What is your definition of Evangelical?

[ltwin]

Glad you agree (in someways) CopticChristian. I tend to think that compared to liberal mainline Protestantism (which has a tendency to devolve into “world peace plus a ‘God of many names’” quagmire), evangelicals and Catholics share a lot of common ground. For example, this would never be tolerated in an evangelical church.

From the Evangelical Manifesto, pp. 5-6:

Evangelicals are therefore followers of Jesus Christ, plain ordinary Christians in
the classic and historic sense over the last two thousand years. Evangelicals are
committed to thinking, acting, and living as Jesus lived and taught, and so to embody this
truth and his Good News for the world that we may be recognizably his disciples. The
heart of the matter for us as Evangelicals is our desire and commitment, in the words of
Richard of Chichester and as Scripture teaches, to “see him more clearly, to love him
more dearly, and to follow him more nearly.”

We do not claim that the Evangelical principle — to define our faith and our life
by the Good News of Jesus — is unique to us. Our purpose is not to attack or to exclude
but to remind and to reaffirm, and so to rally and to reform. For us it is the defining
imperative and supreme goal of all who would follow the way of Jesus.
Equally, we do not typically lead with the name Evangelical in public. We are
simply Christians, or followers of Jesus, or adherents of “mere Christianity,” but the
Evangelical principle is at the heart of how we see and live our faith.

This is easy to say but challenging to live by. To be Evangelical, and to define our
faith and our lives by the Good News of Jesus as taught in Scripture, is to submit our
lives entirely to the lordship of Jesus and to the truths and the way of life that he requires
of his followers, in order that they might become like him, live the way he taught, and
believe as he believed. As Evangelicals have pursued this vision over the centuries, they
have prized above all certain beliefs that we consider to be at the heart of the message of
Jesus and therefore foundational for us — the following seven above all:

First, we believe that Jesus Christ is fully God become fully human, the unique,
sure, and sufficient revelation of the very being, character, and purposes of God, beside
whom there is no other god, and beside whom there is no other name by which we must
be saved.

Second, we believe that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus
Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he
exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins,
credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to
God, and empowers us with his life “from above.” We therefore bring nothing to our
salvation. Credited with the righteousness of Christ, we receive his redemption solely by
grace through faith.

Third, we believe that new life, given supernaturally through spiritual
regeneration, is a necessity as well as a gift; and that the lifelong conversion that results is
the only pathway to a radically changed character and way of life. Thus for us, the only
sufficient power for a life of Christian faithfulness and moral integrity in this world is
that of Christ’s resurrection and the power of the Holy Spirit.

Fourth, we believe that Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude toward the total
truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God’s inspired Word, make the
Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice.

Fifth, we believe that being disciples of Jesus means serving him as Lord in every
sphere of our lives, secular as well as spiritual, public as well as private, in deeds as well
as words, and in every moment of our days on earth, always reaching out as he did to
those who are lost as well as to the poor, the sick, the hungry, the oppressed, the socially
despised, and being faithful stewards of creation and our fellow-creatures.

Sixth, we believe that the blessed hope of the personal return of Jesus provides
both strength and substance to what we are doing, just as what we are doing becomes a
sign of the hope of where we are going; both together leading to a consummation of
history and the fulfillment of an undying kingdom that comes only by the power of God.

Seventh, we believe all followers of Christ are called to know and love Christ
through worship, love Christ’s family through fellowship, grow like Christ through
discipleship, serve Christ by ministering to the needs of others in his name, and share
Christ with those who do not yet know him, inviting people to the ends of the earth and to
the end of time to join us as his disciples and followers of his way.

At the same time, we readily acknowledge that we repeatedly fail to live up to our
high calling, and all too often illustrate the truth of our own doctrine of sin . . .

 

[CopticChristian]

Glad you agree (in someways) CopticChristian. I tend to think that compared to liberal mainline Protestantism (which has a tendency to devolve into “world peace plus a ‘God of many names’” quagmire), evangelicals and Catholics share a lot of common ground. For example, this would never be tolerated in an evangelical church.

