Would you consider this person an evangelical?

[angus]

There is a guy named Steve. He was raised a Methodist and is still a member of The United Methodist Church. On Sunday's he attends an Episcopal church. When he visits his Catholic brother he attends a Catholic church, where he is friends with the priest there. He has never spoken ill of another Christian denomination. He has never claimed to be a part of the Christian-right, nor has he ever affiliated himself with any evangelical group. He has never belonged to an evangelical church in his life.

He does however pray regularly, and is open about his faith. He often seeks guidance in the Bible. For this he is accused of being a fundamentalist wacko, a follower of Robertson and Falwell.

Is he evangelical?

I'm not a Greek major, but as I understand the term, it means something like:  relating to, or being in agreement with the Christian gospel especially as it is presented in the four Gospels.

so, yeah.  but then I'm no religious scholar.  Anyone know what the word 'evangel' or 'evangelical' means?  Here's a webster's definition:  emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual.

once, again.  yes.

Ilikeverin, what you smoking?  It's not an insulting term, or shouldn't be.  It's like Socialism, or Fascism, Republican, or Democrat.  Just a word that, while having emotionally charged nuance to some, needn't be an insulting word to anyone.

[angus]

Zen, on the other hand, refers to 'enlightenment through direct meditation'

Funny how all these different sects of Buddhism bash each other, calling each other 'the lesser vehicle' and 'elitist' and 'bastardized forms of true buddhism'

apparently different sects of christianity do that too.

Nothing wrong with being Zen.  Nothing wrong with being Evangelical.

the more I read your post, the more convinced I am that he is an evangelical protestant.  and there's nothing wrong with that.  So tell those assholes calling him wackos to get their minds out of the gutter.  They're intolerant.  I smell the beginnings of a Final Solution with regards to the Christian Right.  Y'all better step up to the plate and speak out if you don't want yourself marginalized by those intolerant 'secularists' and rounded up and sent off to gas chambers.  You're thinking:  No, it can't happen here.  Think again.  It can.  I'll speak out as much as I can, but being an agnostic I can't say that have a personal investment in the matter.  You'd better speak out for yourselves.

(end of rant)

[angus]

And to rant a bit from the other side:  Just don't start trying to replace the teaching of science in public schools with religion.  You'll just engender more intolerance if you try to blur the line of separation between church and state.  Not that the intolerance is excusable, but, under those circumstances it's predictable.

Also, see the article I stole from the Dallas Morning News in the "Democrats and Religion" thread. 

And I'm not with Dibble on this one.  We're so goddamned politically correct that we're afraid to call a spade a spade.  If he's truly 'evangelical' as we understand the word.  Then why not embrace it?  Just like a Zen Buddhist is no more or less Buddhist than other Buddhists, or just as Wahabbi Muslims are no more or less Muslim than other Muslims, and just as Reform Jews are no more or less Jewish than Orthodox Jews, Evangelical Christians are no more or less Christian than Roman Catholics or Mormons or Mainstream Protestants, or Copts or anyone else. 

[angus]

okay, this time for real:  end of rant 

[angus]

Yeah, but you gotta realize the manifestations of Calvinism in this country (e.g., Southern Baptist Convention, BMAA, etc.) are about a world apart from the calvinists in the 'bible belt' of Holland, for example (as the dutch refer to Limberg, etc.)  Day and Night.  Also, you're right that the Romans bastardized Christianity in a way that might be offensive to the purists, but that doesn't make Catholics any less Christian than Protestants.  Again, this is the same silliness that goes on in all religions.  The fighting in Iraq, for example, once we leave will be an example of this phenomenon.  Just watch.  Surely, neither the Christ, nor the Buddha, nor the Prophet Mohammed, nor Moses would want to see such intra-religious squabbles and some sects calling other sects 'lesser vehicles.' 

[angus]

Hmmm.  Seems I'm in over my head.  I find Religion, like economics and politics, a fascinating subject, but I always manage to humiliate myself when I get around religious (or economic or political) scholars.  At the risk of further embarassment, I thought that, since they seemed to agree on predestination, the main point of contention between Luther and Calvin was simply a controversy about the Last Supper, and a general disdain, by the latter, of scholasticism.  In this sense, aren't SBC and BMAA churches somewhat calvinistic?

