Difference between Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestant

[Jon_S_1]

Some are like that. In fact, some evangelicals can be about as sectarian as Fundamentalists. However, given how conservative theologically evangelicals tend to be, they are highly non-sectarian in attitudes. I would wager there are more who hold the position that the church is larger than Evangelicalism than believe that only people like them are saved.

Now, that does not mean they think Catholicism is a bed of roses, only that they believe a Christian and a Catholic are not mutually exclusive terms.

I see this side too.

Many Evangelicals when pressed will hold a broad view, but in their day to day they tend to try to save everyone into the Evangelical tradition…especially Catholic. That’s been my experience. I remember being thrilled when my wife and I had friends start going to an Evangelical Church. We both commented that maybe God used us to help save them out of the Catholic Church but those same friends we would have hoped they were saved while Catholic. It was sort of the belief that as long as they had a personal relationship with Christ they were fine, but its hard to do that outside the Evangelical church. That was our thinking…how wrong we were.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I did say in my post that things might have changed since we converted.

I know that there were and are a great many Evangelical Protestant teachers and clergy who challenged us to open up the fortress doors and go OUT into the world and influence culture, rather than hiding in the fortress and complaining about the culture.

I think that perhaps it’s finally “taking,” and Evangelical Protestants are finally “getting it”–that they can’t “evangelize” without being friends with non-Christians!

Back in the 1970s, Rebecca Manley Pippert wrote a classic book called Out of the Salt Shaker and Into the World: Evangelism as a Way of Life. I’ve heard this book recommended by Catholic teachers for Catholics.

Campus Crusade taught something called “Friendship Evangelism.”

Ann Kiemel also wrote some wonderful books back in the 1970s; the one I remember is I’m Out To Change My World, and it’s all about “friendship evangelism.”

The problem was (and is) this: when Evangelical Protestants try to go out into the world and be '“friends” and try to influence culture for the good, other Evangelical Protestants back in the churches criticize them for “mixing” and warn about becoming corrupt and falling into sin. They also criticize those who mix because many of the worldly activities (e.g., organized sports, organized arts, community volunteer projects, etc.) take a lot of time and money, and Christians aren’t supposed to spending so much time and money on “worldly pursuits.”

Many Evangelical Protestants think that Christians should be spending most of their time and money in CHURCH-led outreaches to non-Christians. They don’t really buy into the idea that we can join a community choir, or get our kids involved with AYSO soccer, or volunteer for the local music festival, or go hiking with a group of local birdwatchers–and call this “evangelism.”

We took a lot of criticism for getting our daughters involved with figure skating. This is a sport that involves daily practices, usually for at least an hour or two everyday, and lots of money. And also, the sport means tight-fitting costumes. I’m not kidding you, folks–we got blasted by other Evangelical Protestants! But thankfully, our good pastor, who had been a missionary in Viet Nam for almost 20 years (got out two weeks before Saigon fell) told us to keep skating because we represented Jesus Christ at those rinks! He GOT it, and understand what it means to be “Evangelical.” He shut people up!

Anyway, I’m glad things are changing, although I still think that Evangelical Protestants are making a mistake to relax the “no-drinking” culture. To me, a group of people who don’t drink but still have a blast at parties is interesting and appealing to many people in the world who have had bad experiences with alcohol culture. But that’s my opinion, and I fear that I am in the very tiny minority.

Cat, I think that it’s good for Evangelicals to still be cautious about alcohol. Personally, I don’t drink at all. While I wouldn’t condemn moderate drinking, I’d be very uncomfortable if alcohol was served at, say, a church picnic. Sometimes I’ve seen people here quote the Bible to support alcohol use, but, while I don’t think moderate drinking is inherently wrong, I do think we need to remember how much of terrible problem drunk driving is. In earlier times, if a drunk person headed out to home on horseback or in a cart, at least the horse still had some horse sense left; a horse will take great pains to keep from running into, or over, a person in its path. An impaired driver behind the wheel of a car is a whole different story, though. I personally know at least a dozen people who were killed or severely injured by drunk drivers. For that reason, though light at-home drinking, or very light drinking at a restaurant with a meal doesn’t bother me, I don’t feel uncomfortable around people do any heavier drinking than that.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I see this side too.

