I’d argue that the creation of the Church of England under Henry VIII has always been admitted to be political as well. Of course there’s been more to it over the years, but the whole reason Henry rejected papal authority was because he wanted an annulment he didn’t get.
That was the personal reason, but at the same time it was part of a centralizing, autocratic wave sweeping Europe; that’s another political reason, of a more general nature.
Throughout the Middle Ages, church, nobles, towns and crown had been in states of dynamic equilibrium which varied through time and in each domain; the Renaissance saw some of the most autocratic heads of state of European history, not just declare themselves the State or above the Church, but get away with it. And in the “above the Church” I’m including equally Henry VIII and his nephew Charles V.
Lutherans practice infant baptism and accept the universality of the Sacrament. I think I’ve only ever seen one adult baptism performed in a Lutheran church and I assume that had to have been a conversion to Christianity as a whole (I was a child and didn’t ask). I don’t know if I’d call it a travesty of the Sacrament, but definitely unneeded. Confirmation is obviously the acceptance and understanding of the doctrine as an adult.
For adult baptism, there’s obviously the split between the Baptists and the Anabaptists. I’m trying to figure out if a member who was baptized as an infant would be expected to perform believer’s baptism as an adult upon converting in either group. Wikipedia is not as helpful as it could be. Obviously someone who was raised Baptist or Anabaptist, baptized as an adult, and converted over to one of the denominations that practice infant baptism wouldn’t be re-baptized. But I definitely wouldn’t put the Anabaptists in as Evangelical as being discussed in this thread, and the Baptists would be depend more on the specific group.
I was thinking earlier that really all splits are political in nature. I thought about putting in my last post, but didn’t. Even before the Reformation there was plenty of politics in Western Christianity.
And when it comes to politics, people often confuse “evangeicals” with “white evangelicals”:
“Evangelical”, as UDS says, means a Christian who spreads the Gospel. Therefore, in theory, all Christiansare evangelical. I am a Lutheran, a member of the ELCA. ELCA stands for Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.
I think “evangelical” is being confused with “fundamentalist”, and they are not the same.
Regards,
Shodan
Just like the distinction between small-c catholic and big-C Catholics, we can distinguish between small-e evangelical and big-E Evangelicals, the latter being a specific subgroup of Christians. See cites in my own (#19) and others’ posts above.
While it’s true that a distinction should be made, there is some blurring of the lines. Also, as noted by Thudlow, there are evangelicals and then there are Evangelicals. Would it be fair to say that all Fundamentalists are Evangelicals but all Evangelicals are not Fundamentalists? Or, are they actually 2 separate groups?
Fundamentalists are a subset of evangelicals, yes. Evangelicals can be conservative (politically and theologically) without being fundamentalist, and can be liberal while still being evangelical. The prescriptive and descriptive aspects of the definition of “evangelical” might be getting confused.
Regards,
Shodan
Joel Osteen is the primo example of this. His Lakewood Church here in Houston is a finely oiled machine that works extremely well at extracting dollars from wallets.
In the US evangelicals in common usage means Protestant, but not old line churches. Old line denominations are Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal, methodist, Reformed, and Disciples of Christ. All of those churches have evangelical offshoots. Evangelicals are more likely to be baptists, pentecostals, non-denominational, or new denomination. The churches are usually low church and congregational in governance. The Wikipedia article on us is pretty good.
It’s just a name, ELCA are the biggest and most mainstream American Lutherans. The name is a result of a merger between one that broke from the much, much more conservative LCMS (second biggest American Lutheran denomination. The LCMS and #3 WELS require creationism, for one, while ELCA tends towards mainstream beliefs. Though I’m not sure any of the 3 are counted as evangelical in polls etc.?
As I said previously, my understanding is that evangelicals take to heart the admonition to go forth and preach the word to all nations. (Mark 16:15, Luke 14:23, Matthew 28:19-20, etc. etc.) Hence, “evangelical”. If they can solicit funds from others to help pay for broadcasting the word, bonus. Being on TV or radio distributed as wide as possible is simply carrying out the mission they see themselves required to do.
This does not stop them from being fundamentalist, ie. believe the literal word, or puritanical, i.e. anything fun is distracting from worship, and so on. Indeed, if one takes the command to preach literally, no surprise if they take the rest of the book literally too. A church can be many things, AFAIK the terms like evangelical and fundamentalist etc. are descriptive not exclusive. If one such word appears in the name of the sect, it is likely because they emphasize that role above the others.
With my many years of Catholic education I don’t recall anyone suggesting the entire bible be taken literally; a lot of it was suggested to be allegories and such, and had been transliterated several times by human scribes - just the opposite of literal interpretation. It seems to me that is the attitude of most mainstream religions today.
*“Blessed are the cheesemakers”, *for example, is not meant to be taken literally - it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products. 
I still need to read the rest of this thread, but one indicator that I rarely see cited - but often see in evidence - is the restrictive role of women in Evangelical congregations. Women cannot vote in congregational decisions, and they cannot serve as clergy. If you find a Protestant church where women can vote and serve as clergy, that is not an evangelical church. (I’ve known marriages, for example, that “swung” to ELCA Lutheran churches as opposed to Missouri Synod because the wife WOULD NOT join a church in which she could not vote.)
I could be wrong about this. If I am, please correct me.
Only partially true. In the Southern Baptist church I grew up in, while women could not be pastors or deacons, they had as much right to vote as anyone else.
(I barely remember that there was a big stink when I was probably under 10–so around 1980–when the church wanted to hire a female choir director. In the end, she got the job and as far as I know still has it today.)
Speaking as an ELCA Lutheran, no, it is more than a name. We are evangelical. We spread the Gospel.
Regards,
Shodan
…Again, that’s one definition, but it’s not the one that people use 99% of the time when they say “evangelical.”
I don’t know about the “99% of the time” part, but I agree it’s over-simplifying things to say that Evangelicals are always, well, evangelical. The term has morphed beyond its plain meaning.
Meaning if you see a news article, poll, etc. contrasting “mainline” and “Evangelical,” ELCA will almost always be in the mainline group.
E.g. Pew Polls puts ELCA in mainline, LCMS and WELS in evangelical (expand the sections with the arrows).
OK, I’ll correct you. My wife is a full voting member with her own vote in our LCMS church. The only role I know of she can’t do is be an ordained Pastor. Whether she could be a church elder I have not checked. Every other church and school role, position, or committee is open to her.
Absolutely, 100%, wrong. None of those are Catholic beliefs (except possibly the road to salvation going through Jesus, and even then the church has a longer, more complex answer there). Biblical literalism is frowned upon in Catholicism.