Cruising a dictionary for them is challenging enough, I wager.
The Bible says to help out the poor, it does not mention how. Since poverty is a complicated issue, then the best way to help out the poor is not obvious. However, some folks, mainly on the left, like to engage in question begging and say that Jesus’s teachings mean Christians have to support high taxes and high welfare. The actual disagreement is about methods and not values.
Because, to quote my late father, “the religious right is neither”.
He also said the same thing about the Moral Majority.
I guess I’m still waiting for an answer. One of you apparently thinks Evangelical means Ecumenical. Is that the consensus?
I agree with the OP, but I was thinking about it recently from a different direction.
It’s actually genius how Conservatives have managed to court religious groups in the US. As the OP alludes, much of the principles that the modern GOP stands up (as far as there are any), are in stark contrast to typical principles espoused by Christians. Yet to most religious groups voting Republican is a no-brainer. And they’ve done it by blowing up this issue of abortion; taken something they probably don’t give a shit about and made it the fundamental issue that you’re supposed to vote on (and before that was gay rights).
This tactic is instructional, really.
It’s still a little surreal though. If there is anything the bible bangs on about, it’s adultery. So you’d think some of Trump’s scandals would have some impact there, but no; GOP-supporting christians just shrug and say “no-one’s perfect”.
Well, it started with pandering to their racism, so maybe Trump feels like a blast from the past.
What?! No. Shoot, they’re practically opposites. Ecumenism is the idea that all Christians groups are ‘Christian’ and should work together in a single body with a goal of eventual reconciliation. Needless to say, Evangelicals are as a general rule NOT on board with that. Pretty much at all. Shoot, half of the time they think Catholics are going to Hell, they certainly don’t want to put control of their church in their hands.
The main Ecumenical body in the world today is the World Council of Churches. They are represented at the national level by the National Council of Churches in Christ USA. There are about 40 denominations that are part of the NCC. They are the normal mainlines - United Church of Christ, United Methodists, Presbyterian (USA), Evangelical Lutherans (which despite their name are the Mainline Lutherans-it’s confusing), Episcopalians, etc. - the Historically Black Churches - AME, National Baptists, CME, etc.- the Orthodox and National Churches - Syriacs, Copts, Ukrainian Orthodox, etc. - as well as a smattering of random Pietists and dissenters - Swendenborgians, Moravians.
What are not represented are Catholics and Evangelicals. They just don’t play well with others. Catholics think they’re the ‘One True Church’ (except for Orthodox) and believe in Ecumenism as long as everyone else joins them and Evangelicals think that churches getting together and talking is a recipe for a one world government which will usher in guys riding horses and the world exploding.
With a little less snark, Ecumenism in the modern era largely arose concurrent with the Modernist-Fundamentalist controversies of the early 20th century and became widely associated with Modernism. Churches that embraced modernism - largely mainline Protestants, embraced Ecumenism as well. Churches that embraced Fundamentalism - largely Evangelicals rejected Ecumenism. Although to be fair, they do have their own group, the National Evangelical Association which is what might be called a ‘Limited Ecumenical Group.’
That’s certainly what I thought. And in the context of this political thread, white Evangelicals vote overwhelmingly for Trump while Catholics (with Hispanic Catholics included) split about evenly between Trump and Clinton.
Thus my confusion when, in the context of distinguishing Evangelical Christians from “the other kind,” Mr. Puddleglum cited Food for the Poor as an Evangelical charity. The top two officers of Food for the Poor both have Jesuit backgrounds. There are several Roman Catholic bishops on the Board of Directors, and at least one Episcopalian bishop. We’re here to fight ignorance — is it nitpicking for me to ask Mr. Puddleglum why he considers Food for the Poor to be an example of Evangelical charity?
Some other charities were listed by Puddleglum but, already confused by Food for the Poor, I didn’t check them. Are any of them “Evangelical charities”?
You’re missing some of it though. It wasn’t just abortion. Abortion has become simply a litmus test for a number of associated ideas. Roe v. Wade is what brought it to prominence, but this split started with Engel v. Vitale. What made Evangelicals into a solid voting bloc was basically a series of Supreme Court decisions from 1962 to about the mid-90s that limited public expression of religion. What they saw was the very public erosion of traditionally granted privileges and perhaps by Lee v. Weisman there could be an argument that the courts went too far. What this did though was firmly cement in Evangelical minds that the government was not looking out for their interests and the only way to make it look out for their interests was to wrestle control of the Courts. From this basic premise is where everything else arises. Certainly abortion is part of it, but it’s only a subset of a general idea that Evangelicals feel the government does not care about them. Obviously Republicans have been very keen on continuing to stoke this fire.
Evangelical means different things to different people, I imagine for demographers it means any christian that belong to churches that are protestant but not mainstream. For those of us who are actually evangelicals it is a doctrinal emphasis and not defined by denominational boundaries. The main emphasesare Conversionism, Activisim, Biblicalism, and Crucicentrism.
Because of this there can be evangelical Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, or Episcopalians, I don’t know about Orthodox but I imagine so.
I considered Food for the Poor to be evangelical in that they work with various denominations, and seek to evangelize the people they help. My understanding is that they were started as an exclusively Catholic organization but have expanding and are now an ecumenical organization with an evangelical doctrinal focus.
Agreed, and this resulted from their concept of “religious freedom” as being the freedom to be a Christian as illustrated in their idea of the United States being a “Christian nation”. It can’t be a “Christian nation” if there is true freedom of religion because true religious freedom includes, for example, the right to be a Muslim or an atheist, too. It’s also illustrated in the Religious Right’s constant effort to formulate and shape government policy to favor THEIR beliefs to the exclusion of everyone else’s.
Just so. I think the religious element is an important part of their identity. Namely, it imbues politics with a subtext of good vs. evil. When God is on your side, those who oppose you obviously oppose God, too. They’re not just wrong, or misguided, or even stupid; they’re evil. “When it comes to politics, we talk,” a member of the Ikhwan, an early 20th century Arabian Salafist movement, once told a historian, “but when it’s religion, we kill everyone.”
For political evangelicals, the normal horsetrading of politics is actually acquiescing to evil; there’s no compromising with the Evil One.
This is just me speaking ex cathedra from my belly button, and I could be wrong, but it does seem to me to represent the mindset of politically-active evangelicals.
When it comes to labeling a certain group of people, it helps to look at common traits or behaviors they share. With many members the Religious Right, perhaps a better term is “Racist Religious Right”.