Many Evangelicals when pressed will hold a broad view, but in their day to day they tend to try to save everyone into the Evangelical tradition…especially Catholic. That’s been my experience. I remember being thrilled when my wife and I had friends start going to an Evangelical Church. We both commented that maybe God used us to help save them out of the Catholic Church but those same friends we would have hoped they were saved while Catholic. It was sort of the belief that as long as they had a personal relationship with Christ they were fine, but its hard to do that outside the Evangelical church. That was our thinking…how wrong we were.

I think this is one if those “your mileage may vary” things, JonS. First, I think a lot of Evangelicals are pretty lazy about, or uncomfortable with, evangelism. I count myself among those. I’ve been on the receiving end of friendly conversion efforts from a Catholic, JWs, Mormons, and a Jewish man. I personally found the fact that they had some sort of conversion agenda in mind for me made the relationships more difficult in numerous ways. I realize as a Christian I probably shouldn’t be saying this. But, anyway, my negative experiences with someone trying to convert me have made me ponder about how to “represent Jesus Christ” to my non-Christian friends without having an agenda.

While this probably isn’t the best idea, what I’ve ended up doing is just letting people know one way or another that I’m a Christian. I lay that on the table, so to speak. If they became curious and approached me to talk about Christianity, then I’ve talked more about my religious beliefs. Frankly, I realize this probably is not an example of being an ideal Christian, evangelistically speaking, but, laying the fact of my Christian commitment on the table and leaving it at that has encouraged three very lost and lapsed Catholics to approach me to talk, and I’ve sent them back to their own Church. My relatives on my dad’s side are Jewish, and we (my immediate family) don’t tty to convert them to Christianity. But, over the years they’ve shown that they’ve really come to respect my family’s Christian beliefs.

 

[andrewstx]

Cat, I think that it’s good for Evangelicals to still be cautious about alcohol. Personally, I don’t drink at all. While I wouldn’t condemn moderate drinking, I’d be very uncomfortable if alcohol was served at, say, a church picnic. Sometimes I’ve seen people here quote the Bible to support alcohol use, but, while I don’t think moderate drinking is inherently wrong, I do think we need to remember how much of terrible problem drunk driving is. In earlier times, if a drunk person headed out to home on horseback or in a cart, at least the horse still had some horse sense left; a horse will take great pains to keep from running into, or over, a person in its path. An impaired driver behind the wheel of a car is a whole different story, though. I personally know at least a dozen people who were killed or severely injured by drunk drivers. For that reason, though light at-home drinking, or very light drinking at a restaurant with a meal doesn’t bother me, I don’t feel uncomfortable around people do any heavier drinking than that.

Abidewithme, I agree that drinking in moderation is the way to go. and I rarely have one or sometimes two glasses of wine and I leave it at that. Can’t even remember the last time I had spirits.

BUT… I don’t believe that one drink will make someone an instant alcoholic as many of my Evangelical family members do. One drink can be a risk for some, but we can’t live our lives free from risk. We take risks when we ride in or drive a car, when we breathe second hand smoke. But life goes on.

The Catholic and Orthodox churches both teach moderation and that those who drink to excess are sinning for sure.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I think this is one if those “your mileage may vary” things, JonS. First, I think a lot of Evangelicals are pretty lazy about, or uncomfortable with, evangelism. I count myself among those. I’ve been on the receiving end of friendly conversion efforts from a Catholic, JWs, Mormons, and a Jewish man. I personally found the fact that they had some sort of conversion agenda in mind for me made the relationships more difficult in numerous ways. I realize as a Christian I probably shouldn’t be saying this. But, anyway, my negative experiences with someone trying to convert me have made me ponder about how to “represent Jesus Christ” to my non-Christian friends without having an agenda.