From the Evangelical Manifesto, pp. 5-6:

Are you so surprised. Catholicism is the Church founded by Christ. Protestant thought denonimanated and took Catholic teachings and denied 4 basic beliefs. These thoughts were transmitted in time and in the process through denominating the notion of “Evangelicals” as a separate entity apart from that from which they sprang 500 years ago is something new and novel surprises you.

Where do you believe the “Evangelicals” you believe in came from?

 

[Contarini]

The term is indeed complicated. It was originally a label for people who believed in the Gospel as a message of free forgiveness based on faith (I’m putting it vaguely like this, because “sola fide” is a narrower way of defining the concept and some “evangelical Catholics,” like my alias Cardinal Contarini, held to a doctrine of justification by faith which he tried to reconcile with traditional Catholic teaching). The “evangelicals” also tended to be sympathetic with the more radical wing of the “Christian humanist” intellectual movement, calling Christians back to a focus on Scripture and the early Church, to a simpler and more “spiritual” form of worship, etc. Essentially this early “evangelicalism” was the positive side of what we now call “Protestantism,” though there were a number of “evangelicals” who had every intention of remaining loyal to the Catholic Church (Contarini, Bilney, Juan Valdes, Constantino Ponce de las Fuentes), and in one case (Reginald Pole) an evangelical Catholic both nearly became Pope and was involved in persecuting Protestants! Eventually, though, this option was closed off–some “evangelical” values continued in the work of the Jesuits and other reform movements, but anything that sounded remotely like the Protestant message was regarded with great suspicion. Within Protestantism, the term “evangelical” tended to be used particularly by the Lutherans as against the Reformed, though it could also mean Protestantism as a whole. In Germany “evangelisch” still has this meaning, and in America Lutherans still use it in this sense.

What most English speakers mean by “evangelicalism,” though, began in the late 17th century from the twin roots of German Pietism and English Puritanism. These movements, among other things, focused on personal experience in the Lutheran and Reformed theological traditions respectively (there were also German Reformed Pietists, as well as Puritan-like movements in France and Hungary). In the 18th century the Anglo-American world experienced an “evangelical revival” which called Protestants to an experience of conversion and to personal study of Scripture. Subsequent waves of revival followed in the 19th century. Most American Protestant denominations were either created in their present forms by these revival movements (Methodists and Baptists in particular, but many smaller groups as well) or deeply influenced by them (Presbyterians and Congregationalists, for instance–Lutherans, Anglicans, and Dutch Reformed were also touched by revivalism but less deeply). American Protestantism in the 19th century was essentially and broadly evangelical.

But the story doesn’t end here. In the post-Civil-War era, the major American denominations became theologically more liberal and socially more interested in social respectibility (particularly in the case of groups like the Methodists and the Baptists, who had a very “populist” heritage). Thus, in the early 20th century, these denominations fractured into “mainline” and “fundamentalist” wings. The “mainline” denominations tended to be run by the “modernists” even as many of the rank and file, including some clergy, remained more conservative. The “fundamentalists” tended to fight among themselves a lot and to find more unity in what we’d now call “parachurch organizations” (which also ministered to conservatives within the mainline denominations) than in formal church structures.

In the mid-20th century the term “evangelical” had yet another revival, this time as the name for moderates within the “fundamentalist” traditions (or, in some ways of defining it, within various conservative Protestant movements, with fundamentalism being defined more narrowly–but I’m using the term broadly for the sake of simplicity) who sought to overcome the growing anti-intellectualism and sectarianism within fundamentalism while holding fast to the “fundamentals.” These “new evangelicals” began dialogue with mainliners (in fact, many belonged to mainline denominations) and even (horror of horrors to the “real” fundamentalists!) with Catholics. Billy Graham became the major symbol of this kind of evangelicalism.

