here is another definition: 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."

So this is a slightly broader definition. An evangelical is one who values personal conversion, holds a high view of scripture, affirms the centrality of the death/resurrection of Christ, which together lead one toward evangelism.

I would be very much surprised if anyone here has been criticized for holding to these things. The problem comes when people try to intermingle nationalistic politics (on either side).

[Jim Chabot]

I don't know the exact threads you are talking about, but I suspect the criticism of such persons had nothing to do with them being evangelical. It likely had more to do with more specific points of theology. Are you really suggesting that these guys were bashed because they view Scripture as the supreme authority, or because they have too high a view of the unique person and work of Christ, or because the put too much emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit, or because they understand the importance of conversion, evangelism and the church? Or were they criticized for other issues, points of doctrine, interpretation of scripture, etc? I am not attempting to be combative, but rather to understand the criticisms since I have not seen them.

I'm not sure, I just do my best to avoid criticizing those on the "good guys" list too strongly, and I'll throw in some criticism to "cover"if I'm trying to defend what someone on the "bad guys" list has said. There is probably theological or Christological reasoning behind the prearranged judgements, I'll admit that I've grown weary of trying to figure it out.

There was a definition that Ryan offered earlier in this thread that described us quite well;

I'd say an evangelical is someone who believes faith in Christ necessarily impacts one's ethics, that God created human beings to live a certain way and that everyone should be in the process of figuring out as best they can what that way is - plus attempt to live it.

We are holiness people, we believe that our faith leads us to holy living. Everything else is window dressing. Holiness people come from most every theological and Christological slant, what unites us is the belief that faith leads to a changed life.

I would be very much surprised if anyone here has been criticized for holding to these things. The problem comes when people try to intermingle nationalistic politics (on either side).

The problem here is the critics. Theology and faith lead one naturally to things political. The cry from the critics always comes with an accusation that one's politics must influence their theology. Nonsense, on this one I'm with Teddy Roosevelt, the critic does not count.

[John Kennedy]

I started to open this post with the words, "I've been around long enough to remember........" when it occurred to me that although I've been around long enough to remember some things, sometimes I can't remember them.

Be that as it may (or was or ever shall be, world without end.....), I can recall when there was an attempt at repairing or redefining (or a whole bunch of somewhat related terms all beginning with re-) the term 'evangelical'.

This would've been sometime in the mid/late fifties, or at least that's when it came onto my radar. Henry and Bell and others were getting Christianity Today off the ground, seminaries like Fuller, etc, were furnishing hope to theological centrists that it was possible to believe the Bible without being downright disagreeable about it - that theological conservatives were capable of producing respectable scholarship. This was also around the time the NAE (Nat'l Assoc. of Evangelicals) was being formed - an attempt to find a niche somewhere between Eugene Carson Blake and Carly McIntire.

In other words, there was the feeling that there was a middle ground between rock-ribbed fundamentalism and liberalism, etc. People like Ockenga (Fuller & Park Street Church), Carnell, and others were beginning to stake out a position somewhere in the middle.

Billy Graham, a young evangelist from North Carolina was demonstrating that it was possible to engage in evangelistic enterprise that appealed not only to Southern Baptists but that also got the backing of a lot of Methodists and Presbyterians. The extreme ends of the theological spectrum didn't care for him, but a lot of people in the middle did. I can also remember Nazarenes who assured me that while they thought he meant well, they were afraid he was just preaching enough of the truth to lead people astray.

I think the term neo-evangelical was first used, but abandoned for several reasons (too long and someone might ID it with neo-orthodoxy). I think it was either Carnell or Henry (Carl F.H., not Matthew) who wrote a book about the 'uneasy conscience of modern fundamentalism' or something like that.

IMO 'evangelical' was moved away from that that medial position by some forces that wanted to change it and some that wanted to discredit it.

I must confess, using the Ryan Scott definition, it's a term with which I'm relatively comfortable.

[Mike Schutz]

I find myself in agreement with an African-American friend of mine who, as a pastor, did not want to be labeled an "Evangelical" because of the perception of many that it defined him as theologically a fundamentalist and politically a conservative. We were classmates together in graduate school, and after one particular class discussion, he turned to me and said, "See, these folks don't know the difference between Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Bob Jones. That's why we can't let them label us all together."
We shouldn't be surprised by the inability, unwillingness or lack of interest in the nuances of the Christian faith that leads to painting in such broad strokes. After all, that's what most American Christians do with Islam.
And keep in mind that C.S. Lewis, that darling of American Evangelicalism, disliked the term.