While this probably isn’t the best idea, what I’ve ended up doing is just letting people know one way or another that I’m a Christian. I lay that on the table, so to speak. If they became curious and approached me to talk about Christianity, then I’ve talked more about my religious beliefs. Frankly, I realize this probably is not an example of being an ideal Christian, evangelistically speaking, but, laying the fact of my Christian commitment on the table and leaving it at that has encouraged three very lost and lapsed Catholics to approach me to talk, and I’ve sent them back to their own Church. My relatives on my dad’s side are Jewish, and we (my immediate family) don’t tty to convert them to Christianity. But, over the years they’ve shown that they’ve really come to respect my family’s Christian beliefs.

I like your approach. I never saw much value in aggressive proselytizing. It seems like being the hands and feet of Jesus to those in need is the way to go.

 

[Cat]

Cat, I think that it’s good for Evangelicals to still be cautious about alcohol. Personally, I don’t drink at all. While I wouldn’t condemn moderate drinking, I’d be very uncomfortable if alcohol was served at, say, a church picnic. Sometimes I’ve seen people here quote the Bible to support alcohol use, but, while I don’t think moderate drinking is inherently wrong, I do think we need to remember how much of terrible problem drunk driving is. In earlier times, if a drunk person headed out to home on horseback or in a cart, at least the horse still had some horse sense left; a horse will take great pains to keep from running into, or over, a person in its path. An impaired driver behind the wheel of a car is a whole different story, though. I personally know at least a dozen people who were killed or severely injured by drunk drivers. For that reason, though light at-home drinking, or very light drinking at a restaurant with a meal doesn’t bother me, I don’t feel uncomfortable around people do any heavier drinking than that.

I agree with you, but I tend to get into a lot of trouble on CAF whenever the issue of alcohol comes up, so I’ll avoid taking this thread off subject and talking about alcohol use pros and cons.

However, on the topic–I think we are rapidly arriving at a place where alcohol is no longer a wall between Evangelical Protestants and Catholics, and between Evangelical Protestants and “the world.” This crumbling of the wall is a good thing for Evangelical Protestants, and will hopefully lead them towards unity with the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus Christ established. (Note–I do not think that the use of alcohol by Evangelical Protestants or Catholics is a good thing, but the breaking down of the walls between them IS a good thing.)

I do not think that Fundamentalist Protestants will be imbibing any time soon, so what I think what will happen is that conservative-thinking Evangelical Protestants who believe that alcohol use is sinful (that would be people like me and my husband) will be joining Fundamentalist churches as a refuge from the “alcohol using Evangelical Protestant churches.”

These new ex-Evangelical Protestant members will strongly influence their Fundamentalist churches to be less “separatist” in the area of cooperating with other Christian churches. The first activity that they will cooperate with other churches on will be the various pro-life activities that are visible to the public. (As I said earlier, Fundamentalist churches and Christians are generally pro-life, and they do good works to stop abortion and help women in crisis pregnancies–but they don’t generally get involved with activities that include other non-Fundamentalist churches, especially Catholic churches. Instead, they tend to work in private on pro-life activities. I say this because I don’t want to give people the incorrect impression that Fundamentalists are neutral about the issue of abortion. They are pro-life.)

This lessening of the separatism will slide the Fundamentalist churches closer to unity with the Catholic Church, although I think they will still be further away than the Evangelical churches.

But we’re getting there. The Lord knows what He’s doing! Christian unity was the main topic of Jesus’ prayer (in John 17), so I think that we always need to strive for it in our churches and in our relationships with other Christians. Separatism is not a good thing.

 

[BeProfOSX]

Hello all,

I’ve been a lurker here for a while and this is a topic that I believe I can shed some light on. It will be a bit longish, and I apologize for that, but I think that a thorough overview of where these various terms came from can be helpful in understanding their modern usage.

