Church Attendance/Participation

[HopkinsReb]

I’ve read that link and much more on the topic. Perhaps if you’d like to quibble over semantic pedantry, you should start a thread for it.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Consider The Many Flavors of Protestantism | Catholic Answers

This is fair:

Over time, a number of movements have emerged in Protestantism that cut across these traditions. By the twentieth century, many historic Protestant denominations had become more theologically liberal, though they still contained conservative congregations and individuals. In the 1920s, they came to be known as “mainline” Protestant churches, and they include representatives of all the major Protestant traditions except Pentecostalism.

Mainline denominations were criticized by more conservative ones, who came to be called “fundamentalists” because they favored The Fundamentals—a twelve-volume set of books advocating conservative positions. Over time, the origin of the term was largely forgotten, and today fundamentalist is a term used to refer to very conservative Protestants (as well as members of other groups and even other religions, e.g., “fundamentalist Muslims”). The term also has taken on negative connotations. If someone is called a fundamentalist, it suggests that he is doctrinally rigid and hostile to other viewpoints. For this reason, the term should be used only for those few Christians who apply it to themselves. Otherwise, it becomes an insult that adds more heat than light.

Because of the negative connotations the term acquired, conservative Protestants needed a different and more positive term for themselves, and in the United States they began to call themselves “evangelicals.” This can be confusing since the term evangelical has been used in other senses. In Europe, it is applied to mainline Protestant churches or, alternately, to anyone who strongly favors evangelism (i.e., preaching the gospel).

However, in the United States evangelical generally indicates a conservative Protestant who distances himself from the rigidity associated with fundamentalism, though the term is fluid and not all who identify themselves as evangelical fit this profile.

thanks for reading the link. Jimmy does his homework. In this case, as a convert himself, he speaks from experience.

 

[steve-b]

I’ve read that link and much more on the topic. Perhaps if you’d like to quibble over semantic pedantry, you should start a thread for it.

What is it that Jimmy covered, bothered you?

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

I’ve read that link and much more on the topic. Perhaps if you’d like to quibble over semantic pedantry, you should start a thread for it.

What is it that Jimmy covered, bothered you?

It’s not Jimmy who annoys me.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

HopkinsReb:

I’ve read that link and much more on the topic. Perhaps if you’d like to quibble over semantic pedantry, you should start a thread for it.

What is it that Jimmy covered, bothered you?

It’s not Jimmy who annoys me.

So why then did you write that what he wrote in that link, was quibbling over semantic pedantry ?

 

[HopkinsReb]

Oh, I didn’t.

I said you were.

 

[steve-b]

Oh, I didn’t.

I said you were.

I provided a link.

 

[HopkinsReb]

HopkinsReb:

Oh, I didn’t.

I said you were.

I provided a link.

You also said:

Q:​

Can there really be a definitive term for “mainline Protestant denomination” since no ONE is in charge of any “denomination” and there are soooooo many sects and divisions, and the like in Protestantism to make anyone of them mainline?

Of course, Jimmy says nothing in that article that suggests that the term “mainline Protestant denomination” cannot be definitive. It is. You just wanted to go after Protestantism.

“Mainline Protestant denomination” is a meaningful term. It refers to the old Protestant churches in the US – the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the ELCA, the UMC, etc. Just because there are a bunch of variations and splits off of those doesn’t mean that that group can’t be meaningfully called the mainline.

If you want a thread to argue about whether the divisions in Protestantism preclude the classification’s being meaningful, do so. This is not the thread to do your little anti-Protestant song and dance.

 

[steve-b]

Oh, I didn’t.

HopkinsReb:

I said you were.

I provided a link.

HopkinsReb:

You also said:

Q:​

Can there really be a definitive term for “mainline Protestant denomination” since no ONE is in charge of any “denomination” and there are soooooo many sects and divisions, and the like in Protestantism to make anyone of them mainline?

Of course, Jimmy says nothing in that article that suggests that the term “mainline Protestant denomination” cannot be definitive. It is. You just wanted to go after Protestantism.

Really? Quote it for me.

HopkinsReb:

"Mainline Protestant denomination" is a meaningful term. It refers to the old Protestant churches in the US – the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the ELCA, the UMC, etc. Just because there are a bunch of variations and splits off of those doesn’t mean that that group can’t be meaningfully called the mainline.

Jimmy explained all that in his link.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Really? Quote it for me.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) HopkinsReb:

How in the world can I quote somebody not saying something?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Really? Quote it for me.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) HopkinsReb:

How in the world can I quote somebody not saying something?

what did he say about mainline