Talk:Evangelicalism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removed uncited assertions

I removed two sentences that asserted what Evengelicals believe. The sentences did not reference any surveys or any material. The Wiki style guide directs against this, but I can't remember under what category. I expect the author was well intentioned and believed the statement and hope they can find some supporting material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.17.5.177 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Evangelicalism vs Fundamentalism

Throughout this article the two terms are used interchangeably, with the exception of one sentence that states the two are different. There is a difference between Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism. Thus it is improper for continued references to "Fundamentalist Evangelicalism" and the like. These references need to be fixed. Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. There is a large amount of ground to be covered between "Mainline Protestant Evangelicalism" and "Fundamentalist Evangelicalism". Has anyone come across the right term in a reliable source? How about "Conservative Christianity"? That article definitely needs help, but perhaps it expresses the middle ground. HokieRNB (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many academic books that discuss the history of the modern Conservative evangelical movement which came out of the fundamentalist movement - the movement in nineteenth century America which saw the first theology espousing a literal interpretation of the Bible. In scholarly literature, conservative Evangelicals are usually called Fundamentalist Evangelicals.

* http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_200001/ai_n8879164

* http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8294%28199109%2930%3A3%3C259%3AMFAAOD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage

* http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-4078%28198809%2941%3A3%3C601%3AEWCAPD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage (You may have to go through a library to get full access)

* Thy Kindgom Come by Randall Herbert Balmer

Popular discourse (non-scholarly)::: * http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/waldman.html

* http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/green.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

link one - does not seem to use the term "Fundamentalist Evangelicalism" anywhere, but this is just a book reveiw, so it would be unclear anyhow.

link two - this article is about "Fundamentalist." WB has another article on Fundamentalism. This article is not it.

link three - if this were really a common term then the author would not need to define it on page one - "...while all funamentalists are evangelicals, not all evangelicals are... funamentalist." What he is really using this term "funamentalist evangelicals" to mean are people/groups that would normally be called "funamentalist." This article should not be about funamentalists if it is named Evangelicalism.

:Thy Kindgom Come - again, does not seem to use the term "Fundamentalist Evangelicalism" anywhere. If it does please quote them.

"Fundamentalist Evangelicals" is not a usual term. The meaning of "conservative" depends on the speaker but "Fundamentalist" and "Evangelical" have set meanings-- that are not the same-- and should not be used except to make things more clear-- not less so!

Bible Believers: Fundamentalists in the Modern World by Nancy Tatom has a good description of Fundamentalists in contrast to Evangelicals in the introduction. It is an anthropology of religion text. If you can get a copy, I would recommend it.--Carlaude (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Political labeling

I know evangelism is in the context of politics, I always thought it meant people who believed in sharing the gospel. any way, this article uses too much political labels, such as left, right, and red states. do we really need to make broad generalizations? Rds865 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

We are forced to some extent, to abide by "common use" rules in identifying "evangelicals". Unfortunately, the common use - the way the term is found in newspapers and in general discussion - is predominantly political. "Unfortunate" because evangelicals themselves heartily object to being defined in political terms rather than Christian faith regardless of politics (note the recent Evangelical Manifesto for example), even though they frequently do exactly that (as when leaders refer to the Religious Right as emcompassing the "evangelical vote"). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article has some significant problems. It no longer gives an accurate portrait of what evangelicalism is to the uninitiated readed. It looks more like a commercial for why Evangelicals don't have to be part of the American political Right. Theriddles (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Neo-evangelicalism unmerge proposal

I didn't notice the recent proposal on neo-evangelicalism to merge it into this article. I am currently studying evangelical history and I think the changes that happened in the mid-20th century (as typified by neo-evangelicalism) are extremely important to understanding the movement. I feel that this subject is a bit "lost" here and my personal view is that the term is sufficiently notable to warrant an entry of its own. Whilst I could try to improve the relevant parts of this article, I would prefer to recreate neo-evangelicalism. Would anyone strongly object? I'll do all the necessary editing. Thanks, Sidefall (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably a good way to handle it is by developing it here and then branching to a new article when this section gets too long. That's the organic way to develop new articles from existing sections. See WP:SUMMARY. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to recreating the merged article. Neither article (nor an editor) could indicate the significance of the term neo-evangelicalism v. evangelicalism. I believe I have the idea now but if I do it seem to be a term now used among certain groups.