Background: I am a former Fundamentalist. I am now an evangelical. I am not anti-catholic, but neither am I catholic. I consider you to be my brothers and sisters in Christ, without reservation or qualification, but separated brothers and sisters.

Fundamentalism is a term that has a specific origin in the modernist-fundamentalist controversies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that tore through the older, and at the time larger, protestant denominations of what we now call the mainline. Without going into too much detail, this was the era that saw the beginnings of both the higher criticism and liberal theology.

A series of essays were written and published to defend what the conservative elements within those denominations saw as the non-negotiables of the Christian faith. These essays were gathered together and published in a 12 volume collection called “The Fundamentals.” Those who subscribed to the views contained in The Fundamentals took to calling themselves Fundamentalists and, later, evangelicals (as a nod towards Martin Luther.)

From that point, up through the 1950s, the terms Fundamentalist and evangelical were interchangeable. Then came Billy Graham’s move towards working with the larger Christian community, including mainline Protestants and even (gasp!) Catholics. For the old school, hard-core Fundamentalists, this was beyond the pale. They started referring to Graham and the more socially liberal evangelicals who came after him as “neo-evangelicals.” That’s where the split in those terms came from. What we today call evangelicals are really just the neo-evangelicals of the past.

As has been pointed out before, the issue that mainly separates the two camps is the issue of separation. It’s not that evangelicals don’t believe in it (although, on the far liberal fringe of evangelicalism, that can certainly be said.). It’s that evangelicals only practice separation in the first degree. An evangelical ministry, generally, will not associate itself directly with any ministry that it does not consider faithful to the essential, non-negotiable truths of the Christian faith. The same can be said for Fundamentalist ministries. Where it gets different, however, is that Fundamentalists, generally, won’t associate with any ministries that don’t also separate themselves from other non-Fundamentalist ministries. Fundamentalism has become, in essence, a club where Fundamentalists can associate with other Fundamentalists who themselves only associate with other Fundamentalists. Associate yourself with one non-Fundamentalist ministry and the whole club will disassociate themselves from you.

An example: My church’s youth group often has combined worship services with the youth group of the local United Methodist church because, while some UMC churches have gone off the deep end, this one hasn’t. A Fundamentalist would never do that. All it takes is for one church to step out of line and for the denomination to refuse to discipline that church, and the Fundamentalists will write off the whole denomination.

There is also a growing difference between the two regarding the Catholic Church. Fundamentalism is extremely, rabidly, anti-Catholic. It is commonly held and still preached on a regular basis in nearly every Fundamentalist church that the Pope is the anti-christ and that true Christians can have nothing to do with Catholics. Evangelicals, especially since the days of Chuck Colson and Richard John Neuhaus’s ground breaking paper, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” have largely moved past that. You still hear some anti-catholicism floating around, but it’s rarely mentioned from the pulpit. The general tenor is, “There are some things we agree on. There are some things we disagree on. We agree, mostly, on the basics. We agree, mostly, on the main political issues. Let’s just move on and work together to protect life.”

Bebbington (in “Evangelicalism in Modern Britain”) notes four distinct characteristics of what he calls, “Evangelicalism” (as opposed to “evangelicalism” which is more ill-defined):

1 - The central importance of a personal conversion experience
2 - A high view of scripture.
3 - An emphasis on the crucifixion as an atoning sacrifice.
4 - A belief in being actively engaged with the prevailing culture.

That definition has been extremely influential both within and without evangelicalism. A Fundamentalist would have no problem signing off on the first three, but the fourth point would have to be replaced with “A belief in strict separation from the prevailing culture.”

 

[duneman]

George, I’m surprised by the prejudice and misinformation in this post. I’m not terribly surprised, because prejudice, like horse manure, happens. It’s unfortunately an illness that can infect almost anyone if they are not careful.

