Talk:Neo-evangelicalism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Great Awakening

Wasn't the Great Awakening 18th century?

The article should refer to the Second Great Awakening

parachurch organizations

I wonder if some mention should be made of that organization of Christian CPA's that does financial accountability certification for evangelical parachurch organizations? ECFA or something like that? It seems significant that there was a need for that since the normal denominational accountability mechanisms didn't exist, and that a new umbrella solution developed in response.

Might also mention the role of parachurch interdenominational missions organization in missionary activity, and how some have evolved into overseas denominations. -- Wesley 18:51 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

Modernism

Opening paragraph mentions a struggle with Modernism, but the Modernism article only speaks of it in the artistic sense. Need to either pick a different word, or add a section to the Modernism article explaining what exactly is meant in this context. As it is it is very confusing and misleading. Wesley

Good point Wesley. The link should be to 'Theological Modernism'. I removed that link, and added a sentence to explain the term as it's used by evangelicals in the context of theology. - Mkmcconn 20:12 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

key feature

Wasn't the key feature of neo-evangelicalism a lower view of Scripture than that which had been held by historical fundamentalists and evangelicals? For instance, when someone still held to the infallibility of Scripture in matters of faith and doctrine, but not the inerrancy of Scripture, including statements of fact that were outside the areas of faith and dotrine, wasn't that person then labeled a neo-evangelical? Of course, as with many (most?) category labels, other things came to be associated with the label neo-evangelical, as this article points out, but my own sense is that the historical key was one's view of Scripture. My understanding is that Evangelicals and Fundamentalists today essentially share the same high view of Scripture, but differ in matters of degrees of separation and how separation is defined, and also differ on some social requirements which came to be associated with the label Fundamentalist. Also, I am not sure that the label Neo-Evangelicalism really came into wide usage as early as this article states. My own sense from my theological training and personal observations is that Neo-Evangelicalism was a phenomenon which was more salient beginning in the early 1960's. Is there documented evidence that supports widespread usage of the term Neo-Evanglicalism as early as the 1920's? wleman 02:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that the term was used that early; but, the article doesn't say that it was. The date that is usually used for the birth of the term is 1947, and it is attributed most often to Harold Ockenga. However, the movement distinguished from come-outer fundamentalism is older and well-defined prior to the coining of the term. Mkmcconn — 19:45, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

NPOV issues

The section on criticisms mentions that the movement has critics but does not explain what their specific criticisms are. It needs to be expanded, citing specific critisms of the movement. Also I removed the following paragraph as it expresses a POV and thus does not conform to the NPOV standard:

"In light of tectonic changes in the meaning and application of the term "evangelicalism" over the past half-century and particularly in light of developments within the last decade in which classic liberalism has sought legitimacy by using the monikers of "evangelicalism" it remains an incumbent task of conservative evangelicals to redefine their identity lest it cease to offer a clear and compelling witness to the Word of God in the world He created."

If someone wants this information to be included it should be rewritten to attribute it to someone within the Neo-evangelicalism movement who has previously expressed this point of view. --Cab88 15:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This was too dense with some POV issues-Major edit done

• Generally reformated - addressed issues of wordiness - see it as making it more accesibly.
• Question of the present and impact of neo conservsatism given section stub

Paul foord 15:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The article on Evangelicalism is similar regarding claims of people and organisations associated with that movement.

Should these be sorted out? Paul foord 08:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a merge is in order. KHM03 11:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone else think we should merge these two articles? KHM03 5 July 2005 17:15 (UTC)

It would be a mistake, I think. In the US, Canada, and Britain, "Evangelicalism" now popularly refers (unconsciously) to "Neo-evangelicalism", so that the term often implies a degree of theological conservativism. This is a fairly recent evolution in meaning,though. Many mainline churches continue to identify themselves as Evangelical, for very solid historical reasons. In fact, many groups, like Wesleyans and trinitarian Quakers,feel that this word is much more descriptive of them than Protestant is. The idea that they are not Evangelical, it could be argued, is a POV. And they are clearly not Neo-evangelical. Mkmcconn (Talk) 5 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

