What is an evangelical anyway?

This question popped into my mind while responding in another thread. The term "evangelical" was being tossed around like everyone knew what it meant. I took the definition as "someone who evangelizes," or someone who spreads information, especially about Christianity. But then I realized something: that is redundant!

There are a few hard tenets of the Christian faith: one must be "born again" (although there are varying interpretations of exactly what that means), one must trust in Jesus (the Christ... that is not His last name, but rather His title), and one must help spread the Gospel (the "Good News") of Jesus. If anyone has not been "born again," denounces or refuses to acknowledge Jesus as their Savior, or refuses to tell others about Jesus, they are not practicing Christianity. Of course, anyone can call themselves anything, but calling oneself something does not make someone something.

Everything else beyond those tenets is subject to interpretation, and we have plenty of that. Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Holiness, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Jehovah's Witness, Church of Christ, Church of God... and more! There seems to be no end to the potential denominations and all disagree on what I see as minor points... but all accept those three tenets.

I looked up the definition of "evangelize." This is what I found:

e·van·ge·lize
/əˈvanjəˌlīz/

verb:

convert or seek to convert (someone) to Christianity.
"some small groups have been evangelized by Protestant missionaries"

preach the Christian gospel.
"the Church's mission to evangelize and declare the faith"

Source

So to evangelize is indeed to spread the Word of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ. That would mean "evangelical" would be "one who spreads the Word of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ."

That's everyone who is Christian. That is one of the tenets of the religion.

Now, I need to say something here before the flamethrowers get turned to "inferno": that does not mean we are supposed to force anyone into anything. Those who do try to enact law based solely on their own Christian beliefs are not, I believe, acting in the manner God intended. Christianity involves a personal relationship with a very real, very active God, a relationship only possible through acceptance of Jesus' message. We all differ in that respect; my relationship with God is not going to be the same as another Christian's relationship with God. Why? Because we all have different talents, different needs, and different aptitudes. The idea of standing up in front of a congregation every Sunday and preaching to them would drive me crazy; others embrace it. We have different relationships with God. I care not a whit about traveling to some third world country and ministering to the natives; others delight in doing that. We have different relationships. I see myself as a type of bridge between those who do not yet know God enough to come to church and those who do... I live my life, open about God's love and acceptance, and only talk religion to those who ask. That's my relationship.

I will admit that the recent amount of anti-Christian rhetoric I have seen has changed that some; I do tend to be a bit more talkative about my faith as of late in response... not necessarily to convert others, but more to try and at least set the record straight when I see the faith, my faith, misrepresented. I'm still not going to be making altar calls... that's the preacher's job.

The point I am trying to get across is that in order to actually become a Christian in more than name only (which means absolutely nothing), one must accept Jesus freely, of their own free will, without coercion or threat of force. Laws do not do that. Laws are forced compliance and are incompatible with exercise of free will. Without free will, any "conversion" means nothing.

Of course we have zealots who go too far. So does every other group. But they are not the majority, nor are they to be looked to as relevant examples of the rest. They are outliers. I do not wish any laws to be passed requiring any religious adherence whatsoever; I will not presume to usurp God's gift of free will.

But I will talk to people, explain things to people, help people... that is evangelizing.

Anyway, I googled the phrase "What is an evangelical." This was one of the first results:

It’s the question that has launched thousands of tweets, hundreds of blog posts and even a handful of books - what’s an evangelical? Obviously, this query is central to a lot of the work being done in the area of religion and politics. It’s no secret that evangelicalism has become deeply intertwined with a certain strain of conservative politics over the last several decades, further blurring the lines between theology and ideology. But despite that ever-growing linkage, it seems that most observers of American religion still see the term as primarily denoting spiritual matters.

However, the data is beginning to coalesce around an entirely different conclusion: that the term “evangelical” has broken away from its roots as a sub-genre of Protestant theology and has now morphed into a social, cultural and political term that stretches far beyond the boundaries of Christianity. In fact, the term “evangelical” is now being embraced by religious groups that do not believe in any of the tenets of an orthodox evangelicalism.

Most surveys that tap into American religion ask two different types of questions about tradition. One is, “What is your current religion, if any?” and they are presented about a dozen response options such as Protestant, Catholic, Mormon, Muslim or Atheist. We typically call this an affiliation measurement. However, in addition to this question, polls also ask, “Would you describe yourself as a ‘born again’ or evangelical Christian, or not?” That question is asked to every respondent, even if they didn’t indicate a Christian attachment in the prior query and is labeled as “self-identification.”

Thus, the combination of these two questions can illuminate a seemingly incongruent fact: there are evangelical Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus in the United States. It’s best to begin broadly: Have these groups increased in size over the last decade?

Wait, say what? how is it possible to be a Christian and not in some way evangelize? How can one believe in Jesus, love Jesus, and at the same time deny Jesus continually? They can't; it is an oxymoron. But here we have someone (a religious organization no less, based on their self-proclamation) who claims that such an oxymoron is possible. They also say that non-Christians can evangelize... OK, I can agree that non-Christians can spread their views, sure, but the term "evangelize has always been associated with Christianity.

