Evangelicals full of fear

[Mountain Man]

I don't know why Chuck is still trying to defend his use of "Evangelical" when he admits that he made an "oops" and has subsequently claimed that he doesn't want to talk about it any more. For a guy who insists that he wants his thread to stay focused, he's taking it all over the place.

[Cow Poke]

I don't know why Chuck is still trying to defend his use of "Evangelical" when he admits that he made an "oops" and has subsequently claimed that he doesn't want to talk about it any more. For a guy who insists that he wants his thread to stay focused, he's taking it all over the place.

It seems he's much more interested in trying to demean the other fellow, while demanding in his own threads that he, himself, not be demeaned. Yet another hypocrite.

Meanwhile, I've been finding this Fea fellow kind of interesting -- I'm beginning to see why Charles and his Tweb supporters like Fea. Fea appears to model the "acceptable" Christianity that Mayor Pete did.

[Mountain Man]

Fea appears to model the "acceptable" Christianity that Mayor Pete did.

Yep. I posted a link earlier where Fea said that Buttigeig's homosexuality was "much ado about nothing" because Republicans would never vote for him anyway. Do we get to apply that standard to Trump? "Any evils you think Trump has committed are much ado about nothing because you're not going to vote for him anyway." I wonder what Chuck thinks of that?

[Cow Poke]

Yep. I posted a link earlier where Fea said that Buttigeig's homosexuality was "much ado about nothing" because Republicans would never vote for him anyway. Do we get to apply that standard to Trump? "Any evils you think Trump has committed are much ado about nothing because you're not going to vote for him anyway." I wonder what Chuck thinks of that?

That's probably the same article I had read early on where it appeared (with other articles) that John Fea was perfectly fine with homosexuality, which is obviously NOT an "Evangelical" position.

[Charles]

I don't know why Chuck is still trying to defend his use of "Evangelical" when he admits that he made an "oops" and has subsequently claimed that he doesn't want to talk about it any more. For a guy who insists that he wants his thread to stay focused, he's taking it all over the place.

I never claimed I don't want to talk about it any more. It is however not the main issue, and since Cow Poke didn't do to well in that discussion it would be wise of him to discuss the topic. It seems he fears that part even more. It turned out that Cow Poke's idea about the distinction and his description of correct use was limited at best, wrong in some cases. That is why I have no problem with what I wrote back then and why I wonder some of you feel such a need to allow me to continue to point that out.

[Charles]

Charles - I gave ONE EXAMPLE which you seem to think was necessarily intended to be exhaustive and complete. You jump to such illogical conclusions. [...]

You did not present it as an example but an answer to someone asking about the distinction. I understand why, in revisionist history, you would like to create the idea that what you provided was en example since it was limited at best, wrong in some cases. You might want to consider something else than a quora definition by a random user next time.

And it seems you are still spending all your time focusing on the person, Fea, instead of the points he made in the opening post. Seems you still think you can avoid his points if he said other things in other contexts you or I would disagree with.

He must have said something you really find it hard to handle.

[simplicio]

Trolling again? As far as I know, most people alive in the civil rights era are dead or very old. Many attitudes towards MLK has to do with his adultery, so go troll elsewhere.

Most people alive during the civil rights era have passed on, that is true. But the ideas of that era have not.

The attitudes toward MLK focused on adultery and his personal sins, when the question was asked "Was MLK a Bible Christian". But the views here about black Christians and black Baptists were expressed using negative connotations: black Christians and black evangelicals are more likely to emphasize group experiences, more likely to accept "progressive Christianity, more likely to accept ideas like CRT.

[simplicio]

I personally didn't, but to those who do know, the distinction is important (words matter, you know), especially when Chuck used the designation in an attempt to puff up Fea's supposed credentials.

Okay. Do you consider yourself to be uninformed about the Christian faith?

Charles was unaware of the distinction, therefore he is ignorant about the faith. Should we extend the same thinking towards your understanding of the faith?

Fea is an evangelical and a historian (an evangelical with academic chops?????), there was no "puffing up" of Fea's credentials. Here we have a case of an evangelical and an academic who wrote something suggesting that evangelical Christians have cause for reflection and introspection, and might not be the heroes of history they like to present themselves as. When an academic who is an evangelical writes something flattering of evangelical history, evangelicals do not challenges the credentials.

Mark Noll wrote Scandal of the Evangelical Mind a quarter century ago. Noll's observation are are laid bare here.

[Cow Poke]

...and since Cow Poke didn't do to well in that discussion....

I gave ONE EXAMPLE, then followed it up with more, Goofus.

[Cow Poke]

...It turned out that Cow Poke's idea about the distinction...

...demonstrated that you were wrong in claiming Fea was an Evangelical. That fact that you're too proud to admit it is not surprising in the least.

[Cow Poke]

Fea is an evangelical...

That has yet to be established.

[Charles]

...demonstrated that you were wrong in claiming Fea was an Evangelical. That fact that you're too proud to admit it is not surprising in the least.

Nope. As demonstrated repeteadly it as a practice followed by others, among those First Things.

Another interesting thing to note is that now you both claim I was wrong and when I point out your description of the distinction was wrong or limited you claim it only was an example. So you do not want to take responsibility for providing a definition but still feel like what you provided was enough to determine right or wrong. Seems what you would like to claim you provided depends on the circumstances.

But then again, you have also made statements about Fea and failed to support them, even when asked.

[Charles]

I gave ONE EXAMPLE, then followed it up with more, Goofus.

It was not presented as an example at all. Random user definitions on quora should not be taken at face value. Remember that next time.

Anyone can go and see that you certainly did not present it as an example: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post726805

[Cow Poke]

It was not presented as an example at all.

It was.

Random user definitions on quora should not be taken at face value. Remember that next time.

It was an opinion. What you post is opinion. Opinions of Charles should not be taken at face value. Remember that next time.

What you posted, Charles, was a hit piece on Evangelicals by a guy who makes his living writing articles, blogging, and making speeches critical of Evangelicals, and YOU were dumb enough to identify HIM as an Evangelical. Great work!!!

[Charles]

There is a long history of Evangelicals ignoring certain kinds of moral issues. We can go back further, but keep in mind many Evangelicals hail from the Southern Baptist church, a denomination founded on being free as Christians to HOLD and MAINTAIN slaves. A denomination which as a whole was very slow to accept the equality of African Americans or to welcome them into their churches, and which has been very slow to accept the equality of women in ministry, very slow to issue statements condemning abusive statements and actions towards women by its own leaders. And I've watched how certain posters in this thread have demanded 'proof' of Fea's recognition of:

Source: Fea

"What's striking here is that 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.

© Copyright Original Source

It is as if those pretending proof is needed of Fea's observation are ignorant of their own history and positions during the Civil War, during the Suffrage movement, and during the Civil Rights movement - which - in fact -many are.

And the interesting part is that in this case you can mention all that and it is not a criticism of Christianity at all. It is, however, an attempt to learn from history. Seems some fear that as well.