Talk:Evangelical

Query on Origin[edit]

Origin of the word, 'evangelical'. I believe that the word came from the English slurring alteration of the two words, evil and angel. This combined word is evangel. Does anyone have another etymological explanation for the term 'evangelical'?

Incorrect etymology[edit]

No, it's from the Greek 'euangellos' meaning 'good news' or 'gospel'. As is clearly stated on the main page.

'Eu' is a positive prefix: euphoria, euthanasia, eugenics etc. 'Angel' is from the Greek angellos meaning 'messenger'

waffle[edit]

Assert EXPERT Template[edit]

Disambig doesn' cover the anglican (main1: Church of England & main2: Anglo-Catholics) divide into High Church and evangelical groups, and the low church article does refer to evangelical, while no specific clarification exists on the page.

See also: Evangelicalism and the POV disputed Evangelism ... FrankB 21:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This term obviously needs to cover the distinction (s???) here if those articles cite this page via wikilinks! Being as this is muddy and POV waters, I don't feel qualified to draw the necessary clarifications and integrate the whole corpus of religious articles which may be linked, as I would assume.

The most troubling phrase is in Anglo-Catholics, but some of the related articles also use Evangelical or related terms requiring good-faith cross-checking by someone knowledgable and associated integration between articles, at the least

The validity of the traditional Anglican ordination rites, and thus the Anglo-Catholics' claim to unbroken Apostolic succession and valid sacraments, is rejected by the Catholic Church. Finally, many Catholic teachings which Anglo-Catholics uphold (such as the Sacrifice of the Mass) were specifically rejected by the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church (which have a definitely Protestant tone), and were unknown within the Anglican Church until the mid-nineteenth century Oxford Movement. The large Evangelical party in the Anglican church has continued since the Oxford Movements's inception to emphasise the essentially Protestant nature of the Anglican church and to fight against Catholic doctrines within it.

Best of luck! FrankB 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a practising Christian, but I do know enough about Anglican history to know that a reference to the Evangelical party of Anglicanism is a reference to Evangelicalism. I don't think you will get a POV dispute about that assertion. I hope that helps. I have fixed Anglo-Catholicism. Keep up the good work! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Hey, Im trying to answer some questions for a friend of mine. Can anyone answer the following questions about Christian churches in the United States?

Which denominations have established relationships with their counterparts in other nations?
Are there any resources where about which denominations have given the most resources for international work?
What are the main ways in which denominations/churches support their counterpart churches internationally?

Thanks so much for any help with these questions. Tchadienne 02:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supremecy of the Bible and Glossolalia[edit]

" cleave to the supremacy of the Bible without adopting certain Pentecostal practices (such as glossolalia). " I'm removing this sentance as it implies Glossolalia (speaking in toungues) is an unbiblical preactice. The practice derives from and is described in great detail in the Bible. see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/tongues3.htm I also intned to edit this article more in the future. If some time has elapsed and you've noticed no additions, please email me to hold me accountable. :) Thanks --DjSamwise 22:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to be an article, or not to be an article, that is the...[edit]

This thing has tons of fascinating info, but it could hardly be called a dab page. It is in fact either a dab page on steroids, or the outline of an article.

I am pondering two options:

make it an actual dab page, and move all the fascinating info to other (related) pages
make it an article

I favor the former. Anyone who wants to vote otherwise, speak now or.. uh... or don't speak. Leaving it the way it is, IMHO, is not even an option. Dab pages are supposed to have a consistent look & feel. --Ling.Nut 06:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...either way, I'm changing something within a day or so. --Ling.Nut 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking it was not a disambiguation page, but an article about one word that has several subtle variations in the one meaning of the gospel of Jesus. However, I am sure you did the right thing to make the encyclopedia work more smoothly, as these subtle variations in meaning point readers to widely different articles, leaving this one a fairly tedious screed on linguistics.

In short Yes - a dab page is much more useful than a long article about the word. Keep up the good work.

Question - did you find a home to paste in the material that you removed?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

* [http://www.christianitytoday.com/ Christianity Today] * [http://www.christianpost.com/ The Christian Post] * [http://www.evangelicalbible.com ESV Bible] Dewikified links - I think they are some kind of advertising. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simplification?[edit]

User:Ling.Nut has done a great job of simplifying this page as a true disambiguation page. I wonder if it could be simplified further; perhaps something like this (needs some clean up):

Evangelical may refer to:

What sort of a page is this?[edit]

At the bottom of the page it says: 'This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.' A disambiguation page therefore should list words which are the same (or very nearly so) but which have different meanings or usage in different contexts. But this page doesn't seem to do that, it lists pages of quite different titles, but doesn't explain how they relate. And why is 'Catholic Evangelical' (incidentally the only item which actually contains the same word as the title of the page) listed separately as a "See Also"? Catholics and Protestants not getting on? It seems to be written for people who already know all about it, rather than people trying to find out what it's all about. Rexparry sydney 09:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German-speaking organisations with Evangelical in their name[edit]

A well-meaning editor just added a list of three organisations with Evangelical in their name. This is not recommended by the style guide, and in this case, the list could run to hundreds. I have deleted them. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic sense of Evangelical[edit]

We've got to have something that links to or other wise provides the classical meaning of "evangelical", not 'evangelicalism' as the term is often co-opted to mean in a contemporary American context, but the classic meaning still common in Europe of 'Protestant'. You see this classic meaning still intented in the name of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which is certainly not "evangelical" in the contemporary American sense of the term, but instead in the classic European-rooted sense of the term. Emerymat (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. This page is here to address exactly this divergence in meaning. So we have the link to Protestantism and also the links to wiktionary. Were you thinking of some other way to express the classic meaning? One of the contemporary American meanings is dealt with by the link to Evangelicalism. You may also have noticed that many Americans use the adjective "evangelical" to refer to evangelism. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree in theory, but I'm just not sure that a user who is not already familiar with the classic meaning would see Protestantism as connected. When they clicked on Protestantism, there isn't anything easily visible in that article that would explain why the user got linked there from Evangelical. Emerymat (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. I noticed that too, and added a bold face reference in the third sentence of Protestantism today. I think the first type of reader we are trying to serve with a dab page is a person searching for an article on a particular subject. But if we can, we should, as you say, try to help the reader who can't easily recognise the article he is looking for in the dab list. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 'Evangelicalism'[edit]

This disambiguation page is unneccessary. An 'evangelical' is an adherent of 'evangelicalism' just like a Christian is an adherent of Christianity. The purpose of a disamb page is to distinguish between similar terms, rather than clarify misunderstood concepts. By redirecting, this whole mess is sorted out very simply. To summarise:

Evangelism, Christian proselytism
Protestantism, one of three major branches of Christianity
Gospels, accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth

Evangelical' doesn't 'refer' to any of the above. They are completely different concepts.

And as for:

Lutheranism
Evangelical Synod of North America, a former Reformed denomination known as the Evangelicals, or the
- Evangelical and Reformed Church, its successor

These are narrower subsets of 'evangelicalism', and they are covered in the article on Evangelicalism

The Evangelicalism article also directs people to the rock band as well.

Evangelicals (band), an American indie rock band —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmackay (talk • contribs) 07:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Evangelic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]