I totally agree with User:Flex that you improve Evangelicalism with a Neo-evangelicalism section, if you can, while keeping the overlap and difference in these two terms clear. Once you have done this-- if it seems warranted-- then propose to split out the Neo-evangelicalism section into an separate article. This will be the best serve to the reader.--Carlaude (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do to improve this article. To me, the significance of neo-evangelicalism is historic. It marked a important change of direction in mainstream evangelicalism and has influenced a significant part of the contemporary evangelical christianity. I'll see if I can find some sources.Sidefall (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge in History of Evangelicalism

I have noticed that there's a short article on History of Evangelicalism, which is in need of quite a lot of work. I think it would be best merged into here so we can improve everything together. Any thoughts? Sidefall (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to pull that article in here under the same reasoning. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a sorry article. Merging might be better than leaving it as it is. Please put up the merge discussion tags if you are serious and know how to do so.--Carlaude (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'll leave it a few days before doing anything further. Sidefall (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. You may not know who I am. But for the simple fact that I spent my time reading the above, my vote is for a merger.59.92.106.197 (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - merge the two articles, as Evangelicalism is primarily a historical movement, and cannot be understood well without the context. Hyper3 (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if citations can be found for History of Evangelicalism. If no citations can be found, I'll nominate that article for deletion instead. --Aepoutre (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See nothing done on this, sort of an open and shut case, so will effect consensus above. Lycurgus (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: I just made clean-up/structural/wikification changes, didn't alter any content, but User:Hyper3 did just before my last edit. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote

The hatnote may not at first glance appear to be a vital disambiguator for this article, but it is needed here because of a disambiguation difficulty elsewhere, and a consequent redirect to this page. For a full explanation, please see Talk:Evangelicals. Cheers. Karenjc 10:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

???

Why not make this easy so stupid people like me can understand what all these different religins are. I need to write a paper and i dont understand any of it, why not just put a simple discription of the religion? Not some big long thing that no one in hell understands. I mean do you even understand what you said it was? Probably not because i dont think anyone in this world does but maybe someone that is really smart but those arent the people researching on wikipedia only the stupid people use wikipedia because it is supposedly suppost to be easy to understand. Well you proved yourself wrong. So i dont thinki will use it anymore but i probably will because i know i will even though i say i wont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.99.157 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Awkward Silence. 24.110.201.149 (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Notice

This page is 102 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance.

"Evangelical politics in the United States" section is flawed and biased

1. "Evangelical influence was first evident in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century movement of prohibition."

The abolitionist movement was primarily comprised of evangelical Christians. Temperance was a contemporary movement by the same people. Both arose out of the Second Great Awakening.

2. "Ironically Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision rendered in 1973 preventing states from making laws that prohibit abortion, was not the most significant landmark of a new era of conservative evangelical political action. It was not until 1980 that the evangelical movement came to oppose abortion.[13][14] In reality, it was Green v. Connally a.k.a. Coit v. Green, (and President Jimmy Carter's support of the decision), which ruled any segregated institution was not charitable and thus not tax exempt, that galvanized conservative evangelicals."

The citation for this "statement of fact" is an online opinion piece written by an Episcopal priest and Columbia professor as part of a dialogue over the role of religion in politics. It is not remotely sustainable as a legitimate reference for this kind of blanket statement. Clearly, this is something that was put here by a heavily biased individual attempting to create a smear.

3. "The mass-appeal of the Christian right in the so-called red states, and its success in rallying resistance to certain social agendas, is sometimes alleged as an attempt to impose theocracy on an otherwise secular society."

This is weasel-worded to make it acceptable, but is another clearly biased statement.

4. "There are indications that the belief is widespread among conservative evangelicals in the USA that Christianity should enjoy a privileged place in American public life according its importance in American life and history."

Ditto this one. Using wording like "there are indications" and "sometimes alleged" is a thin veil here.

This entire section needs to be corrected and "de-biased". Whoever wrote it is not interested in an impartial presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.33 (talk) 04:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So edit. Hyper3 (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Politics: Christian Right

A string of words in the first few sentences here are connected in a way that gives strong evidence of a biased argument: "Ironically Roe V Wade...was not the most significant landmark of a new era...In reality it was...".

Furthermore, all three sources cited here only really rely upon only ONE source; that is ONE author, Randall Balmer, and two of his books.

This represents only ONE viewpoint about how or when a "new era of conservative evangelical political action" arose, and the argument is lopsided in its evidence. Some might argue that there was never a transition in 'eras' or 'political action', only a change of issues upon which they centered in the political debate.

Simyre (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Balmer bases his statements on Paul Weyrich's (primarily) and Edward G. Dobson's first-hand accounts of Moral Majority meetings from the period. Dobson remarks on the non-centrality of Roe v. Wade can be found in No Longer Exiles, "I sat in the non-smoke-filled back room with the Moral Majority, and I frankly do not remember abortion ever being mentioned as a reason why we ought to do something." He continues "I think there was a perceived threat, but not a singular threat, of what the government was going to do to Christian schools that prompted the activism." I think Dobson's own statements mesh well with Balmer's account of Roe v. Wade not being the motivation behind the formation of the Moral Majority and the Religious Right. Whether Green v. Connally was the tipping point is more debatable, but clearly worrying about government control of Christian schools was seen as more of a motivation. You'll also note that Balmer's quotations of Weyrich on religious conservatives seeing Roe v. Wade as one more reason to stay outside of politics appear on Weyrich's wikipedia page uncontested.

Cmore1968 (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting "Types of Evangelicalism"

This section appears to be redundant and I suggest deleting it.