[angus]

so you call Calvin the true Reformer?  and calvinism the true christianity?  you dismiss other forms of protestantism as bastardized in some way?  And where does that leave Mormons, Copts, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox Christians?  That is, does your brand of Christianity put them with the Muslims, Jews, Hindu, atheists and various other infidels?  At least in terms of lacking grace or salvation?

[angus]

I have a confession to make. The guy's name isn't Steve, it's George. He was born in Connecticut, moved to Texas, and now he lives in Washington D.C.(1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to be exact).

Still think he isn't evangelical?

clever.  very clever.

I still say it depends on your definition.  I was trying to get someone to give me one.  I found several in the dictionary that fit, but I'd like to hear a good definition from a person who really considers themselves to be an evangelical christian.  If such a person could provide a definition, then maybe we could put this issue to rest.

What's George's definition?  I'll leave it up to him to say.

[angus]

you're thinking quite a bit about lions lately

screw it, I say Steve, or George, fits every definition I've seen of 'evangelical' including NHpolitico's.  but I am generally in a slim minority on this thread.  not unusual. 

By the way NHpolitico, I believe Clinton was the only Southern Baptist president we have had.  As far as I know, Bush is not.

I think I read that Reagan was the first candidate to use the phrase "born again."  And he did so effectively against Walter Mondale, who would not claim to be "born again" in a debate in 1984.  I have not read that the current president uses the phrase.  Still, he fits the descriptions you outline in 2-4, and in the Webster's definition I presented earlier.  And, from a cursory glance of a modern english version of the third chapter of the Gospel according to Saint John, he fits that too, if you consider the post-40th birthday party hangover a 'revelation'

[angus]

By the way NHpolitico, I believe Clinton was the only Southern Baptist president we have had.  As far as I know, Bush is not.

My point was that he is regardless of what he calls himself.

at the risk of stepping in over my head again, I really don't think it works like that. 

and here's a link for the Reagan soundbite.  I stand corrected.

REPORTER: Mr. President, would you describe your religious beliefs, noting particularly whether you consider yourself a born-again Christian and explain how these beliefs affect your Presidential decisions?

REAGAN: Well, I was raised to have a faith and a belief and have been a member of a church since I was a small boy. In our particular church we didn't use that term born- again so I don't know whether I would fit that - that particular term. But I have, thanks to my mother, God rest her soul, the firmest possible belief and faith in God. And I don't believe - I believe, I should say, as Lincoln once said, that I could not - I would be the most stupid man in the world if I thought I could confront the duties of the office I hold if I could not turn to someone who was stronger and greater than all others; and I do resort to prayer. At the same time, however, I have not believed that prayer could be introduced into an election or be a part of a political campaign, or religion a part of that campaign. As a matter of fact I think religion became a part of this campaign when Mr. Mondale's running mate said I wasn't a good Christian. So, it does play a part in my life. I have no hesitancy in saying so. And as I say, I don't believe that I could carry on unless I had a belief in a higher authority and a belief that prayers are answered.

REPORTER: Given those beliefs, Mr. President, why don't you attend services regularly, either by going to church or by inviting a minister to the White House, as President Nixon used to do, or someone to Camp David, as President Carter used to do.

REAGAN: The answer to your question is very simple - about why I don't go to church. I start - I have gone to church regularly all my life. And I started to here in Washington. And now, in the position I hold and in the world in which we live, where embassies do get blown up in Beirut, we're supposed to talk about that in the - on the debate the 21st, I understand. But I pose a threat to several hundred people if I go to church. I know the threats that are made against me. We all know the possibility of terrorism. We have seen the barricades that have had to built around the White House. And therefore, I don't feel - and my minister knows this and supports me in this position. I don't feel that I have a right to go to church, knowing that my being there could cause something of the kind that we have seen in other places; in Beirut, for example. And I miss going to church but I think the Lord understands.

MODERATOR: May I ask the audience please to refrain from applause. Can we have your second question?

