I am a non-evangelical Christian…If someone asks me about Christianity, I will present it as best I can to them, but I will not obtrude on someone else with my personal beliefs. I believe my job is to set a Christian example not to preach.
All too often demonst[r]ativeness is mistaken for evangelism. Some people feel a deep need to be demonstrative about their beliefs. I think this has more to do with a psychological profile than anything religious. People who are obsessive-compulsive about everything in life are also the same way about religion. I have witnessed such demonstrations in the past. For these people the word “share” in item four should be replaced by the word “impose”. In most cases, these people “demonstrate” in front of people who are already evangelized. And in most cases, they are not focused on apprising someone of the Gospel, which almost everybody in Western Civilization understands already, but are instead are trying to get someone to joint a particular denomination.
…In particular I believe evangelicalism has many cultural characteristics that I do not consider myself a part of or subscribe to. Mark Noll gave a good presentation of what is wrong with evangelicalism in “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.” He wrote about the rift between the intellectual community (including the Christian intellectual community) and evangelicalism.
It is embarrassing when you encounter people who believe that the universe was created 6,000 years ago and that dinosaurs co-existed with man in the pre-flood world and at the same time claim to represent what is best in God. On the whole, I believe that evangelicals are at odds with scientific thought. This is another reason why I do not consider myself an evangelical. There is a strong element of “give me that old time religion” in the evangelical movement that destroys the credibility of its leaders and adherents.
C.S. Lewis, I believe, was not an evangelical. He gave radio broadcasts and was willing to engage in discussion but he did not walk around talking about “the Lord” all day to any and everyone. Such people give Christianity a smelly cachet.
There are intellectuals and academicians in the evangelical movement, but they are few in number and exert little influence. I have attended some evangelical congregations and when I mention some of the authors in their denomination, the rule is that they do not know who I am talking about. As one theologian told me, most of them do not now if they are Calvinist or Arminian. Nor do they have an interest in this question.
I believe these are good, solid people and are sheep of the flock. But in my mind they are a cultural rather than theological or operative variation of Christianity.
—Internet poster Neotherm giving his two cents on why he is NOT an evangelical and laments the anti-intellectualism in that movement.
Gavin Rumney on his blogsite had some coverage on former WCG member and scholar Dr. Kuhn. I discovered that Dr.Kuhn has a biography on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Lawrence_Kuhn .
Take a look at Neotherm’s article on his years at Ambassador College at Big Sandy Texas. Read ’em and weep of how an elite (or better yet, caste) system can literally treat it’s underlings like human waste. Log on to http://www.scrollery.com/Neotherm.htm .
I am a premillenialist in my theology. Some think I am heretic or fanatic (or both) for believing so. I caught this article on the web and matches of what I believe on some things about the second coming. Mind you, don’t agree with everything with everything what the sponsor of the website says. Read here at http://www.thepropheticyears.com/comments/amillennial.HTM .
Former Worldwide Church of God member from Britain Robin Brace spruced up his own site on the home page.He is now a countercult apologist. I agree firmly with his stances on eternally security and a wider hope position on the unevangelized. Log on to http://www.ukapologetics.net/ .
What is the difference between a nominal Christian and an atheist. On a clear day, with good light, they look very much the same. Other than some peripheral academic ruminations on the existence of a god of some sort, their practical lives are startlingly similar.
Both have very little commitment to a belief system. Nominal Christians really know very little about Christianity and very little about the Bible. Just as atheists seem to know very little about the deeper implications of atheism. One atheist contributor to this blog apparently has never heard about the connection between atheism and moral nihilism (go to Wikipedia and find the article on “atheism” and click on the link for “moral nihilism”), got a simplistic and inadequate definition of nihilism from a dictionary (one of HWA’s favorite exegetical techniques) and then cluelessly asserted that I was “ignorant”.
Nominal Christians claim they believe in God but behave as if they did not. In pragmatic daily life, this places them very near to atheistic point on the spectrum. Atheists claim they do not believe in God but then inexplicably demonstrate a predilection for broadly accepted morality, which, like nominal Christians, they are willing to violate without conscience if a practical need arises. (The easily made observation that humans are the only creatures on the planet that moralize seems to be totally lost on them — something that Dawkins, with his fertile and sometimes droll imagination, has yet to explain.) The combined effect is to make nominal Christians and atheists neighbors, not at the level of philosophical cosmetics, maybe, but pragmatically.
And, of course, both like to practice a little religious behavior when it suits them. On Sunday for the nominal Christians and in debate for atheists. It usually amounts to a sanctimonious dedication to principle and commitment to a noble cause even in the face of persecution, etc. Like the wish expressed here that all the atheists would come out of the closet. In our society this would be the biggest non-event in history. After all, our science lecture rooms at every level of education are already dominated by atheistic teaching. But its nice to pretend, I guess. Makes you feel religious.
If there were a zoo dedicated to all the species of non-believers, I think the habitats for atheists and nonimal Christians would be right next to eachother. Maybe for the typical zoo-goer the markings on the two species would be so similar, an astute and experienced guide would have to point out the subtle and inapparent distinctions.