Evangelicals full of fear

[Watermelon]

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:

The interesting discussion here would be questioning what drives our politics?

[oxmixmudd]

Charles was dragged into the E/evangelical dispute by those here making it an issue, he is not 'engrossed in it' beyond that responses of those that are willing to make that a prerequisite to a discussion of any ideas presented. At least that is what I'm seeing.

AFAICT, what you are saying here is justification for what I see as just another attempt to jump on Charles for daring to post Fea's opinion and ask for discussion of it. There are innumerable non-hostile ways to engage and discuss the point made by Fea, or to ask Charles for clarification if clarification is needed. There is no need to spend page after page (I am speaking of the thread as a whole) criticising him, but it is apparently to be preferred by some.

I quite disagree. I am astonished you hold that opinion. It's precisely what isn't in the content of the OP that makes it innuendo.

I recognize you disagree. Perhaps then you could have engaged by explaining why you think Fea's comment is inaccurate rather than joining in on the bandwagon of hostility to Charles?

To me - if a person is critical of the Gospel - my first response is to try to understand why, not to be offended by the fact they view our Lord or our faith that way.

What I see above is continued hostility and criticism that is in line with most of the rest of the thread. I don't blame Charles for limiting his replies.

I have engaged in both making the point Fea has made and defending it many times on this website. And I have engaged Charles on this in my own way, I just chose not to in this thread. But then again, guess what, now you've decided to toss a barb my direction pointing out the general hostility in this thread, and oh so many others.

`95
I'll say again: go to it, what's holding you back? You seem to think "the conservative Christians that frequent this online community" are depriving Charles: go un-deprive him!

Are you sure you are not taking an aggressive posture in your posts in this thread? Though I'll happily divert your attack on Charles to myself if that will give you something else to focus on.

That functions as a somewhat long winded expression of your disgust and disdain for me as a person and for most of the thread's responders as persons. Really top notch Christian stuff, I must say!

A man is busy beating another fellow while others stand around doing nothing, or perhaps adding their own blows from time to time. Another fellow walks onto the scene observing what is happening, and immediately shouts "stop beating him, it is wrong, stop!" and races over to forcefully intervene. And that crowd standing around doing nothing cries out - "stop judging him! It is wrong to be so rough on people"

[Mountain Man]

I'll say again: go to it, what's holding you back? You seem to think "the conservative Christians that frequent this online community" are depriving Charles: go un-deprive him!

And ox still hasn't addressed the OP or given Chuck the discussion that ox thinks he deserves!

Come on, ox, lead by example.

[lilpixieofterror]

And ox still hasn't addressed the OP or given Chuck the discussion that ox thinks he deserves!

Come on, ox, lead by example.

And pass up the chance to play the victim card?

[Cow Poke]

I wonder if Fea (or Chuck as his proxy in this thread) can support such a broad brush accusation like "evangelicals have in almost every circumstance where there's some kind of change in the culture, have not responded with hospitality to the stranger, with grace, with hope, with the idea that people who are different from them have been created in the image of God and have that dignity and worth. Instead they have built their walls and protected themselves against people they fear"?

What "changes in culture" is he referring to, exactly, and why does he think Christians are obligated to accept them?

I gave the example earlier in the thread of homosexuality, because that's one of the areas where Fea thinks the Evangelicals have messed up -- which, in effect, shows Fea is not really an Evangelical.

Yeah, and he misinterprets caution for fear. I resist the homosexual agenda, for example, not because of fear, but simply because it's anti-biblical.

Charles responds with ignorance...

Seems you fear the actual message he has got since you too need to make it about homosexuals. Where did you even get that from?

If all you can get from this is ideas about homosexuality you are really narrow minded. And really concerned to not adress what he is actually saying.

I "got this" from an article Fea wrote where he takes Evanglicals to task for not supporting the homosexual agenda.

Seems Charles is absolutely clueless as to who Fea is, or what he believes.

[firstfloor]

[Watermelon]

I gave the example earlier in the thread of homosexuality, because that's one of the areas where Fea thinks the Evangelicals have messed up -- which, in effect, shows Fea is not really an Evangelical.

Charles responds with ignorance...

I "got this" from an article Fea wrote where he takes Evanglicals to task for not supporting the homosexual agenda.

Seems Charles is absolutely clueless as to who Fea is, or what he believes.

[Cow Poke]

As has been debated in this thread, "Evangelical" can be defined a number of ways, but when used with the capital E, it generally refers to somebody who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Those persons (like me) believe the Bible speaks against homosexuality.

Do certain political positions need to be held in order to be an Evangelical?

That's pretty much what Fea is arguing - that Evangelicals get it wrong, because they're not 'flexible' enough. Abortion and homosexuality are two current "hot issues", and the liberal Christians seem (at least to some degree) to allow both, while Conservative Christians (Evangelicals) believe both are wrong.

There does, indeed, seem to be a political divide, but for good reason.

[Cow Poke]

This claim is a lie foisted by enemies of the Cross. Good to see you, ff.

[Watermelon]

As has been debated in this thread, "Evangelical" can be defined a number of ways, but when used with the capital E, it generally refers to somebody who believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Those persons (like me) believe the Bible speaks against homosexuality.



That's pretty much what Fea is arguing - that Evangelicals get it wrong, because they're not 'flexible' enough. Abortion and homosexuality are two current "hot issues", and the liberal Christians seem (at least to some degree) to allow both, while Conservative Christians (Evangelicals) believe both are wrong.

There does, indeed, seem to be a political divide, but for good reason.

[Cow Poke]

Cool, but when the political positions pretty much line up with the political parties, what do you do? Democrats are becoming more hostile to Christianity, and Republicans more accepting of it. Same with abortion and homosexuality.

I try to base my political positions on what I believe to be fairest for everyone and look to my faith to influence my personal actions.

So, basically, just toss out the Bible and let "fairness" be your guide, eh?

What is the main purpose for pushing Christianity into politics?

I reject your premise.

Is it to create a Christian nation or is it limited to a few specific things?

[Mountain Man]

Homosexuality is not a political issue, it's a moral one.

[RumTumTugger]

Homosexuality is not a political issue, it's a moral one.

As is Abortion

[KingsGambit]

Homosexuality is not a political issue, it's a moral one.

I mean, it is a political one too. Look at how much one of the parties has staked on that aspect of identity politics.

[Watermelon]

Cool, but when the political positions pretty much line up with the political parties, what do you do? Democrats are becoming more hostile to Christianity, and Republicans more accepting of it. Same with abortion and homosexuality.



So, basically, just toss out the Bible and let "fairness" be your guide, eh?



I reject your premise.