Evangelicals see themselves as solidly within the traditional evangelical stream - a point that the article is fuzzy about. Neo-evangelical is generally a term used by critics. Pollinator July 5, 2005 17:52 (UTC)

Who is an evangelical, is the question. The movement that used to call itself "neo-evangelical" has succeeded in capturing the term, to a large degree. So, some would consider the National Association of Evangelicals (for example) is representative of the so-called neo-evangelical stream - not separatist fundamentalism, but a re-vitalized conservativism set over-against liberal Christianity. Many of the "neo-evangelical" leaders were members throughout their lives of mainstream Evangelical (Protestant) denominations. Mkmcconn (Talk) 5 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)

As time goes on, the term itself has become obsolete. That's why the specific history of the movement should not be deleted or obscured, as over time it has been. It should include people like Daniel Fuller and Harold Ockenga, but not people like Thomas Oden or Michael Horton. It should include Fuller Seminary, but not Denver Seminary. Even though all are called "neo-evangelical" by their fundamentalist critics, we have to choose a scope for the article, or it will lose its reason for existence separate from Evangelicalism. Mkmcconn (Talk) 5 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)

My view is that while "Evangelical" was once synonymous with "Protestant", particularly in Europe, in 2005, for most American Christians, "Evangelical" is synonymous with "Neo-Evangelical". I defer to the community re:merging, but perhaps we need to make the differences in the terms more explicit in the articles. KHM03 5 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

My complaint about the recent versions of this article is that, the specific persons and institutions to whom this term originally applied are no longer explicitly mentioned in the article. It now seems to describe a generally conservative movement, practically identical to Evangelicalism. That was not originally the case; and in my opinion the article tends toward an error of being less precise in order to allow greater inclusiveness. But, as that is done, the distinction between "Evangelical" and "Neo-evangelical" begins to blur, and finally disappears - and it is because the article has moved in that direction that it now seems reasonable to merge the two. I think that the article should contain more historical detail, about the specific persons and institutions that originally applied this name to themselves, and then show how this movement no longer exists with a distinct identity, but has merged into what we now know in the English-speaking world as, "Evangelicalism" . Mkmcconn (Talk) 5 July 2005 20:12 (UTC)

Evangelicalism/Neo-evangelicalism merge-prob need for separate article on E in USA

The two articles can be merged. An important point, which I wonder if a possibly American centric view obscures, is that Evangelicalism had its origins in Europe, and the UK and while E in the USA has particular characteristics, development has probably been interactive between regions. Paul foord 6 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? KHM03 6 July 2005 11:31 (UTC)

I read earlier discussion to mean focus needed to be more American. Having merged the articles (at Evangelicalism) I found putting more context avoided this. Evangelicalism is an important movement globally. Paul foord 6 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

Are you just going to do this without trying to interact with what was said above, Paul? Yes, most of the material here can be merged into Evangelicalism. However, there is a distinctiveness to Neo-evangelicalism. This article should exist. What is your merger plan? Mkmcconn (Talk) 6 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)

Ah. I see from looking back in the history, what is happening. Paul, you are the one who removed the guts of this article. Could it be that you aren't really familiar with the topic? Mkmcconn (Talk) 6 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Harsh tone, brother. KHM03 6 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

It does come off that way, KHM03. I am sorry about that, Paul.

Let me try to back up and approach it differently. The material that was merged looks very much at home in the other article; making this redundant. The topic is not redundant, however. And, as it had been re-written, it was misleading anyway - it almost gave the impression that Evangelicalism, in the form we have it now, began in 1947. This is not the case, of course. Since the merge has been completed, this article can revert to a stub. I'll follow through with Paul's approach to do that, and I'll try to lay a different foundation, so that the topic, Neo-evangelicalism won't tend so easily to be confused with the more general topic, Evangelicalism. Mkmcconn (Talk) 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

The article at [1] was straight text. My edits attempted to tighten it and provide structure. Did not intend otherwise. Paul foord 7 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)

I'm sure that it's going to work out fine, this way. Mkmcconn (Talk) 7 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)