[John Kennedy]

I find myself in agreement with an African-American friend of mine who, as a pastor, did not want to be labeled an "Evangelical" because of the perception of many that it defined him as theologically a fundamentalist and politically a conservative. We were classmates together in graduate school, and after one particular class discussion, he turned to me and said, "See, these folks don't know the difference between Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Bob Jones. That's why we can't let them label us all together."
We shouldn't be surprised by the inability, unwillingness or lack of interest in the nuances of the Christian faith that leads to painting in such broad strokes. After all, that's what most American Christians do with Islam.
And keep in mind that C.S. Lewis, that darling of American Evangelicalism, disliked the term.

Within the context you described your African-American friend's reluctance to be labelled 'evangelical' is highly understandable. I would, however never label either Falwell or Jones as evangelical - they were fundamentalists through and through.
In fact, Falwell was so stringent in his fundamentalism that he opposed referring to militant Muslims as 'Islamic or Muslim fundamentalists'. He devoted a considerable amount of time on one of his radio broadcasts to that subject. Being descirbed as a fundamentalist was a badge of honor that should only be worn by 'Bible believing Christians'.

[Hans Deventer]

We've got a couple of pastors here that don't like the title "evangelical" either. I agree with their reasons. "Evangelical" is some kind of Calvinistic, Charismatic sub culture here that I sure hope we don't belong to.

[David Graham]

As you can see, "evangelical" is very broad in this sense: (1) Supremacy of scriptures; (2) Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; (3) lordship of the Holy Spirit; (4) the need for conversion; (5) evangelism as a priority; (6) the importance of the church.

I've always seen "Evangelicalism" in terms of being a moderate theological term to describe those who want to actively preach the Gospel with the aim of bringing people to Jesus Christ and seeing them converted.

The list that Eric provided us with give us a lot of theological "leg room" that will enable most theologically moderate Christians to feel comfortable with the evangelical label...... myself included. However, those from the extremes will also want to be identified with the term as well. As disappointing as it is to have "Fundies", "Hyper-Calvinists" and "extreme Pentecostals" wanting to claim the "title" we should IMHO be loathe to let it go because of their identification with it. Perhaps we need to qualify the term to explain what we're about. In my denomination I like to be known as an "evangelical moderate" thus distinguishing myself from those who are either Charasmatic or "fundy". IMHO there is no reason why we can't call ourselves "Wesleyan Evangelical" or "Evangelical Moderate" if we want to disassociate ourselves from the extremists and yet still hold to a "conversion experience of coming to faith"; there is no need to cede this ground so easily!

[Ian Gentles]

It is getting harder these days with titles. Once when I was a chaplain I was introduced to some guys in the following way, "This is Ian our chaplain, he is a real christian not like those evengelicals". Go figure that one lol

[Kevin Rector]

So from where I'm sitting I think James has hit on a major component of modern evangelicalism, in that it is focused on getting people to make a decision to be saved. When I was in Wisconsin and rubbed shoulders with the Lutherans, I appreciated the notion that their children were being raised as Christians, it was expected that they would be Christians from birth as taught by their church and family, and that at one point in the future they would "confirm" their Christianity. I remember hearing the story of a Lutheran parent that went to pick up their kids at a VBS at an Evangelical Free Church (An Evangelical denomination with Lutheranish roots) and how excited the VBS workers were that little Johnny or little Suzy made a "decision" and was now saved. That Lutheran parent was rather put-off and told them matter of factly that their child was already a Christian.

The other thing I notice is that "evangelical" might speak more to the type of liturgy that is used in the worship service than almost anything else. High churches with fixed or semi-fixed liturgies are rarely if ever considered evangelical. Most evangelicals would not consider any flavor of Anglicanism as evangelical, regardless of how certain Anglicans decide to define themselves. This also speaks to the centrality of the sermon in the evangelical church (leading of course to decisions at an altar) as opposed to the Eucharist being central in other non-evangelical traditions.

I do think that in general evangelicals do tend to be rather conservative politically, but to my way of thinking that isn't really normative, more an interesting cultural side-effect.

[Todd Erickson]

My general understanding of "Evangelical" is one who is far more concerned with whether you've had a crisis moment religious experience and say the right things, than whether your life in any way actually reflects Christ.

[James Diggs]

I remember hearing the story of a Lutheran parent that went to pick up their kids at a VBS at an Evangelical Free Church (An Evangelical denomination with Lutheranish roots) and how excited the VBS workers were that little Johnny or little Suzy made a "decision" and was now saved. That Lutheran parent was rather put-off and told them matter of factly that their child was already a Christian.

This story reminds me of my own childhood. I grew up with one foot in both the Episcopal church of my parents, and the other in the Wesleyan/Nazarene Church of the neighbors whom I had known since I was in first grade. Around third or fourth grade I went to summer camp and "got saved" and I actually remember coming home crying to my parents asking them why they didn't tell me something so important that if I had died without knowing it I would have gone to hell. Needless to say my parents were not very pleased. They had a long talk with me about what we believe in the church and how we follow Jesus, how I was baptised as a baby and can confirm my baptism at conformation when I was older.

