For Jeff -- Why "EVANS"?

[Cow Poke]

Jeff, I'm wondering about your use of Evangelicalism, "EVANS", and "Evan-ism".

In another thread, you said...

--We're comparing Evangelicals, not Christians as a superset.

I'm honestly trying to udnerstand what you actually believe, and argue against THAT, rather than my own contrivance of what you believe. I have adjusted my thoughts on several occasions when shown that my understanding was incorrect.

I remember some time ago, you used the term "Evans", and I didn't know what you were talking about. You thought I was mocking you, because you didn't believe that I was unware that "Evans" was shorthand for "Evangelicals".

So, first --- I'm wondering you keep trying to focus on "Evangelicals" as opposed to "Christians", as you have in the quote above. And - this is a sincere question -- is this from some kind of "talking points" or something? Here's why I ask --- I don't consider myself to be an "Evangelical". I consider myself a Christian, and I AM an evangelical Christian, small "e".

Perhaps this is like the "orthodox" vs. "Orthodox" confusion that always seemed to persist with Jo.

Or maybe I'm just imagining this distinction between being evangelical, or "an Evangelical". I'm just trying to understand why you're making this distinction between "Evangelicals" and "Christians as a superset".

After explaining that, I have a question about the rest of your quote....

And if someone is considering joining your branch of Christendom, would it scare them off if you told them up front, right at the beginning "Many experts think our belief in a worldwide flood (with one family saving themselves and all animal life from God's holocaust in a big boat) to be lifted from more ancient fables than the Bible" ? And if you also told them "Many experts think our belief that God created Planet Earth and the whole rest of the universe less than a million years ago to be pure nonsense" would it tend to dissuade them from continuing down the path to Evangelical-hood?

On what do you base your apparent assumption that belief in a global flood and young earth creationism are necessary components of my "branch of Christendom"? I checked FairMormon for the Mormon "position" on these issues (the global flood, in particular) and, amazingly, I'm pretty much in agreement with what is posted there.

Where are you getting your information about what (for a lack of better qualifier) orthodox Christianity holds as "required beliefs"?

[nrajeff]

I liked the Wikipedia definition of Evangelicalism, but you would probably pooh-pooh it because it's Wikipedia. Anyway, it seems obvious to me that Evangelicalism is a subset of modern Christendom. And you may be in denial, but I think you fall into that subgroup.

If you still want/need to learn more about the Evangelical faction of Christianity, here is a fairly informative (IMO) article that includes info on the movement:

From the "Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals" http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/

The term “Evangelicalism” is a wide-reaching definitional “canopy” that covers a diverse number of Protestant traditions, denominations, organizations, and churches....In the English-speaking world, however, the modern term usually describes the religious movements and denominations which sprung forth from a series of revivals that swept the North Atlantic Anglo-American world in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Key figures associated with these revivals included the itinerant English evangelist George Whitefield (1715-1770); the founder of Methodism, John Wesley (1703-1791) ; and American philosopher and theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). These revivals were particularly responsible for the rise of the Baptists and Methodists from obscure sects to their traditional position as America’s two largest Protestant denominational families....

... the changes in American society wrought by such powerful forces as urbanization and industrialization, along with new intellectual and theological developments, began to weaken the power of evangelicalism within American culture. Likewise, evangelical cultural hegemony was diminished in pure numeric terms with the influx of millions of non-Protestant immigrants in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries. Nonetheless, evangelical Protestantism remained a powerful presence within American culture (as evidenced by the success of evangelists like Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday). Going into the 20th century evangelicalism still held the status of a pervasive American “folk religion” in many sectors of the United States, particularly the South and certain areas of the Midwest.

It goes on with more definitional info on Evangelicalism.

[Cow Poke]

I liked the Wikipedia definition of Evangelicalism, but you would probably pooh-pooh it because it's Wikipedia.

Not necessarily.

Anyway, it seems obvious to me that Evangelicalism is a subset of modern Christendom. And you may be in denial, but I think you fall into that subgroup.

I'm just trying to understand why you think this is necessary, that's all. I don't think you really read what I wrote, or answered accordingly, but that's your right.

