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.
Behaviorists who study such things say that sarcasm is an indirect form of anger. If that is indeed true then the speeches at this year’s Republican convention, especially those of Romney, Giuliani, and the vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin dripped with that subsurface anger. But what are they angry about? Are they angry that the last eight years of Republican control has been so disastrous that they feel power slipping from their hands? Are they angry at a countrywide awakening that we are up to our collective asses in problems and its time for a change. Are they angry that regardless of who wins in November there is a mountain of debt that will have to be paid back by all of us – Democrats and Republicans. I’m at a loss for an answer. Just as “compassionate conservatism” in previous Republican cycles was a clever phase – it hardly is a way we remember the reality. And is certainly not a slogan continued in the current cycle. The current cycle seems to be about macho con...
The scenario: a deadlocked Congress more so than seen in our lifetimes. Continuing economic demise in the face of a myriad of possible unfortunate events (acts of nature, acts of terrorism, etc.), and a gleeful Asia that is ascending while we are descending. Against this unfolding picture may I again suggest a possibility out of this mess and one that might actually work. As prologue may I use the analogy of the closing of military bases. This has perennially been a no-winner as the representatives of impacted regions cry loud enough and are passionate enough to disrupt any required action. No elected official of any such affected state can possibly view the larger interest of the nation against the needs of his/her constituency. The solution: Congress very cleverly came up with the method of protecting these politicians while at the same time achieving the necessary closing of redundant bases by agreeing to have an impartial commission, mandated to make a recommendation as to spe...
Growing up in Richmond in the ‘50’s in a lower middle class neighborhood blocks away from black neighborhoods, I have no memory of class conflict between whites and blacks. I don’t remember it being anything I was aware of or ever considered. Things seem then so much simpler. What connection is there between this and gay marriage you may ask. Perhaps little. However, I do see so many parallels. When the Warren court ended segregation, abruptly, there was a dislocation and disruption of many cities and communities – particularly in the South. Forced bussing, white flight, were just some of the consequences. It could be argued that the desegregation process should not have been abrupt, but gradual, allowing society to adjust. But a gradual process of desegregation or integration would deny that then generation of blacks the equal rights that the court was now deciding had been denied. There was no real process or law providing a gradual desegregation option. ...
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.