Defining "Evangelical Christian"

[mustrdseedfaith]

I am certain that you would exclude some believers in Christ from preaching some of their erroneous beliefs.

Why would you then permit yourself to do what you object in Catholics? We simply draw our line in a bit closer to Christ than farther.

I’m sorry, I’m a bit confused. Did I say that I objected to something in Catholics? Is so, could you jog my memory and remind me what it was? If I did, I sincerely apologize as it was not my intention. My purpose in being here is to learn more about Catholic doctrine because I have fallen in love with the Church after watching EWTN.

I will add that I have been taken surprised by the number of folks who are quick to tell me what I think, believe, or might do without knowing me personally. Is it because I said I was Anglican? Could they be getting my posts confused with someone else? I’m not sure.

I am also discouraged by the amount of Protestant bashing I encounter. It makes me wonder why I make an effort to speak up on behalf of Catholics when folks say crazy things about you.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sorry, I’m a bit confused. Did I say that I objected to something in Catholics? Is so, could you jog my memory and remind me what it was? If I did, I sincerely apologize as it was not my intention. My purpose in being here is to learn more about Catholic doctrine because I have fallen in love with the Church after watching EWTN.

I will add that I have been taken surprised by the number of folks who are quick to tell me what I think, believe, or might do without knowing me personally. Is it because I said I was Anglican? Could they be getting my posts confused with someone else? I’m not sure.

I am also discouraged by the amount of Protestant bashing I encounter. It makes me wonder why I make an effort to speak up on behalf of Catholics when folks say crazy things about you.

Ah, well then I apologize. It is true that you have said nothing here in this thread which I have read which objects to anything regarding Catholicism.

But I hope you will see how I, too, have been taken by surprise by your response to my very innocuous question.

Let’s just start again and I will ask you if you believe that there are some beliefs that Christians profess which you believe to be erroneous?

 

[Darryl_B]

I’m not really sure how you back this proposition up. There are dead and living evangelical theologians. Some of the more recent names that come to mind are listed below.

Richard Mouw, an evangelical Presbyterian and former president of Fuller Theological Seminary.

John Stott, Church of England cleric and theologian.

Gordon Fee, an ordained Assemblies of God minister, professor emeritus at Regent College in Canada, and noted New Testament scholar.

Wayne Grudem, a Charismatic and Calvinist Baptist, professor, past president of the Evangelical Theological Society, and author of Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine.

N. T. Wright, New Testament scholar and retired Anglican Bishop of Durham.

Alex Jones - Pentecostal minister. youtube.com/watch?v=mxDumU0TSrYhttp://

 

[ltwin]

Alex Jones - Pentecostal minister. youtube.com/watch?v=mxDumU0TSrYhttp://

Nice video. I assume that you bring it up because of what Jones says at 7:40, “calling me out of a very provincial and narrow belief system.” Well, that’s his opinion of his religious background. He may have been an adherent of a narrow and provincial Pentecostalism. I’m sure there are examples of “provincial and narrow” minded Catholics. The existence of narrow-mindedness in some parts of a religious tradition, especially a big tent type of religious tradition (which both Catholicism and Evangelicalism are) is not indicative of the entire tradition.

You said that “traditionally evangelicalism is non intellectual, it is bound by feeling, by simple thesis, and by simple response.” You can hold that opinion, but when you actually look at Evangelicalism as a whole-historically and theologically-it’s hard to come away still holding that opinion.

As Mark Noll writes in America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln, which examines American religion in the 125 years up until the Civil War,

That evangelical hodge-podge must begin with the articulate Congregationalists and Presbyterians, who, because they published so much and occupied such elite social positions, have regularly been allowed to stand for the whole of American theology during this period. That hodge-podge also included Methodists, the most numerous religious movement in America from the Revolution to the Civil War, but a tradition whose historiography until recently has been as weak as its life on the ground was strong. It took in Baptists, “Christians,” Restorationists, and other sectarians whose theology promoted anti-formalist principles that vigorously contested the hegemonic formalism of Congregationalists and Presbyterians. It included African Americans, . . . It also involved . . . Lutherans, German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, and low-church Episcopalians . . . (America’s God, page 5. )

Evangelicalism has and continues to have a broad appeal across denominational and social landscapes. Some of these groups do have anti-intellectual tendencies, but many of them, such as the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Episcopalians certainly do not.

 

[Darryl_B]

Nice video. I assume that you bring it up because of what Jones says at 7:40, “calling me out of a very provincial and narrow belief system.” Well, that’s his opinion of his religious background. He may have been an adherent of a narrow and provincial Pentecostalism. I’m sure there are examples of “provincial and narrow” minded Catholics. The existence of narrow-mindedness in some parts of a religious tradition, especially a big tent type of religious tradition (which both Catholicism and Evangelicalism are) is not indicative of the entire tradition.

