Is 'evangelical' a label we assign 1800 Christians (Baptists etc) or is it a label they used to describe themselves? To what extent? Also, are Stephen and Peter using 'evangelical' and 'religious right' interchangeably?

It seems to me that evangelicals today are more known for their political activity than their evangelism which is interesting considering some definitions of evangelical. If the term has been used continuously but the political activity of evangelicals past and present differs in substance as well as degree (for example current evangelicals are comfortable embracing the state in ways 1800 'evangelicals' would find abhorrent), isn't it adding complexity, not simplifying, dialogue on American Christianity and Politics?

Considering that labels are, at their best, useful for simplifying how one describes a thing doesn't such a reality make 'evangelical' in this discussion of American Christianity and politics the opposite of useful? I know it's taken for granted that evangelical and religious right are synonymous and that 'evangelical' describes a 'thing' (movement, outlook etc) present in our nation since its founding but I have serious questions about both.

I could be totally wrong, and I'm open to that, but groups like Mainstream Baptists argue quite convincingly that they're following the tradition of Baptists from the 1800's far better than the Southern Baptist Convention.
Thanks!

That question: what does "evangelical" mean was asked in our SS class this morning. Defining it would make discussions much easier.

Are SDAs evangelical?

Elaine
"Evangelical" is a more prestigious term than "fundamentalistic", but the two terms cover the same reality: Protestant Christians who believe in scriptural inerrancy. For that reason, Presbyterians and Episcopalians are not considered "evangelical", since they do not believe that the Bible is inerrant (or that a Gambino with a TV-channel is a credible representative of Christ.)

Adventists, such as they were when I was part of the church, were all fundamentalists, or they kept their mouth shut. Nobody openly suggested that a the Bible contained real errors. Specious distinctions were drawn between SDAs who believed in "thought inspiration" and evangelicals who believed in the dictation theory of inspiration but the two views were in reality indistinquishable. They both came down to acknowledging minor errors in the Biblical text but no errors that affected belief and dogma.

The only division within Adventism was between mainstream fundamentalists (Questions on Doctrine) and sectarian fundamentalists (Andreassen and a significant segment of historic Adventism).

Based on my having spent some time at the Spectrum blog this spring, I realize that this is no longer a valid analysis. I realize that you "guys" are not representative of the church at large, as I'm writing, but you're obviously its future.

Aage Rendalen

Aage, thanks for the clarification. That is about what I surmised, but since the term is bandied about so often it left a somewhat confusing picture.

While there may be a few bloggers here who are fundamentalists, it is quite apparent that most are not, and I daresay you and I might even fall into the dreaded "heretical camp" for voicing our doubts. But it sure makes for more stimulating conversation, doesn't it?

Thanks Aage. We're, of course, flattered to be seen as the future.

Beyond Spectrum and most Adventist college campuses, another harbinger of the future of the church lies on the social networking sites of young Adventism. Let's just say, they ain't arguing over the texts of homosexuality like the boomers do.

Johnny, it is vital to separate religious right and evangelical. That's part of what the evangelical manifesto was about and behind what these conservatives are saying in places.

Alex, yes, the two talking heads don't make that distinction and there is a distinction. That's what I said in my comment.

The evangelical manifesto is a bunch of moderates arguing that they're not liberal or fundamentalist. It's like Jim Wallis in Christianity Today arguing, and giving reasons for, why he's no liberal.

I understand the desire I really do but ultimately there is something seriously wrong with people's voice being driven by a desire to state what they're not instead of what they are. Is there a difference? I think there is.

Some thoughts on Liberalism, Fundamentalism, Conservatism and Evangelical are in these sites which offer a differing stance from those above.

“A God without wrath,
led men without sin,
into a kingdom without judgment
through the ministrations of
a Christ without a cross.”

H. Richard Neibuhr

A sketch of the history of Liberalism- http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=177

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gresham_Machen

I listen to audio books going back and forth to work. Jacob Weisberg's book, The Bush Tragedy, contains a fascinating chapter on the role of religion in the life of George Bush.

Weisberg argues that Bush believes in believing, and that his faith seemingly has no content (apparently he has never talked about it to anybody)and it has been carefully constructed out of real or imagined personal events and anecdotes--such as his imaginary born again walk of the beach with Billy Graham).

Like Reagan, he doesn't go much to church, he never discusses religion with anybody, not even his White House liasons to the religious right. He has not done anything, Weisberg asserts, to turn his daughters into evangelical Christians. Bush's faith is apparently so minimal that it does not interfere with anything that might be politically expedient.

And the religious right, he writes, is more interested in access to power and imperial rhetoric than having the President share their beliefs. Weisberg sees Bush as having leveraged his minimalist faith to obtain the support of the religious right.

Bush, for instance, established a faith-based initiative without any intention of funding it (and evangelicals didn't want the program)but it served the political purpose of presenting Bush as a champion of the Right. (The first director quit after six months, and the assistant director wrote a highly critical account of his time with the program in the White House).

And--and this is not Weisberg--the ayatollahs on the Right, what do they believe? Tucker Carlson, in a book published three-four years ago said of Jerry Falwell, that in the many meetings he had had with him, on or off air, he never spoke to him about religion. It was always about "Did you see me on Larry King last night" or something of that order. Secular politicians are not the only ones corrupted by power.

Things have changed. In the days of the Roman Empire, the subjects had to burn inscence before a statue of the divine caesar. Now, it's the emperor who burns his incence before the deity of the people. But then as now, religion as rhetoric and symbol plays an important role in public life.