But what really surprises me is this: a religious minority (a Catholic in the South), I would guess that you were sometimes the recipient of other people’s prejudice. What baffles me is that, if you did experience prejudice, you didn’t let that negative experience teach you to refrain from perpetuating a way of regarding others that you know to be harmful and denigrating. I would have expected of you that, as a Catholic, you would have let any
experience of being on the receiving end of prejudice make your heart more tender and resolved to to not “screw others over as they have screwed you”.

george is not being prejudiced, he is just stating facts…

 

[duneman]

Having been raised and educated in the Deep South, perhaps I can shed some light on the subject.
Evangelical Christian sects believe in Sola Scriptura, being “Born Again”, Faith Healing, Speaking in Tongues just as do the Pentacostals, but are a bit more or less restrained and are more “Protestant Main Stream” in their beliefs and practices.
Pentacostals are the wilder of the two and are more likely to have “tent meeting revivals” that have given them the nickname “Holy Rollers”. Both sects are virulently anti-Catholic and to a certain degree anti-Semetic, considering Jews to be “Christ killers”. The congregations are mostly lower blue collar class people of limited education. One does not find many college graduates in either sect and that includes their Clergy -unless you consider graduating from a 2 year Bible College to be a college education.

think you are correct… you will be accused of being prejudiced , this is not true… you are just stating facts… and if facts are correct and they hurt a particular group… sorry !!!

 

[ltwin]

think you are correct… you will be accused of being prejudiced , this is not true… you are just stating facts… and if facts are correct and they hurt a particular group… sorry !!!

The problem is that George Stegmeir did not state “facts.” Where are his “facts?” All I see are his own opinions, and they are prejudiced opinions. He says he grew up in the South and knows about evangelicals and Pentecostals. However, several of his statements betray a profound lack of understanding of both evangelicals generally and Pentecostals specifically. This means one of three things: 1) Mr. Stegmeir is not as familiar with evangelicals as he claims or 2) he is exercising his prejudice or 3) both 1 and 2.

1. He says “Evangelical Christian sects believe in Sola Scriptura, being ‘Born Again.’” This is true enough. But then he goes on to say that evangelicals believe in “Speaking in Tongues just as do the Pentacostals, but are a bit more or less restrained and are more “Protestant Main Stream” in their beliefs and practices.” This is patently false. Speaking in tongues is the main practical difference between Pentecostals and other evangelicals. Generally, while there are exceptions, a Pentecostal practices speaking in tongues. A non-Pentecostal evangelical will not.
2. Then he says, "Both sects are virulently anti-Catholic and to a certain degree anti-Semetic, considering Jews to be “Christ killers.’” I’m sorry but I am not seeing “virulent anti-Catholicism” in evangelical circles. Is there “anti-Catholicism” in evangelicalism? Yes, but anti-Catholicism does not define evangelicalism. And if you know anything at all about the typical evangelical, you would know that we are far from anti-Semites. We believe that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed.
3. He then makes the claim that “The congregations are mostly lower blue collar class people of limited education. One does not find many college graduates in either sect and that includes their Clergy -unless you consider graduating from a 2 year Bible College to be a college education.” I’m sorry that is just ignorant. Evangelicals are found in all socioeconomic groups. There are Evangelical Episcopalians and Evangelical Presbyterians. Are you going to accuse their clergy of being theologically ignorant?

Yours truly,
The virulently anti-Catholic, Jew-hating, uneducated, holy rolling,
LTWIN

 

[Jon_S_1]

The problem is that George Stegmeir did not state “facts.” Where are his “facts?” All I see are his own opinions, and they are prejudiced opinions. He says he grew up in the South and knows about evangelicals and Pentecostals. However, several of his statements betray a profound lack of understanding of both evangelicals generally and Pentecostals specifically. This means one of three things: 1) Mr. Stegmeir is not as familiar with evangelicals as he claims or 2) he is exercising his prejudice or 3) both 1 and 2.

