Talk:Evangelicalism

Contents

1 Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism? 2 Evangelical Non-denominational organizations 3 Historical 4 Getting this discussion into the article 5 Historical structure 6 Plain and Extended Unicode for Greek 7 Campus Crusade 8 The article on Neo-evangelicalism is similar regarding claims of people and organisations associated with that movement. 9 JC Green cited in Wash Post - should ref be to original article that the Post used? 10 Too American in focus 11 Germany

Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism?

In my experience, evangelicals would contrast themselves with fundamentalists, rather than saying that fundamentalists were a subset of evangelicals, or vice versa. One distinction is that where fundamentalists might say that the Bible is completely inerrant in every detail, evangelicals might say it is infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals in the original manuscripts or autographs. Historically, I think the self-labeled fundamentalists in Protestantism have been around at least several decades longer than the self-labeled evangelicals. They might look almost the same from the outside, but not from the inside. --Wesley

Good points. It's probably more accurate to say there's an overlap and/or a spectrum of belief rather than one being a subset. Also, it should be noted that fundamentalists often don't use that label to describe themselves, since it can be considered perjorative. --Eric

Can I refer you to a recognised philosopher who loves the Lord on what evangelical is ? Check out the writings of Karl Barth. Do not ever forget we are not describing movements here we are talking about words . "Evangelise" is to preach the gospel this is what the word commands - some "chrisitans" do not advocate doing this - putting on the shoes of the gospel , Fundamental - is a being the basis of , serving in/for/as etc.. are not all who preach the word of God - from the Holy Bible not Evangelical Fundamentalists ? - this is what confuses the world we can't agree - I'd call myself many things - Evangelical,Charismatic,Fundamental etc.. I don't like using the any of these words as they are often misinterpreted. Maybe we should start some new search words like - saved, redeemed, God chasers .. sorry , got carried away.. Dee

I, would call myself both a fundamentalist and an evangelical. In the Christian circles in which I have been, people often use the term "fundamental/evangelical". One might consider fundamentalism a more extreme form of evangelicalism. As Wesley has indicated, evangelicals always regard the Bible as infallible in some sense. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, will probably take a more extreme stance on this. I, as a fundamentalist, will tell you that the autographs are completely infallible - the word-for-word perfect Word of God - in ALL senses. Some evangelicals may reject the authority of the Bible in certain areas, such as history, but a fundamentalist will not. However, a fundamentalist might (and I do) interpret certain parts of the Bible figuratively, depending on the context. I have written a statement defining my personal method of interpretting Scripture and it is on the web at http://writings.kennypearce.net/interpret.html. Also, many irrefutably "mainline" Christian denominations consider themselves "evangelical" - most obviously the "Evangelical Lutheran Church or America" (ELCA) - so I have altered a portion of the article that seemed to imply that the terms "evangelical" and "mainline" were mutually exclusive.

-- Kpearce 04:25 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

I understand that evangelical and fundamentalist, when referring to Christianity, used to mean the same thing. 'The Fundamentals' journal published in the early part of last century comprised of articles which were defenses of Biblical Christianity or attacks on liberalism (maybe one and the same thing). I am lead to believe that the designation of some Christians as 'fundamentalists' comes from this journal and, as far as I understand, in this original context, it was interchangeable with Evangelical.

However, fundamentalist now has much more negative connotations (as evangelical used to). In the current era, evangelical is a more positive term than fundamentalist, which I believe is why Christians of that persuasion use the term that they do.

A good reference source on this is the book "Fundamentalism and the Word of God" by J.I. Packer.

Mistertim 05:12 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This is reasonably, but not perfectly, accurate. Curtis Lee Laws, a conservative Baptist who was responsible for editing one of the later editions of 'The Fundamentals' coined the term fundamentalist in 1920, to refer to those Baptists who held to the fundamentals of the faith as outlined in the book, as opposed to the liberal Baptists. As you can see in the article neo-evangelicalism, the term "Evangelical" had already been around for some hundred years when the fundamentalist movement began. Neo-evangelicalism (which is what most Christians mean when they say "Evangelical", although the ELCA is still refering to the old Evangelicalism) is a movement that split from the fundamentalists in the 1940s because they thought that the fundamentalists had become too insular and thus were not having any effect on the world. I would venture to say that modern fundamentalists such as myself are rebelling against certain supposed Neo-evangelicals who are rejecting certain portions of Scripture or allowing false teachings within their church. For instance, I came to consider myself a fundamentalist in part because objected to the inter- (not non-)denominational (but supposedly Evangelical) church I was a member of allowing a woman who did not believe in the virgin birth or the inerrancy of Scripture, and at one point admitted to being uncertain that the historical person Jesus of Nazareth ever lived, to teach an adult Sunday school class. (Just to be doubly clear, the critical issue here was not that she was a woman but that she was a heretic) Since then, I have also been in debate with some members of the American Baptist Church over their practice of ordaining women (of course, this has been going on since before the dawn of the original fundamentalist movement). Religious fundamentalism is by definition a backlash against liberal theology. In Christianity, it has historically been a backlash against liberalization of the two historical "Evangelical" movements, and thus it is closely related to evangelicalism, and fundamentalists often choose to oppose this liberalization from within Evangelical churches, but fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are not interchangeable terms. One might say, as I have said before, that a fundamentalist is a more extreme Evangelical who calls other Evangelicals back to their roots.

