Evangelicals full of fear

[Charles]

Regardless, there IS a difference, and the guy in your OP is NOT an Evangelical by ANY of those definitions.

He actually is an Evangelical given some of the usages described. Given that your quora-defintion has proved to be extremely limited compared to what I provided your time to play expert on this is long gone.

You might want to read my post again: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post726822

For future discussion on the topic I would advice you to look a bit further into it than a quora definition written by a random user. I will point you to my answer in which you might be able to identify the usages by which he would be an Evangelical. However, I suspect your definition of this is rather coloured by personal preferences. Since it is so easy to see descriptions of other usages and definitions that is the impression I got.

You were probably full of fear of what you would find if you had actually looked further into it.

[oxmixmudd]

On ethicsdaily.com distinguished Professor of Christian Theology and Ethics at Acadia University and Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia, William H. Brackney, describes it like this:



It from the article called: Are You Evangelical? Or Just evangelical?

However, there are other usages of "Evangelical". Matthew W. Kingsbury wrote:



Turning to Merriam-Webster we see this:



At First Things they write:



So you can tell your friend that the answer will, to some extent, depend on who you are asking.

Fundamentalism is mostly just a very legalistic approach to christian life and the Bible, often in my experience in the South closely asssocisted with racism of one form or another. I would take strong exception to needing to be fundamentalist to be Evangelical. Though personally I dont make the E, e distinction. Evangelical churches simply have a strong emphasis on evangelism. There are plenty of other words that can be used to make finer grained distinctions.

The Capitol E game is just yet another way to try to put down people that are not quite 'true' Christian's in the eyes of the perpetrator.

[EvoUK]

Quora handles that pretty well here.

I’m an evangelical Christian (small-e), but not an Evangelical Christian (capital-E). The difference is this: “evangelical” means that we share the Gospel, the Good News about the redemption God offers through Jesus’ sacrifice. “Evangelical” refers to a specific set of views that have come to be lumped together since the latter half of the twentieth century, suggesting a particular agenda blending patriotism, religion, and politics.

Pretty much, when you capitalize it, you're referring to the "right wing" evangelicals.

Thank you, and given the following back and forth between you and Charles, I also get that it can be... Complicated.

[Mountain Man]

All of this could have been avoided if Chuck had simply said, "English is not my native language, so I wasn't aware there was a distinction. Thank you for pointing it out."

(To Chuck's credit, his English is excellent. I would never know it wasn't his native tongue.)

[Cow Poke]

He actually is an Evangelical given some of the usages described.

No. Not hardly.

[Cow Poke]

The Capitol E game is just yet another way to try to put down people that are not quite 'true' Christian's in the eyes of the perpetrator.

A) It's not a game.
2) This has nothing to do with who's a 'true' Christian.
C) You're doing that thing again where you're being legalistic and judgmental about other Christians while claiming they're legalistic and judgmental.

You really just can't help yourself.

[oxmixmudd]

A) It's not a game.
2) This has nothing to do with who's a 'true' Christian.
C) You're doing that thing again where you're being legalistic and judgmental about other Christians while claiming they're legalistic and judgmental.

You really just can't help yourself.

CP - you really should stop. I'm sure if plays to the peanut gallery, but as far as being a witness for the grace of Christ in you as a pastor and leader in the church - it really plays into a very negative place. So if you can't stop because its the human, kind thing to do, could you please stop so you will quit making a mockery of our Lord?

[lilpixieofterror]

CP - you really should stop. I'm sure if plays to the peanut gallery, but as far as being a witness for the grace of Christ in you as a pastor and leader in the church - it really plays into a very negative place. So if you can't stop because its the human, kind thing to do, could you please stop so you will quit making a mockery of our Lord?

What did Jesus say about those that say one thing and do another?

[Cow Poke]

CP - you really should stop. I'm sure if plays to the peanut gallery, but as far as being a witness for the grace of Christ in you as a pastor and leader in the church - it really plays into a very negative place.

Part of my job is to stand up to hypocrisy, Jim.

So if you can't stop because its the human, kind thing to do, could you please stop so you will quit making a mockery of our Lord?

Oh, sheeeeesh..... Please, Jim, SPARE me the holier-than-thou crap. You are about the LAST person on this board that should be lecturing Christians on "the kind thing to do".

