e‧van‧gel‧i‧cal –adjective 1. Also, e‧van‧gel‧ic. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings. 2. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ. 3. designating Christians, esp. of the late 1970s, eschewing the designation of fundamentalist but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible. 4. pertaining to certain movements in the Protestant churches in the 18th and 19th centuries that stressed the importance of personal experience of guilt for sin, and of reconciliation to God through Christ. 5. marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause. –noun 6. an adherent of evangelical doctrines or a person who belongs to an evangelical church or party.
Chris‧tian –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith. 2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country. 3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades. 4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity. 5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial. 6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian. –noun 7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity. 8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian. 9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren. 10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. 11. a male given name.
hyp‧o‧crite –noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
But isn’t this typical? By Mark’s dwelling on the definitions of specific words, which is fine, does that mean he is oblivious to the context of the posting? The essence of communication is intention.
Does he misunderstand that I am saying that much that is posed as “evangelical Christianity”, is in reality shrewdly packaged and marketed sham Christianity?
I like the analogy of sitting at the window of a fine restaurant having a sumptuous meal, when you notice just outside the window that there is a starving and beaten eight-year-old girl. How would one respond?
Now, imagine sitting in that same restaurant setting and there is the same starving little girl, but now she is thousands of miles away in Darfur. Does the plight of people depend on them being out of sight? I don’t know how we will justify our materialism and our consumerism and our self-absorption at any final judgment.
This may seem far fetched, but it relates to my opinion of much of the so-called “evangelicals”, in that they are building crystal palaces and “preaching a lot to the choir” and consider their weekly Sunday service as membership n the Jesus club. Many churches have become country clubs without the tennis courts.
My definition of evangelical would encompass much I see in St. Francis of Assisi, would show courage, would show empathy, would show compassion, would show charity, would show forgiveness. It would not support pre-emptive war, or capital punishment, or capitalism out of control of moral values. I could go on, but I don’t like “preachy” – particularly from myself.
I just figured if you had the same definitions of words, you would have a level playing field for a gentleman's debate.
You're welcome, Mr. Garnett.
Anonymous said…
I don't know... As someone who doesn't have a problem with creation or evolution I kind of liked it when Haggard told him he was arrogant. And I do think you painted a little broad with the term evangelical christians, but I know the groups you mean.
Daniel, I grew up in an era when Oral Roberts was healing people on TV, and I was also raised in a family of evangelical "Christians".
I admit I do have some sensitivity to the hypocrisy of those who insist that their interpretation of God's will is the only possible interpretation – especially when their actions fall far short of real love, caring, and humility.
The following is offered as there are opposing lists being circulated by the religious right. So, here are my Top 10 Consequences of Voting Yes on the Virginia Marriage Amendment. 1. Voting Yes is unnecessary, as marriage is already defined in Virginia by statute. 2. Voting Yes ignores the facts – ignores the accepted medicine and science on this subject. 3. Voting Yes to constitutionalize such a socially charged issue, in flux, is clearly in opposition to Jeffersonian Democracy. 4. Voting Yes is an unabashed ploy by cynical Republicans to get out their base. 5. Voting Yes is in opposition to the maintaining of a bright line between church and state. 6. Voting Yes could bring about a myriad of unintended consequences to unmarried heterosexual couples. 7. Voting Yes will continue to paint Virginia as a cultural backwater and an unfriendly place for the location of new high tech businesses. 8. Voting Yes will hardly benefit the thousands of children in gay families nor give hope to many
I understand that most don’t have the leisure I have, as a retiree, to follow issues, to stay tuned to political debates, to spend time and become involved in local politics. However, it is appalling that those fellow citizens of my 7th District in Virginia have such a knee jerk reaction to this current financial crisis such as to swallow the political rhetoric of Congressman Cantor and to not see this partisan politician for who he is. To see Congressman Cantor spotlighted on national news holding up House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s floor remarks and using this as the reason that Republicans failed to pass their administration’s backed financial crisis bill was nauseating. Cantor was playing politics. Cantor was petty. Cantor was being used by his party handlers to try and shift this failure to reach accord onto the Democrats for political gain. Cantor was seen as a safe spokesman who is from the brightest red district of a red state with little formidable opposition to push this mal
You don't need to be a lawyer to write a marriage amendment apparently, but you could use some common sense. A high school student could have written a better amendment than the proposed Virginia marriage amendment. And if it weren't so poorly written, this topic wouldn't be the subject of debate and discussion all across the Commonwealth. Just using words like "approximate" and "qualities . . . of marriage" for example --- these words mean something different to every one who reads them. At least, you will have to admit that for a constitutional amendment to our Bill of Rights, this language is far from ideal. And more importantly is not easily and consistently communicated to the general populace. But why tiptoe around this. Delegate Robert Marshall has admitted in interviews and debates that he seized onto this quest after Lawrence v. Texas and his homophobia and obsession with sodomy (overlooking that oral sex within heterosexual couples is sodom
Comments
Can you define 'evangelical'? and 'christian'?