Well, thus began my life of "comparative religions" as I was always asking my parents and my friends parents questions, and trying out the different responses I got from each group of adults on the other. The evangelical approach definitely captured me when I was young, it was "personal" and I gravitated toward it. In fact I remember my conformation years later and the confirmation service very well. It was at the National Cathedral and the service was presided over by the bishop. I remember getting up from the alter and thinking to myself, "that wasn't like getting saved at all".

Don't hear me disparaging though, as I have gotten older I have gained an appreciation for both my Anglican roots and my "evangelical" roots. Growing up by going to the neighbor's Wesleyan church, later switching to Nazarene, eventually helped me connect the dots to our common heritage in Wesley as an Anglican and I found both these childhood religious experiences (found in these two contrasting religious households I grew up in) had a lot in common.

[Billy Cox]

I have heard more and more Nazarenes distancing themselves from the title "evangelical". Most speak of being Wesleyan/Arminian/Holiness and how that differs from "evangelical". Do you all think this beef is with evangelicalism itself, or the varied definitions of "evangelical" (I.e. I have met Calvinists that believe that Calvinism is the only theological perspective that equates to "evangelical",much like "reformed")?

In its most basic form, evangelical Christianity's highest aim is to convince others to join them in their beliefs and practice. Other segments of Christianity are certainly interested in convincing others to join, but it is not their singular organizing principle.

[George Wallace]

I have heard more and more Nazarenes distancing themselves from the title "evangelical". Most speak of being Wesleyan/Arminian/Holiness and how that differs from "evangelical". Do you all think this beef is with evangelicalism itself, or the varied definitions of "evangelical" (I.e. I have met Calvinists that believe that Calvinism is the only theological perspective that equates to "evangelical",much like "reformed")?

So what I am ccatching is that evangelical seems to carry with it major political underpinnings from "ultra conservative" to simply "not liberal/mainlinel". So do you all think that "evangelical" will always be destined as a point of contention between us(whoever we are) and them (whoever they are) or is there hope for a common ground that ALL Christians can share within evangelicalism?

Excellent questions Cam!
Truth be told I saw this thread begin the other day and I was chomping at the bit to post. But, I thought, I really need to see how this plays out. So as you can see, it really comes down to; “This is what Evangelical means to me….” Answers. You have almost as many definitions as you have people answering. So in that respect, to answer your OP; I believe that the beef is with the definitions and their connotations or associated baggage. However, if the contemporary understanding of Evangelical is that fluid, is that subjective, then in the end, Id’ have say that at least to some degree the beef ends up with “evangelicalism itself.” Why? Because it suffers from so many meanings that it has become meaningless! Or, a stumbling block when used without some sort of modifier, “reformed” evangelical, “Wesleyan” evangelical ect.

Notice how, nobody ever says “Well, this is what refrigerator means to me…”

In the end it has become the epitome of the Humpty Dumpty word, “"When I use a word," …, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

What did “evangelical” mean? What meaning or distinction was/is it supposed to convey?

I don’t know about its use in antiquity, but its Modern use really came about with Luther. Actually we need to back up a bit. It derives from his Augustinian Order, from Staupitz his mentor and ultimately the term goes back to an Augustinian concept if not to Augustine himself. “Evangelical” started to be used for those in His RC Order that ascribed to the Augustinian concept of salvation by “Grace through Faith.” This was the belief of His Order they were considered to be Evangelical Catholics, though doctrine was certainly not as fleshed out as Luther would soon make it.

Luther and those immediately following him did not call their beliefs “Lutheran” or “Lutheranism” They simply called themselves “Evangelicals” aligning with salvation by “Grace alone through faith alone.” So in essence “Evangelical” was used as a term to apply to believers who affirmed at least Sola Gratia and Sola Fide. (The Evangelical Catholics- some but not all had trouble with the “alone” part). That is why if you go to a LCMS or WELS website it won’t be but a matter of 3 or 4 clicks and you will find Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, and Solo Christo, or their English counterparts.

To be Evangelical meant to embrace salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. And this was set up dead against any form of Sacerdotalism. That is where the difference truly lies; this is what the word “evangelical” was meant to convey – that as an evangelical believing in those solas the Sacerdotal priesthood was repugnant. The only mediator needed was Christ; the only High Priest was Christ.

So Evangelical = Non-Sacerdotal (+ Sola at least Sola Gratia and Sola Fide): this was what the word in modern times was meant to convey. It really had nothing to do with evangelism or the spreading of the word and many today seem to try to co mingle the two terms.