>> continued >>

originally posted by: TheRedneck
(Sorry, hit the wrong button... content is coming)

TheRedneck

An Evangelical is what the Apostles taught people to be. They tell people the good news about Christ, exactly as is written in scripture. Some doctrines are slightly different due to understandings, or lack of. People need to read and study what the Bible says

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: TheRedneck
(Sorry, hit the wrong button... content is coming)

TheRedneck

An Evangelical is what the Apostles taught people to be. They tell people the good news about Christ, exactly as is written in scripture. Some doctrines are slightly different due to understandings, or lack of. People need to read and study what the Bible says

So by your explanation, an evangelical is someone who can read and maybe tell someone else what that book says?

That could have been useful when most people could not read. Also a very good way to not actually let the people understand what is in that book. That is why it was illeagle to publish the Bible in anything but latin for hundreds of years in some countries.

So, how are they useful now?

A loudmouth religious kook who is not content being happy with their beliefs but instead needs to constantly remind you of their faith.

Sort of like vegans or cross fitters.

>> continued >>

But this is what caught my eye:

However, in addition to this question, polls also ask, “Would you describe yourself as a ‘born again’ or evangelical Christian, or not?”

I have heard that question, verbatim, many times. My answer is always "yes." I am a born-again Christian, saved by the blood sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ and the Son of God, and I will not deny Him. How could any actual Christian not? If they answered "no" they would be denying Jesus!

I have seen many quite hateful articles written about these "evangelical Christians"... they mention some of the big-name, well-known preachers of recent times... Jerry Falwell for instance. And these articles analyze the actions and statements of these well-known (and often despised) "Christian leaders" (There is only one Christian leader; His name is Jesus) and apply that to anyone who would consider themselves an "evangelical Christian." In other words, all Christians who practice the faith.

And the results are pretty telling. Instead of understanding the redundancy, it seems an awful lot of people make the assumption that since "evangelical Christians" are mentioned, there must be "non-evangelical Christians." The only way this could happen is if those "non-evangelical Christians" do not actually practice the Christian faith. but this false narrative, which has grown into common use in recent years, is being used to make a hard distinction between not evangelicals and other Christians, but between actual Christians and those who merely call themselves Christians. Actual Christians are lumped into the same category as anyone who professes to be an actual, practicing Christian and uses that as a deception to mislead others.

In this way, all actual, practicing Christians are being systematically (and undeservedly) demonized. I for one will no longer let the duplicitous nature of term "evangelical Christian" stand without challenge... and I recommend, neither should you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Wow... you managed to get a shot in before you even knew what I was going to say.

Way to out yourself. Please do not troll my thread. This is not the Political Mud Pit.

TheRedneck

a reply to: beyondknowledge

So, how are they useful now?

Why do people advertise books in general?

I have found that most people who have issues with the Bible have not read it, and those who have read any of it have only read small verses and didn't understand the context.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Wow... you managed to get a shot in before you even knew what I was going to say.

Not hard to do when you've encountered Evangelical Christians in the wild. They cannot keep their mouths closed about how much they love Jesus and that you need to as well.

It's like people going on about fad diets or exercise regimes, they don't have any moderation whatsoever.

a reply to: TheRedneck
I always prefer to define words by going back to the original meaning.

In etymology, it derives from the word for "gospel".
Historically, it goes back to Luther's time, when it referred to the Reformers.
So traditionally "Evangelical" is the opposite of "Catholic". Somebody who trusts in the New Testament, and focusses on salvation by faith, as against someone who gives equal status to tradition and focusses on ritual actions.

Traditionally, even liberals counted as evangelical, not being Catholic. There was an accepted distinction between "conservative evangelical" and "liberal evangelical".

Current usage is probably looser.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I repeat, do not troll my thread. What part of that are you not understanding?

I'm looking for a conversation, not a bash-fest.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

You trying to gatekeep where I can post? My opinion on the subject is just as valid or invalid as anyone else's. I find them to be the more loathsome of the organized religion types because of their constant proselytizing. By their very description their mission is to actively engage people to join their particular form of Christianity.

You're not 'spreading the word of the Gospel' if your objective is to avoid trying to convert people.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, my 2 cents:


The new "meaning" of Evangelical Christian is generally a Protestant Christian who will not compromise their faith and accept all this Progressive non-sense, perversion, and degeneracy and sticks to their beliefs.

The leftist HATE this type of Christian because they will not give in or compromise their beliefs and either agree with them or shut up about it.

That about sums it up.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Ah! I learned something! It didn't occur to me to look up the entymology of the word.

I believe the Latin word was evangelista dating from the 1530s and yes, assorted with the Martin Luther breakaway of the protestants from Catholicism? I remember learning about that period; the Bible was considered "too Holy" to be read by the common man (not that many could read anyway) and had to be interpreted by the Church.