My friend, 7:40 didn’t specifically cross my mind in reference to this topic. I considered most of it relevant to the framework of the topic in a generic sense, nothing specific.

You said that “traditionally evangelicalism is non intellectual, it is bound by feeling, by simple thesis, and by simple response.” You can hold that opinion, but when you actually look at Evangelicalism as a whole-historically and theologically-it’s hard to come away still holding that opinion.

I do still come away with that opinion, primarily because I went to an Evangelical Church for 18 years, and I have been listening extensively to Evangelical and Pentecostal preachers, not just in the Church I went to but many many others also. I also even went to the Presbyterian Church almost across the road that seemed as if they had observed the Evangelical movement, and wanted to copy the Evangelical methodologies.

As Mark Noll writes in America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln, which examines American religion in the 125 years up until the Civil War,

That evangelical hodge-podge must begin with the articulate Congregationalists and Presbyterians, who, because they published so much and occupied such elite social positions, have regularly been allowed to stand for the whole of American theology during this period. That hodge-podge also included Methodists, the most numerous religious movement in America from the Revolution to the Civil War, but a tradition whose historiography until recently has been as weak as its life on the ground was strong. It took in Baptists, “Christians,” Restorationists, and other sectarians whose theology promoted anti-formalist principles that vigorously contested the hegemonic formalism of Congregationalists and Presbyterians. It included African Americans, . . . It also involved . . . Lutherans, German Reformed, Dutch Reformed, and low-church Episcopalians . . . (America’s God, page 5. )

Evangelicalism has and continues to have a broad appeal across denominational and social landscapes. Some of these groups do have anti-intellectual tendencies, but many of them, such as the Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Episcopalians certainly do not.

Evangelical has Puritan roots (as do Presbyterian), and their (evangelical) roots are American, I am not sure why the author you quote doesn’t make mention of this. There are the transitional phases, but in general it is an American product. Failing church attendance has forced others to adopt the style searching for relevance in a modern world. I take exception to the reference to Episcopalian, or Anglican in my country, they lost the plot and went in a different direction.

What concerns me is this. If you get a piece of paper, draw three columns and 24 rows. In the first column head it up Denomination, second column Traditional, third column Evangelical, and in the first column write down denominations. Put ticks in the boxes and what you have is an essentially horizontal definition (denominational) suddenly becoming a vertical definition (methodology), why you still not get along!!?

Also Catholics (and Lutherans for that matter) are Evangelical as well. If there is a difference between the Catholic and the (puritan) evangelical movement the problem is not the Catholic.

 

[ltwin]

I do still come away with that opinion, primarily because I went to an Evangelical Church for 18 years, and I have been listening extensively to Evangelical and Pentecostal preachers, not just in the Church I went to but many many others also. I also even went to the Presbyterian Church almost across the road that seemed as if they had observed the Evangelical movement, and wanted to copy the Evangelical methodologies.

What are “Evangelical methodologies”?

Evangelical has Puritan roots (as do Presbyterian), and their (evangelical) roots are American, I am not sure why the author you quote doesn’t make mention of this. There are the transitional phases, but in general it is an American product.

Actually, it emerged in America and Great Britain at the same time. Two of the most important leaders of the Great Awakening were English: John Wesley and George Whitefield. Furthermore, a very similar revival movement existed in continental Europe that was called “Pietism.” Many German and Scandinavian immigrants brought their own Pietist convictions to America, which further blended into the evangelical mosaic.

The reason I quoted this passage is to show that Evangelicalism is not confined to traditions that have historically been deemed “anti-intellectual,” such as Pentecostalism and Baptists. Evangelicalism spans the Protestant spectrum, and includes very intellectual and doctrinally rigorous and precise traditions such as Presbyterians/Reformed and Anglicanism.

To stereotype all evangelicals as Christians who operate without any kind of theological finesse and complexity is to take a radically reductionist attitude to Evangelicalism as a whole, both historically and contemporarily.

I take exception to the reference to Episcopalian, or Anglican in my country, they lost the plot and went in a different direction.

In Africa, many Anglicans are evangelicals and charismatic. It’s not wise to judge worldwide Anglicanism on what’s practiced in America or New Zealand (or other Western countries) alone. Even in America, there are evangelical Episcopalians (though most of them have seemed to join the Anglican Church in North America or other conservative Anglican groups).

I can’t speak to New Zealand, but I know that in the Anglican Church in Australia there is a considerable evangelical presence in the Diocese of Sydney.

What concerns me is this. If you get a piece of paper, draw three columns and 24 rows. In the first column head it up Denomination, second column Traditional, third column Evangelical, and in the first column write down denominations. Put ticks in the boxes and what you have is an essentially horizontal definition (denominational) suddenly becoming a vertical definition (methodology), why you still not get along!!?