The 'Conservative Evangelicalism' subsection reiterates the difference between 'evangelical' and 'fundamentalist,' which is covered in the article intro. It then discusses "the American political spectrum" which is covered in the US politics section. The third paragraph's assertions about economic conservatism are also political, though they are not discussed elsewhere in the article. If they are to be retained, they need to be cited/verified and moved into the politics section.

The 'Post-evangelicalism' section strays into the article of that name, which asserts itself to be related to but outside of 'Evangelicalism.' Therefore I think a link under See Also could replace this subsection. Destijl78 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This comment applies to the section "Politics - Christian Right." All of the section after the first full paragraph could easily be deleted with no loss of meaning. The remainder lacks thorough references, for example the repeated use of "They" say....with no specific reference to individuals (other than 2 NPR programs). It also reads a little apologetic of the mentioned political/theological positions which suggests a loss of neutrality. 32tdr (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with deleting it. The difference between Conservative and Open Evangelical appears to only be relevant to the Church of England's expression of evangelicalism and lacks the nuance of a continuum of conservative/open positions across a multi-denominational movement. Southernmen (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

My edits were not good faith edits, they were done according to the section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) entitled " Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents," and with prior consultation with senior editors. I previously thought these words may be capitalized, but even words like "biblical" are not to be capitalized. Evangelicalism is not an organized religion (Methodism, Catholicism), but rather a doctrine, "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter." Do not revert my edit--rather start a discussion to change the Wikipedia Manual. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from the first line of the aforementioned section, "Names of religions, whether as a noun or an adjective, and their followers start with a capital letter." Thus, you should capitalism Pentecostalism, Buddhism, Atheism, Evangelicalism, Catholicism, and so on. Evangelicalism is not a doctrine any more than Catholicism is a doctrine. It involves doctrinal distinctives, such as "biblical inerrancy" (a doctrine). Perhaps you are confused with "evangelism" (noun) or "evangelistic" (adjective). Thus, I will revert once more. If you would like to start the discussion to change this line from the section regarding Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents in the Manual of Style, I would invite you to do so. HokieRNB 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am now disagreeing with myself. Contrary to the WP:MOS, most mainstream publications do not capitalize "evangelical" or "evangelicalism". Perhaps the Manual should be updated to be more clear that "proper names of organized religions or officially recognized sects" should be capitalized. It appears the same would hold for "fundamentalism" and "fundamentalist", but apparently not "Reformed". HokieRNB 01:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely Pointless.

Accuracy of Evangelicalism Demographics

The assertion "In 2008 the most recent research has instead shown that evangelicals are only 9% of the American people" appears to be a mis-statement of the data for the cited presentation. What Olson's presentation asserts is that on any given weekend in 2000, 9% of Americans attended an evangelical church. That strikes me as a very different measurement than what the language in the article currently implies. I'd suggest either rewording or removing the sentence. Dorvan (talk) 23:05 09 September 2009 (UTC)

Page move

This page was recently moved without any discussion. I have tried to revert these changes and invite an open discussion about whether a page move would benefit the readers and editors of Wikipedia. I contend that it would not, but I'm willing to listen to a cogent, compelling argument. HokieRNB 01:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Evangelicalism does not need to be distinguished from other uses, as the main use refers to the historical movement beginning in the 1730s; maybe other uses need to be distinguished from it. Hyper3 (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it does not need to be moved.Lamorak (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that in the United States, "Evangelical" in popular vernacular exclusively refers to a type of fundamentalist or conservative Christian. That's why I forwarded it. "Evangelism" deals more with the etymology of the word.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not true at all. The term "evangelical" in the U.S. is much broader in many cases than either "conservative Christian" or "fundamentalist" and at times is even used to contrast the latter. The article makes that point rather clearly. This discussion has not demonstrated any consensus whatsoever in support of a page move. In fact, no editor other than yourself has spoken at all in favor of it. HokieRNB 23:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary evangelicalism rose as a conscious breach with fundamentalism. It is no less clearly distinct from other versions of conservative Christianity.

Furthermore, the article is quite long and has potential to become much longer. I see a page move as out of question. --Jonund (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and conservative Christianity, while they may be related, are most certainly distinct topics that should be treated separately. A page move would be a bad idea.--Dorvan (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

