kelsmom

Grace's post reminds me that there is more than one way of looking at things! Her evangelical beliefs are different than the evangelical beliefs one sees front & center in the world of politics. My explanation was really unfair to people like Grace.

Jimmy Carter is an evangelical Christian. In office, he did not attempt to make others believe as he did. His strong Christian beliefs did guide his actions, but he did not try to pass laws that would impress his religion on the American public.

Mike Huckabee wears his evangelism a bit differently. I think that is what many today view as the typical evangelical Christian ... right or wrong, that is what is associated with the term in politics today.

wasj

The Rapture.

teriwtt

sueinphilly - I'll give a stab at this.

First of all, look at how the word is used. Evangelism does mean spreading the word of the gospel. Yes, anyone who spreads the word of the gospel might consider themselves evangelizing. However, when the word evangelical is used in the title of a church that's not affiliated with a mainline Protestant church, then it has a different connotation. One exception - the largest Lutheran body in the U.S. is called the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (usually referred to as the ELCA). But because the ELCA is considered a mainline Protestant church, when they speak of the evangelical part of the title, it has different connotations.

The key is whether the church considers itself grouped with other same mainline Protestant churches, i.e., Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, Lutheran. Roman Catholicism is obviously not considered a Protestant church (hence, the name protestant church came from those who were founded due to their protesting of the Roman Catholic church) because, in their eyes, they considered themselves the one true church. So all other mainline denominations became identified as Protestant.

Another big difference between Protestant churches and evangelical churches can be seen in their structure beyond the local church. Mainline Protestant churches all have some sort of defined hierarchy that goes beyond the local church to which it is held accountable, and who sets policies and makes statements on behalf of all churches in that denomination. When you hear of a denomination that has national 'headquarters' with a bishop, bishop's staff, bishop's council, synods, regions, etc., that usually identifies them as a mainline Protestant church (but part of every church's mission is going to include evangelism).

Now the difference between Evangelical Christian churches and mainline Protestant churches comes in their beliefs. This is where it's helpful to distinguish between evangelical with a small 'e' and Evangelical with a capital 'E'. Evangelical with a small 'e', usually refers to one of the missions of the church - to evangelize. Evangelical with a capital 'E', usually refers to a non-denominational (not associated or accountable to any of the mainline Protestant denominations) church whose members must subscribe to certain beliefs that other mainline Protestant churches do not profess. The two main belief differences between Evangelical churches (with a capital 'E') and mainline Protestant churches surround (1)baptism and the (2)bible.

Mainline Protestant churches (I'll refer to as Protestant from here on out), practice in baptism of infants, whereas Evangelical churches practice a believer's baptism, meaning a person has to be old enough and educated enough in their faith to make a conscious, willing choice to be baptized. Those who were raised Protestant, but who switch to Evangelical have to be baptized again to be a member of their church. This is where you often hear the phrase being born again. Baptism in Evangelical churches usually begins to take place when a person reaches their teen years, or whenever they want to join an Evangelical church as an adult. Not all adult-baptism practicing congregations are Evangelical, though. A couple of exceptions are the Baptist faiths and those which have their origins in the Baptist movement (Mennonite, Amish, etc.).

The other key difference you will find between Evangelical and Protestant is their belief in the origins of the bible and how it is to be used in our daily life. Protestants (and even Roman Catholics) believe the bible is a product of those who wrote it, and thus, is not perfect... there is room for human error in the recording of God's word; Evangelicals believe in an inerrant bible that was written down by people, dictated directly from God - thus it is a literal translation. Evangelicals believe that everything written in the bible happened literally (or will happen literally), and that it is wrong to read stories metaphorically, such as Genesis and the creation (hence the big debate in politics about teaching evolution vs. creation).