If you still want/need to learn more about the Evangelical faction of Christianity, here is a fairly informative (IMO) article that includes info on the movement:

From the "Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals" http://isae.wheaton.edu/defining-evangelicalism/

The term “Evangelicalism” is a wide-reaching definitional “canopy” that covers a diverse number of Protestant traditions, denominations, organizations, and churches....In the English-speaking world, however, the modern term usually describes the religious movements and denominations which sprung forth from a series of revivals that swept the North Atlantic Anglo-American world in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Key figures associated with these revivals included the itinerant English evangelist George Whitefield (1715-1770); the founder of Methodism, John Wesley (1703-1791) ; and American philosopher and theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). These revivals were particularly responsible for the rise of the Baptists and Methodists from obscure sects to their traditional position as America’s two largest Protestant denominational families....

... the changes in American society wrought by such powerful forces as urbanization and industrialization, along with new intellectual and theological developments, began to weaken the power of evangelicalism within American culture. Likewise, evangelical cultural hegemony was diminished in pure numeric terms with the influx of millions of non-Protestant immigrants in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries. Nonetheless, evangelical Protestantism remained a powerful presence within American culture (as evidenced by the success of evangelists like Dwight L. Moody and Billy Sunday). Going into the 20th century evangelicalism still held the status of a pervasive American “folk religion” in many sectors of the United States, particularly the South and certain areas of the Midwest.

It goes on with more definitional info on Evangelicalism.

I was asking YOU, Jeff --- I can look up Wiki stuff myself.

[nrajeff]

I will give the obvious (at least to me) answer to the question "When Evangelical Christians attack your church, why do respond directly to those Evangelicals instead of counterattacking all of Christendom?"

Answer: Because all of Christendom isn't attacking my church--only a small, minority subset of it.

[Cow Poke]

I will give the obvious (at least to me) answer to the question "When Evangelical Christians attack your church, why do respond directly to those Evangelicals instead of counterattacking all of Christendom?"

Answer: Because all of Christendom isn't attacking my church--only a small, minority subset of it.

OK, i get that -- it's a bit odd, in my opinion, but so be it.

Let's move on to the rest of the equation.... perhaps this got lost in the "Evan" thing...

On what do you base your apparent assumption that belief in a global flood and young earth creationism are necessary components of my "branch of Christendom"? I checked FairMormon for the Mormon "position" on these issues (the global flood, in particular) and, amazingly, I'm pretty much in agreement with what is posted there.

Where are you getting your information about what (for a lack of better qualifier) orthodox Christianity holds as "required beliefs"?

[Catholicity]

I will give the obvious (at least to me) answer to the question "When Evangelical Christians attack your church, why do respond directly to those Evangelicals instead of counterattacking all of Christendom?"

Answer: Because all of Christendom isn't attacking my church--only a small, minority subset of it.

I suppose that makes sense, Some evangelicals combined with other protestant denominations (generally this is based on my observation of what I see here in the south eastern area) do tend to be more critical of LDS church members than other denominations

[Cow Poke]

I suppose that makes sense, Some evangelicals combined with other protestant denominations (generally this is based on my observation of what I see here in the south eastern area) do tend to be more critical of LDS church members than other denominations

I get along with thier members just fine IRL -- it's thier doctrine I find so objectionable.

[JB]

I would consider myself an Evangelical (same as "evangelical Christian", essentially, but I've switched to using the uppercase form in following the Evangelical Manifesto of 2008). We're a movement within orthodox Christianity, and particularly within Protestantism, though many (but probably not all) of our key distinctives are shared by many Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and even some adherents of mainline Protestant denominations. Of course, not all Evangelicals would identify themselves as 'Evangelicals' at all, let alone as a primary designation; most would, like CP, be content to simply accept the designation 'Christian'. It's in the interests of specificity that I publicly identify as an Evangelical.

In addition to looking forward to Jeff's answer as to why he thinks young-earth creationism is an essential Evangelical teaching (it's not), and as to why he thinks a global flood is an essential Evangelical teaching (it's also not), I hope that Jeff also deigns to explain why he seems to at least insinuate that five-point Calvinism is an essential Evangelical teaching (it's also not).