Today, American evangelicalism looks increasingly fractured. Many of the more conservative neo-evangelicals have since the 80s joined with some of the less extreme fundamentalists in the “Christian Right.” Others have pushed evangelical experientialism and suspicion of tradition in the direction of questioning traditional evangelical attitudes toward the Bible or the salvation of non-believers or matters of sexual morality, leading to concerns that a “new modernism” is growing in evangelical circles. Gerald McDermott expressed this concern in an article in First Things some months ago.

Some people use the word “Evangelical” with a capital letter to mean the more hardline, doctrinaire evangelicals. In that sense it might be possible to be an evangelical Catholic but not an Evangelical Catholic.

You can see from my alias that I very much identify myself with evangelical Catholicism, even though many people on both sides would say that I’m neither one nor the other:shrug:! I see “evangelicalism” as the positive message within Protestantism–a focus on Scripture and on personal appropriation of the saving message of the Gospel through living faith. I do not believe that, so understood, it is in conflict with Catholicism, and in fact I think that attempts to create an evangelical dogmatic structure independent of Catholicism have failed miserably.

Edwin

 

[ltwin]

Are you so surprised. Catholicism is the Church founded by Christ. Protestant thought denonimanated and took Catholic teachings and denied 4 basic beliefs. These thoughts were transmitted in time and in the process through denominating the notion of “Evangelicals” as a separate entity apart from that from which they sprang 500 years ago is something new and novel surprises you.

Where do you believe the “Evangelicals” you believe in came from?

It doesn’t surprise me; I know where evangelicalism comes from. What surprises me is that you are not demeaning the beliefs of evangelicals as being sub-Christian or something because we deny the universal authority of the CC. I’m sure you never would do that, but my experience here has been that some Catholics can be very dismissive of evangelical forms of Christianity.

 

[Izdaari]

Evangelical in American popular use (it probably differs elsewhere in the world) generally refers to a loosely organized group of non-liturgical Protestant churches that are more conservative theologically than the mainline liberal churches but less conservative than the fundamentalist churches. Evangelical churches, if they are political at all, are usually conservative in that too, but not necessarily.

 

[Publisher]

Evangelical in popular use generally refers to a loosely organized group of non-liturgical Protestant churches that are more conservative theologically than the mainline liberal churches but less conservative than the fundamentalist churches. Evangelical churches, if they are political at all, are usually conservative in that too, but not necessarily.

Friend you speak my mind…Church of the Savior and Sojourner’s in Wash. DC would be…“evangelical” but are very politically active seeking social justice and living according to very scriptural principles of simplicity, peace, justice and ministry.

 

[Izdaari]

Friend you speak my mind…Church of the Savior and Sojourner’s in Wash. DC would be…“evangelical” but are very politically active seeking social justice and living according to very scriptural principles of simplicity, peace, justice and ministry.

Interesting, I didn’t know about that one. It sounds like they’d be on board with Tony Campolo, a well-known politically liberal evangelical, whom I greatly admire. However, I’m politically libertarian and don’t believe that government is the best means for pursuing social justice, which is where I differ from Campolo at least.

 

[Publisher]

Interesting, I didn’t know about that one. It sounds like they’d be on board with Tony Campolo, a well-known politically liberal evangelical, whom I greatly admire. However, I’m politically libertarian and don’t believe that government is the best means for pursuing social justice, which is where I differ from Campolo at least.

I think you would find Sojourner’s Magazine interesting…Their position on many issues are along that of Tony Campolo…they tend to lean more toward Mr. Compolo’s wife when it comes to social justice and GLBTQ people.

Church of the Savior is one of the “oddities” of “Evangelical church comunity”…they are theologically conservative in many different ways…but “socially liberal” where they seek social justice for all pepole regardless of their religious views of them as people.

 

[Izdaari]

I think you would find Sojourner’s Magazine interesting…Their position on many issues are along that of Tony Campolo…they tend to lean more toward Mr. Compolo’s wife when it comes to social justice and GLBTQ people.