I agree: the original meaning should be followed; many atrocities have started throughout history by people trying to redefine the common meaning of words. So based on that, Catholics are "non-evangelical" by definition, but they are "born again." So in answer to the question, "Would you describe yourself as a ‘born again’ or evangelical Christian, or not?," would they still not answer "yes"? And would that not lump them in with the Protestants?

It seems that question is purposely equating "born again" with "evangellical," and then "evangelical" can be equated with the worst Christianity has to offer... effectively condemning the entire religion.

Thanks for the input.

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I am trying to keep you from dragging this thread off topic as you have done so many times in the past. If you can post something relevant, fine. But your normal tactic of finding some tangent topic and then dragging the thread away from its topic is not going to happen unchallenged here.

Your very first post was well before I even completed the OP, and didn't address anything about the topic.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

My comments are 100% on topic, you just don't like them because they are the truth. Here, listen to this winner instead:

Lastly, evangelicals for the most part, are fully involved in proselytizing (conversion). They are active in engaging the conversion experience. To sum up, Evangelical Christians take their Christianity very serious and to a large degree more than their counterparts—mainline Christians. Took all of three seconds to find this

Straight from the horse's mouth.

ETA: This is also setting aside their insane Bible literalism and ultra-conservative ideologies.

a reply to: infolurker

The new "meaning" of Evangelical Christian is generally a Protestant Christian who will not compromise their faith and accept all this Progressive non-sense, perversion, and degeneracy and sticks to their beliefs.

The leftist HATE this type of Christian because they will not give in or compromise their beliefs and either agree with them or shut up about it.

That's where I am going with this as well. And, since many who are demonizing "evangelical Christians" are elected government officials, is that not violating the First Amendment?

That's why I say we should correct this redundancy at every step. No good can come of it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Now, Evangelical is also a reference to someone trying to convert others to a different philosophy or opinion.


Example: Evangelical Atheist

www.abovetopsecret.com...

An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of). When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one.

Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just dont talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their perogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'.

2. An Evangelical Atheist is a person that is an atheist and tries to spread atheism amongst theists. It is derived from Evangelism, meaning "Spreading Good News" as practiced by Christianity. Due to the rise of the Conservative Christian movement in the United States of America and the increase of humanistic thought, along with the increased blending other many different religions, Atheism has become more and more popular. Evangelical atheist usually seeks to "convert" borderline theists, often by engaging in debate with fundamentalists.

And then of course the crazy ones that want to stomp out everyone else's beliefs and free speech (Pretty much Progressive Democrats)

Nevertheless, some of the brightest minds in the English-speaking world right now argue that religion is the problem. And we know they’re the brightest minds because they keep telling us they are. The New Atheists are positively evangelical. They want to make a convert out of you, although if you’re a “dyed-in-the-wool faith-head” they’ll settle for peppering you with insults and sarcasm instead.

What is most worrying is that the New Atheists seem to gain the most followers precisely among the most ambitious and intelligent young people—the people who will be actively shaping government policy in the years to come. Attracted by the intellectual rebelliousness of the movement, young people fall for its insidious message: "Join us and you can be one of the smart people".


What we call the “New Atheism” is a bit different than its predecessor. It’s more aggressive, and it has more power. The leaders of the sect are well placed in the academic world, and they have a strong determination to mold government policy.

And you wouldn’t like the government if the New Atheists molded its policy. Richard Dawkins has asserted that teaching your religion to your child is a form of child abuse and should be criminalized. Other New Atheists have argued that churches should have to post a sign reading “for entertainment purposes only,” since after all they’re no less a fraud than telephone psychics.

The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion.

a reply to: TheRedneck
In other words, "evangelical" is being given the overtones that used to be associated with "fundamentalist". Whatever happened to that word?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: infolurker

The new "meaning" of Evangelical Christian is generally a Protestant Christian who will not compromise their faith and accept all this Progressive non-sense, perversion, and degeneracy and sticks to their beliefs.

The leftist HATE this type of Christian because they will not give in or compromise their beliefs and either agree with them or shut up about it.

That's where I am going with this as well. And, since many who are demonizing "evangelical Christians" are elected government officials, is that not violating the First Amendment?

That's why I say we should correct this redundancy at every step. No good can come of it.

TheRedneck

The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion.

a reply to: TheRedneck
You are right of course, but that word has morphed, especially in my lifetime, to single out a specific type of Christian. Those who "specialize" or focus on proselytizing others. People such as Arthur Blessit, who became famous for it among the Christian community, but any street preachers, "evangelical" ministers, and even those who just witness a lot.

It is just a descriptive word to many Christians, but is often used in a derogatory way by non-Christians. The first time I heard it used the latter way was back in the 70's during the "Jesus movement" to describe the street preachers.

You know how it is in this country. No word is sacred (no pun intended), meanings morph over time with no regard for correct usage, pronounciation, or even spelling.