History

How in the world does this article present a "history of evangelicalism" without mentioning William Wilberforce, Thomas Chalmers, Charles Grandison Finney, Charles Spurgeon, Dwight L. Moody, John Gresham Machen or Aimee Semple McPherson? There is an enormous leap in the development of the movement here. Ἀλήθεια 20:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There was once a separate "history of evangelicalism" article which was merged into here. I would agree completely that the "Protestant Reformation to World War II" section needs significant work but unfortunately it's not really my area. I might try to make a start, though. Sidefall (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a bit to the history section - it's very rough but I think it's an improvement. Anyone else care to chip in? Sidefall (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. A vast improvement. It seems incomplete without a mention of some of the following: Cane Ridge Revival (1801), Downgrade Controversy (1887), Scopes Monkey Trial (1925), Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978), and The Cambridge Declaration (1996). Ἀλήθεια 12:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate it, although I'm not sure I'd regard it as a vast improvement! Regarding the topics you mention, why don't you add them yourself? I'm not sure if the Cane Ridge Revival is sufficiently important to be included here (it might be, I'm not enough of an expert); the others probably are. I'd particularly like to see some context for the Chicago Statement and Cambridge Declaration, as I think they represent the work of certain groups and not all evangelicals would agree 100% with them. On a related note, it would be good to mention the biblical infallibility/inerrancy debate. I've just created An Evangelical Manifesto, which could be linked in the 21st century section. Sidefall (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Too American-centric

This article is far too American. 86.156.118.68 (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. However, non-American information on the subject is scarce, as more Americans consider themselves evangelical than any other nation. Well perhaps not the Vatican! Greggydude (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Evangelicalism is the specific form of Christianity that developed in America. It is what makes American Christianity different from European Christianity. (This is not to say that the original, European Christianity is not present in America in the form of the Catholic and mainline Protestant churches.) See for example Mark A. Noll, The Old Religion in the New World: The History of North American Christianity (2001).

This article really needs to be expanded to explain how the development of evangelicalism in America gave rise to a new kind of Christianity. -- Herzen (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"Evangelicalism is the specific form of Christianity that developed in America." Really? I must go and tell the Anglicans that (see Anglican Evangelical). In the parish of Hagley there are two churches St John the Baptist Church in Upper Hagley (next to the Hagley Hall) and St Saviours in West Hagley. Both are Church of England but for many years St Johns held high church services while St Saviours held low church services. As St Johns is on the foot of Clent Hill, while St Saviours is lower down the slope, and St Johns has the bell tower (and is set in stately grounds next to nobs pile) etc it is a good physical representation of the difference between high an low churh -- Queen Elizabeth I would have been very pleased to see her compromise at work.

This article is American biased. For an English person a evangelicalism means low church or Methodists etc. and I see no reflection of this mainstream meaning in this article. -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The leading sentence is very misleading: "Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian theological stream which began in Great Britain in the 1730s". There is a lot of good historical work on the transnational origins of the evangelical revival, stressing the importance of Central European Pietism and the Moravians in particular. See G. Ditchfield, The Evangelical Revival (London, 1988) as an introduction. Of course this American-centric in a sense. [Lego Feet 19.14 01/11/2010] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lego Feet (talk • contribs) 23:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Good note, and plausible! 86.156.118.68: "[it's] far too American" — yes, correct. But the european "evangelism/evangelicalism" which is more like vaguely protestant, is slowly being dropped as a term because of the negative and embarrasing connotation with american christian right lunatics, kind of... Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Background discussion for RfC