Church of the Savior is one of the “oddities” of “Evangelical church comunity”…they are theologically conservative in many different ways…but “socially liberal” where they seek social justice for all pepole regardless of their religious views of them as people.

Sounds interesting, thanks!

 

[Nicea325]

Was just in a class where we discussed how there is no one uniform definition for this, and it is commonly used in the press without really knowing what it means. What would you say “Evangelical” means and is it possible to be an Evangelical Catholic?

We should all be evangelizing…sharing the Good News,especially the baptized.

 

[krahnicles]

Was just in a class where we discussed how there is no one uniform definition for this, and it is commonly used in the press without really knowing what it means. What would you say “Evangelical” means and is it possible to be an Evangelical Catholic?

There is one uniform definition that encompasses Evangelicals everywhere, although there are some distinctions between Evangelicals in different parts of the world- not in belief or doctrine, but in terms of where you’d expect to see them and what you’d expect them to do. In Central and South America, for example, the Evangelicals are the people who meet in house churches and small groups and will probably knock on your door at some point. It’s not quite like that in North America.

An Evangelical is someone who believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. “Evangel” and “Gospel” are basically synonymous. Theologically, the Five Solas are adhered to, and culturally, there’s less of a tendency to remove oneself from society and more of an emphasis on making a positive impact in your culture, community, and so forth. Obviously, that does present itself a little differently depending on the culture and community. Historically, there’s a Reformation heritage, as this was where the term initially entered widespread use. (Luther wanted to be called an Evangelical, not a Lutheran).

With the exception of the Solas and the historical tendencies, Catholics can be kind of Evangelical in some sense. It’s not feasible to give a stamp of approval to that combination of terms in every way, at least not without an overabundance of qualifications. But it is important to acknowledge the great amount of overlap that does exist and detail the ways in which the pairing has validity.

 

[CopticChristian]

There is one uniform definition that encompasses Evangelicals everywhere, although there are some distinctions between Evangelicals in different parts of the world- not in belief or doctrine, but in terms of where you’d expect to see them and what you’d expect them to do. In Central and South America, for example, the Evangelicals are the people who meet in house churches and small groups and will probably knock on your door at some point. It’s not quite like that in North America.

An Evangelical is someone who believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. “Evangel” and “Gospel” are basically synonymous. Theologically, the Five Solas are adhered to, and culturally, there’s less of a tendency to remove oneself from society and more of an emphasis on making a positive impact in your culture, community, and so forth. Obviously, that does present itself a little differently depending on the culture and community. Historically, there’s a Reformation heritage, as this was where the term initially entered widespread use. (Luther wanted to be called an Evangelical, not a Lutheran).

With the exception of the Solas and the historical tendencies, Catholics can be kind of Evangelical in some sense. It’s not feasible to give a stamp of approval to that combination of terms in every way,

I love how generous you are. This is the same mindset in Protestant thought designating who is and who is not Christian. Well, some Catholics are Christian.

Here you believe since you have a self designated small part of the Catholic Faith from which your thought was spawned that you can now designate and provide a stamp of approval…:banghead:

I am amused. Your assessment is fraught with self-centered polarized thinking that is part and parcel of the unenlightened Protestant that has yet to discover its roots.

Reality check here. The OHCAC is the parent from which all Protestant thought has sprung, recall Knox, Zwingli, Luther were Catholic priests and Calvin was a Catholic lawyer. The Church of England was Catholic. Recall that Anglicans spawned Methodists…spawned the holiness movement…the hoiness movement spawned the Pentacostals and I believe all of the modern day groups like the Evangelicals…to put things in perspective Evangelicals retain a remnant of Methodism and since the Original Evangelicals are the OHCAC, it is no surprise that you manifest one element of the OHCAC. Try a different perspective before you stamp anything grade AA.