To be an evangelical does not require you to disown denominations or traditions. The Southern Baptist Convention is a denomination, and it’s evangelical in theology. An evangelical Anglican is an evangelical identifying with a specific denomination that appreciates church tradition.

Pentecostals and Southern Baptists are both evangelicals, but there are differences related to denomination. Pentecostals believe in speaking in tongues. Southern Baptists don’t believe in it. Southern Baptists believe in eternal security, while Pentecostals generally do not. These are differences due to denominational identity, but both adhere to the central characteristics of Evangelicalism because Evangelicalism is not a narrow set of beliefs but a broad set of convictions located within the bounds of the Protestant tradition.

 

[ltwin]

In Africa, many Anglicans are evangelicals and charismatic. It’s not wise to judge worldwide Anglicanism on what’s practiced in America or New Zealand (or other Western countries) alone. Even in America, there are evangelical Episcopalians (though most of them have seemed to join the Anglican Church in North America or other conservative Anglican groups).

I can’t speak to New Zealand, but I know that in the Anglican Church in Australia there is a considerable evangelical presence in the Diocese of Sydney.

One more thing to add. Trinity School for Ministry (a prominent evangelical Episcopal/Anglican seminary in the USA) has an interesting piece entitled “A Case for Evangelical Anglicanism”. It gives the following definition of Evangelicalism:

*The word “evangelical” is used in many different ways these days, and there is much debate about its meaning. My preference is for J.I. Packer’s six distinctives of evangelicalism, which are endorsed by John Stott and Alister McGrath, all three of whom are prominent evangelical Anglicans.

The supreme authority of Scripture for knowledge of God and as guide to Christian living.
The majesty of Jesus Christ as incarnate God and Lord, and the saviour of sinful humanity.
The lordship of the Holy Spirit.
The need for personal conversion.
The priority of evangelism for both individual Christians and for the Church as a whole.
The importance of Christian community for spiritual nourishment, fellowship and growth.
(See Alister E. McGrath, Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity, Leicester: IVP, 1995, p. 51.).

I understand Packer’s distinctives to mean that these are the Christian doctrines that need to be stressed if we are to keep the Gospel front and center. It is not to belittle any other teachings of the historic creeds, but it is to say that unless these are deliberately underlined, they have a disconcerting way of migrating to the margins of Church life. The Gospel is always unsettling people, and the sinful desire to tame it is ever present. Specifying how that can be avoided is one of evangelicalism’s greatest gifts to the Church.*

There is more to the article. It’s pretty interesting.

 

[_thaddeus]

Hey all Catholic Answers friends. I notice that the topic of “what is an Protestant evangelical Christian?” pops up around here frequently. I always try to do my part to offer insight as best I can, but I admit, my attempted definitions often leave me unsatisfied as being too convoluted. That’s why I’m always on the look out for people who define Evangelicalism in accessible and understandable terms. I was delighted reading evangelical theologian Roger E. Olson’s blog post “Who’s a ‘Real Evangelical?’”

Ran across this a few months ago. You might find it useful for your discussion.

pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangelical-protestant-leaders/

Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project
June 22, 2011
Global Survey of Evangelical Protestant Leaders

"About the Survey

The Pew Forum conducted the survey in nine languages, including English, from August to December 2010. A total of about 4,500 people registered to attend the Third Lausanne Congress, and nearly half completed the survey, using Web and paper questionnaires.

The survey’s 2,196 respondents turned out to closely mirror the full set of leaders attending the congress in terms of region, gender, age and organization type. The organizers of the gathering sought to create a body that was representative of the geographic distribution of evangelicals around the world. Thus, they divided the world into 12 regions and invited delegates in rough proportion to their estimates of the number of evangelicals in each region and country. About six-in-ten of the evangelical leaders surveyed (57%) are from the Global South while about four-in-ten (43%) are from the Global North, including 16% from the United States. They are ethnically and racially diverse: 36% identify as Caucasian, 23% as black, 17% as Asian, 5% as Hispanic and 1% as Arab, with the remainder either not identifying as any of these (10%) or indicating they are of mixed race (7%). But they are less diverse in other ways: Nearly three-quarters of the evangelical leaders surveyed (74%) are employed by churches or other religious organizations, and they are predominantly college-educated, male and middle-aged, with very few under age 30."

 

[Darryl_B]

One more thing to add. Trinity School for Ministry (a prominent evangelical Episcopal/Anglican seminary in the USA) has an interesting piece entitled “A Case for Evangelical Anglicanism”. It gives the following definition of Evangelicalism:

*The word “evangelical” is used in many different ways these days, and there is much debate about its meaning. My preference is for J.I. Packer’s six distinctives of evangelicalism, which are endorsed by John Stott and Alister McGrath, all three of whom are prominent evangelical Anglicans.