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please see discussion in article and Manual of Style. Ἀλήθεια 17:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I commonly use the word Evangelical as a substitute for the word Protestant (which is always capitalized with a P when it is used a noun), primarily because many Protestants have been telling Catholics over the years that they no longer self-identify as Protestants and would rather be called by more specific names like Evangelical or Charismatic. Now, as I understand it, capitalization in English always occurs for nouns like Americans or Canadians, and that the rule is no different for religious groups like Jewish, Christian, Hindu, etc. It doesn't matter if Evangelicals are just a sub-group of Protestants, or if it used as a mere sociological characteristic, because the evangelical persona is a defining trait in what sociologists call the low Church variety of Christians, one that emphasizes on the scriptural aspects of the faith at the expense of its communitarian or liturgical variety. ADM (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC) The way that the term "evangelical" is being used in reference to the Manhattan Declaration, it is not synonymous with Protestant. Very few, if any, adherents to Mainline (Protestant) Christianity would affirm this document. Note that in all three sources used in the article, "evangelical" is not capitalized, consistent with the current wording of the MOS. Ἀλήθεια 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC) The word Protestant, at least when it is used in a historical European sense, like when speaking of Northern Irish, Swiss or German Protestants for example, is not synonymous with the concept of liberal Protestants, because Lutherans, Calvinists and Anabaptists were not really liberal in the modern sense, they were merely dissident Christians who were protesting against the Roman Catholic Church. The problem I guess is that certain mainline/liberal Protestant Churches are claiming the title Protestant all for themselves, alienating many of their Evangelical members in the process. ADM (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I'm not trying to suggest that mainline denominations should hijack the term "Protestant", merely that they are only one group of several that fall into the camp of Protestant. "Liberal" is also not the only defining trait of "mainline", nor does it necessarily distinguish them from "evangelical". However, can we at least agree on the correctness of not capitalizing "evangelical"? Ἀλήθεια 18:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I for one cannot really comprehend why you are proposing to give the Evangelicals a special status by insisting that only they should not have their peculiar doctrinal faction capitalized, like the Catholics or the Orthodox. It smacks a form of religious exclusivism, as if Evangelical was almost synonymous with Christian. But this would be inappropriate of course if it were carried out with such an intention. In the same way, there is no point in insisting that either Liberals, Socialists or Communists should not be capitalized when we are talking about three different political factions, which are sometimes comparable to religious factions. ADM (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Quoting from MOS:CAPS - "Unofficial movements and ideologies within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name." Since it is not referring to any officially designated denomination, the term is a simple adjective. I'm not proposing to give anyone special status. I'm proposing to follow Wikipedia guidelines, which in turn follows standard media protocol. Ἀλήθεια 19:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Your interpretation of that guideline seems a bit misguided, and it is also possible that this particular guideline doesn't take into account the flexible grammatical norms of English, which makes no strict rules as to whether adjectives can be converted into nouns, or whether nouns can be converted into adjectives. I would recommend that you read the document Evangelicals and Catholics Together[1], which repeatedly and insistently uses the word Evangelical with a majuscule in order to point out that such norms either don't exist or are flexible to the point where the author's literary freedom has priority over the philosophical ideals of grammarians. ADM (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Please note that in the article you reference, "evangelicals" is part of the title of a document, and thus capitalized in certain uses, but when used elsewhere in the article, usage is split. Many within evangelicalism would adhere to capitalization, but since Wikipedia is NPOV, they do not. In addition, significant evangelical publishers such as Christianity Today (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1997/december8/7te034.html) choose not to capitalize. Ἀλήθεια 19:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I don't care what documents or guidelines you cite, to me, the grammar rule is the same as for Communists. We speak of the Communist Party, Left-Communists, Communist Manifesto when refering to nouns, but communist associations, communist state, communist ideals when refering to adjectives. Since Evangelical, like Communist, can be both a noun and an adjective, there is the possibility that capitlization applies in the case when it is a noun. To imply anything else is to insist that nobody is ever an Evangelical, that evangelical is always an adjective and never a noun, which is obviously untrue except if it's coming from a deplorable sectarian position which insists on adjectives instead of nouns. ADM (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC) It really doesn't matter, noun or adjective... see these other sources for non-capitalization of the term "evangelical" and "evangelicalism": Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance National Association of Evangelicals The Christian Science Monitor The remaking of evangelical theology by Gary J. Dorrien (1998) ISBN 0664258034 American evangelicalism: embattled and thriving by Christian Smith, Michael Emerson (1998) ISBN 0226764192 A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements by Linda Edwards (2001) ISBN 066422259 The preponderance of reliable sources consistently use the term without capitalization. If you disagree, let's move this discussion to a central location and take it to WP:RfC. Ἀλήθεια 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Every one of those document proves my point, because Evangelicals is always capitalized when it is a noun, and never capitalized when it is an adjective. The existence of separate capital letters in article titles is the only exception that proves the rule. You should learn to better distinguish nouns from adjectives so that we wouldn't have to have these types of debates. ADM (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: should evangelical be capitalized?

After above user talk page discussion, it's time to involve a larger editorial community. Here are examples of how the terms "evangelical" and "evangelicalism" are used as nouns without being capitalized:

• Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals
• Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
• National Association of Evangelicals
• The Christian Science Monitor
• The remaking of evangelical theology by Gary J. Dorrien (1998) ISBN 0664258034
• American evangelicalism: embattled and thriving by Christian Smith, Michael Emerson (1998) ISBN 0226764192
• A brief guide to beliefs: ideas, theologies, mysteries, and movements by Linda Edwards (2001) ISBN 066422259

(Obviously not when used as part of a proper noun, such as the title of a publication, or the name of an organization, but on each page if you follow the links, you will see examples of non-capitalized usage of the term both as a noun and an adjective). In addition, most major media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian (UK), Christianity Today, Evangelical Press Association, Christian Post, World Magazine, are all consistent in not capitalizing the term. Ἀλήθεια 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Every one of those document proves my point, because Evangelicals is always capitalized when it is a noun, and never capitalized when it is an adjective. The existence of separate capital letters in article titles is the only exception that proves the rule. You should learn to better distinguish nouns from adjectives so that we wouldn't have to have these types of debates. ADM (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Evangelicalism is always an invariable noun, so it never gets capitalized, unlike evangelical which capitalizes its nouns but not its adjectives. Only words that vary between adjectives and nouns such as Communists will capitalize their nouns in such situations. ADM (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. Sample quotes (emphasis added):

• From isae.wheaton.edu: "In addition to providing leadership in the study of evangelicals and informing the public, the ISAE seeks to support evangelical scholars from a variety of disciplines who seek to apply Christian truths to intellectual and cultural endeavors."
• From religioustolerance.org:"Many theologians would also include as evangelicals the conservative members and reform movements within such mainline denominations as the Episcopal Church, USA, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Methodist Church."
• From nae.net: "The National Association of Evangelicals has spoken as a united voice for millions of American evangelicals since 1942"
• From nytimes.com: "The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush."
• From worldmag.com: "Some younger evangelicals may be taking non-orthodox views on same-sex unions"
• From christianitytoday.com: ""The Gift of Salvation" has been made possible by a major realignment in ecumenical discourse: the coalescence of believing Roman Catholics and faithful evangelicals who both affirm the substance of historic Christian orthodoxy against the ideology of theological pluralism that marks much mainline Protestant thought as well as avant-garde Catholic theology."