But, hey - the anti-Christian 'peanut gallery' is singing your praises and kissing your butt, so....

[simplicio]

I do hope the AP style book and Strunk & White catches up with the official usages of Evangelical and evangelical!

[simplicio]

Messiah College historian John Fea, himself an Evangelical, has some rather interesting observations and thoughts about Evangelicals. A very interesting person. Here is a central quote:

Is John Fea a Christian?

Is John Fea an evangelical?

Or was all the hubub of the capital E just a diversion?

I am pretty sure the author of the OP would say yes to both questions. But I am interested in hearing from Christians here.

[Charles]

All of this could have been avoided if Chuck had simply said, "English is not my native language, so I wasn't aware there was a distinction. Thank you for pointing it out."

(To Chuck's credit, his English is excellent. I would never know it wasn't his native tongue.)

Which I actually did at an earlier state in this thread since I trusted Cow Poke's statement about my use of it being in error. When I digged a bit deeper into it it turned out Cow Poke who has repeatedly brought this up is seemingly rather ill informed about both the definition and usage of "Evagelical" since other prominent writers are using it the way I did, since his definition was not very good, and since it is used in capital letters in other situations than the one he accounted for. Cow Poke relied on a random Quora user to account for a distinction that he used to try to take all focus away from the real content of the thread. He used strong words about me not knowing the distinction.

Unfortunately for Cow Poke, in such situations, when you claim to ride the high horse, you fall extra hard to the ground when it turns out your own "correction" was not well founded.

(and thanks for your comments on my English. I am sure I make errors, and I often feel limited when writing in English since it is a lot harder for me to find the right words to describe what I am trying to say.)

[simplicio]

Which I actually did at an earlier state in this thread since I trusted Cow Poke's statement about my use of it being in error. When I digged a bit deeper into it it turned out Cow Poke who has repeatedly brought this up is seemingly rather ill informed about both the definition and usage of "Evagelical" since other prominent writers are using it the way I did, since his definition was not very good, and since it is used in capital letters in other situations than the one he accounted for. Cow Poke relied on a random Quora user to account for a distinction that he used to try to take all focus away from the real content of the thread. He used strong words about me not knowing the distinction.

Unfortunately for Cow Poke, in such situations, when you claim to ride the high horse, you fall extra hard to the ground when it turns out your own "correction" was not well founded.

(and thanks for your comments on my English. I am sure I make errors, and I often feel limited when writing in English since it is a lot harder for me to find the right words to describe what I am trying to say.

One thing to consider is whether Cow Poke, or other evangelicals here, will accept that definition, either in the past of going forward. The topic of the fusion of the secular political sphere with the evangelical faith has been discussed before. (Mark Gali's controversial editorial, Baptists and CRT, American Christian response to civil rights, etc.)

[Charles]

Is John Fea a Christian?

Is John Fea an evangelical?

Or was all the hubub of the capital E just a diversion?

I am pretty sure the author of the OP would say yes to both questions. But I am interested in hearing from Christians here.

You were pretty sure that i would say "yes" and now you can be completely sure: yes.

I would add that First Things describe their policy like this:

We here at First Things capitalize “Evangelical,” not least because it so often appears alongside Catholic and we want a kind of visual parity, and also because they should not have the word to themselves.

Along those lines, and along another example i provided, it is just a diversion. What further speaks to underline the fact that it is, indeed, diversion, is that Cow Poke failed to account for all the situations in which it should or could be capital "E" according to Merriam Webster's dictionary. Thus, even in his diversion, he is not able fully account for it himself and has to rely on a random quora user's definition.

There are currently more than 130 posts in the thread and very, very few try to even adress the points made in the opening post. What further speaks to support the idea that it is diversion is that Cow Poke never has and seemingly never will be able to adress the points in the opening post. He made some unfounded statements about homesexuality only to turn to the capital "E" diversion which has now be revealed to be based on his own (or the random quora user's) very limited understanding of the definitions and use of it.

Happy Easter to all of you.

[Charles]

One thing to consider is whether Cow Poke, or other evangelicals here, will accept that definition, either in the past of going forward. [...]

If Cow Poke or others want to ignore Merriam Webster's dictionary in favour of a random quora user it is their choice. However, their "correction" of others should be seen in the light of them doing so...