1. He says “Evangelical Christian sects believe in Sola Scriptura, being ‘Born Again.’” This is true enough. But then he goes on to say that evangelicals believe in “Speaking in Tongues just as do the Pentacostals, but are a bit more or less restrained and are more “Protestant Main Stream” in their beliefs and practices.” This is patently false. Speaking in tongues is the main practical difference between Pentecostals and other evangelicals. Generally, while there are exceptions, a Pentecostal practices speaking in tongues. A non-Pentecostal evangelical will not.
2. Then he says, "Both sects are virulently anti-Catholic and to a certain degree anti-Semetic, considering Jews to be “Christ killers.’” I’m sorry but I am not seeing “virulent anti-Catholicism” in evangelical circles. Is there “anti-Catholicism” in evangelicalism? Yes, but anti-Catholicism does not define evangelicalism. And if you know anything at all about the typical evangelical, you would know that we are far from anti-Semites. We believe that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed.
3. He then makes the claim that “The congregations are mostly lower blue collar class people of limited education. One does not find many college graduates in either sect and that includes their Clergy -unless you consider graduating from a 2 year Bible College to be a college education.” I’m sorry that is just ignorant. Evangelicals are found in all socioeconomic groups. There are Evangelical Episcopalians and Evangelical Presbyterians. Are you going to accuse their clergy of being theologically ignorant?

Yes I think you are right on Ltwin

The evangelical church I went to had 20 pastors on staff. All had four year degrees and Masters degrees from a evangelical seminary. They were well educated.

Also, I would say the majority were upper middle class to flat out wealthy.

Still wrong on doctrine but not as was characterized.

 

[andrewstx]

Yes I think you are right on Ltwin

The evangelical church I went to had 20 pastors on staff. All had four year degrees and Masters degrees from a evangelical seminary. They were well educated.

Also, I would say the majority were upper middle class to flat out wealthy.

Still wrong on doctrine but not as was characterized.

I think it all depends on the denomination. I was raised in a fundamentalist sect that had absolutely no requirements when it came to education. If you could get the elders to hire you, then you were a preacher. They also did not ordain anyone. This group is very popular in the South in some towns more popular even than the Baptists.

To some of them theological education is considered a hindrance, my own Father poo pooed the fact that my priest and friend had a doctorate from Yale. His only comment was “does he know the bible”, to which I replied Isn’t it better to go to someone more educated and knowledgeable than your self?

This group does not operate one single seminary, but they do have “bible colleges”.
In fact one of there preachers constantly remarked that “they should call them cemetaries, because that is where they bury your faith in God”. He went to a "bible college.

 

[ltwin]

I think it all depends on the denomination. I was raised in a fundamentalist sect that had absolutely no requirements when it came to education. If you could get the elders to hire you, then you were a preacher. They also did not ordain anyone. This group is very popular in the South in some towns more popular even than the Baptists.

To some of them theological education is considered a hindrance, my own Father poo pooed the fact that my priest and friend had a doctorate from Yale. His only comment was “does he know the bible”, to which I replied Isn’t it better to go to someone more educated and knowledgeable than your self?

This group does not operate one single seminary, but they do have “bible colleges”.
In fact one of there preachers constantly remarked that “they should call them cemetaries, because that is where they bury your faith in God”. He went to a "bible college.

Well, many mainline Protestant seminaries will make you lose your faith in God or at least your orthodoxy.

On a serious note, yes there are fundamentalists and evangelicals with uneducated clergy. I don’t see this as inherently harmful. There are a lot of people who can preach the gospel and pastor a church just fine without having a degree. And there are some people with a degree I wouldn’t let teach my dog much less actual people.

Having said that, I’m not against higher education (I’m a graduate student after all), and I even applied and got accepted to the AG’s theological seminary (though I chose to study history instead of theology and chose a secular institution to do it in).