The supreme authority of Scripture for knowledge of God and as guide to Christian living.
The majesty of Jesus Christ as incarnate God and Lord, and the saviour of sinful humanity.
The lordship of the Holy Spirit.
The need for personal conversion.
The priority of evangelism for both individual Christians and for the Church as a whole.
The importance of Christian community for spiritual nourishment, fellowship and growth.
(See Alister E. McGrath, Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity, Leicester: IVP, 1995, p. 51.).

I understand Packer’s distinctives to mean that these are the Christian doctrines that need to be stressed if we are to keep the Gospel front and center. It is not to belittle any other teachings of the historic creeds, but it is to say that unless these are deliberately underlined, they have a disconcerting way of migrating to the margins of Church life. The Gospel is always unsettling people, and the sinful desire to tame it is ever present. Specifying how that can be avoided is one of evangelicalism’s greatest gifts to the Church.*

There is more to the article. It’s pretty interesting.

My friend, after much consideration I see that the way you view history is very important to you, and that specific history is even building blocks in your search of God, tied into your belief system. Phrases such as “great awakening” are important to you historically, and I have no desire to detract from that. My conscience tells me I cannot tell you the way I see history you describe, I pray to God for the best for you my friend.

 

[AbideWithMe]

My friend, after much consideration I see that the way you view history is very important to you, and that specific history is even building blocks in your search of God, tied into your belief system. Phrases such as “great awakening” are important to you historically, and I have no desire to detract from that. My conscience tells me I cannot tell you the way I see history you describe, I pray to God for the best for you my friend.

Darryl, I like the way you’ve given a well- considered, thoughtful response. But, really, Itwin has simply given pretty dry facts that aren’t disputed by scholars of Evangelical history, even if they’re not Evangelicals themselves. (Please note that I’m using “Evangelical” here in the way in which the OP intends.)

On the other hand, Darryl–"…building blocks in your search for God…"? Now here you grossly overreach, trespass, and presume.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Ran across this a few months ago. You might find it useful for your discussion.

pewforum.org/2011/06/22/global-survey-of-evangelical-protestant-leaders/

Pew Research Religion & Public Life Project
June 22, 2011
Global Survey of Evangelical Protestant Leaders

"About the Survey

The Pew Forum conducted the survey in nine languages, including English, from August to December 2010. A total of about 4,500 people registered to attend the Third Lausanne Congress, and nearly half completed the survey, using Web and paper questionnaires.

The survey’s 2,196 respondents turned out to closely mirror the full set of leaders attending the congress in terms of region, gender, age and organization type. The organizers of the gathering sought to create a body that was representative of the geographic distribution of evangelicals around the world. Thus, they divided the world into 12 regions and invited delegates in rough proportion to their estimates of the number of evangelicals in each region and country. About six-in-ten of the evangelical leaders surveyed (57%) are from the Global South while about four-in-ten (43%) are from the Global North, including 16% from the United States. They are ethnically and racially diverse: 36% identify as Caucasian, 23% as black, 17% as Asian, 5% as Hispanic and 1% as Arab, with the remainder either not identifying as any of these (10%) or indicating they are of mixed race (7%). But they are less diverse in other ways: Nearly three-quarters of the evangelical leaders surveyed (74%) are employed by churches or other religious organizations, and they are predominantly college-educated, male and middle-aged, with very few under age 30."

Thanks, Thaddeus. I got to read most of the link so far, and it is interesting.

 

[ltwin]

Phrases such as “great awakening” are important to you historically, and I have no desire to detract from that. My conscience tells me I cannot tell you the way I see history you describe, I pray to God for the best for you my friend.

The Great Awakening (or First Great Awakening, since a Second and Third Awakening is sometimes identified as well) is an historical term that is used to designate an historical event. This event was a series of religious revivals that swept through the 13 American colonies beginning in the 1730s and peaked around the 1750s. In England, it was called the Evangelical Revival, and both the American and English revivals helped propel Methodism to tremendous growth. Important leaders in this revival were Jonathan Edwards (New England Congregationalist/Puritan minister), George Whitefield (Church of England minister), and John Wesley (Church of England minister). A similar revival movement began in predominantly German-Lutheran countries called Pietism, which began about the 1630s and peaked sometime in the mid-1700s.

These terms are widely used and really don’t reflect my theological views at all. The reason I use these terms is because they are standard usage. As a Catholic, I guess you can call it the not-so-Great Awakening, but why would you really want to go out of your way to change a well established historical term? The fact is, there was tremendous religious enthusiasm in the 1700s in America, the British Isles, and Europe among Protestants. I think “Awakening” is an accurate description because of the burst of vitality that was experienced by religious institutions and communities.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

These terms are widely used and really don’t reflect my theological views at all. The reason I use these terms is because they are standard usage. As a Catholic, I guess you can call it the not-so-Great Awakening,

We call it Vatican II.

:takeoff: