Since when is evangelical a bad word?
In a recent post from Mark-o- from YS, it has become blatantly apparent to me that being evangelical is a bad thing (insert dripping sarcasm). It seems that the organization does not agree with telling people the truth about eternity (there is a hell, you might end up there) in order to spread the good news (which, i wonder, why they even care anymore, after all, there is no hell, and people aren’t generally bad). When i tell someone about sin and hell, im not condemning them (God allready did that) I’m just warning them about what’s going to happen if they don’t turn to Christ. If there is no sin, everybody is basically good, and there is no hell, then why the H E double toothpicks are we telling people about Jesus in the first place?
Mark-o-’s post can be found here
Edit: I would like to note that it was not Mark-o- that made the disturbing comments but rather the comments under his post.
November 11, 2007 at 11:55 pm
what in the world? where did i EVER say i don’t believe in hell? you have completely fabricated that! my struggle with the word evangelical has nothing to do with the doctrine of hell. as i said in the comments on that post, i still hold to all the traditional tenents of evangelicalism (just two weeks ago i preached in ireland and had dozens of teenagers respond to the gospel). i am merely uncomfortable with the shift that has taken place in evangelicalism from a “centered set” (where one affiliated based on the common beliefs, but with lots of diversity in other ares) to a “bounded set” (where the group, or individuals, are more concerned wtih defining who is “in” and who is “out”, which, apparently is your goal also).
btw, while i’ve not commented on hell, and do believe in hell, i’d sure rather frame the gospel as “there is a heaven, you could end up there” than “there is a hell, you could end up there.”
i’m still blown away, even as i type this, that you would so misrepresent me and ys. what gets charged as “libel” in the non-church world is a regular day of supposed truth-telling in the church.
November 12, 2007 at 5:37 am
so, am i to understand that you will write completely untrue things about me, but not approve my comments saying so? please consider changing the false accusation you have made. it is a lie.
November 14, 2007 at 6:32 am
I apologize if I misinterpreted what you were saying. I don’t get a chance to moderate often, therefore I didn’t get a chance to approve your comment until the second one came in. If i misinterpreted what you have said, once again, i do apologize, and offer you the opportunity of clearing things up through future comments on this post.
On the comment about determining who is in and who is out, I do feel strongly that it is important to know where people in high positions stand on certain biblical truths. There are many things spreading around these days under the “Christian” name that are ignoring what the Bible has to say (and i’m not accusing you of this, I rather enjoyed your message at the convention).
If you offered me a cure to a disease that i was not convinced i had, i would not accept that cure, but if i knew that i had the disease, and then you offered me the cure, I would take it in a heart beat. When people don’t think they need Jesus, telling them about him does little.