All used as nouns Ἀλήθεια 20:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Certain writers tend to spell the word jews without a capitalization, but this is not really justified, and many people find this offensive. In the same way, I think that spelling the word evangelicals without a majuscule in such contexts might rightly be considred offensive by those same Evangelicals. ADM (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to make sure that evangelicals aren't offended. This has been covered already, and the consensus here is that the term should not be capitalized in general writing unless it is part of a proper noun. Please see MOS:CAPS. HokieRNB 20:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Those editors responsible for that guideline are clearly in the wrong, and there ought to be a guideline saying that you shouldn't impose guidelines on other people like that. In fact, Wikipedia's founding principle is to not push people around, to not impose guidelines on others. ADM (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the editors who wrote the guidelines for each of the reliable sources? Or the editors who developed Wikipedia's Manual of Style based on those reliable sources? If the former, you need to take it up with the Times, the Post, the Enquirer, etc. If the latter, you should take this up on that talk page. The issue is settled as far as this article goes. HokieRNB 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Every one of those editors and newspapers is wrong if it can't respect basic English grammar. What you are refering to is some jocular, folkloric American usage which contradicts the universal norms of English spelling. ADM (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think your logic holds here. I can't claim to speak for all members of the community, but as an evangelical Christian myself, I'm used to seeing evangelicals uncapitalized rather than capitalized, and am not at all familiar with the idea that that is offensive. I agree with the consensus of the previous discussion that the correct usage is not to capitalize evangelical unless it is part of a proper noun. Also, the examples provided by Ἀλήθεια include major evangelical sources in the magazine Christianity today and the National Association of Evangelicals. The proposition the failure to capitalize is offensive or (more importantly) incorrect simply isn't supported by usage examples.Dorvan (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Those evangelical sources are wrong if they don't consistently capitalize their nouns. Evangelicals should not be treated differently from Communists and any deviation from this logic is a form of blind sectarianism. ADM (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sectarianism with what aim? At any rate, the English language isn't defined by a set of prescriptive rules. There are plenty of exceptions to rules in the English language that don't seem particularly consistent, especially with regard to spelling, so even if your rule generally tends to be true, that doesn't mean that a different norm applied consistently to another word is incorrect. Plus, it's not even clear that your rule is correct. There are plenty of uncapitalized -isms...think of environmentalism/ists for example. Dorvan (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sectarianism like this is wrong and you know it's wrong. It's intolerable find a list of words involving three or four sects of Christians and only one of them is un-capitalized, because some editors deem it special and that such exceptions are justified in the name of their personal tastes and whims. ADM (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about anyone's personal tastes, it's about the actual usage of the word. No one is trying to denigrate or elevate any belief over another in the article, they're just keeping word usage in the article in concert with how it's used elsewhere. Not all "-isms" are capitalized in English, and evangelicalism is one example of one that is not. This is not the place to argue that the English language ought to have well-defined rules.Dorvan (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Exceptions of "-isms" that aren't capitalized

antinomianism, dispensationalism, existentialism, legalism, modernism, mysticism, nominalism, pietism, premillennialism, scholasticism, supersessionism; (see also this list of English nouns ending in "ism", the vast majority of which are not generally capitalized.)

To be fair, there do seem to be some who take exception to the standard spelling of evangelical. See for instance The Christian Science Monitor, and Time magazine (though interestingly not its publishing partner CNN.) A comment regarding the insistence that "Communists" and "evangelicals" should be treated the same. I would reply that a "communist" differs from a "Communist", as the latter is a member of an officially recognized "Communist party", whereas the former is an advocate of a society based on the common ownership of property. If there is were an official "Evangelical" denomination, then adherents would rightly be referred to as "Evangelicals". Your example demonstrates why it should not be capitalized. Ἀλήθεια 17:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC comment - With all due respect do those who favor capitalizing the "E" in 'evangelicals', I would have to say that I think it would be a bad idea. For the most part, the churches which have capital letters in their names, like Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, and the like, do so because those terms have specific doctrinal implications, and because there is a pronounced enough degree of exclusivity that they function as good identifiers. There are however Catholic evangelicals, Lutehran evanglicals, Baptist evangelicals, and a whole range of other evangelicals, and these individuals can be found fairly widely distributed throughout the various churches associated with the capitalized word starting that description. Such a broad range of use makes it hard to see that the word evangelical is used primarily as a kind of "brand name", but rather as an adjective used in conjunction with proper names. We don't tend to capitalize such adjectives. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a member of the Evangelical Church of North America and when used referring to our particular denomination, I always capitalize it (e.g., "I am an Evangelical Christian"), but for more broad uses of the term, like this page covers, it would be correct to keep it uncapitalized (e.g., "I am an evangelical Christian") as with other uncapitalized -isms. Catanguy (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Separate article for Evangelical movement in Anglican Church