kpearce 17:32 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I can't see how a lack of belief in the virgin birth, the historical Jesus, etc is compatible with evangelicalism. In my experience, evangelical has always been used to mean: literally - of the gospel, and practically, one who believes that Christ was crucified, is risen from the dead, has been made both Lord and saviour, and who takes the Bible as the final authority in matters of faith and life (and thus uses the Bible to interpret itself).

I'm not sure where to go with what you've written. It seems a very American-centric view of evangelicalism, which is (of course) a world-wide phenomenon. I'm in Australia, and my experience of evangelicalism is not quite what you describe as fundamentalism, but certainly more than what you describe as neo-evangelicalism. Perhaps we should expand the scope of these articles to acknowledge these differences. What do you think?

Mistertim 23:57 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Mistertim. Evangelicalism has constructed its own peculiar, non-ecclesiastical way of policing the movement, which would certainly exclude those who deny the virgin birth and the historical Jesus. While there is no "official" evangelicalism, the evangelical community has a specific core of beliefs which express a shared identity within a very broad, very loose coalition. Mkmcconn \

While some of those who are on the long evangelical lists of "cults" would call themselves Evangelical, their defense of themselves is consistent in resorting to the safe-sanctuary of the "fundamentals" as proof of their Evangelical credentials. Aberrations multiply at the edges of these "fundamentals" - especially in ecclesiology, doctrines concerning worship, and their understanding of prophecy, healing and other spiritual gifts - but cannot easily touch on the central issues of the Gospel without generating backlash from the community as a whole. Mkmcconn \

There are exceptions. There is no evident consensus concerning Clark Pinnock and other writers of the "Openness of God" (Open Theism, Process Theology movement, for example - in part because of the masterful firsthand and scholarly understanding of the evangelical mind possessed by these writers. However, watching the development of that controversy is an interesting example of how the Evangelical movement watches over itself. Mkmcconn 02:45 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I find this page rather problematic. The majority of evangelical Christians live outwith the United States. The majority of evangelical missionaries are non-American. The historical backgorund of teh evangelical movement is only partially American. But not very much of this is mentioned. None of the parachurch movements described have a role beyond the local (American) context. I would like to do some editing in this respect. Is there agreement ? Refdoc 22:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Evangelical Non-denominational organizations

I have cut out the forllowing organisation as they are purely American and pretty much unknown outwith the USA. I enclose the links here to make it easier to resolve disputes.

Promise Keepers A renewal movement for men

Samaritan's Purse Interdemoninational disaster relief aid

Heifer Project International Agricultural mission help for third world countries

Habitat For Humanity Helping poor families build homes; President Jimmy Carter has worked extensively with them.

Focus on the Family Resources for Christian families, singles, and various age groups, professions

I'm not so sure of the first two, but the latter three are definitely worldwide in scope. Focus on the Family is especially widespread. Habitat for Humanity is spreading fast, possibly in part because of Carter's popularity. Pollinator 23:33, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think there should be a clear distinction between American movements and worldwide movements. An American movement which, based on having (too much) money is spreading outwith the USA is a completely different thing to an organisation which is international from top to toe. It is a question of ownership, style and control. So I would leave the separation as it stands now.Refdoc 23:41, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I cut Intervarsity Christian Fellowship as this is just a small movement within a much larger international movement : IFES . Latter is inserted. I suggest to put an article on ICF into an IFES article or link from there.