 

[Contarini]

We should all be evangelizing…sharing the Good News,especially the baptized.

“Evangelical” and “evangelistic” do not mean the same thing at all, though obviously evangelicals tend to be very evangelistic and the two terms are linked by the common root of the Gospel or “evangel”!

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

“Evangelical” and “evangelistic” do not mean the same thing at all, though obviously evangelicals tend to be very evangelistic and the two terms are linked by the common root of the Gospel or “evangel”!

Edwin

Of course in the Protestant world so much has different meanings.

 

[krahnicles]

I love how generous you are. This is the same mindset in Protestant thought designating who is and who is not Christian. Well, some Catholics are Christian.

Here you believe since you have a self designated small part of the Catholic Faith from which your thought was spawned that you can now designate and provide a stamp of approval…:banghead:

I am amused. Your assessment is fraught with self-centered polarized thinking that is part and parcel of the unenlightened Protestant that has yet to discover its roots.

Reality check here. The OHCAC is the parent from which all Protestant thought has sprung, recall Knox, Zwingli, Luther were Catholic priests and Calvin was a Catholic lawyer. The Church of England was Catholic. Recall that Anglicans spawned Methodists…spawned the holiness movement…the hoiness movement spawned the Pentacostals and I believe all of the modern day groups like the Evangelicals…to put things in perspective Evangelicals retain a remnant of Methodism and since the Original Evangelicals are the OHCAC, it is no surprise that you manifest one element of the OHCAC. Try a different perspective before you stamp anything grade AA.

This is bad.

 

[Contarini]

Of course in the Protestant world so much has different meanings.

This isn’t a Protestant/Catholic thing. It’s a “confusing two words with similar roots” thing.

“Evangelical” has a thoroughly traditional Catholic meaning, which is still not the same thing as evangelization. For instance, one might speak of the “evangelical counsels” such as poverty. “Evangelical” in the traditional Catholic sense seems to mean something like “following the teachings of Jesus strictly and wholeheartedly.”

That, too, is something all Christians should be and do!

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

This isn’t a Protestant/Catholic thing. It’s a “confusing two words with similar roots” thing.

“Evangelical” has a thoroughly traditional Catholic meaning, which is still not the same thing as evangelization. For instance, one might speak of the “evangelical counsels” such as poverty. “Evangelical” in the traditional Catholic sense seems to mean something like “following the teachings of Jesus strictly and wholeheartedly.”

That, too, is something all Christians should be and do!

Edwin

No, it is a Protestant/Catholic thing. Protestants have different understandings of different terms. Case in point: The Church

 

[Contarini]

No, it is a Protestant/Catholic thing. Protestants have different understandings of different terms. Case in point: The Church

We are talking about the word “evangelical.” I don’t dispute that Catholics and Protestants have a different definition; I dispute that Catholics don’t distinguish between “evangelical” and “evangelistic.”

But of course, I already said this in a previous post, which I ignored.

Why do I think that I can communicate with you when you have frequently refused to communicate rationally or civilly in the past?

I guess one can always hope. . . .

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

We are talking about the word “evangelical.” I don’t dispute that Catholics and Protestants have a different definition; I dispute that Catholics don’t distinguish between “evangelical” and “evangelistic.”

But of course, I already said this in a previous post, which I ignored.

Why do I think that I can communicate with you when you have frequently refused to communicate rationally or civilly in the past?

I guess one can always hope. . . .

Edwin

Refuse to communicate rationally or civilly? Seriously? Opinions vary my friend because others here would disagree with you. At times it seems you are here merely to stir the pot against Catholicism regardless if you acknowledge it or not…

 

[krahnicles]

Refuse to communicate rationally or civilly? Seriously? Opinions vary my friend because others here would disagree with you. At times it seems you are here merely to stir the pot against Catholicism regardless if you acknowledge it or not…

I’m with Contarini on this one. He has a valid point. You might not always be intentional in coming across that way, but you do. It is what it is. Do what you like with it.