As for the reasons why someone like Jeff might seem obsessive about Evangelicals, it is true that (some) Evangelicals tend to be more vocal in their resistance to Latter-day Saint encroachment. Of course, more recent political polls seem to suggest that, although Evangelicals are more vocal about it, there actually may be a comparable if not greater degree of discomfort about Mormonism within the mainline Protestant denominations. Some Latter-day Saints also tend to obsess over Roman Catholicism, but primarily with an eye to its purported historical role in crafting so-called "creedal Christianity". And when it comes to Orthodoxy, let's face it, most Latter-day Saints just don't know what to do with it, since it doesn't fit nicely into the pat Western 'Protestant vs. Catholic' dichotomy. Of course, turning back to the subject of Evangelicalism, it is awfully nice when its LDS detractors at least have the fortitude to educate themselves accurately in what orthodox Christianity as a whole teaches, let alone what positions are included and excluded under the Evangelical umbrella. That happens far too seldom, here not excluded.

[Cow Poke]

I would consider myself an Evangelical (same as "evangelical Christian", essentially, but I've switched to using the uppercase form in following the Evangelical Manifesto of 2008). We're a movement within orthodox Christianity, and particularly within Protestantism, though many (but probably not all) of our key distinctives are shared by many Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and even some adherents of mainline Protestant denominations. Of course, not all Evangelicals would identify themselves as 'Evangelicals' at all, let alone as a primary designation; most would, like CP, be content to simply accept the designation 'Christian'. It's in the interests of specificity that I publicly identify as an Evangelical.

First, JB, thanks for a well thought out post! (Not that this is unusual for you)

Second, lemme clarify that I AM "evangelical", and probably even an "Evangelical" -- just never felt the need to put the emphasis on it, because, maybe, I think that Christians have a responsibility to the Gospel to BE "evangelical".

Third -- I was wondering, since so many other things have different meanings to Mormonism, if "Evangelical" was some kind of code word that needed more explanation. I'm anxious (but not very hopeful ) to hear Jeff's explanation, beyond "Bingo", which makes me think more of Catholicism.

In addition to looking forward to Jeff's answer as to why he thinks young-earth creationism is an essential Evangelical teaching (it's not), and as to why he thinks a global flood is an essential Evangelical teaching (it's also not), I hope that Jeff also deigns to explain why he seems to at least insinuate that five-point Calvinism is an essential Evangelical teaching (it's also not).

As for the reasons why someone like Jeff might seem obsessive about Evangelicals, it is true that (some) Evangelicals tend to be more vocal in their resistance to Latter-day Saint encroachment. Of course, more recent political polls seem to suggest that, although Evangelicals are more vocal about it, there actually may be a comparable if not greater degree of discomfort about Mormonism within the mainline Protestant denominations. Some Latter-day Saints also tend to obsess over Roman Catholicism, but primarily with an eye to its purported historical role in crafting so-called "creedal Christianity". And when it comes to Orthodoxy, let's face it, most Latter-day Saints just don't know what to do with it, since it doesn't fit nicely into the pat Western 'Protestant vs. Catholic' dichotomy. Of course, turning back to the subject of Evangelicalism, it is awfully nice when its LDS detractors at least have the fortitude to educate themselves accurately in what orthodox Christianity as a whole teaches, let alone what positions are included and excluded under the Evangelical umbrella. That happens far too seldom, here not excluded.

Again, thanks JB - this was helpful.

[ke7ejx]

First, JB, thanks for a well thought out post! (Not that this is unusual for you)

I don't think we'd expect any less.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think we'd expect any less.

I just need to get him to talk country.

[ke7ejx]

Good luck with that happening.

[Cow Poke]

Good luck with that happening.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

[JB]

I just need to get him to talk country.

Oh I talk it from time to time, I just don't type it all too much.

(But you should hear me talkin' all 'Dutchified'!)

[ke7ejx]

Oh I talk it from time to time, I just don't type it all too much.

(But you should hear me talkin' all 'Dutchified'!)

And it is a nightmare from you-know-where!