It is a curious decision. I cannot at all support it. Whether these organizations are known outside of the United States is not at all relevant to their importance, or their significance in describing and understanding Evangelicalism. Please provide a better reason for removing them; otherwise, clearly, your action ought to be reverted. Mkmcconn 22:53, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What you have done now is much better in my eyes. But I think my explanation is quite sufficient. Organisation which are virtually unknown outwith American evangelical circles can not easily illustrate to the worldwide readership of this encyclopaedia what evangelicalism is about. Further they re-inforce the common prejudice that Christianity is Western and American and Evangelicalism is even more so (which is both manifestly untrue) Refdoc 23:16, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If it helps to satisfy your concern to add that such-and-such a view, institution, or controversy is primarily an American thing, then I agree with you that it is appropriate to insert this qualification, for the reasons you've given. I would only caution that, it cannot be a criterion of value, neutrality, or importance. If it is important in the US, then it is important to en.wikipedia.org, Mkmcconn 23:24, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That is clearly not right. English is the language of the internet as a whole. While the USA is a pretty big country militarily and economically, it is of minor importance within the worldwide Christian church and evangelical community. It is also only a small part of the worldwide English speaking community. The presence of the servers in Florida gives Americans no ownership over the project.Wikipedia is planned to be a worldwide ressource and not just an American thing. Interstingly one of the mainpages says exactly this. I will try and dig out the reference if you need forther convincing. But as I said, I am happy with the current paragraph. I will though have a look at the "personalities" paragraph, if you do not mind. My argument applies there too. Refdoc 23:41, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am not at all opposed to any effort to incorporate all other-than-US views. I am only against deleting material, based upon whether it is equally available to all people regardless of where they live or what language they speak. There is no need to remove US material in order to acheive an international view. Wiki is only accidentally an experiment in social engineering, not by design an instrument of collectivism, internationalism, or anti-Americanism. Mkmcconn 23:49, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure where you got the "Anti-Americanism" from. I just do not think America is very important in the big picture. But you are right. Addition is always better than deletion. Nevertheless, editing is a dynamic process and deletion creates space and forces to think. I was at a loss how to reformulate things - I cut and put them onto the talk page and - hey presto - 10 min later someone had rearranged things to general satisfaction.Refdoc 00:05, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm glad that the issue appears settled for you (I didn't intend to make any accusations about "anti-americanism"); I meant only to say that it shouldn't matter much where the contributions come from, or how far beyond the horizon of their own culture contributors are able to see. Anyway, I for one don't expect people to know more than they know. If the world as depicted here is smaller than it ought to be, to be accurate, we can always widen it. The intention isn't to exclude perspectives (including american), but to aim toward the widest credible inclusion. Mkmcconn 07:23, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The issue could easily be resolved by simply creating a page on Evangelicalism in the US. Palefire

Evangelicalism's greatest strength in the world is probably in South America, but unfortunately we don't have a lot of editors to add information. Perhaps I can find enough to make a start, but it will have to wait a bit, until we are finished moving our home... Pollinator 23:33, 13 Dec 2003

I have written a stub on IFES with a link to Intervarsity. Please feel free to expand on either. Refdoc 23:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Historical

I read this article for the first time today. I agree with its general thrust, but I think it lacks an adequate historical perspective on the semantic changes which have occurred in the last 150 or so years over the word "fundamentalist" and, then, later, when the word "evangelical" came into use. I am not at all aware, for instance, that the founder of one of the schools I graduated from, D.L. Moody, would have considered himself an "evangelical." I don't think the label evangelical was in use during Moody's time. Instead, Moody was a devout fundamentalist, holding to the tenets promoted with The Fundamentals articles. In time, however, the label "fundamentalist" experienced some semantic changes (accelerated in the early to mid 1950's) which caused a number of "historical fundamentalists" (that is, those who would continue to devoutly hold to all of The Fundamentals) to be embarrassed by association with some of the social baggage which had become semantically attached to the label fundamentalist. These historical fundamentlists continued to hold to a high view of Scripture and all the basic historical fundamentalist doctrines, but they did not necessarily accept all of the social semantic coloring which had occurred with the meaning of the word "fundamentalist." I'm not sure how useful it is to label D.L. Moody and others like him who ministered before the mid-1900's as "evangelicals." This is categorizing in retrospect, which is accurate from the viewpoint of current semantics of labels, but not accurate from the point of view of what people were labeled by themselves and others at the time they were ministering. This, of course, is a dilemma for categorization which refers to a range of time wider than we can justifiably use for a fairly constant meaning of some category label. My own suggestion would be to delete reference to Moody and those of his contemporaries as "evangelicals" and, instead, create a different Wikipedia article, if need be, which refers to those who held to the original Fundamentals, and leave it at that, without trying to stretch the category labels too far over time, at least beyond the time during which the labels had their original meanings. I am a lexicographer so I am keenly interested in word meanings and how words change meaning over time. The label "Evangelical" arose relatively recently (within my lifetime, anyway!) out of a sense of a need for some new term to refer to those who continued to be fundamentalist in doctrine, but who did not hold to all of the social positions which came to be associated with many fundamentalists (issues such as opposition to the Civil Rights movement, or opposition to allowing non-Caucasian Bible school students to overnight in the homes of Caucasian Christians when Bible schools would send tour groups to some areas of the U.S., definitions of spirituality consisting of reference to specific kinds of dress or grooming for men and women, such as specific length of sideburns for men, and specific dress lengths for women, and sometimes negative stances toward any version of the English Bible other than the KJV). wleman 02:25, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's only somewhat of an anachronism to call Moody a "fundamentalist"; and it is much less controversial, to label him an "evangelical". It takes very little searching to find his name attached to both terms. In fact, he is considered by some to be in a sense the father of the evangelical movement as it is presented today.