Now, since the Continental Reformed also held to this, you might say they were the first hyphenated evangelicals “Reformed-Evangelical.” But if we fast forward in time a bit the terms became Reformed and Lutheran and both together became Protestant which had really become synonymous for Evangelical. So eventually Protestant-=Evangelical.


So here we are today, with 1000s and 1000s of differing Church bodies all to their own understanding, they are Protestant and Evangelical yet in some cases these groups couldn’t agree on the meaning of “Jesus Wept” or the color of the sky.

Evangelical = Bob Jones, Hyles, Schap Indie Fundie Pre Mil Dispos!

Evangelical = An Unholy alliance between the Church and Right-Wing Politics

Evangelical = “If you died today are you certain that you’d go to heaven?”

Evangelical = John Hagge’s Congregation wrapping themselves in Israeli Flags

Evangelical = Mainline and Contemporary Protestants who are basically just liberal posers!

Evangelical = Those who aren’t conservative and Reformed.

Evangelical= Those who are conservative and Reformed.

Evangelical = “means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

So can we redeem the usage of “evangelical”? I think that ship has sailed. No, not without some sort of qualifier or modifier or else You say “Evangelical” and I hear “Mainline Liberal” or “Contemporary Shallow Whack Job” Or I say “Evangelical” an you hear “Rick Perry Right-wing political Christianity or Civil- Religion” or “Turn and Burn, ‘If you died today..’ Soul Winners”

So since there are 1000s of flavors of Christian that believe in salvation by grace through faith and are not Sacerdotal then I guess we’ll have to put up with the word Evangelical as its descriptor; excepting that it really doesn’t describe much without further modification.

Blessings
George

[Hans Deventer]

So since there are 1000s of flavors of Christian that believe in salvation by grace through faith and are not Sacerdotal then I guess we’ll have to put up with the word Evangelical as its descriptor; excepting that it really doesn’t describe much without further modification.

Blessings
George

Kinda like "Christian". An empty concept as well.

[Benjamin Burch]

What did “evangelical” mean? What meaning or distinction was/is it supposed to convey?

I don’t know about its use in antiquity, but its Modern use really came about with Luther. Actually we need to back up a bit. It derives from his Augustinian Order, from Staupitz his mentor and ultimately the term goes back to an Augustinian concept if not to Augustine himself. “Evangelical” started to be used for those in His RC Order that ascribed to the Augustinian concept of salvation by “Grace through Faith.” This was the belief of His Order they were considered to be Evangelical Catholics, though doctrine was certainly not as fleshed out as Luther would soon make it.

Luther and those immediately following him did not call their beliefs “Lutheran” or “Lutheranism” They simply called themselves “Evangelicals” aligning with salvation by “Grace alone through faith alone.” So in essence “Evangelical” was used as a term to apply to believers who affirmed at least Sola Gratia and Sola Fide. (The Evangelical Catholics- some but not all had trouble with the “alone” part). That is why if you go to a LCMS or WELS website it won’t be but a matter of 3 or 4 clicks and you will find Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, and Solo Christo, or their English counterparts.

To be Evangelical meant to embrace salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. And this was set up dead against any form of Sacerdotalism. That is where the difference truly lies; this is what the word “evangelical” was meant to convey – that as an evangelical believing in those solas the Sacerdotal priesthood was repugnant. The only mediator needed was Christ; the only High Priest was Christ.

So Evangelical = Non-Sacerdotal (+ Sola at least Sola Gratia and Sola Fide): this was what the word in modern times was meant to convey. It really had nothing to do with evangelism or the spreading of the word and many today seem to try to co mingle the two terms.

Now, since the Continental Reformed also held to this, you might say they were the first hyphenated evangelicals “Reformed-Evangelical.” But if we fast forward in time a bit the terms became Reformed and Lutheran and both together became Protestant which had really become synonymous for Evangelical. So eventually Protestant-=Evangelical.

Bingo.

However, I can't agree with others here who have attempted to say that there really isn't a difference between Mainline Protestantism and Evangelical Protestantism. I think there clearly is - and has been - a difference. It may be difficult to articulate, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.

[John Kennedy]

Bingo.

However, I can't agree with others here who have attempted to say that there really isn't a difference between Mainline Protestantism and Evangelical Protestantism. I think there clearly is - and has been - a difference. It may be difficult to articulate, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.

I spent most of my years in Evangelical Protestantism - I have spent the last 17+ years in 2 different mainline churches - one, admittedly a bit more conservative than the other. That there is a difference is beyond any rational doubt. My position is, however, that as an individual with evangelical beliefs, my experience has been quite positive. I think it has been stated that it is considerably easier to be conservative (or relatively so) in a liberal church than vice versa.
I'm happy where I am. I'm also grateful for the time I spent where I was.