Evangelicals

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:

Evangelical was a phrase coined before New Evangelical was coined. It was used by Luther to refer to the movement he started and much of Europe uses it to refer to Protestantism.

First, Luther spoke German. Thus he really didn't use that English term did he? It was just translated that way.

Secondly, I already explained my position more than once but it doesn't seem to be getting through. I am addressing the OP, not the origin of the word, nor the other meanings of the words. What does the word "Evangelical" mean as it is used today, not as it is used in Germany, not as it was used in the Netherlands, not as it was used by Luther, etc., but as it is used today.

Alexander asked this question:

How do we define "evangelical" Christian these days?

Anything regarding Germany is out of the question here. "These days" means exactly what it says.
"These days" the word "evangelical" is used in reference to the "evangelical movement" and those that are and were called "New Evangelicals" in the past. Your other points are non sequitor. The evangelicals of today are those who claim to hold to orthodox doctrine (like Billy Graham), but will not separate from apostates and liberals (like Billy Graham).
DHK

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by DHK:
Before that time there was no middle ground. This is what you don't seem to get. You either were a Fundamentalist (whether you adhered to the name is a different matter) or you were a liberal. Before the middle of the twentieth century it incumbent upon all believers to separate from all apostasy. It was unthinkable for a believer not to do so.

I would agree with you that most evangelical Christians and Churches picked a side on the Fundamentalist-Liberal controversy and that there weren't many who could avoid this issue. However, how can you be so sure that everyone picked a side?

Many churches, especially congregational ones, can plod along for a long time without a care for what other Christians are fighting about. Many isolationist groups like Anabaptists did just that. And then there were many of the newer groups like the Millerites, Campbellites, Holiness and Pentecostals who were still wrestling with their own identity to be too concerned with the fundamentalist-modernist controversy, although it did divide the Campbellites. Were the Disciples of Christ liberals?

And even among the primary groups involved, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Reformed, Anglican, Episcopal there were probably some churches that intentionally didn't pick a side. They probably would have no problem with agreeing with the 5 fundamentals, but disagree with the approach towards those who don't.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by DHK:
The evangelicals of today are those who claim to hold to orthodox doctrine (like Billy Graham), but will not separate from apostates and liberals (like Billy Graham).
DHK

I already agreed with you many posts back that most of them were neo-evangelicals. But you won't be satisfied until I say they all were.

 

[mioque]

DHK
"From the OP, my understanding of the question was what was the meaning of "evangelical," as it related to how it is commonly used to today in America."
"
The OP specified neither location, nor whose meaning of the term he wanted to know.
Centuries before 1948 the word Evangelical was already in use as a way of saying Lutheran.
In large parts of the world that still is the only way it is used.
Non-Christians most often define Evangelicals as Protestants who practice a certain type of liturgy. The type most on this board would describe as non-liturgical worship.

As for Ockenga, I know some Lutherans who think he stole their title.

Luther used the term Evangelisch. Which can only be translated into English as Evangelical, which can only be translated into German as Evangelisch.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mioque:
DHK
"From the OP, my understanding of the question was what was the meaning of "evangelical," as it related to how it is commonly used to today in America."

[QB]

The OP specified neither location, nor whose meaning of the term he wanted to know.
Centuries before 1948 the word Evangelical was already in use as a way of saying Lutheran.
In large parts of the world that still is the only way it is used.

Unless Alexander says otherwise, I would assume that a person living in California, U.S.A., would be asking how the word "Evangelical" is used in America, not in Germany. That would only make sense would it not?

Non-Christians most often define Evangelicals as Protestants who practice a certain type of liturgy. The type most on this board would describe as non-liturgical worship.

Absoulety wrong. If you check my profile, you will notice that I am a missionary. To raise support I have had to do (in past years) a great deal of deputation. I have traveled in different states and been in Baptist churches all across the States as far south and east as Georgia and South Carolina, throughout the Central and mid-western states, and across Idaho and throughout Washington State. I have been in most of the provinces of Canada as well. In the hundreds of churches that I have been in, I have yet to encounter a single "liturgical" Baptist Church. Baptist Churches, in general are not liturgical. I know that there are some that exist, but they are not that common. Thus the word evangelical does not apply to those churches that are simply non-liturgical. There are many liberal Baptist churches, many (new) evangelical churches, and many Fundamental churches, all of which may not be liturgical. Your argument obviously fails. Remember this is a Baptist Board. You have made an assumption that I believe is obviously false.