I think we need a Separate article for Evangelical movement in Anglican Church. --Gary123 (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Reformed / Evangelical Calvin/Luther

Am I incorrect to say that in the 16th and 17th century Evangelical was attached to Lutheran churches and Reformed to Calvinist ones. Shouldn't this distinction (an Evangelical church was not a Roman Catholic nor was it a Reformed one) be included in the Usage section. Nitpyck (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

From my reading of it it seems to already be there. Ltwin (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there for differing from RC but what about from Calvin? Nitpyck (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this what you're referring to: "In Germany, Switzerland and Denmark, and especially among Lutherans, the term has continued to be used in a broad sense.[8] This can be seen in the names of certain Lutheran denominations or national organizations, such as the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada, and the Evangelical Church in Germany." If not then you're free to edit that section. Ltwin (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusion in Lead

I came here to truly learn something of this topic.

The lead tells me that the second of the four key characteristics is....

......Some expression of the gospel in "effort"

If that's explained elsewhere in the article, I couldn't find it, and I don't have a clue what it means. Can anyone help me AND the article please?

HiLo48 (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I have cleared it up. Evangelicals place a great emphasis on actively sharing the gospel with other people. It is important to them to let others know about their faith in Christ. Ltwin (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Much more helpful. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Globalise

This article has real problems and is very American centric. For example:

From the late 20th century onwards, such conservative Protestant Christians, and their churches and social movements, have often been called evangelical to distinguish them from other Protestants.

In the Church of England evangelical is linked to low church and has been for centuries, they are more likely to be in favour of, women bishops and disestablishment and as such are definitely not conservative or Conservative. -- PBS (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the meaning of conservative here is talking about theological conservatism, women bishops aside (which as I understand the debate over women bishops in the CofE there is probably variety of opinions regarding women bishops in evangelical circles as I know that there are evangelicals opposed to it), as opposed to theological liberalism. I don't think conservative Christianity is defined by support of establishment (you can be a liberal and still support establishment) but instead conserving the beliefs that have always been central to the Christian Gospel which may not be expressed in traditional ways yet maintains its traditional message. In America, evangelicals tend to the low church side of the spectrum too so I really don't see what distinctions you are trying to make. Are you saying that in the UK, a person is considered evangelical simply by low church attitudes and not by any shared theological viewpoint? Ltwin (talk) 05:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

well, the Southern Baptists are high church in many ways, for example concern with heresy and hierarchical control (of seminaries, colleges, megachurches) and closed communion. Rjensen (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Concern with heresy has nothing to do with being "high church." It has everything to do with being theologically conservative. There are high church liberal Episcopalians who don't believe that anything is heretical. There is no hierarchy in the SBC. If the SBC or one of its state conventions does something a local church doesn't like, the local church doesn't have to abide by it. The only thing the conventions can do is say you are not apart of the convention anymore, but they can't force a local church to do anything. Conventions don't own church property and they don't control ordination (that happens on the local level) so there is very little leverage that the conventions hold over SBC churches. Ltwin (talk) 20:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Southern Baptist practices vary considerably from state to state and even congregation to congregation. There is very little hierarchy since each church is governed independently and few Southern Baptist churches that I am familiar with practice closed communion. It's difficult to pigeonhole such a diverse denomination. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

there is a very rigid hierarchy INSIDE the local church, especially the megachurches. Rjensen (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

What is this "rigid hierarchy" that you speak of? In the Baptist churches I've known there is the pastor and the deacon board and then there are the members. The members elect both. Every church has those members that are able to exert more influence than others. But there is very little formal hierarchy. All members get a vote at congregational meetings and you bet that if the congregation doesn't like a minister than he's out. And I still don't understand how any of this has to do with high church/low church and being evangelical? Ltwin (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the globalise tag is justified. Some things are mainly American, and perhaps Fundamentalism is one of them. Is Fundamentalism really important anywhere outside America? Christianity as a whole is a marginal element of British culture nowadays, never mind any sub-section of it. What about in developing countries where some Protestant sects are growing. Luwilt (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

evangelicals have a VERY strong missionary presence in many countries, especially Latin America and Africa. Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The overall problem with this article is it is conflating a religious movement "evangelicalism" with modern american political use of the phrase "Evangelical". Those religious movements and organizations still exist both in America and abroad. That being said the use of "evangelical" in the United States is not always ascribed to groups that believe in the tenets of Evangelicalism. The article should be split between the global/historical/religious movement use of this and the use of the work "evangelical" in American politics. It should be made clear to the reader that often the use of "evangelical" in American politics refers to "politically/socially conservative religious group" and that it may not have a direct link the the historic/global/theological evangelicals. BTW I prefer to Globalize with a Z ;-) Reboot (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And, at that, the problem of evangelicalism in the US stems from the fact that American Evangelicals confuse their participation in political pep meetings with religious worship! Ok, half joking... Seriously, though, their importance globally (as a result of missionaries in Africa, elsewhere) is pretty huge, as American evangelical churches can gather enough money and support to seriously affect politics and social culture in smaller nations. Europeans and the British simply use the word to describe something fundamentally different than in the American English. There needs to be a clear disambiguation between the American political movement that parades as religion and the British/European religious movement that remains more-or-less politically neutral. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