When you combine these two differences in beliefs and practices between Protestant and Evangelicals, the consequence is that you see Evangelicals saying that only those who believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior (this is where adult baptism comes in) will go to heaven. And because they want everyone to go to heaven, they feel it is their obligation to evangelize so that everyone knows Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. If you ask someone in authority in an Evangelical church if you are going to heaven (and you have not been baptized or born again as an adult), they will say no. That is the essence of their belief, and almost every Evangelical church I know, whose website I've looked at will profess this belief. To be an official member of that church, the issue of adult baptism and belief in an inerrant bible are non-negotiable.

This is just a start to the differences. Before I get any more detailed, read this and see if it helps (or just confuses you more); then feel free to ask for any clarification.

As this post has taken me a while to write, I'm sure I've cross-posted with someone.

sueinphilly

teriwtt - That was an amazing response.

Ok I do have a question. What type of Christian is it that believes the world is 2000 (or maybe almost 6000 if you throw Adam Eve and Moses in there) years old, as opposed to several billion years old.

teriwtt

Glad it helped...

to answer your question: Evangelicals believe creation happened as specifically written in the book of Genesis, and thus creation is only several thousands of years old. Those who do not believe in a literal translation (most non-Evangelicals) of the bible, believe in evolution, which they believe took place over several billion years.

I was at a dinner party a couple of weeks ago with some of my H's friends (they are all Ph.D. scientists) and the discussion eventually led to politics. It was interesting (as a non-scientist, and as a fairly liberal minister) to hear their horror that people would actually consider electing someone who would deny evolution. I think they all felt their vocations were being called into question by someone who is a non-scientist, and who will use his beliefs to inform his choices in life.

lderochi

Teri, good response but I think it leaves out some important distinctions. I don't think a bulletin board can do this topic justice, but the distinction is not just between "mainline protestant" and "evangelical" churches. There's also differences among "fundamental", "conservative" (not in the political sense), "charismatic" and many more. I'm afraid that most people lump evangelicals/fundamentalists/conservatives in the same group and there are real differences. Charsimatic churches span the gamut, from Catholic to Protestant. As an example, I grew up in a church that would probably best be classified as Conservative. It was only somewhat Evangelical, not a lot of "spreading the Word" activities going on. It was definitely of the literal interpretation mold. But it was also very, very strong on separation of Church and State. This Church also did not celebrate Christmas and Easter as religious holidays, but saw absolutely nothing wrong with the secular side of those holidays. So, it was a very conservative, fundamental Church where the statement "put Christ back in Christmas" would have been completely out of place.

I do have to disagree on your statement about creation/evolution. The statement you made probably applies to most Fundamentalists and Conservatives, but I would not make it a blanket statement about Evangelicals. There's nothing about Evangelicals that would automatically lead to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

corranged

Catholic vs. Protestant:

This site has an oversimplified chart comparing Catholic and Protestant beliefs on a number of topics.
Comparison Chart: Catholic vs. Protestant Theology - ReligionFacts

I haven't read this whole page. It has a table similar to the one above, and it focuses on some "hot button" issues, such as views on homosexuality, evolution, and abortion. It compares Catholicism to conservative Protestantism. The site seems to favor Catholicism.
Comparing Roman Catholic and conservative Protestant beliefs

I thought I would find more websites on this topic, but these are the two best/simplest I found after a quick search. There are also notable cultural differences.

Booklady

Good point, lderochi. Not all evangelicals are creationists, and many have a much more nuanced view of the Bible than simply "God dictated it". Evangelical scholars (no, that's no longer an oxymoron) such as Mark Noll (TIME: 25 Most Influential Evangelicals: Mark Noll) and Ron Sider (Ron Sider) are two examples. And my favorite theologian, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, N.T. Wright, calls himself an evangelical.

teriwtt

Again, since Evangelical churches (as opposed to churches that practice evangelism) do not have any sort of hierarchy, each individual church sets their own beliefs, but just about every Evangelical church, if you look at their website, states they believe the bible is inerrant. That means they support a view of creationism.

No, not all evangelicals are creationists, but those churches which refer to themselves as Evangelical do subscribe to creationist beliefs.

