I can't remember what I was reading this weekend, but it was something that caused me to have the thought: "If that's an 'evangelical Christian' then I don't want to be one of those."
So I did a little research.
According to Wikipedia, always a primo source,
Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s and gained popularity in the United States during the series of Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th century.
Its key commitments are:
- The need for personal conversion (or being "born again");
- A high regard for biblical authority;
- An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ;
- Actively expressing and sharing the gospel.
Okay. That's probably not me. I have indeed had a personal conversion, but biblical authority? Inerrancy, even? Nope. Exceptional emphasis on atonement doesn't work well for me either. And, the last one? I tend to think of my own Christianity as similar to AA: a program of attraction, rather than of promotion.
I also found a post at GotQuestions.com:
In reality, all Christians should be evangelical Christians. The Bible is consistently instructing us to be witnesses of the good news (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 1 Peter 3:15). There is no better news than Jesus! There is no higher calling than evangelist. There is no doubt that holding to the fundamentals of the Bible will result in a certain worldview, and yes, political belief. However, there is nothing about being an evangelical that demands a certain political party or affiliation. An evangelical Christian is called to share the good news, to preach God's Word, and to set an example of purity and integrity. If these callings require political action, so be it. At the same time, evangelical Christians should not be sidetracked into abandoning our highest calling—sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I don't think I fit it.
It actually sounds as though the term "evangelical Christian" has been co-opted by a certain group of which I emphatically do not want to be a member. And a lot of them are in those, oh my golly, CEASELESS and deadly Republican debates. Why, why did there have to be so many of them? There have been TWENTY so far, and there are EIGHT more. This is insanity. It makes me want to poke forks into my eyeballs.
Yes, I could leave the room, but I value time spent with my (recently ill) conservative husband who is watching. And I don't think it's bad to know what they are saying...even if I started out sure they wouldn't be getting my vote and have only confirmed that belief
There's not much they say that I agree with, except that we have got to STOP this FREAKING SPENDING.
But their favorite topic seems to be "THE GAY AGENDA."
Oh my gosh.
Can they not find any more important thing to talk about? Here's my suspicion: they don't know any gay people, not really know them. In my philosophy, peace and understanding in the world come from the one-on-one relationships that we build. That's why I love working in international education, because all these folks coming and going to study are having real life experiences with "the other" and also experiencing BEING "the other."
Just think if you really knew someone from that group you don't like?
As I said to a friend recently, "so two people that I love, love each other. What could be better than that?"