Reading the following piece from Wheaton College's Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals, you would be surprised if Moody were not mentioned (he is mentioned rather prominently). http://www.wheaton.edu/isae/defining_evangelicalism.html Mkmcconn — 22:40, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the Wheaton link. It's an interesting read. Of course, it's not surprising to find the Wheaton article as widely encompassing as it is, since Wheaton has been one of the pillars of the Evangelical movement (along with Moody Bible Institute). I did not read every word, but I have not yet found in it D.L. Moody actually labeled an "Evangelical", at least according to one of the senses of the term in the section in which the label is defined as it is/was used in the 21st century. The article does call D.L. Moody an evanglist and part of the great evangelism movement of his time. I do agree that, in some sense, Moody could be considered a father of the current Evangelical movement, but I do not believe that he would feel comfortable with current senses of the terms Fundamentalist and Evangelical, where Evangelical is, to a large extent, a reaction to the meaning changes which have occurred with the label Fundamentalist. I think Moody would have been perfectly comfortable being called a Fundamentalist, according to how the term was used in his day. I have not yet seen documentation that the term "Evangelical" was used in Moody's time. I would like to see such documentation. My own sense is that the label "Evangelical" is largely a mid 21st century phenomenon, and a reaction to the changes in meaning of the label Fundamentalist. Thanks again. wleman 23:11, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The word "evangelical" is not the new word, that "fundamentalist" is. All protestants are evangelicals in the old sense, that would have been current in Moody's day. And, he was not a "modernist" as that name was coming to be used among evangelicals (protestants). As a matter of fact, Moody Church was originally founded as an Evangelical Church (the denomination).Mkmcconn — 22:07, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Given the importance of the evangelical vote in the elections in the United States, I strongly encourage adding further information regarding the US political context of evangelicalism. I came to this Wikipedia article after reading accounts in major US papers (such as the NY Times) that talked about the potential size of the evangelical vote, and that distinguished between evangelical voters and born again voters. I was mystified about how these two groups were different from each other. This Wikipedia article has not made it any clearer. Since one group was considered much more likely to vote than the other, it seems like a relevant difference that should be explored (unless the NY Times et al. didn't get their facts straight).

My suspicion is that the NY Times is equating evangelical with fundamentalist, or with "Bible-believing Chrisian who holds conservative values" or "right-wing believing Christian" - something like that. Newspapers in Australia also tend to use the word in ways that this article wouldn't help you understand. Part of the problem is that it is a word that carries different connotations depending on who is using it. Mistertim 06:19, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For a lexicographer keenly interested in the history of words, : [leman|wleman] needs to do some checks. I can't comment on the rest of the material, but the statement that "Evangelical" is a modern word is wrong. For example, the UK Evangelical Alliance was founded in 1846.

That sounds modern to me.

Getting this discussion into the article

As the article currently reads, it is somewhat confusing. These two sentences appeared to me to be, on surface, contradictory:

The use of the Bible as the primary source of God's revelation to man, and therefore the ultimate religious authority. (as a defining characteristic) and

Many fundamentalists can also be defined as evangelicals, although not all evangelicals are fundamentalists, because they may not hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Reading the discussion has clarified this question for me. Perhaps we could get a clarifying sentence in there to sum up the discussion, e.g.:

Many fundamentalists can also be defined as evangelicals, although not all evangelicals are fundamentalists: fundamentalism holds to a literal interpretation of the Bible, while evangelicalism may see the bible as theologically or morally infallible without believing in its literal truth.