As soon as you say Anglican Bishop, that says he is not part of the Evangelical church, although that doesn't exclude him from calling himself evangelical. The difference is between the big E and little e.

teriwtt

From what I remember, Jimmy Carter is Baptist; even amongst the Baptists, there are different denominations (just like within Lutheranism there are three synods which are very, very different from each other), and Jimmy Carter (like all Christians) is evangelical. He just isn't a member of an Evangelical church.

When you look at the political candiates today who are most vocal about their Evangelical associations, they are the Republicans. Jimmy Carter was a Democrat. It seems as if the Republicans generally are less likely to see a separation of church and state, whereas the Democrats can talk religion, but there's much less fear that their beliefs will dominate their political decisions.

Yes, there are major distinctions between Evangelical, conservative, fundamentalist, charismatic, etc., but as the OP initiated the thread in regards to not wanting religion to influence the law, I assumed she was referring to the ongoing debate in the primaries of how certain candidates are vying for the Evangelical vote. Anyone can be a combination of Evangelical, conservative, fundamentalist, or charismatic, or just one of them, and people do intermix the terms; this is why I was trying to limit it to Evangelical vs. evangelical, so the OP could get an idea of the difference between the usages.

When the media reports on the Evangelicals, they are referring to just that segment. If the story is on an issue that reports on similarities and differences between Evangelicals, conservatives, etc., they will usually say that. It's usually inaccurate to intermingle one term to include all of them, althought it is done outside the media all the time, which is where I think the confusion comes in.

teriwtt

sueinphilly - just rereading your second post here - a helpful analogy between different Christian faiths can be seen in Judaism. In Judaism you have three different traditions, right? Reformed, Conservative and Orthodox.

Each one follows a set of guidelines for daily life based on how they interpret the Torah and how they think God intended those rules to be carried out in modern life. It's kind of like how literal do you take what the Torah says vs. how literal do take what the bible says. Is there any room for error, interpretation, translation, etc. Christianity is the same way - some believe there is room for human error in the penning of God's word, and some say it's exactly what it is, which leaves no room for human interpretation.

lderochi

Hmmm. I dunno -- I mean, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America certainly calls itself evangelical (obviously), but they clearly don't have a creationist view. And they do have a hierarchy. I continue to disagree -- I am aware of many other churches who call themselves Evangelical (and people who call themselves evangelicals) that have a much more nuanced belief than you are asserting.

teriwtt

In my first post I identified the ELCA as a church with the word evangelical in it, but clarified that they are a Protestant denomination and are an exception. I said that Protestant churches don't necessarily prescribe to creationist views because those views are literal.

collegemom16

I agree with Iderochi. A great example of an evangelical (and creationist) who doesn't fit this mold is Dr. Hugh Ross. His ministry is called Reasons to Believe and its purpose is to evangelize. Hugh is a scientist (astrophysicist) and he has at least one other scientist (biologist I believe) who work with him. They believe both in creationism and an old earth. These two beliefs are not incompatiable. This is not at all an uncommon belief among creationists and I think teriwtt's descriptions generalize far too much.

teriwtt

I never said they were incompatible, but it's very rare to find a creationist who is non-evangelical in their beliefs.

The seminary I attended was recognized for its efforts in initiating dialogue in the science community, specifically in regards to discussing how creationism and evolution can co-exist.

To further demonstrate the ambiguity and difficulty of defining religions, within any given Protestant denomination, you will find members who do believe in an inerrant bible and who do believe in only creationism. But the church body itself will not profess that, and will allow room for interpretation. Individual people are allowed to come to their own conclusions. However, many evangelical churches will require you to sign a statement of belief (as will many evangelical colleges) to be a member, and that statement of belief is very clear regarding a believer's baptism and the irerrancy of the bible. I don't know any Protestant churches that subscribe to such strict views that it will not allow members to join if they do not agree. Yes, they have to sign something, but their statements leave much more room for personal reflection and interpretation.