The argument of Isaac B. Sharp’s The Other Evangelicals is that the gatekeepers of evangelicalism have decided who’s in and who’s out. It’s a good question, isn’t it? Who decides who’s one and who’s not. Take a look at this way. Some people say they are evangelical so they are. I remember listening to Phyllis Tickle, in a dingy conference center in San Diego say she was an evangelical. I chuckled.
So from what I am hearing, that old saying seems to be true; "There go my people, I must lead them." The tail is wagging the dog. And again, Evangelicalism is a "self defining" entity; anyone can declare they are one and anyone can declare their brand the peoples choice at any given moment? No wonder I didn't fit the mold and was so frustrated?
This post is helpful, but as I read it, I put myself back into the 1980s as an informed woman in a fundamentalist pew. What mattered for me and thousands of other women was not any finetuning of a doctrinal statement, but whether or not we would ever have a voice that men would listen to. I suspect that even now - in spite of all the advances women have made in evangelical circles, it's still the guys trying to define something that for many of us increasingly feels irrelevant.
"In the process, evangelicalism mostly fundamentalistic, theologically and politically conservative, white, straight, and male-headship-affirming claimants successfully formed twentieth-century evangelical identity in their own image." This is one of the most understandable definitions of evangelicalism I have seen. The last few words of the quote show how unbiblical it is. It was formed in males image, not God's image!
This book is, perhaps, more “evangelical” than any of the groups he describes. Technically, something is evangelical because it pertains to “evangel” - pertaining to bringing the gospel. Then, we can bring in the old “axiom” - “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck!” I am not trying to make folly of the book or this discussion, but the “branding “of Christian factions has become a repellant. Intelligent people read the Bible, like any other book, like what it has to say,,try to follow Jesus “Way, Truth, andLife”. When it comes to “church”, they don’t want any part of it, except for funerals, most weddings, and Christmas. When “it is what it is” becomes the bed descriptor... I’m sorry, but I like to find purpose and practicality. Evangelicalism has created a menu for the largest buffet - most of it is decent food, some better than others.
So from what I am hearing, that old saying seems to be true; "There go my people, I must lead them." The tail is wagging the dog. And again, Evangelicalism is a "self defining" entity; anyone can declare they are one and anyone can declare their brand the peoples choice at any given moment? No wonder I didn't fit the mold and was so frustrated?
This post is helpful, but as I read it, I put myself back into the 1980s as an informed woman in a fundamentalist pew. What mattered for me and thousands of other women was not any finetuning of a doctrinal statement, but whether or not we would ever have a voice that men would listen to. I suspect that even now - in spite of all the advances women have made in evangelical circles, it's still the guys trying to define something that for many of us increasingly feels irrelevant.
"In the process, evangelicalism mostly fundamentalistic, theologically and politically conservative, white, straight, and male-headship-affirming claimants successfully formed twentieth-century evangelical identity in their own image." This is one of the most understandable definitions of evangelicalism I have seen. The last few words of the quote show how unbiblical it is. It was formed in males image, not God's image!
This book is, perhaps, more “evangelical” than any of the groups he describes. Technically, something is evangelical because it pertains to “evangel” - pertaining to bringing the gospel. Then, we can bring in the old “axiom” - “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it must be a duck!” I am not trying to make folly of the book or this discussion, but the “branding “of Christian factions has become a repellant. Intelligent people read the Bible, like any other book, like what it has to say,,try to follow Jesus “Way, Truth, andLife”. When it comes to “church”, they don’t want any part of it, except for funerals, most weddings, and Christmas. When “it is what it is” becomes the bed descriptor... I’m sorry, but I like to find purpose and practicality. Evangelicalism has created a menu for the largest buffet - most of it is decent food, some better than others.