...Or something. But is my version even fair, or true? I will leave the edit to somebody who treads this terrain better than me, since I am not religious or knowledgeable particularly about evangelicals, and don't feel I can write with authority.

Historical structure

I am starting the 'spine' for historical breakdown of Evangelicalism. There is already an article on Neo-evangelicalism. I will be working on early information in the Americas, but want to bring in the European information also. Do we have any early-church experts about?

Anyone else interested? Join right in.

Robbie Giles 03:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Plain and Extended Unicode for Greek

Some people use browsers that are unable to show the "Extend Greek" Unicode, and others do. So what should be done? I am proposing that for the time being Greek words (or words in other languages) be represented in both simple Greek Unicode as well as "Extended Greek" Unicode (which shows all the breathing marks, accents, and iota subscripts).

Writing Greek words in Unicode should be a simple task. However, it has come to my attention that (as best as I can see) no Microsoft product (Word, IE, Excel, etc.) is fully Unicode compatible, only partially Unicode compatible. Therefore, for those of us who use other browsers that are fully compatible with Unicode (such as Safari and Firefox), we can see the "Extended Greek" Unicode (which has all the accents and breathing marks and iota subscripts) as well as the standard Greek Unicode characters; while many people using Internet Explore complain that the "Extended Greek" Unicode displays in their browsers as simply little boxes or weird characters. For example, the Greek for "the gospel" is given in basic Unicode as "το ευαγγελιον" but in "Extended Greek Unicode" as τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. (If you don't see an upsilon with a smooth breathing mark in the second character of the second word, as well as an epsilon with a accent after the double gammas, then you do not have a browser that is fully unicode compliant, or you do not have a font that is capable of fully displaying the "Extend Greek" character set.)

So, since some of us can see the full character set and want to see the Greek written properly, I propose that we allow the "Extended Greek" Unicode to be placed in parentheses after the plain Unicode word.

Campus Crusade

(Largest missionary organization in the world.) - Where is the source backing this statement? Unless they counted every student who ever signed up with them as a missionary... Refdoc 00:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article on Neo-evangelicalism is similar regarding claims of people and organisations associated with that movement.

Should these be sorted out? Paul foord 08:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Neo-evangelicalism ought to be merged with this "main" article, and a redirect placed on the "Neo-" page. KHM03 11:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Neo-evangelicalism is an term for a specific historical segment of Evangelicalism. This article is well written and is nicely linked to the parent article. I suggest it stays. Robbie Giles 13:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Have clearly referenced to funda and Neo articles Paul foord 14:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

JC Green cited in Wash Post - should ref be to original article that the Post used?

and cited in sources Paul foord 00:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Too American in focus

characteristics and doctrine need to be expanded to reflect diversity & European perspective on Evangelicalism Paul foord 14:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea...isn't contemporary evangelicalism primarily an American phenomenon, though? It has, of course, non-American aspects and variations, etc., but isn't it primarily an American response to liberalism? I would say that the Reformation is primarily a European response to the state of Catholicism in the late middle ages, Methodism primarily a British response to the 18th century Anglican scene, and evangelicalism primarily an American response to liberal theology. Is that a fair assessment? Given that, we would need to place "international evangelicalism" (with fine theologians such as C.S. Lewis, Thomas Torrance, Alister McGrath, etc.) in a proper context. Anyone who knows more about "international evangelicalism" is welcome to correct me or add to this! KHM03 19:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

We are definitely missing an historical and non-US focus. Many seem to describe only the characteristics of current US conservative Christians. They gloss over the rest of the world and use descriptions of the current usage. Unfortunately our main stream weekly magazines have only reinforced the idea of the definition of an "evangelical." --**SIGH**-- Many confuse fundamentalism with Evangelicalism. While all Fundamentalists are Evangelicals, not all Evangelicals are Fundamentalists. One of these years I will get some more historical (European and American) information up. The Barna survey cited erroneously listed the questions asked of the respondents as the characteristics. Sorta like loading the question. I will look for other surveys as well. Robbie Giles 16:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

This phrase has always struck me as rather odd and questionable Many fundamentalists can also be defined as evangelicals, although not all evangelicals are fundamentalists, because they may not hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible. I brought it here for reflection and comment. Pollinator 00:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Germany

The statement about "Evangelical" in Germany meaning all protestants seems to me to be not merely misleading, but completely wrong. Prior to the union of all the protestant churches, "Evangelical" meant Lutheran, and "Reformed" meant calvinist. That the united church of both groups is called "Evangelical" does not mean that this is the original meaning of the term. john k 17:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)