REPORTER: Mr. Mondale, would you describe your religious beliefs and mention whether you consider yourself a born-again Christian and explain how those beliefs would affect your decisions as President.

MONDALE: First of all, I accept President Reagan's affirmation of faith. I'm sure that we all accept and admire his commitment to his faith and we are strengthened all of us by that fact. I am a son of a Methodist minister, my wife is the daughter of a Presbyterian minister, and I don't know if I've been born again, but I know I was born into a Christian family, and I believe I've sung at more weddings and more funerals than anybody ever to seek the Presidency. Whether that helps or not I don't know. I have a deep religious faith, our family does, it is fundamental, it's probably the reason I'm in politics. I think our faith tells us, instructs us about the moral life that we should lead, and I think we're all together on that.

What bothers me is this growing tendency to try to use one's own personal interpretation of faith politically, to question others' faith, and to try to use instrumentalities of government to impose those views on others. All history tells us that that's a mistake. When the Republican platform says that from here on out we're going to have a religious test for judges before they're selected for the Federal court and then Jerry Falwell announces that that means they get at least two Justices of the Supreme Court, I think that's an abuse of faith in our country. This nation is the most religious nation on earth. More people go to church and synagogues than any other nation on earth, and it's because we kept the politicians and the state out of the personal exercise of our faith. That's why faith in the United States is pure and unpolluted by the intervention of politicians, and I think if we want to continue as I do to have a religious nation, let's keep that line and never cross it.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Mr. Barnes, a question? We have time for rebuttal now.

REPORTER: I think I have a follow-up.

MODERATOR: Yes, I asked you if you did. I'm sorry I thought you waived it.

REPORTER: Yes. Mr. Mondale, you've complained just now about Jerry Falwell, and you've complained other times about other fundamentalists in politics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall your ever complaining about ministers who are involved in the civil rights movement, in the anti- Vietnam War demonstrations or about black preachers who've been so involved in American politics. Is it only conservative ministers that you object to?

MONDALE: No. What I object to - what I object to - what I object to is someone seeking to use his faith to question the faith of another or to use that faith and seek to use the power of Government to impose it on others. A minister who is in civil rights or in the conservative movement because he believes his faith instructs him to do that, I admire. The fact that the faith speaks to us and that we are moral people hopefully I accept and rejoice in. It's when you try to use that to undermine the integrity of private political - or private religious faith and the use of the state is where for the most personal decisions in American life - that's where I draw the line.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Now, Mr. President. Rebuttal.

REAGAN: Yes, it's very difficult to rebut, because I find myself in so much agreement with Mr. Mondale. I, too, want that wall that is in the Constitution, separation of church and state, to remain there. The only attacks I have made are on people who apparently would break away at that wall from the Government side using the Government, using the power of the courts and so forth, to hinder that part of the Constitution that says the Government shall not only not establish a religion, it shall not inhibit the practice of religion, and they have been using these things to have Government, through court orders, inhibit the practice of religion. A child wants to say grace in a school cafeteria, and a court rules that they can't do it. And because it's school property. These are the types of things that I think have been happening in a kind of a secular way that have been erroding that separation, and I am opposed to that. With regard to a platform in the Supreme Court, I can only say one thing about that. I don't - I have appointed one member of the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, I'll stand on my record on that, and if I have the opportunity to appoint any more. I'll do it in the same manner that I did in selecting her.

MODERATOR: Mr. Mondale, your rebuttal, please.

MONDALE: The platform to which the President refers in fact calls for a religious test in the selection of judges. And Jerry Falwell says that means we get two or three judges. And it would involve a religious test for the first time in American life. Let's take the example that the President cites. I believe in prayer. My family prays. We've never had any difficulty finding time to pray. But do we want a constitutional amendment adopted of the kind proposed by the President that gets the local politicians into the business of selecting prayers that our children must either recite in school or be embarrassed and ask to excuse themselves? Who would write the prayer? What would it say? How would it be resolved when those disputes occurred? It seems to me that a moment's reflection tells you why the United States Senate turned that amendment down. Because it will undermine the practice of honest faith in our country by politicizing it. We don't want that.

MODERATOR: Thank you Mr. Mondale.