As for Ockenga, I know some Lutherans who think he stole their title.

Then that is their problem. I hope their feelings weren't hurt.

Luther used the term Evangelisch. Which can only be translated into English as Evangelical, which can only be translated into German as Evangelisch.

And so he may have. We are not speaking German on this board; we are speaking English. We are speaking about a specific way in which the word "Evangelical" is used in America.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Then the OP should have clarified that; I've already said that your definition, DHK, was Americano-centric in nature. The OP does not ask about the meaning of the term solely in the US, nor does it ask for comparison with the term 'new evangelical' (a term which is unknown over here).All Mioque and I have tried to do is answer the OP question based on the meaning of the term on our side of the Pond. Why are we being slapped down for that?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[mioque]

DHK
"I have yet to encounter a single "liturgical" Baptist Church."
"
All churches on earth have a certain order in their worshipservices. That order = liturgy.
Baptist churches have a much simpler liturgy than say the Russion-Orthodox church, but it's just as much a liturgy.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by mioque:
DHK
"I have yet to encounter a single "liturgical" Baptist Church."
"
All churches on earth have a certain order in their worshipservices. That order = liturgy.
Baptist churches have a much simpler liturgy than say the Russion-Orthodox church, but it's just as much a liturgy.

Agreed. But we still like to call it non-liturgical because recognizing it for what it is, a form of liturgy, would be way too Roman Catholic.

Just like recognizing statements of beliefs for what they are, creeds, would also be too Roman Catholic.

Baptists are non-liturgical and non-creedal!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mioque:


All churches on earth have a certain order in their worshipservices. That order = liturgy.
Baptist churches have a much simpler liturgy than say the Russion-Orthodox church, but it's just as much a liturgy.

The above statement is a direct contradiction of the former statement in a previous post that you made:

Non-Christians most often define Evangelicals as Protestants who practice a certain type of liturgy. The type most on this board would describe as non-liturgical worship.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mioque:


All churches on earth have a certain order in their worshipservices. That order = liturgy.
Baptist churches have a much simpler liturgy than say the Russion-Orthodox church, but it's just as much a liturgy.

The above statement is a direct contradiction of the former statement in a previous post that you made:

Non-Christians most often define Evangelicals as Protestants who practice a certain type of liturgy. The type most on this board would describe as non-liturgical worship.

</font>[/QUOTE]That's not a contradiction. Most on this board would describe their worship as non-liturgical, but mioque correctly describes it as a type of liturgy.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
That's not a contradiction. Most on this board would describe their worship as non-liturgical, but mioque correctly describes it as a type of liturgy.

Moique's definition is skewed if not wrong all together.

World Book:
n. pl. -ies. 1. a form of public worship. Different churches use different liturgies.
syn. ritual. 2. a communion service (especially in the Eastern Church).

the liturgy: a. (in the Episcopal Church) the book of common prayer "it was Sunday, and I happened to be reading the liturgy" (George Borrow)

Webster:
the public rites and services of the Christian Church.
the Eucharist office in the Orthodox Eastern Church

Liturgy is ritualistic. That is obvious from the above definitions. Let me describe to you our "order of service" which in no way is "Liturgical."

Sometimes we open in prayer; sometimes with a hymn first, and then prayer.
Sometimes we have one hymn before the announcements, sometimes two or three.
Sometimes we one, or two, or three or even four specials, and sometimes none at all.
Sometimes we don't even end with a hymn, much less an invitiation, though sometimes we not only end with a hymn, but an invitation as well. We let the Holy Spirit guide.

Order of Service? Liturgy? There is none. There is no way that you can bottle us up and define our church as having any kind of liturgy. To say so would be absurd. I have been in many other such churches which are just as informal and stay away from being bound to ritualism.
DHK

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by DHK:
Sometimes we open in prayer; sometimes with a hymn first, and then prayer.
Sometimes we have one hymn before the announcements, sometimes two or three.
Sometimes we one, or two, or three or even four specials, and sometimes none at all.
Sometimes we don't even end with a hymn, much less an invitiation, though sometimes we not only end with a hymn, but an invitation as well. We let the Holy Spirit guide.

Yes, our liturgy is less ritualistic, predictable and orderly than that of some other Christians.