Then define "hypocritical'
I suggest you be very careful and honest. :)
btw: You should not be happy. Haggard is your brother in Christ, no ?
We all fall short. That's in the Bible, just in case your bible has that page ripped out. :)
1. Also, e‧van‧gel‧ic. pertaining to or in keeping with the gospel and its teachings.
2. belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ.
3. designating Christians, esp. of the late 1970s, eschewing the designation of fundamentalist but holding to a conservative interpretation of the Bible.
4. pertaining to certain movements in the Protestant churches in the 18th and 19th centuries that stressed the importance of personal experience of guilt for sin, and of reconciliation to God through Christ.
5. marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.
–noun
6. an adherent of evangelical doctrines or a person who belongs to an evangelical church or party.
Chris‧tian –adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings: a Christian faith.
2. of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to the religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ: Spain is a Christian country.
3. of or pertaining to Christians: many Christian deaths in the Crusades.
4. exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike: She displayed true Christian charity.
5. decent; respectable: They gave him a good Christian burial.
6. human; not brutal; humane: Such behavior isn't Christian.
–noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ; adherent of Christianity.
8. a person who exemplifies in his or her life the teachings of Christ: He died like a true Christian.
9. a member of any of certain Protestant churches, as the Disciples of Christ and the Plymouth Brethren.
10. the hero of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.
11. a male given name.
hyp‧o‧crite –noun
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
Now what?
btw I asked Bill.
Do you often find yourself defending others with a quick cut and paste?
But isn’t this typical? By Mark’s dwelling on the definitions of specific words, which is fine, does that mean he is oblivious to the context of the posting? The essence of communication is intention.
Does he misunderstand that I am saying that much that is posed as “evangelical Christianity”, is in reality shrewdly packaged and marketed sham Christianity?
I like the analogy of sitting at the window of a fine restaurant having a sumptuous meal, when you notice just outside the window that there is a starving and beaten eight-year-old girl. How would one respond?
Now, imagine sitting in that same restaurant setting and there is the same starving little girl, but now she is thousands of miles away in Darfur. Does the plight of people depend on them being out of sight? I don’t know how we will justify our materialism and our consumerism and our self-absorption at any final judgment.
This may seem far fetched, but it relates to my opinion of much of the so-called “evangelicals”, in that they are building crystal palaces and “preaching a lot to the choir” and consider their weekly Sunday service as membership n the Jesus club. Many churches have become country clubs without the tennis courts.
My definition of evangelical would encompass much I see in St. Francis of Assisi, would show courage, would show empathy, would show compassion, would show charity, would show forgiveness. It would not support pre-emptive war, or capital punishment, or capitalism out of control of moral values. I could go on, but I don’t like “preachy” – particularly from myself.
You're welcome, Mr. Garnett.
I admit I do have some sensitivity to the hypocrisy of those who insist that their interpretation of God's will is the only possible interpretation – especially when their actions fall far short of real love, caring, and humility.
But I have a sense of humor about it as well.