Pentecostalism is another denomination that is generally assumed to be anti-intellectual. Growing up Pentecostal, I can tell you that getting an education was my parents number one priority for me in life (other than becoming a follower of Christ). So, I’m particularly sensitive to people who make broad generalizations like “evangelicals don’t like education” or “evangelicals are generally uneducated Bible-thumpers.”

So we should all avoid extreme negative stereotypes about any particular group of people. Portraying all evangelicals (clergy and laity) as ignorant rednecks is stupid because it’s so obviously false (not saying that’s what you’re doing. Mainly referring to other posts on this thread).

P.S.: Have you guys heard the Pentecostal preachers’ joke about the meaning of D.D.? “Dumb Dog” LOL

 

[andrewstx]

Well, many mainline Protestant seminaries will make you lose your faith in God or at least your orthodoxy.

On a serious note, yes there are fundamentalists and evangelicals with uneducated clergy. I don’t see this as inherently harmful. There are a lot of people who can preach the gospel and pastor a church just fine without having a degree. And there are some people with a degree I wouldn’t let teach my dog much less actual people.

Having said that, I’m not against higher education (I’m a graduate student after all), and I even applied and got accepted to the AG’s theological seminary (though I chose to study history instead of theology and chose a secular institution to do it in).

Pentecostalism is another denomination that is generally assumed to be anti-intellectual. Growing up Pentecostal, I can tell you that getting an education was my parents number one priority for me in life (other than becoming a follower of Christ). So, I’m particularly sensitive to people who make broad generalizations like “evangelicals don’t like education” or “evangelicals are generally uneducated Bible-thumpers.”

So we should all avoid extreme negative stereotypes about any particular group of people. Portraying all evangelicals (clergy and laity) as ignorant rednecks is stupid because it’s so obviously false (not saying that’s what you’re doing. Mainly referring to other posts on this thread).

Ah, but I did not portray all Evangelicals as ignorant rednecks, just that one “undenominational” denomination that I was brought up in. I have respect for Evangelicals, I just don’t agree with them on every point.

OTOH my own family was and is uneducated rednecks. When I left that sect they disowned and disinherited me for “leaving Christ and his church”. They don’t speak and the only way I hear from them is when my crazy stepsister has a letter to the editor published. My dad operated a gas station and that is it. The highlight of his life was when he and step-mom made a trip to Nashville. It is not only the Vatican of his sect it is to him the place with the only real music.

I am the only member of my family who has a college education.

 

[ltwin]

Ah, but I did not portray all Evangelicals as ignorant rednecks, just that one “undenominational” denomination that I was brought up in. I have respect for Evangelicals, I just don’t agree with them on every point.

I didn’t say you portrayed them as ignorant rednecks. But George Stegmeir certainly did with this statement:

“One does not find many college graduates in either sect and that includes their Clergy -unless you consider graduating from a 2 year Bible College to be a college education.”

Setting aside the question of clergy, there are many evangelicals with undergraduate and graduate degrees in all kinds of fields. And there are many highly educated evangelical theologians. N. T. Wright, the Anglican bishop of Durham and renowned New Testament scholar, is an evangelical!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Evengelical - Mild crazy

Fundamentalist - Super crazy

 

[Cat]

Evengelical - Mild crazy

Fundamentalist - Super crazy

As an ex-Evangelical Protestant and a current Catholic, I wouldn’t recommend holding onto this attitude, let alone stating it in public.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Evengelical - Mild crazy

Fundamentalist - Super crazy

As an ex-Evangelical Protestant and a current Catholic, I wouldn’t recommend holding onto this attitude, let alone stating it in public.

Hey, why waste one’s time reading the informative, factual posts provided by other people? IgnatianPhilo has thoughtfully summed up right here all anyone needs to know. Even if he can’t spell Evangelical, I know an expert when I see one.

 

[ltwin]

Even if he can’t spell Evangelical, I know an expert when I see one.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Evengelical - Mild crazy

Fundamentalist - Super crazy

This deserves a LOL