British Evangelicalism

Since we've got a globalise tag at the top of the page, I thought I'd sketch in a few quick thoughts for a section on evangelicals in the UK. Theologians like John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones have been important to the way evangelicalism has evolved in the UK and the way evangelicals from different denominations relate to each other, if this is anything to go by. I think it goes without saying that the Evangelical Alliance ought to be in there. From a contemporary Anglican perspective I think some mentions of Fulcrum and Reform are important (maybe the Church Society see also here and GAFCON too?)(btw, not opposed to a separate article about evangelicalism and Anglicanism, but maybe start here and then split off?). I think we could maybe mention Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade. There's also the recent expressions of anxiety about whether British evangelicals would form a significant unified voting block in the recent elections. Some references for this would be [2], [3], [4]. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

One more quick reference with regard to a difference (I think) with regard to the position on evolution, this says than in 1998 2/3 of Evangelical Alliance members (presumably they mean the member churches, not the individual church members) accepted some form of evolutionary theory (although that really could cover a multitude of positions). But maybe there's some better data out there? If anyone happens to have a copy of this it looks like it gives an interesting account of the history. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Having said this article has a globalise tag on it, Conservative evangelicalism is currently redirecting to British Conservative Evangelicalism which rather suggests someone needs to write a proper global perspective on conservative evangelicalism! Or is the UK the only country with splits in its evangelical community? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This could be a very useful resource. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Key Commitments of Evangelicism

Conflating religion and politics is a key commitment to Evangelical Christianity. Half of this article is about religio-ppolitical platforms of Evangelical Christianity. It's not something restricted to the West nor to this wiki page. Evangelical Christianity has spread to Africa and it is effecting laws there too, such as the newly proposed death penalty in Uganda for homosexuals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.228.180 (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Wikipedia does not engage in original research, but all information added should conform to reliable sources. If not, that information is subject to challenge and removal. Ltwin (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"The Key Commitments"

Four "key commitments" are presented in the introduction of this article. The other day I edited the last one to include the resurrection of Christ--not just His death. On further reflection and finding sources for this, it seems that this fourth item in the list is contained within the first, "to be born again." That is, personal conversion is accomplished by believing in the death and resurrection of Christ. A good source for this information can be found here:

http://www.scribd.com/full/33452993?access_key=key-2a6x9325ur9qro59wj8r

Page 9 specifically discusses the matter at hand. I realize that the information in the introduction to this article is already sourced (reliably) and I don't want to tinker too much with sourced material. But, do other editors here agree that the resurrection of Christ is central to Evangelical theology? And so is it defensible to include that fact along with the death of Christ in the article introduction? MorbidAnatomy (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Conservative evangelicalism

The link to Conservative evangelicalism redirects to British Conservative Evangelicalism instead of Conservative Christianity, which is what is actually meant, obviously.

I notice that further above, under #Deleting "Types of Evangelicalism", it has been proposed to simply delete the whole section, but obviously it has never been done. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

POV issues

The article leaves me with a sense that Evangelicals are a negative force, driven by conspiracy theories. I don't think the article has a very neutral tone at all. Statements like "and above all, the fear that elites are pushing America into secularism." are biased against the group. While most Christians, I would imagine, (and most members of any religion) feel America and the world is becoming greatly secularized I haven't seen any kind of sect-wide doctrine that states "above all else our fear is the elites". If anything some of the editors are misinformed and potentially worse biased against Evangelicals. The "key commitments" listed are a mainstay for nearly every Christian ideology, denomination and movement outside Catholicism. While EC may or may not be the majority of Protestants they're in no way some fringe group and the article should be written with the same kind of care and respect as any other that deals with the faiths of millions. It's one thing to state something with loads of fact supporting it, it's quite another to basically say fringe ideas or people represent the whole group or to write things in a way that, intentional or not, take an "anti" stance. Coinmanj (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Evangelicalism v. Evangelism

What are the differences between evangelicalism and evangelism? Do modern preachers of the Gospel call themselves Evangelicalists or Evangelists? Does the article need to mention the Great Commission and the disciples spreading the Gospel throughout the known world? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Evangelism is the act of evangelizing. Evangelicalism is a type of Protestant Christianity. An "evangelist" is a title that was in existence in the early church. Evangelists have as the main focus of their ministry the task of evangelizing. No one that I'm aware of calls themselves an "Evangelicalist." I think you just made that word up. Christians who subscribe to Evangelicalism are called Evangelicals. Ltwin (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)